[keiferski]

The early internet had infinitely less content available than today. It was also populated by technical people that didn’t, and still don’t, have any difficulty in getting a high-paying job.

There’s a really easy way to get high-quality content: pay for it so that people can make a living from it. If you aren’t willing to do that, don’t be surprised when advertising is the only business model.

[tcfhgj]

If one isn't willing to pay for it, the price is obviously too high for the content.

PS: it's not like ads aren't payment. It's just the price to you isn't transparent and only a fraction of it ends up at the blogger compared to a real payment

[keiferski]

There are plenty of things that people “aren’t willing to pay for” on an individual level yet are overall beneficial for society at large. That’s why the tragedy of the commons is a concept.

The point is that unless you’re willing to pay people enough money and provide enough job security to create high-quality content, you will inevitably end up with advertising, attention-seeking, and subsidization as the main business models.

[tcfhgj]

True, but if we as society want something like that we can still chose to explicitly pay that.

For instance, Germany and other countries funds public journalism or public infrastructure through tax or obligatory fees.

You will never be able to be willing to pay enough, because there is always someone who provides a little less value, but also wants to earn money that way. And it's not like earning enough money to make a living is enough... our system encourages growth beyond that.

[ant6n]

Technical high quality content is content marketing for the person who writes it.

[keiferski]

Sure, but that is sort of my point: technical content can afford to be high quality and free because the writer won’t have a difficult time getting work. Most people in other industries are not in the same situation.