I started to notice that more sites are turning into paywalls, and I don’t like that and would prefer ads over subscriptions.

I am curious, what does the general community think about that?

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

      • Kintarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • Kintarian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            There are some Independent News sources I like: Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, Consortium News, All Sides, Reuters, Truthout, NPR, and Propublica.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              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.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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?