> What exactly is the problem with first-party ads?
The problem is that they're ads.
> At some point, you have to admit that you just want the content for free.
I understand it's a bit of an ethical conundrum. Quality content and/or service requires compensation. At the same time, advertisement is a form of harassment and intellectual terrorism and they make content undemocratic by nature. Altering your own software in order to see NO ads of any kind under any circumstances is perfectly justifiable.
With that said, I don't buy the myth of the struggling internet entrepreneur being unable to make ends meet because of the selfish adblock users. I think that's as ridiculous a notion as the idea that Napster could kill independent musicians. Fact of the matter is that ads are a form of revenue and there are healthy alternatives out there.
For instance, instead of giving away an infinitesimal fraction of our mental health to every single internet business, we can instead enter a social contract in which everything is free, and consumers are expected to pay into the channels and services that they like best. This is, for instance, how many Podcasts and non-advertiser-friendly Youtube channels work.
I agree with what you said in this comment and the conversation below. Everyone already pays for access to the internet, either to their ISP or via a mobile data plan (with the majority probably paying for both).
In the early days of the internet, there was no expectation to be paid for creating content - people simply created it out of their own goodwill or because it's their passion.
If I set up a personal website, I expect that to be a sunk cost; people pay for my content with their attention. Obviously, attention doesn't put food on the table, but it's saddening to see the contrast between what the Internet could be, and what it is currently.
"Intellectual terrorism"? This makes no sense. Using this kind of extremist language doesn't help.
> "healthy alternatives out there"
That's the real myth. You either pay for content up front (by going to work, getting paid in cash, and using that cash) or you see some ads (which convert your attention to payments in real-time on demand for exactly what you're consuming). For billions of people, ads are faster, easier, more passive and more fair.
Donations are not a scalable business. Podcasts are in an advertiser boom and are making record amounts of money from ads so I'm not sure why you used that example. Very few (if any) channels of size are completely user-supported.
"Intellectual terrorism" is indeed pretty extreme, and the term only applies to some segments of the industry. However that's exactly how I would describe the effect that fashion & beauty advertising have on women and men to a lesser extent.
None of the podcasts I listen to contain any kind of advertisement of any kind. This is not difficult to explain; prudent businesses typically do not stray very far outside the Overton window. This form of media exists - flourishes - because of listener patronage.
> Donations are not a scalable business.
True, but it's a viable business model. If you want something that scales as high as your entrepreneurial ambitions, consider that 100 million people pay Spotify in order to not have to listen to ads.
The vast majority of content is not free and is either directly paid for or subsidized by ads. Content which is given away freely or supported by user patronage is a tiny fraction.
Spotify has made a profit a total of 2 quarters out of 10 years, and that's an example of direct payment as I described, which nobody has a problem with. Donations as you're talking about are completely different. There is no free and pay what you want with spotify.
It's not the most popular way to generate revenue given that it's fairly young and offers a poor guarantee. That doesn't change the fact that it's a demonstrably viable way to have generate revenue without relying on visual and auditory poison. Given time it may supplant ads just as ads supplanted commercial licenses. I don't know either way and I'm not in the business of making predictions.
The fact of the matter is that I have control over what my browser renders. If you provide it for free "with ads" then I am going to access it for free without ads; you are putting it out there free of charge and hoping to get kickbacks. If you escalate the ad-blocker arms race, I am going to lose interest in whatever crap you are peddling. You do not automatically enter a mutual agreement with me upon publishing it and you will not succeed in guilt tripping me into watching vapid and manipulative corporate material.
If you want any of my money, use one of the crowdfunding platforms out there, or sell it upfront.
That's an extremist perspective against advertising (and seemingly only online ads) while ignoring the economics behind it. Call it what you want, but you know and understand the implicit agreement is ads in exchange for content. Clearly you're getting plenty of value otherwise you wouldn't be accessing the content in the first place.
But sure, some will have this position and it's relatively minor across the population, but you're starting to see more things behind subscriptions and paywalls as a result.
This is going to sound like a contrived argument but abolitionism was an extremist stance against slavery. The word "extremist" is not synonym with "excessive" or "bad".
I don't see which part of this thread implies that I'm only against online ads.
> Call it what you want, but you know and understand the implicit agreement is ads in exchange for content.
You don't seem to get it. There are no terms other than what's on the table, which is to say the content and the ads, and both are optional. We are not legally or ethically bound by any "implicit agreement".
> but you're starting to see more things behind subscriptions and paywalls as a result.
Subscriptions and paywalls are markedly better than advertisements, for the consumer at least.
> "Subscriptions and paywalls are markedly better than advertisements, for the consumer at least."
Except the ones that don't or can't pay for it. People want more options for access, not less. The extremist position is saying all advertising is bad while ignoring the economic impact and the fact that almost all businesses grow because of it.
The problem is that they're ads.
> At some point, you have to admit that you just want the content for free.
I understand it's a bit of an ethical conundrum. Quality content and/or service requires compensation. At the same time, advertisement is a form of harassment and intellectual terrorism and they make content undemocratic by nature. Altering your own software in order to see NO ads of any kind under any circumstances is perfectly justifiable.
With that said, I don't buy the myth of the struggling internet entrepreneur being unable to make ends meet because of the selfish adblock users. I think that's as ridiculous a notion as the idea that Napster could kill independent musicians. Fact of the matter is that ads are a form of revenue and there are healthy alternatives out there.
For instance, instead of giving away an infinitesimal fraction of our mental health to every single internet business, we can instead enter a social contract in which everything is free, and consumers are expected to pay into the channels and services that they like best. This is, for instance, how many Podcasts and non-advertiser-friendly Youtube channels work.