[keernan]

For me, it is a straight forward proposition. There is literally nothing online so far that has ever interested me enough to pay money or with my eyeballs. I either see it without ads or move on without even a moment of thought.

[roscas]

It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...". They are not just dumb, they are dangerous. This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast. And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing. We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.

[al_borland]

To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money.

I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I like to think I'm pretty good at understand other people's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. This is one I have a lot of trouble with.

I'm fine with relevant ads, but I think they should be relevant based on the context around them, not on the viewer. If I go to a website about trout fishing, show me ads that would be useful to a trout fisherman. There is no need to track anyone to do that.

[ndriscoll]

They're imagining a benevolent system that will match them to the personal best deals for them despite all evidence that megacorporations are not in fact benevolent, and will in fact use that knowledge to find the worst possible (i.e. most profitable) deals that they'll still accept, or abuse their psychology to get them to buy things they shouldn't, etc.

They think the system is thinking "ohh! I bet X will like this pair of shoes! And this is a great deal on them!" when in fact a more accurate model is "Who is willing to pay the most to put a message in front of someone with the following detailed list of characteristics?" and then people bid for the right to manipulate you, so even if 2 companies are trying to sell you the exact same thing that you do want, the one that thinks they can extract more from you will pay more and win the spot.

[nkrisc]

It’s because they view the world with a consumerist mindset and buying things gives them pleasure.

[DanielHB]

My partner got upset when I added a pihole to our network because she wouldn't see ads in google search. She said most of the time she doesn't mind the pihole but when she is actively looking for things to buy she wants the ads.

What I ended up doing is setting up two separate wifi networks, one with the pihole DNS server and one without it. So she can opt to turn it on.

But yeah overall I agree with you, the ads skew the research by whoever is paying the most for marketing BUT they also work as a filter so you only see stuff that people actually spend money to market on. For _some_ types of products the "barrier to entry" in the ad space can guarantee a certain level of quality (or at least reduce the change for scams).

[al_borland]

> For _some_ types of products the "barrier to entry" in the ad space can guarantee a certain level of quality (or at least reduce the change for scams).

I have always associated online ads with people who are trying to scam me. Like the giant “download” button ads on sites hosting actual software downloads. Decades of dealing with this kind of thing has led to a deep distrust of all online advertising, to the point where I pay for Kagi to not only not have ads in my search engine, but not even support the business model of using ads to fund a website.

I see people get scammed all the time from ads. It’s an easy way for the scammers to funnel users to their site. Most people I know have tried buying something based on a Facebook ad, from some random Shopify site, and never got their purchase.

[lrvick]

You are more accommodating than me.

Profit driven targeted content of any kind, especially ads, are poison. I could never knowingly enable anyone in my household to harm themselves with something so toxic to brain health and quality of life.

In terms of things I want far away from my home and family, surveillance capitalism driven technology ranks up there with meth.

[DanielHB]

She does hate it everywhere else though and I find google search ads are not nearly as bad when you are actively looking for a specific product.

But yeah I tend to agree with you, the companies/products paying for the ads are not necessarily the best ones to buy from.

[immibis]

I can think of one thing I've bought because of ads. I've bought fiber-optic networking bits from fs.com because I saw ads for them. They also have the cheapest prices. But if not for ads I wouldn't know that.

[charcircuit]

People paying money for things is a win win situation. People are not just "manipulated into giving up their money", they get something they value more than money in return.

[immibis]

Correction: People think they get more something they value more than the money.

It's easier to trick someone into thinking they're receiving value from you, than to actually provide that value.

But I've had this argument before, so I know the reply will be that value is defined as the feeling of receiving value, therefore they are delivering real value.

[al_borland]

The advertisements convince them it is something they value. Most of what people buy becomes clutter and trash almost instantly.

A lot of this stuff is being purchased with debt. People aren’t happy about their debt, their inability to buy a house, or all the clutter that consumes their home. Yet, in the moment, they are led to believe that a Labubu is what they really desire. It’s not.

[DanielHB]

My mom has been getting some supplement ads and asking me to buy them (she can't do online shopping, too computer illiterate). Man just yesterday she wanted to buy a supplement that was basically a redbull in pill form...

[bee_rider]

Ads would be ok if they were non-personalized. Just buy ads for places that show similar content. Put ads for videogames on twitch streams, that sort of thing.

These tracking system: it’s just stalking, but done on such a massive scale that, unfortunately, law enforcement and politicians don’t see it that way.

