Genuine question as I’m having a dilemma.

I’ve seen many of my friends using Chrome without any ad blockers. Most of them don’t even know that there are things called extensions that can be installed. Whenever I use their laptops, I want to throw them away. I want to tell them about extensions and ad blockers.

But as much as we hate ads, they fuel the internet. Without them, the internet wouldn’t be what it is today. If ad blocker users increase, there would be a massive change in the web, and everything may be paywalled.

So should we gatekeep ad blockers and enjoy an ad-free internet as a minority? It’s not like they know what they’re missing.

I advocate for FOSS, though. I will tell my friends to try Linux and dual-boot it, and suggest alternatives.

  • Timely_Jellyfish_2077@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am talking about people who make money off ads. Like numerous YouTubers, news sites etc. YouTube is goldmine for content. Many small-medium creators depends on adsense. Think of YouTubers like veritasium, corridor crew etc who produce high quality content to be viewed freely. Websites like anandtech, the verge etc

    The corporate internet you are talking is more about sites like Facebook, insta, reddit etc who doesn’t view the content posters are creators and they definitely doesn’t share profits. I am not talking about this type.

    • tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      Every youtuber I’ve watched recently has opened a patreon and asked people to donate there because youtube ad revenue is worth almost nothing. Every small journalism site I’ve seen asks for donations, and even the big ones admit their ad income doesn’t pay the bills.

      Sometimes it sucks knowing that you’re indirectly removing revenue from someone. But personally, I prefer my time, attention-span, privacy, and security over giving one ten thousandth of a USA cent to someone. I started using an ad blocker because flashing advertisements were giving me headaches. I kept using them because autoplaying video ads were sucking up all the bandwidth that I was paying for. I continue to use ad blockers today because every single ad is either a scam, malware, or some weirdo far-right political pundit telling me gays are bad. Sorry to the independent journalists relying on ad revenue, but you gotta diversify and get revenue from a source more stable than the adware industry.

      The corporate internet you are talking is more about sites like Facebook, insta, reddit etc who doesn’t view the content posters are creators and they definitely doesn’t share profits. I am not talking about this type.

      Youtube is owned by google, and is definitely part of the corporate web. Most news sites are part of the corporate web, being owned by just a handful of companies or politicians. The vast majority of sites you would consider small content creators are most likely part of the corporate web. In fact, I haven’t seen a single non-corporate website that serves ads.

      When I say I want the corporate web to die, I’m talking about seeing places like the fediverse, tilde sites, and neocities sites thriving. If facebook and google die and all that’s left is a few sites written by weird mentally ill queers who whost blogs on gemini and gopher, I’d be very okay with that.

      • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You should worry about audience capture / gifting from the patreon model for journalists. And the government control from public funded.

        Idk the answer, but ads did give us more less biased news in broadcast news for a few decades.

          • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            And the direct pay model has plenty of audience capture or the well known yellow journalism issues. IDK it seems to me like ABC of the 1980s was more trustworthy than cable news or social media of the 21st century. Lies of omission are better than straight up lies imo - no documentation is better than wrong documentation.

            • tacticalsugar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              If you’d rather have any amount of bad journalism over trying to fix things, then we hold such fundamentally different values that I don’t actually know how to talk to you. You’re also moving the goalposts a lot, you seem like you have your mind made up that somehow ads promote good journalism, which is just not true.

              And the direct pay model has plenty of audience capture or the well known yellow journalism issues

              This issue already exists and has for as long as modern sensationalist news has existed - decades.

              IDK it seems to me like ABC of the 1980s was more trustworthy than cable news or social media of the 21st century.

              You don’t actually think that, you just weren’t actually around for the media of that era so you don’t know what it was like. You’re blinded by rose-colored glasses. I’ll remind you that Rupert Murdoch built his media empire in the 1980s, and Murdoch’s one of the empires currently destroying media. There’s also the bit where Reagan couped multiple countries and the USAmerican public still thinks it never happened because it wasn’t covered.

              • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I guess not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good would be a fundamental different value. I used to think just pay for what you want because being a customer should lead to better results. The last 10 or so years has disabused me of the notion - so many companies are plenty willing to lie to us or treat us horribly and charge for the “privilege”.

                My main point is you seem to be saying “Advertising driven journalism is worse than pay for access journalism.” I’m saying “citation needed” - given how cable news and online sites are such echo chambers now (and widely accepted and studied to be so). Even more concerning is the drift of podcasts, substacks, and youtube channels that rely on donations or subscriptions to ever more extreme areas in “audience capture” where advertising has been less a direct driver than broadcast news. This leaves me wondering if the traditional broadcast media like ABC/NBC/CBS isn’t less prone to conspiracy theories, outright lies, and also more likely to be willing to show me something I don’t want to hear because I’m not directly paying them.

                Also sites like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/ and https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ tend to rank traditional “boring” sources as most factual and least biased, especially local broadcast affiliates local newscasts. I.e. pretty traditional advertising driven news a la the 1980s.

                Maybe you dispute factuality rankings and bias rankings. Maybe you think conspiracy theories or shows like “The Daily Show” or Tuckers twitter show are better than choosing not to cover some topics that you feel they should have covered.

                I just think today it’s far harder to bury a story - if you want to hear about it, someone is commenting. But it’s far easier to flood the zone with bullshit, and the incentives with pay for access media seem to encourage being like Joe Rogan and not Barbara Walters for instance.

                And maybe your entire point is there’s no good solution and news was worse in broadcast times vs today. I might agree with the first except for that means giving up on getting any news at all and I disagree on the second. It’s also why I think having both currently known workable models as alternatives may help - the paid news sources will not be able to as easily be pressured by advertisers or the government funding to not cover topics and the advertiser sources will be more incentivised to report mainstream and boring news than the pay sites.

    • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      PLENTY of other ways to make money on the internet then reling on some giant corporation like Google giving you 0.001% of the revenue they make from ads.