Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(
Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(
Try turning it off. I got rid of ublock after arstechnica complained about a lot of their users blocking ads years ago and it honestly isn't that bad. Every once in a while I do back out of a page for maxing out one of my cpu cores but otherwise, nothing ever bad happens. With ads: either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website.
The alternative is websites charging insane amounts of money with paywalls (Wall street journal has their "best" price for 12 months at $360 a year). That is horrible because it means only rich people can pay for high quality news as ads are one of the most progressive forms of payment (rich people ads are way more valuable than poor peoples and yet everyone gets the same quality services/news with the ad model despite their income/net worth).
You just described something bad.
Funding the Internet? What you're talking about (ads) is a revenue stream for what amounts to a handful of websites. google.com, amazon.com, ycombinator.com, reddit.com, thefacebook.com, tweeter.com, etc. could all go offline right now and the Internet would still be here.
> either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website
The second half of that sentence is precisely what I'm describing. Do you disagree with my characterization of that sentence?
I assume they included that part in the quote rather than cutting it off earlier because this was part of what they were saying is bad. Do you disagree with me there?