[dkdcio]

every hackernews thread on this topic has like 10 of those people and it genuinely baffles me. like in the year 2025 the idea that you need to see an ad to know to buy something you were otherwise unaware of is genuinely insane to me

[maximus_01]

How much do you value your time? A lot of people think like this and I'm not judging you or saying this applies to you. But I find it kind of odd when people I know who earn hundreds to thousands of dollars an hour won't pay even $0.10 for something that took them say 15 minutes to read. If their own time is worth $200 / hr, they thought it was valuable enough to use up $50 of their time. If they refuse to pay anything for the content, then in their mind the content was worth exactly $50, not a cent more to spare to the author of said content (eg $50.10, if you paid the author $0.10 and paid $50 of your time).

[somerandom2407]

Back in the old days, people would share useful information in the internet of their own accord. That still happens a lot today, too! In my opinion, most of the stuff that's ad-supported is not worth my time, as the "content creator" is trying to sell something or otherwise has an angle they're pushing. How can I trust what they have to say when I know they're only doing it to make some money? They will be less interested in helping me than helping themselves!

I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information. If no-one is making any money off of it, you'll be left with largely relevant information.

The internet today is like a free to air television network, but I remember a time when it was nothing like that.

[vel0city]

> I think if you take ads away from the internet, you'll also take away a lot of the bullshit and inaccurate or misleading information

Just a gut feeling, but I doubt it. You'll still get a lot of bullshit inaccurate/misleading information, just only pushed by those with the budgets to keep pushing it.

Right-wing podcasters that take money from the Russian government to spread disinformation[0] will still get their checks even if their supplement sponsorships get outlawed.

You can take away all of Alex Jones' money and he'll still find some way to put his nonsense out there.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/two-rt-employees-ind...

[somerandom2407]

Sure, you'll never get rid of all misleading information; however, without advertising the volume of shit will reduce radically, as much of the modern internet is built around profiteering and get rich quick schemes (influencers), which breed swathes of hopeful emulators.

I think most sensible people are quite competent at ignoring the bullshit, so I would love it if there was less bullshit to wade through to get to the nuggets of useful information which are out there. For those too stupid to look past misleading information, there's no helping them anyway.

[ndriscoll]

Not quite. Generally "content" from people trying to monetize their writing online (or who describe it as such) is not worth the time spent reading it, so in fact you're already in the hole before being asked to compensate them somehow. That I read/watched the stuff at all is often more a reflection of poor time management on my part than some high value of theirs (the OP essay mentions a similar point, and it's captured by the modern idea of "doomscrolling" recognizing "content consumption" as a potential behavioral addiction). So it's more that I think it takes a fairly high level of audacity for some rando to think people would not just be interested to hear what they have to say, but actually pay to hear their thoughts.

Generally the most useful information on the web is freely given. Turns out actual experts frequently like nerding out about their thing and trying to get other people interested in it/to understand some facet of it.

[maximus_01]

Sure but that's what happens when you cut distribution costs to zero (i.e. the internet). It's pretty indisputable that most content online is garbage. But there is also a lot of super high quality information out there in all sorts of fields, more than there was when distribution costs were high.

There is a prevailing attitude amongst some that they aren't willing to pay for any info - and they hold that as basically some sort of weird sacred belief. I think those people, even if they came across the best piece of content ever written, would be unwilling to pay 10c for it (pre or post). I'm just saying I find that odd.

[ndriscoll]

It's that distribution costs are zero, and there's more extremely high quality "content" out there offered entirely for free than anyone has time to digest. Interested in physics? You can read Feynman for free. Interested in chemistry? MIT OCW has you covered with a dozen courses, probably 450 hours of lectures. Or if you want computer science, you can watch lectures from people like Sipser! Want to really get serious about a science? There's the arXiv.

I've also already got dozens of hardcover books that I'll probably never even get through as it is. Mostly acquired from thrift stores while I was in university.

Then there's the classics. It'd take years to get through just the very best highlights of the public domain literature, religious texts, and philosophy. Project Gutenberg has 75,000 books. My wife spent at least months (maybe years? I don't remember) just reading Proust (at the end she said it wasn't worth it).

This is without even needing to get into the fact that frankly I don't see copyright on things older than me or especially older than my parents as valid at this point. Most modern works I'd be interested in qualifies for that treatment. The authors are retired or dead.

This is all also speaking to pure consumerism as ways to pass idle time. I've got instruments to play, a computer to program/tinker with, an endless list of possible home improvements, and a family to spend time with.

