←back to thread

990 points smitop | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.692s | source
Show context
felineflock ◴[] No.44337726[source]
There are 3 primary undesirability aspects of ads:

1) ads as irrelevant intrusions (in spite of all data Google collects, ads are mostly irrelevant for any person)

2) ads as ugly or blockers of beauty

3) ads as thieves of attention or downright theft (scam ads, illegal products)

Then, should we pay to get rid of ads or not? Two opposite opinions:

1) paying YouTube support creators

2) paying YouTube rewards the "shitification" of the platform

But even for those who pay there are issues: the content creator's own sponsorships, shorts, the risk of account banning by Google.

Then how about compensating creators directly? (Patreon or PayPal for example)

What I don't get is the questioning on the morality of ad blocking. No one should be obligated to watch an ad in one's own device, regardless of whatever "Terms of Service" (which is not a contract). It may be unfair to the content creator who relies on that revenue though.

replies(4): >>44337746 #>>44338549 #>>44338687 #>>44340061 #
zouhair ◴[] No.44338549[source]
I have only one: Ads.

Ads shouldn't exist. The fact that most human endeavours now are forced to use ads is insane.

replies(2): >>44338632 #>>44339432 #
1. felineflock ◴[] No.44339432[source]
Ads are a brute force approach to the challenge of having useful information (company X offers Y) reach their target (people who needs Y presently or in the future).

If you say no ads should exist, then what alternatives would you have for that challenge?

replies(1): >>44341890 #
2. zouhair ◴[] No.44341890[source]
Humanity lived without ads for thousands of years, I think we can do without.
replies(1): >>44343156 #
3. felineflock ◴[] No.44343156[source]
That time coincided with humanity living near the lowest standards of life.