[nitrogen]

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading.

It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

Wow. I am actually amazed at the disingenuousness of that twisted interpretation of what you quoted.

People will pay for what they value. The value of media has been utterly destroyed by ads. Ads are the problem.

[pembrook]

Show me a single study proving that "ads" are the reason consumers won't pay for journalism anymore and I will 100% change my opinion.

[nitrogen]

Why is this something that needs a "study"? You can make corporate-funded user research come to any conclusion you want. It's obvious on the face of it that the more you rely on ads the more ads control the content and eventually become the content. No company funded by ads is going to publish a study saying people don't like ads.

[acollins1331]

Yeah so social studies based on internet polls aren't science (see parents) and making decisions or drawing conclusions from them is probably worse than going off anecdotal evidence, because at least you aren't confident in how right you are when going that route.

[boomboomsubban]

The entire point of ads is to lower the price and increase circulation. It's not a consumer driven decision.

[SomeOldThrow]

Consumers will pay. The funding of newspapers is a major factor of why current journalism isn’t worth paying for: clickbait headlines, access journalism, slideshow content, listicles, opinion sections. There’s plenty of ad-independent journalism out there if you look that successfully funds itself through donations or memberships.

[mikeash]

Anymore? Advertising has been the major source of newspaper revenue forever.

[buboard]

> People will pay for what they value. The value of media has been utterly destroyed by ads

... because people won't pay for media. is it because they don't value them?