←back to thread

467 points bundie | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.23s | source
Show context
bix6 ◴[] No.44501849[source]
These big tech companies are so frustrating. Why does every single aspect of our digital lives need to be monitored? It’s like whack a mole trying to get the most basic of privacy.
replies(11): >>44501894 #>>44501898 #>>44501908 #>>44502015 #>>44502072 #>>44502187 #>>44502307 #>>44502354 #>>44502912 #>>44503006 #>>44503118 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44502307[source]
Because people collectively vote for the ad model over the subscription model.
replies(8): >>44502387 #>>44502423 #>>44502587 #>>44502843 #>>44502956 #>>44503131 #>>44503558 #>>44503861 #
93po ◴[] No.44502587[source]
people didn't vote for shit, if they could vote they'd vote for no ads and no cost. companies like google destroyed this option on purpose. there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free. if i look for tetris on the app store it's literally impossible to find a version that's both ad free and free of purchases despite the fact that i know there's at minimum 100 options that fit this criteria. google/apple just buries them and deliberately doesnt allow filtering to find them
replies(2): >>44502738 #>>44504099 #
thfuran ◴[] No.44502738[source]
>there is no reason why the vast majority of apps and services online can't be both free and ad free

You can give away software, but running a service costs money. P2p messaging can be free (and signal exists), but nothing like free and adless YouTube or Facebook is going to happen regardless whether google or meta do anything to prevent it.

replies(2): >>44502805 #>>44503246 #
1. jjani ◴[] No.44502805[source]
The Saudis would love to have a platform as popular as YouTube for their image washing purposes, no matter if it costs them a cool $billion or two per year to keep it ad-free. They don't do it because they'd rather not antagonize Google, a company wielding global power, otherwise they'd love to.