5 ms·

Given the absolutely ridiculous amount of content that is ad-funded, I very much disagree. All of my preferred youtubers and streamers would immediately be with

Given the absolutely ridiculous amount of content that is ad-funded, I very much disagree. All of my preferred youtubers and streamers would immediately be without livelihood. Same is probably true for a whole lot of news websites.

akho 7y ago
I suggest you pay those people with your money, instead of everyone’s privacy.
- exitheone 7y ago
  I'm completely fine with paying with my privacy. I feel like the vast majority of users prefers to look at ads compared to paying for content. Which matches reality where most people don't care if their browser blocks cookies or not.
- summerlight 7y ago
  As long as this patronage gets traction enough to support creators' livelihood. Unfortunately, the majority is not going to spend a single cent on those small creators when their alternatives are high quality contents built upon millions of dollars. It's even proven by Google Contributor program's failure.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    > It's even proven by Google Contributor program's failure. Although I think your point is correct, I don't think that this program's failure is evidence for it. I give cash money to numerous small creators, but there's absolutely no way that I would have used the Google Contributer program to do it. That requires more trust in Google than I can muster.
    - summerlight 7y ago
      The point is that this needs to be done at scale. Even with Google's advantage on its pre-established publisher ecosystem, they couldn't make it because most publishers quickly realized that donation was not enough to offset the loss from disabling advertisements.
bduerst 7y ago
Most Magazines and Newspapers would stop too, since they're subsidized by advertising. Broadcast television and radio would cease to exist as well.
- someguyorother 7y ago
  Public broadcasters don't live off advertising, do they?
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    In the US, public broadcasters get most of their money through contributions -- but advertising is a significant part of the mix as well.

akho 7y ago

I suggest you pay those people with your money, instead of everyone’s privacy.

exitheone 7y ago
I'm completely fine with paying with my privacy. I feel like the vast majority of users prefers to look at ads compared to paying for content. Which matches reality where most people don't care if their browser blocks cookies or not.
summerlight 7y ago
As long as this patronage gets traction enough to support creators' livelihood. Unfortunately, the majority is not going to spend a single cent on those small creators when their alternatives are high quality contents built upon millions of dollars. It's even proven by Google Contributor program's failure.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > It's even proven by Google Contributor program's failure. Although I think your point is correct, I don't think that this program's failure is evidence for it. I give cash money to numerous small creators, but there's absolutely no way that I would have used the Google Contributer program to do it. That requires more trust in Google than I can muster.
  - summerlight 7y ago
    The point is that this needs to be done at scale. Even with Google's advantage on its pre-established publisher ecosystem, they couldn't make it because most publishers quickly realized that donation was not enough to offset the loss from disabling advertisements.

bduerst 7y ago

Most Magazines and Newspapers would stop too, since they're subsidized by advertising. Broadcast television and radio would cease to exist as well.

someguyorother 7y ago
Public broadcasters don't live off advertising, do they?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  In the US, public broadcasters get most of their money through contributions -- but advertising is a significant part of the mix as well.