So at the end of the day there is still no viable alternative to advertising supported content. Kill advertising and you'll take the content with it, because many of the content producers and curators won't waste their time for no return.
I don't like ads, but I like my free content, and ads are an acceptable way of financing it.
Edit: I get that some of you really don't like ads, but the quality of comments here is abysmal. You guys are living in some kind of dreamland if you think you can just kill of advertising and not lose something in the trade off (PS imagine a world with no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) I honestly expect more intelligent commentary from HN, consider both sides of your argument.
Micropayments also don't work because no one has done it well, not because it's inherently not going to work.
Even if you know the totals are going to be tiny, being on a meter just adds mental overhead to every click. And moreover most of the time people don't know if something is worth paying for until they've seen it, and they probably resent paying for some things.
Did you like this comment? Leave a tip: 50c - $1 - $5
Good. Let it die.
There's enough better content available for free and without ads. Somehow, it so happens that people who have something interesting or meaningful to say tend to say it anyway, and either pay for it themselves or ask nicely for something in return.
I honestly do believe the content quality is inversely proportional to the amount and obtrusiveness of ads on the page.
Sure, Wikpedia will stick around post adblock, and so will big conglomerates (they can afford to put up paywalls, like WSJ and others).
Many content-farms will just stick to being a "review for hire" gig.
The problem is that the small shops will close down.
All the guys with cheap hosting accounts making web pages like the 1990's. Ironically they seem to be the only ones with content worth reading...
Great! I'd personally love it if they went away. If it's good content, people have definitely shown to be willing to pay for it.
"essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions" - https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD...
So, no reason why other content couldn't make money.
Kill advertising and you'll take a lot of lame, average content with it. Or even desirable, culturally meaningful content that doesn't quite do enough. Sports news? Forget it, people may find their favourite vlog-commentator and pay for comedy, mash-ups and creativity. A decent article that makes you think for a bit? Not good enough, chances are they'll follow a popular author and his movement and put some money down for the cause they believe in.
(Ok that last thing is a bit scary but it's where things are going anyway...)
Oh yes. Besides the small money drain Netflix and Spotify are, I've lost count on just how much money I spent buying e-books - legal, official e-books - just because of the convenience factor.
> A decent article that makes you think for a bit? Not good enough, chances are they'll follow a popular author and his movement and put some money down for the cause they believe in.
I rarely see such articles published in an ad-sponsored context anyway. An occasional mainstream journalism article, maybe. But as far as I can tell, most interesting/thought-provoking pieces now are being published by bloggers, which can successfully be funded by patronage, or even pay for hosting themselves (it's peanuts).
Yes there is. Many creators successfully support themselves entirely based on Patreon.
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/user-payments-predictions-f...
I would love that world. Of the things you listed the only one I have an account with is Twitter, and who knows how long that'll last.
When looking at that tradeoff most people seem to agree with you (or don't care to think about it), and some people disagree with you.
A note: So if you just feel like you don't care to make this same choice, I'm not talking to you and am just using your comment as a jumping off point. But you seem to be defending the advertising status quo on HN, and if you are then I am talking to you.
I've never found "But if people start making these choices my business model stops working!" be a particularly defensible argument to make. This is maybe the single place online where it is least needed for me to make this point, right?
But apparently not, especially when it's the so-called disruptors who are making it. This is a potentially popular service to provide people at the moment, the ability to protect themselves from their online habits being used to build profiles of them, and it would destroy the incumbent business model (advertising supported content using click tracking). This sounds like classic disruption to me, doing something good for the consumer [1] while opening up a huge gap for a new and inventive business model to fill the gap.
As everyone is no doubt aware at this moment, there is no ethical argument to be made to save this "content" as a whole. The fact we call it "content" at all means no one really needs to say this do they? It is not saving journalism, that is still dying. I'd put better odds on the next business model that emerges saving investigative journalism, because corporate sponsorship was the stupidest idea for saving it possible anyway.
[1] If you think that using personal information built on surveillance in order to influence purchasing decisions is pro-consumer you are lying to yourself. It is effective and profitable. As is combining it with fake reviews and lifestyle marketing using shame and FOMO.
