• gradyp@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ve always thought that the ad supported internet is something people will eventually get sick of and the financial foundation would evolve over time to find models that don’t rely on infinite spam. Instead efforts are focussed on forcing us to view them. At this point I’m expecting the next version of Chrome to require the Ludovico technique while browsing.

    • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I mean, many (several?) sites tried optional subscriptions where you pay to get rid of ads, but that doesn’t seem to have worked. Judging by the fact that most sites that have subscriptions instead of ads use pay walls.

      People have come to expect free access, so if you can easily use an ad blocker, why would you choose to pay to remove the ads that a blocker removes for free.

      • SwampYankee@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Let’s just take NYT for example. Subscription costs $325/year. Why would I ever pay that much? It’s not 1954. I’m not sitting down with my morning coffee and reading the damn thing front to back. I’m reading maybe one article a week from 15 different sources. Am I supposed to pay $5000/year just to cover my bases?

        As with everything else in [CURRENT YEAR] the value proposition is so absurdly out of step with reality that fixing it basically relies on rolling out the guillotines.