[TeMPOraL]

> The reason they're not on a subscription business model is probably because that wouldn't be sustainable for 99% of the sites you use.

I say, let them die then. It's not that we need those sites but don't want to pay. It's that various "enterprising" folks figure that they can make some "content", fill them with ads and get passive income. If those 99% of sites disappeared overnight, everyone would likely be better off. You'd have a choice between quality paid sites which people would support, or free sites paid by people who think their content is important enough to put their time and money to keep it accessible. Yes, the second group exists and is usually the source of the most valuable and trustworthy content on-line.

[austenallred]

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Certainly, there are sites that we could do without; there's clickbait-filled garbage that does nothing but pollute the Internet.

But there's also a lot of really good stuff out there that is supported by ads. Stuff that people put their heart and soul and a lot of effort into, and stuff that I (and probably you) love to read, that wouldn't make it without ads.

I can count the number of sites I've ever heard of that are paid for by their users on one hand.

[TeMPOraL]

There is, but I think all they'd have to do to get money is ask nicely. I have high hopes for Patreon as a platform for that. They could also ask nicely to whitelist the site in ad blocker, promising they won't abuse it. I've seen a site that does that and happily complied because hey, I get it, they need the money and I do get some value from their services.

The reason people block ads is not because they don't want publishers to get paid. It's because most ads are actively user-hostile, ranging from merely fucking annoying to malware vectors which can cost you a lot of money. Quoting 'jacquesm from other subthread, "Browsing the web without an adblocker is like sex with multiple partners every day without a condom.". [0].

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9995396

[austenallred]

> I think all they'd have to do to get money is ask nicely.

Having been a part of a lot of media sites in the past, I can safely say that wouldn't have been true for any of them.

[anc84]

Maybe there were not actually valuable to the visitors?

[hamax]

If you open the discussion section of any article on HN that is behind a paywall you'll find a link that bypasses the paywall and a discussion about how paywalled content shouldn't even be allowed on HN.

So even though they created something of value (otherwise it wouldn't be on the front page) but most people still won't pay for the content.

[forthefuture]

Why doesn't that seem reasonable? On Twitch.tv people stream for free and ask for donations or subscriptions. Most people just watch, and the few people that donate or subscribe so vastly overfund the stream that they can afford to never run ads.

Patreon works the same way. You make money when you produce content that people want to pay for even if they don't have to. If you can't do that, ads are a fine plan B, but you have to go into that knowing that many people will be ad blocking (and even more if you're producing any kind of technical content).

[austenallred]

I don't think that's true. People would write us letters and emails saying how much they loved it. But if you asked them if they'd pay (and they were being honest), they'd say no.

[waterlesscloud]

Great. If you're better off without them, just stop consuming their content.