undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointslouhike10y ago0 comments

I consider paywalls to be a good solution. I'd rather pay with my money than having to see ads. I even think it is more sane for websites as they are not reliants on the companies provding the ads, avoiding some corruption.

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

Killswitch10y ago· 5 in thread

I don't know man, I visit sometimes hundreds of sites a day, if I had to pay even $1/day to visit a site, I'd be paying hundreds of dollars a day. I'd rather view an ad. I already pay out the ass for internet. I don't need to pay to view content on the internet too.

tbabb10y ago

The value of your view is closer to 0.1 cents. So 100 web clicks a day would cost about a dime to remove ads.

louhikeOP10y ago

You could pay for some websites and be limited by a paywall for the others.

And the content on the internet has nothing to do with your ISP so I have somme difficulty understanding your argument "I don't need to pay to view content on the internet too.".

Killswitch10y ago

Meaning, a paywall everywhere is not a smart thing to do. Yes I know content is independent of ISP, that's why I accept ads. Because that's how content producers afford to give you content without charging you.

paulddraper10y ago

"pay out the a" is an odd expression.

It seems what you are paying isn't worth very much (i.e. a pile of worthless s)

Killswitch10y ago

It isn't. I pay $65/mo for "up to 50Mbps" internet. I am paying no less than $1.3/mo per Mbps.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse