[keerthiko]

Yes this. Most people who work outside software development and several within, are convinced that they have access to free internet services only because they are willing to tolerate ads.

Ads ≠ "free" services, and "free" services ≠ ads.

["free" in scare quotes to refer to not paying money per usage or to gain access to usage, but you may be paying in other ways]

Counter examples are public libraries (no ads but "free") and cable television (not "free" yet ads).

[simonh]

He didn't say that in principle the only way to make money on the internet was through ads. He's saying that in practice most (not all) of the services people actually use on the internet for free (at no direct cost to themselves) are in fact paid for by advertising.

As an observation, I think that's hard to argue with.

[mlthoughts2018]

The quote in question specifically says “free and open internet” which has a massively different connotation than merely “no direct cost.”

Free and open software, and by extension the internet services wishing to provide a free and open internet, often has no direct cost to end users and also does not generate income from ads, and seeks non-exploitative funding or donation models very different from advertising.

Regardless of how many ad-based services people use at no direct cost, it’s highly debatable whether these services contribute in any way to the “free and open” internet... their widespread usage and superficial lack of direct financial cost certainly don’t factor in at all and are not relevant details for what the quote is discussing.

[UK-Al05]

"public libraries (no ads but "free")" - They're not free are they?

[0_gravitas]

They have been wherever I've lived, you only would ever pay a late fee if you dont return a book in time, or if you're printing something. The caveat sometimes is that you need to be a resident of the town to access the normal services for free.

[TomMarius]

Aren't these sponsored from public money? They are where I live.

[icebraining]

From GGP post:

> "free" in scare quotes to refer to not paying money per usage or to gain access to usage, but you may be paying in other ways

[merpnderp]

I'm not sure libraries are a good counter example. They're less free than "free" internet, because they cost real money from the user in the form of taxes. If you asked someone if they'd rather have their library plastered with ads and get their $50/year back in county/city taxes that goes to the library, many/most would likely say yes.

[deogeo]

Let me add a sample to your made-up statistic: I would not.

I don't think selling everything we hold dear on the Market will lead to a good society. We could make a few bucks by covering churches, schools, and hospitals in ads too. Let no place be spared from the profit-maximizing Market.

It's also dangerous to assume that just because something has no immediate monetary cost (e.g. plastering ads everywhere), it has no eventual cost. The kid's section of the library (the most lucrative demographic!) will get plastered with ads pushing sugary drinks, snacks, and microtransaction-laden smartphone 'games'. What should be a place of relaxation and calm will get drowned with visual noise trying to convince you to spend money. Stress and poor diet contribute to health issues.

[isostatic]

Obviously you pay in other ways. When Tesco have an advert, they have to charge more to pay for that advert. The money still comes from me, the person shopping at Tesco.

[0_gravitas]

You seem to forget the actual function of adverts, an advert gets you more customers so they make more money as a result than they had spent on the advert. If running ads was a net loss no one would do it.

[deogeo]

Ads have a function, but they don't produce anything. They either divert customers from a competing business, or try to convince people to purchase something they so far haven't.

Instances where they provide useful information are comparably rare - with the exception of notifying people of a new business or kind of product, the yellow pages, word of mouth, or a search engine are much better, from a consumer's point of view.

With how information-sparse most ads are, it's hard to see them as anything but a drain on society, economically and socially.

[icebraining]

In the prisoner's dilemma, it's also in the individual's best interest to betray the others, despite ultimately that leading to a worse outcome for everyone.

[0_gravitas]

Yes but I'm addressing the OC as he specifically says that they have to charge more as if they're recouping losses. I'm trying to make the case that no losses are actually being made.

[icebraining]

I'm saying isostatic may still be right, even with your objection.

Everyone can be having losses due to advertising (and be forced to charge more), despite advertising still being profitable for any particular business, compared to not advertising.

[isostatic]

Tesco spend say 2% to try to get people to spend money there rather than ASDA.

ASDA spend 2% to try to get people to spend there rather than Tesco

Net result - both stores have no change in customer numbers, but an increase in overheads. Therefore they have to charge the customer more to make the same profit.

[engineeringwoke]

They will if you obscure the statistics enough and they're the only game in town (FB, Google)