[dns_snek]

I'm so confused when I read takes like that. The only way advertising can be sustainable under capitalism is if every $1 spent on advertising generates >= $1 of profit for advertisers, keeping in mind that ad networks take a share of revenue, say 30%.

This means that you as a consumer have to spend at least $1 (likely more - profit not revenue) for every $0.70 of value you receive in "free" services. Being supportive of ad-supported services is therefore financially irrational.

[fooker]

Reminder than when you use seemingly impeccable logic and arrive at the wrong conclusion, it's the logic that is wrong somewhere because of a missed assumption.

No, people are not going to pay much for browsers and websites, that's why ad supported products and services exist. Otherwise someone would make better software and charge for it. The only way this works is government intervention, which is what's happening here.

[thfuran]

No, people mostly won't pay because ad-supported free alternatives exist.

[fooker]

Yes that is my point.

If you want to prevent such alternatives from existing, you'd need fairly authoritarian measures.

[dns_snek]

Far from authoritarian, dealing with business models that seem fine on an individual level but that are detrimental to society as a whole is precisely the type of problem that governments are supposed to solve.

[fooker]

I don’t disagree. But that’s literally the definition of authoritarian. Doing things because you have the authority to, because $REASONS.

It’s all flowers and sunshine when you agree with what they are doing but it’s incredibly easy to abuse the power. And suddenly, like compounding interest, you have dictatorship.

[consteval]

We’ve successfully kneecapped many industries that we figured out where gander onto society. For example, tobacco. No ads, you can’t smoke anywhere. The result? Way less smoking! And we’re all in agreement that’s a good thing.

Ads are private sector propaganda. They’re manipulative material attempting to exploit the weakness of the human mind to get YOU to spend money you don’t actually want to spend. Yes, YOU.

We know things that exploit the weaknesses of the human mind, like nicotine, have the potential for extraordinary evil when left to the hands of the private sector. We haven’t all come to this consensus on advertisement, but we will.

[thfuran]

>But that’s literally the definition of authoritarian.

It very much is not.

[thfuran]

No more authoritarian than minimum wage.

[fooker]

People surviving is a core government responsibility. Business models or companies surviving, less so.

[arccy]

They only need to make money in aggregate, they might make $0 out of you, but $2 out of someone else.

[consteval]

This is where tech arrogance comes in. We very much like to believe we’re the zero.

Judging by how much hyper-consumerist behavior I see in myself and my coworkers, we’re not. Everyone is constantly buying shit they don’t need and then justifying it.