this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
1254 points (99.1% liked)
[Outdated, please look at pinned post] Casual Conversation
6603 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
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a lot of people, lad..
...just imagine if they were all doing something productive instead.
Props to @DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de for helping to discourage their parasitic behavior and ushering them toward career paths that might actually utilize their potential in a positive way!
Lots of the web is still run by advertising revenue. I know a few of the sites I like to go to rely on advertisting. I certainly don't consider them parasites like you do, they're just working within the system, because the alternative is to not exist, and I'd rather not have that.
That or force a subscription to use which I think nobody really wants
False dichotomy.
There's loads of ways for content producers to get paid.
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.
Enough to pay for it? Nope. I've been on the other sides of this equation, that is a very naive take.
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.
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.
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?
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.
That's the very first result I found.
And you need ads to support this!?
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.
I understand that. And those people buying and selling clothes on that site can't afford a buck a month?
They probably could but getting them to is another story. The ads are just easier.
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.
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.
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".
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...
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.
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.
You just think that because advertising exists as an option. If that circumstance was different, everything else would be too.
Alright so journalists and reviewers can fuck off, then?
Journalists don't make money from advertising revenue. Reviewers can fuck off.
Actually, since the Internet began to be public domain, physical newspapers has lower and lower sales. Since people can find the news online. This is one reason behind ads online.
Today, many local areas have nobody that works as a journalist, no local news=local politicians can do whatever they want without anybody question them.
So, what do you prefer? A community that has journalists asking the tough questions, digging for dirt or a community where corruption can flow free?
Support your local newspaper/news station with a subscription and use adblock.
Actually I personally believe that public funded media is vastly better than independent. Private media has prudent itself incapable of being anything other than corporate / conservative shills.
There are no more local newspapers or stations for all practical purposes. 70% of the UK's "local" news media (print or broadcast) are owned by four media conglomerates. Most "local" television media in the USA is owned by the (right wing asshole collection) Sinclair Broadcast Group or (fellow right wing asshole collection) Rosebud Media. About 2/3 of "local" newspapers in the USA aren't locally-owned or operated and don't hire local reporters. Of these, about half are owned by 25 companies (themselves part of larger conglomerates in twisted, difficult-to-unravel relationships).
So it's kind of difficult to support your local newspaper/station. Because it's a unicorn for most people.
I want to agree but I live in a place with a popular local newspaper that moved online and it's still corrupt as ever here.
I’m beginning to think you lack fundamental knowledge of how the internet sort of.. works…
Oh my sweet summer child...
That's a lot of people who are a net drain on society both economically and in terms of accomplishment. SO MUCH EFFORT is wasted on trying to get my eyes on their graffiti. The greatest engineers of the 1950s and 1960s put humans on the Moon. The greatest engineers of the 2000s onwards struggle to get eyes on ads.
It's fucking repulsive.
Not really?