upvote
I think that's revisionism. Social media existed before online advertising. Usenet was quite massive and vibrant, countless IRC servers were maintained by volunteers, web-based forums covered pretty much the same ground as Reddit does today. All supported by the goodwill of individuals, non-profits, and businesses such as ISPs that actively wanted the internet to be interesting because they were making money by selling access to it.

The thing that changed in the mid-2000s was that we found ways to not only provide these services, but extract billions of dollars while doing it. Good for Mark Zuckerberg, but I doubt the internet would be hurting without that.

reply
The internet was absolutely better without that. I arrived after the original Eternal September, but there have been more and more until now everyone is perpetually online 24/7.

Now fucking everything about the world is a hustle to monetize every possible nook and cranny around content. There isn't even content anymore, it's nearly all AI slop as a substrate to grow ads on.

I am nostalgic for the era when I found "punch the monkey" irritating. People used to make websites as a labor of love.

reply
I don't think we have a right to a business model. Either you figure one out for your particular site (selling access to the website, donations, etc) or you don't and stop and either is ok.
reply
I think we have rights to do lots of things that banning this business model would violate.
reply
I assume you're primarily referring to freedom of expression? I take the view that it doesn't include the freedom to pay people to carry a particular message so long as the restriction on paying is neutral as to the content of the message, but I can certainly respect the view that it does.

My comment about not having a right to business models is in some ways more general. Regardless of whether this business model is protected for some other reason, business models in general aren't, and it's a common flawed argument that they are.

reply
For Google, they figured out it's ads... So is it ok?
reply
Ostensibly not, if it is outlawed.
reply
Please, continue that "etc"...

Its been 30 years and no one has been able to continue that "etc".

reply
Of course they have. Off the top of my head examples include: Grants in the form of tax dollars (e.g. arxiv). To benefit the authors reputation (e.g. numerous scientists, developers, etc personal sites. zacklabe.com as a useful example). As a hobby (I think aiarena.net falls into this category). To collect data for research purposes (e.g. the original chatgpt release, and early recaptcha)...
reply
That works great when everyone has resources to pay for things online.

In practice, this cuts of 80% of the worlds population.

reply
Oh you mean we can reverse the eternal September? Sign me up! Gatekeeping is good, actually! The “let people enjoy things” crowd is responsibility for facilitating the mass enshittification of everything.

Catering to the lowest common denominator is how we got the Burger King guy on spirit airlines.

reply
Why are you commenting here instead of a website that gatekeeps commenters?
reply
"You criticize society, yet you participate in it".

I have and do pay for website access. That doesn't mean much if the current model flocks to no paid services.

reply
If it can only be funded via ads, it shouldn't be funded and is not essential to exist.
reply
Banning ads? That's just so authoritarian and absurd. I hope you never become king
reply
Regulation is freedom. Think of ads powering the web as current day's lead in gas.
reply
Regulation is freedom? Peace is war, too, I guess.
reply
Restricting freedom of bad actors means enhancing freedom of everyone else.

Say a a kid started throwing tantrums at school. By not punishing/ removing him you restrict the freedom of everyone else.

reply
What we have now sure it's freedom. Let's try having our tax dollars work for us this time.
reply
Regulation took away your freedom when it took asbestos out of your house right? Please be serious.
reply
Tell that to the tobacco industry yeah?
reply
Yeah hospitals cost money
reply
Have we come to such a low cultural point that ads are seen as some kind of basic human right?

Fuck ads. What's absurd is tolerating them and the damage they do to media, consumers, kids, lesser and/or more honest businesses, culture, products, and so on all the way to the Windows and macOS system UIs.

reply
We're on a startup entrepreneur site. I'm not surprised it's seen as the lifeblood of the industry here. It sort of is.

At the same time, this has the same energy of "if we release all the files, the system will collapse". Maybe we need the billionaires to feel some pain sometimes (even if yes, we'll feel more overall).

reply
I work in ads... :-/
reply
I think HGttG had a good solution for that involving a large spaceship.
reply
I mean really I work in filmmaking. Ads just fund most of my business.
reply
What do you do? Honest question
reply
I work on the production end. I’m a producer and production manager for live-action ads.
reply
Work in something else. I make significantly more doing poison ivy removal than I ever did or was ever going to working in tech.
reply
Are you willing to share rough numbers? Totally understand if not, just curious. Been thinking about something like this to get away from the AI force-feeding.
reply
Freedom of speech is a basic human right.

Ads are speech.

reply
>Ads are speech.

No, they are not.

People have been brainwashed and legal systems have been paid and bought for to consider them as such, just like corporations have been whitewashed to be treated as "persons".

In any case, we regulate all other kinds of speech as well: explicit content, libel, classified information, cigarette ads, and so on.

reply
Ads aren't free speech, they are the absence of it, because you are paid for a preselected speech.
reply
We already ban tobacco ads on tv (in the us) is their freedom of speech violated?

I don’t think you need to count companies being able to put any message out there as free speech.

reply
That’s not even true in the United States (they’re ‘commercial speech’, which carries a still significant but lesser set of protections), never mind in Europe.
reply
Commercial speech rights are still part of the "free speech" bundle of 1A protections.
reply
> mmmmm yes thank you daddy may I have some more?
reply
If he's from the US, he's technically correct. That's the high level argument of Citizens United.

Granted, that's proven to be a horrible concept. So let's repeal that.

reply
HTTP Error 402: Payment Required was created for a reason. Maybe we need to rethink micropayments.
reply
There’s nothing wrong with macro payments either.

Five dollars a month to subscribe or whatever. If people get the value out of it, you can get them to pay it.

reply
Subscription fatigue will quickly limit that. Yes, people used to subscribe to magazines but usually just a few. And by the way, those magazines were full of ads too.
reply
Half of the people on this site think that subscriptions are evil too, though.
reply
Sounds good to me.
reply
Paying for content works just fine
reply
Why? Serious question. The internet was a mistake.
reply
How can your question be serious if you already decided the internet was a mistake? I don't think it was. Far from it.
reply
Good things get tainted over time. The internet was a good thing. Today, not so much. It's probably a net negative for most youth in terms of cognitive development. Aka a drag on the future of humanity.

Maybe it could be good again, but not on the path it's on.

reply
What part of an endless sea of SEO spam, AI slop, malware, polarized astroturf, and addictive-by-design walled gardens strikes you as the win? Seriously, where is the win?
reply
But the internet is so much more than that, isn't it?
reply
It really isn't. It was so much more than that but a couple decades of "innovation" and here we are.
reply
It used to be.
reply
Honestly, some of the shit with ClawdBot^W MoltBot^W OpenClaw and molt.church and molt.book has been some quality entertainment, enabled largely by the Internet. And it's AI slop but that only seems to matter when one of them gets miffed about its PR being rejected and posts an unhinged blog post about the maintainer who rejected said PR. And in a "comedy equals tragedy plus time" way, it's pretty easy to laugh at that, too.
reply
You know there's individuals who will unironically defend any dark pattern one cares to point to so your take here is pretty unsurprising. I feel like this is getting excited over finding a kernel of undigested corn in a random turd.
reply