[a2800276]

I didn't make my point clear: that something is a necessity typically doesn't have the consequence that "government" has to provide it. In the general case, people are expected to buy food, pay rent, etc. These things are typically not provided for free or exchange for exposing your personal data. Only in exceptional cases does society step in to cover these expenses.

The argument that browsers somehow "need" to be free because they are a necessity makes little sense. Compare that phone or laptop the browser is running on is not provided free of charge either. A working automobile is arguably a necessity in large parts of the US and I don't see anyone handing out cars.

[creesch]

Yeah, I was afraid it would be replied to through a US pov. A lot of these essentials are actually "handed out" or at least subsidized to some degree for people with lower incomes in many countries.

Of course this could also be done for browser but still would leave people vulnerable.

To get back to the US. So you think it is a good idea to add yet another expense to vulnerable incomes in a country where there is much less of a safety net?

[a2800276]

Maybe you could be a little more concrete. So you're not taking a United States point of view, which point of view are you taking? I'm not aware of any country which provides "necessities" such as food and housing as the general case. Not anywhere in the EU, not in "communist" countries and outside of famines, certainly not in the third world. Of course there are food stamps and social housing projects for poor and elderly people, but I'm referring to the general case. Where do you see any significant necessities being provided to the general populace by the state? Which necessities?

Of course you can define "subsidies of some degree" to prove your point, but that doesn't change the fact that most people in the world generally have to pay for things, even necessities. The major exception being basic education which seems to be universally provided for free.

I have no idea what sort of a burden paying $5 for browser software would place on poor people, but I am sure that society would find a way, much like it does with other necessities. I also disagree that a browser financed by advertising is less of a burden to the vulnerable. The advertising revenue comes from the products they purchase.

[creesch]

- General welfare, where often the amount is determined based on minimal wage and other things.

- Various benefits and subsidies for various necessities like rental support, support for child care, etc.

And to make it extra clear, a lot of these need to be requested through digital portals these days as well.

$5 might not seem that much to you (I am assuming you are talking about a monthly subscription here), but I assure you it is a lot if you have to reconsider every single purchase to make sure you will make ends meet.

And I am fully aware that there are workable solutions to make it less impactful. I do however disagree with the simple sentiment of "just make browsers paid software and be done with it" without those considerations.