• HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate shitty ads as much as the next person, but you’re ignoring how much of the internet runs on advertising money. Think of all the websites, services, apps, etc that you use that are “free” (read: ad-supported) — without ad revenue, a large percentage of them would be too expensive to run.

    I’m not saying ad-tech companies/people are always good, many of them clearly do unethical shit, but the idea that you’re being forced to see ads is kind of crazy. You always have the option to not use ad-supported stuff, it’s just a lot more limiting and expensive.

    • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m ok with that. The internet was a lot weirder and more interesting when people were creating their own services and sites. We’re on an ad-free, donation-based platform right this very second.

      No banks and their policies to answer to, just some regular folks and their weird lemmy servers. You like it? Cool. You don’t? Also cool.

      • HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your point doesn’t make sense. Even back when people where creating their own services and sites (which they still are, it’s not like that has ever stopped) there was still often ad-funding when those things grew to a scale where donations alone couldn’t support them.

        And yes, lemmy is ad-free. That’s doesn’t mean the model will work for everything else. Ad-support can be a great way of keeping something accessible and free for people who can’t or won’t pay for it. It’s not always a bad thing.

        • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know that your counterpoint makes much sense either. Just because the web has devolved into a centralized ad-powered mess doesn’t mean that’s how things should operate. And I do mean mess, consider the many overlapping, sometimes competing rules each advertiser has the right to impose on the location their ads may appear.

          I personally consider advertisements to be psychological warfare, an unfortunate requirement for business today. If we allow the “local maximum” that advertising is to fester, the number of spaces and the amount of time occupied by ads pretty much is required to steadily increase.

          Let’s just… Not do it. AdBlock, open-source browsers and services to promote privacy, while making it clear that the money to run the servers has to come from somewhere.

          I donate to Wikipedia every year. Signal, proton, several git projects… If you can help, please do. If you can’t/won’t, we’ll try to keep the ship moving along anyway.

          • HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I donate to a bunch of projects and pay for ad-free services too, but that doesn’t mean that all ad-funded things are bad or that all advertising is evil.

            Monetisation in general has ruined the internet in many ways, but that extends beyond just ad-based monetisation. Subscriptions, excessive upgrade pricing, in app purchases and dlcs, etc. it all plays a part in the problem, but people like to blame it all on advertising for some because (at least from what I’ve seen) they largely don’t really understand the thing they’re talking about.

            • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Erm… I didn’t see where anyone blamed it all on ads alone. Haven’t seen anyone else proselytizing their usage either.

              But that’d almost seem like a mischaracterization eh? We’re on the same page, trying to ‘win’ an argument nobody’s having makes one of us look a bit goofy.

        • diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The heart of your stance is apparently that pernicious socially harmful mechanisms are okay as long as they finance something useful. Correct?

          Or is it that you don’t see the harms of advertising?

          Advertising is a wasteful arms race. Bob may not want to spend money advertising his business, but if Mallory (his competitor) spends money on ads, then Bob is forced to spend money on ads to recover marketshare loss due to Mallory’s ads.

          • HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s a pretty disingenuous interpretation of what I said. But I get it, you don’t like advertising so it has to be completely evil with no redeeming qualities or nuance.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh you talked about the good ads!

              Really, I have yet to see an ad that is not just trying to enter your brain with force and malice.

              It’s just getting worse too, the “Buy Acme product!” image is now a +100% loudness jump-scare video on auto-pay.