this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
1202 points (99.1% liked)

[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation

6601 readers
1 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I use ad blockers and open source privacy focused software whenever I can but occasionally I have to use computers that don't belong to me or an older phone where my usual applications aren't installed and seeing all the advertisements just feels dirty and dystopian.

I think the worst ads are the text to speech ones that say "Download this app today". The unblinking energenic people saying you can make a living at home are probably a close second.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think that's true at all.

If advertising didn't exist then content producers and content consumers would embrace an alternative funding model because everyone wants content.

[–] HidingCat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Enough to pay for it? Nope. I've been on the other sides of this equation, that is a very naive take.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Enough to pay for it ... if it's good enough to be worth paying for.

It's that last part that kills most content creators. There's people whose work I'll idly browse as long as I don't have to pay for it (even with ads: I love my ad blocker!). But you're right, 99.44% of content creators whose work I idly look over would not get a single red cent out of me from direct payment.

So maybe it would be good to switch to payment-only schemes. That would kill off the crap creators and leave those behind who make something people think is worth paying for.

I mean ... I still pay for books and music. I do pay for content. Just not shit content.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Enough to pay for it … if it’s good enough to be worth paying for.

I'll give you an example. I use a site called lacemarket which is a buying/selling site for a niche hobby of Japanese street fashion. It will never be popular enough that enough people would be using the site in order for them to make enough to pay for hosting the site.

So they're forced to run ad's cause they have no other way to keep the site up. The owners are also not taking a percentage of people's sales so they can continue to bring in people who want to use the site. But in order to not take money from the sellers, the only other option they have to keep the site running is ad funding.

It sucks but its too niche to do it any other way.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it is that niche, it is not a self-sustaining business model (with the evidence for this being that they instead have to sell their users to third parties).

Perhaps it's just better left to die than to propagate an economic model that commoditizes human beings who aren't even part of the business?

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no, its a hobby community and its been running since at least 2014. There is a demand for it but only in that community.

So letting it die wouldn't be an option. It's not a ton of people but I can think of lots of communities that have like 300 ish people in them who would be fucking livid if that site went down.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. And 300 people couldn't find the resources to keep a small server up? For the equivalent of $1 per month each the very first VPS provider I found on a search gives you more than enough horsepower to support that small a community. https://www.nexusone.com.au/products/services/hosted-servers/vps-virtual-dedicated-server-detail

That's the very first result I found.

And you need ads to support this!?

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, only like two people run the site.

The groups I'm talking about are the people who use the site to buy and sell the clothes on there.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand that. And those people buying and selling clothes on that site can't afford a buck a month?

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They probably could but getting them to is another story. The ads are just easier.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm happy that the total destruction of the Internet into a Hellscape of graffiti and malware is helping your 300 people save a buck a month.

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, tell those girls that. They'll dox your ass but I'm sure it'd be worth it to make a point about advertisers.

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah. So turning the Internet into a Hellscape of graffiti and malware is fine so that 300 idiots who can't afford a buck a month won't, and I quote, "dox my ass".

What's the word again for a (typically very small) minority trying to force their will on a (typically very large) majority by using actions intended to create fear? You know, actions intended to create terror in the target audience. The word's on the tip of my tongue...

Fuck the 300. If they can't afford a buck a month then their hobby can just die. I don't want to have to put up with advertising spam on literally everything my eyes fall on just because 300 "girls" will "dox my ass".

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a niche hobby so they don't really effect any part of the internet other than their own.

Do you know anything about Japanese Street fashion as a hobby...

[–] ttmrichter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If they perpetrate and normalize advertising-driven income, they effect every part of the Internet. That's the whole point of this entire thread: ads are the Original Sin™ of the Internet and shit little sites like this perpetuate this toxic mix.

If they can't pay a buck a month for themselves, their hobby deserves to die.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

You mean you're a content producer that couldn't get people to support you directly? Did ad revenue solve the problem?

If advertising didn't exist other funding models would be embraced.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You just think that because advertising exists as an option. If that circumstance was different, everything else would be too.