|
|
|
|
|
|
by Enginerrrd
1695 days ago
|
|
|
>that's lacking empathy, not realising that soooo many people wouldn't be able to afford a system like that, or if they did they would have to give up a bunch of other things instead. I think this is a valid criticism, but I would like to note that there's a massive gap between what sites make off of me from ads vs. what they are requesting I pay to get rid of ads. So if there was truly a drop-in replacement for ads that came at the same cost as what the advertisers would otherwise be paying for my eyeballs, that'd be great. That's not the choice consumers are being given though. |
|
|
But even in the fair payment scenario you're suggesting, how many people do you reckon would be able to afford paying per whatever metric ,e.g., video watched, article read, MB downloaded, search queried, etc. for all/most sites they currently use like facebook, google, youtube, reddit, tiktok...? And how many would be willing?
On top of that, how would the Internet change as a result of that? Imagine in this hypothetical new setting someone who wants to make a decision about what film/series to watch: currently they may check all of imdb, letterbox, metacritic, rottentomatoes, justwatch, etc. Would they still do that if all those sites required some sort of payment (let's assume they may be different, some may require subscription, another charges per query... the point is they would all cost money to use)? I'm not so sure, and I don't think I'd like that Internet any more than the one we currently have.