Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
No.
You.....realize good journalism costs money, right?
Yeah, "good journalism" is definitely what you're paying for with ads or paywalls.
To be clear, I support journalists - and they deserve to get paid for their efforts.
But (a) OP didn't specifically mention news sites, and (b) the revenue from websites via ads or paywalls is going directly into the coffers of the ultra-wealthy. Find me a news outlet that successfully implemented a paywall and then started paying their journalists and reporters vastly more money.
You won't, because they don't.
You realize that if newspapers offered a federated service (pay once, you get them all), they'd make money hand over fist?
But noooo...each newspaper wants you to pay.
I'd pay upwards of $20 a month if that guaranteed me access to the major newspapers (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc.) and my local one with one subscription.
Your local library might give you free digital access to most (or all) of those, if you haven’t checked.
I’m not saying it’s a bad idea but it’s interesting how similar that is to cable TV.
Of course, cable TV was largely ad-free at first then you ended up paying for it and getting ads.
I do this with Apple News. Not sure if anything like it exists, but what worries me is Apple cut their News development staff recently which makes me think people (at least Apple users) don’t value journalism enough to support it.
Apple is worth THREE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
Say that again. Three and a half trillion dollars.
They have cash-on-hand reserves of in excess of $60bn. They could give every single employee $200,000 and still have half of it in the bank.
Tim Cook is a relative pauper in the CEO game, with a net worth upwards of two billion. He could personally pay a team of a three thousand reporters with full benefits and remain a billionaire.
It's not people refusing to pay for journalism, it's robber barons refusing to pay journalists.
No what?
To both obviously.
A more genuine response would be "Ads, so I can use an adblocker on them."
Fuck advertisers. FUUUUUUUUUUUCK paywals.
But unless we are talking about very few non-profit news organizations, you have to choose one of them.
maybe for-profit news organizations should get another business model. My computer is a temple and merchants can get out.
Gotta steal this one and start using it.
Should be donations. Fuck the corporate internet.
How much money do you donate to your ad-free lemmy instance? Or the rest of the free services you’re using?
For the vast majority of people, that number is $0.
I donate free labor by administrating it.
You know that people aren't forced to interact with websites right? Like if I don't have a choice about if your website is going to show me ads, then I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE to view your website. Those ones that block the entire page until you whitelist them? I just close them and move on with my life. Nobodys product is so important that I will interrupt my day to view their advertising for it. And no website has such a reputation that I am willing to pay them or whitelist them for advertising BEFORE VIEWING THE FUCKING CONTENT.
I agree I close them if I see that, but just so you know a combo of bypass paywalls clean, and ublock origin (go into settings and enable all cookie notices, social widgets, and annoyances) will bypass 95% of those without you even knowing
If that fails go to web.archive.org and paste the URL, that works most of the time. There's a web extension called "web archives" that makes this easy if you're ok with other extensions
No, you really really really don't.
I'm old enough to have been online when commercial content was illegal, and I've watched as aggressive commerce has crept into every single corner of the internet.
You don't need to have ads to support a website, you need ads to profit from a website. The idea that everything - information, news, community, society - not only CAN be monetized but MUST be monetized is relatively new, destructive, and anti-human.
The mere idea that you have to choose between two ways of throwing money at billionaires is a symptom of the terminal stages of capitalism. We're going to have a rough 50 years or so, but this has to end.
Why? Prove to me that your binary is true.
If someone sets up a website, and uses ads to fund it, 99% of the time their goal is profit.
How they profit is their issue, not mine.
Many websites exist without ads, hosted by people who simply want to have a website.
As for paywalls, again, people are creating a profit-generating barrier for something. Again, that's their concern, not mine. Generally when I hit a paywall I just close the tab. I'm not the sucker they're looking for.
If I'm really curious, I may run the URL through archive.is
So you think people should just work around the clock making content and not get anything for it? I keep seeing this view and it sounds so naive, you can't expect donations to keep you afloat. Even hosting the website and domain names cost money.
I wouldn't mind paying for quality content, but usually you end up paying for crap and seeing ads too. So now the corporate media is double dipping right out of your wallet. Journalism is dead and we're probably never getting it back.
Okay, so you never go back to ye olde shitty website because they are absolute scum. Now you keep getting to pay the quality content for making the stuff you enjoy without even touching your wallet.
There are some Independent News sources I like: Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, Consortium News, All Sides, Reuters, Truthout, NPR, and Propublica.
You almost got the trifecta of news agencies. Check out Agencie France-Presse. Also, while they’re usually reliable, note that Al Jazeera is heavily biased towards the Arab Middle East and that NPR is heavily biased towards the US.
Anyways, I think sites like these demonstrate why we should enable ads that are just a few billboards and don’t run into the prairie, as another commenter has said.
Possibly, I would like to see that sites like this stay alive.
People always have.
How many people get paid to go to ham radio clubs, to write up plans for model airplanes, or to share telescope mirror polishing techniques? How many people try to profit off of community seed/plant exchanges?
The only difference is that people are now looking for venues to generate profit by producing content, rather than producing content for its own sake. The concept of "every sharing of information must be financially profitable" is a sickness - a festering disease.
Domain names cost about $50/year. Self-hosting can be done for free with most ISPs; and if you're getting enough traffic that you need to pay for hosting, it starts pretty cheaply.
Profit is destroying community at every turn. Resist the relentless lust to make an extra buck, and ENGAGE with people.
Wanting to stay alive is not a "relentless lust to make an extra buck". You're portraying people wanting to earn money as villains trying to abuse you. Putting ads in a website where someone puts so much effort to create is NOT evil. Youtubers without sponsorships for example simply wouldn't exist, because nobody would put in dozens of hours of work a week if it wasn't lucrative.
I would argue the concept of expecting everyone else's hard work to be free is selfish. I'm not talking about major publications that have millions of dollars, I'm talking about small websites where the creator needs it to succeed or else it shuts down a year later.
What you're describing is a hobby that people with free time and extra money do. This isn't what 99.9% of content creators work on or have the capability of doing.
Alright as far as your argument goes. But what about content that has value for society? I'm talking, of course, among other things, about serious journalism. Do only "suckers" pay for that, too?
The thing is if I see an article that's blocked by a paywall, I can simply go to another site that has the exact same story for free.