upvote

points

by amelius5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby RajT884 hours ago|
[-]
I do not recall ever hearing of an organized effort to ban ads. These days, good luck getting bipartisan agreement, especially with all the dark money in politics being legalized and normalized.

That said... The modern internet is built off many free services paid for by people who buy stuff from ads. It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear. Hosting costs money.

I could see a dystopia without ads where a government provides free hosting for citizens. That quickly becomes "thought police" when an authoritarian leading head of state comes in. If we pretend like that will not happen, I think we would have a much more wonderful internet.

reply
upvoteby amelius4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear.

Don't you see the problem with that statement? Ads are profitable, and we are paying for them, indirectly, through buying products and services. Adtech takes a chunk of that profit. Therefore, we pay more than we should!

reply
upvoteby benj1114 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So you are paying more than you should for a loaf of bread because your local shop is making a profit? because if you went to the factory you could buy the same loaf for less? Of course you could make the bread yourself for even less because the factory is making a profit, and grow the wheat yourself for even less because the farmer is making a profit.

You are not 'paying more than you should'. Not least because there is no price you 'should' be paying. Further I'm not sure how you imagine this working? The retailer gets to decide prices or not? They get to decide if they advertise or not? The advertiser's have competition? The retailers? Retailers are presumably choosing to advertise because they think it's worth it, thus it is? You are free to choose to buy those products, that will feed into their decision whether and how to advertise.

reply
upvoteby amelius4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's a fallacy like the broken window fallacy.

In no way is the consumer helped here, in the end.

To make things worse, the consumer is nudged into buying more stuff and thus contributing to global overconsumption.

reply
upvoteby nemomarx3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The point of ads is generally to tempt you to make purchases where the alternative is having nothing. So the comparison I think is more like grocery stores putting junk food right in the checkout to try and have you buy some on impulse?
reply
upvoteby functionmouse4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Are you equating the shopkeeper across the street earning 15 an hour to sell me my loaf of bread to the advertisement industrial complex?
reply
upvoteby pavel_lishin2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> It is hard to imagine a world without ads - many sites and services would disappear.

It is hard to imagine a world without horses & carts; many businesses would disappear.

reply
upvoteby Marsymars3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> I do not recall ever hearing of an organized effort to ban ads.

See e.g. https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Measure_5,_Prohibit_Billboard...

reply
upvoteby functionmouse4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
My town banned billboards entirely. It's been a resounding success.
reply
upvoteby inigyou4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't care. It was better before there were ads. It will be better after there are ads. Most actual useful content isn't monetised, and most monetised content is slop. There is a spectrum between the two endpoints, of course.
reply