I don't think I'm the only one who ends up in this state. There's a whole meme about people having hundreds of games in their steam backlog.

The best piece of content ever written is just not a compelling hook. Nothing in the content industry is. First of all it's an entirely generic description: the best X ever written is not going to be described as "content". That's like calling it "copy", and immediately betrays its low value/the way the author thinks of it.

So yeah generic "content" is going to be a very hard if not impossible sell.

[maximus_01]

I get all that. Still doesn't mean there isn't some things worth paying for that are created in real time and aren't out of copyright. Something like Stratechery, as an example most people would be familiar with.

Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.

[ndriscoll]

I'm not really sure what to think of Stratechery. It's got lots of words that are difficult for me to quickly skim the overall gist of to gauge whether they might be interesting, including paradigm 33 times, disrupt 58 times, and of course AI 247 times on the front page. From my angle it reads like a Dilbert comic so I guess I can't answer why the intended audience would or wouldn't pay $0.10.

Another observation though is that he literally describes his own site as having a "content business model" and his own posts as "content", so I think the word choice is more telling than you realize. I see it and just think "ok..." and hit back. I guess it pays his bills though so it seems to work. Apparently someone's giving him the $0.10. Other people in the content industry looking for tips like some giant ouroboros?

[wiredpancake]

There is no universal, easy and feeless option to send money to people though.

Sure, I could pay for Hackernews or Github or whatever else (these may be bad examples due to the lack of ads) but lets even say the blogpost linked above.

If I could easily send 0.20$ to someone instantly, without much thought, I would.

I was hoping cryptocurrency would solve this, although the complexity and immense fees with most networks really rule that out.

[shortrounddev2]

I used to subscribe to the washington post before the most recent election. Im willing to pay for the content I see or read, but I can't possibly pay for ALL the content that crosses my vision. Like streaming services, I used to have just one, and now there are like 100. If I paid for every show I watched I'd be paying over $100/mo in streaming services. Now I pay for NPR'S premium subscription. If every writer on the internet paywalled their content behind some content network's subscription model, I would happily just not read it

[nosioptar]

I'd love a Netflix for newspapers. I'd pay to be able to read a bunch of local papers' content if the site was good.

[j780]

Get a library card! My local library card includes free digital access to newspapers " from 100 countries in 60 languages" as well as streaming video, audiobooks etc. They also have a makerspace with 3d printing, green screen, recording studios, video games, tool rental etc. all at low or no cost. I let my card expire but I see it's still free in my city.

[Dfiesl]

Its a neat and rational way of looking at things but does it always make sense to give your time a monetary value?

[moritzwarhier]

Also, when I'm.. ehm.. accidentally reading blogspam in my spare time, who's reimbursing me?

And if I'm actually reading instead of working, isn't the time I spend more of a debt than a declaration that I want to donate as much money as I wasted by not working for X minutes?

Employers haven't paid me for spending a lot of time with them so far.

But let's stick with the argument and claim that our time is worth the hourly rate of whoever creates what we consume. That also doesn't make sense, no matter how charitably I view it, for media.

Even if I want to live in a radically equal society where everyone's time is worth the same amount of money, it would only make sense when trading 1:1 - for example, I can compare my hourly rate to that of my barber, if I pretend there are no corporations, no taxes etc.

But yeah, to be brief, no, it doesn't make sense to give all of your time a monterary value. And when it comes to non-working time, I even find it to be a deeply gross way of thinking. Not regarding the willingness to pay, it's fair to think about your own income and how other workers have to make ends meet and to put it into perspective.

[maximus_01]

If you invert it, though, money is really compensation for time (directly or indirectly). Most of the things you pay money for are compensating someone for time spent (whether that time was spent in the past, present or future). Why is it so hard to go in the other direction? It doesn't mean that you think money is more important than time or anything. It's just that people trade one for the other. Even if you remove the money element altogether, you have a finite amount of time and should value it as such.

I also never said anything about equality or that an engineer or a scientists time is necessarily worth the same as other occupations. I was pointing to a very large disparity (paying a very small amount for content that one clearly values, if they value their time). You can put whatever numbers you want in my original comment and my point would stand.

[carlosjobim]

You know that you are lying, in the defense of your precious precious wallet.

There is plenty of stuff online which is worth the money, just YouTube premium alone is a great bargain with the highest quality content conceivable inside. Or if you prefer empirical evidence, millions of people pay for Spotify.