• N-E-N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everyone hates ads but no one wants to pay for it lol

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix…

      Only so much blood in this here stone.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        With so many shows getting canceled, or even un-confirmed and then obliterated from existence all for tax write offs, I’m kinda soured on Streaming these days.

        Hopefully the WGA and SAG strikes are successful and result in streaming improving again, back to how it felt during the mid 2010s.

      • demlet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please tell me you aren’t getting your news from Disney. But seriously, a halfway decent local paper is probably more worth your attention than the latest attention grabbing headline at the NYT. Good choice.

    • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, not everybody hates ads. Everybody hates today’s ads, because they’re literally as intrusive and annoying as the designers can make them. I didn’t have a problem with ads 15 years ago, but because I have to pay for my bandwidth, and because ads like to literally block what I’m reading with a giant, 100MB, unskippable video, I use an ad blocker.

      Advertising shot itself in the foot, and it isn’t our fault for being pushed so far that we’re fed up with it.

      • Noodle07@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unskipable ads when I’m browsing my files on my phone, how fucking obnoxious can you possibly make them?

          • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’re some wack lowly made phones sold in countries without good standards that do this.

            A friend’s phone shows ad in every app, from google stock apps to whatapp and even fucking phone/call app. Around 30 pixels of ad blocked at the bottom of the screen whenever mobile data is on.

      • scurry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with most of that, but I feel like we weren’t using the same Internet 15 years ago. There were still ample popups and popunders, many of which you couldn’t easily close (more than a few did the funny ‘you are an idiot’ trick of just open windows faster than you can close them to me). They were loud, both visually but also they would actually play sound in non-video pages (sometimes multiple at once). Most of them were either disgust or porn based (or the really funny meme of both at the same time). And there were so. Many. Viruses. I feel like advertisers have never been particularly respectful of the end user, and the main difference is that now they’re actively spying, where they maybe weren’t 20 years ago.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Idk, 15 years ago I was watching cable and 1/3 of my time was spent subjected to ads on a paid service. I think I prefer them now lol

    • FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some sites (Fandom Wikis) are unbearable with ads. Sure, you could pay to remove them, but only because it’s so infuriating to navigate the content when it has multiple ads—some that follow you—INSIDE the content of the articles.

      Autoplaying videos, side banners, and scrolling ads are the worst and actively make me want to avoid the sites unless adblock is on.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why I use an inverted ad-block list. I see ads unless they get intrusive or unreasonable, and then I enable blocking on the site.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        When I had more income I paid for the NYT, but tbh they’ve made enough questionable editorial decisions lately that I’ve decided it wasn’t worth it. The Guardian isn’t paywalled at least.

    • BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Journalism should be accessible to everyone. Not many people can afford 30 different subscriptions for every individual news outlet because they’re all pay to read. Remember newspapers? Anyone could buy one on the cheap, now these fuckers have moved to a subscription service that’s even more expensive than the average newspaper used to be.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well there are 3 alternatives.

        Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.

        All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

        Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I have to pay for it:

          • it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
          • it cannot be filled with agenda bias
          • it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
          • they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)

          If there is a free one with ads:

          • ads cannot fabricate their facts either.

          Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.

    • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m perfectly willing to pay what I pay for the actual news paper for the subscription. The subscription turns out to be about 10x.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m defending the right for people to make a profit from their labour 🤷‍♂️ even if ads aren’t my preference either

      • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A little bird told me you’re in cognizance of the way to finance online journalism without depending on ads and subscriptions of readers. That’s a good news. Care to share how?

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s nothing wrong with advertising in of itself, society has lived with advertisements for goods and services for a long time. Unless you’re unreasonably susceptible to suggestion you should be able to safely navigate them. Some sites take the mick with how they present them but they have to make money somehow.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is something wrong with advertising in and of itself. Imagine a sphere of all information available to humans, and inside that sphere there’s a corruption of information that’s deceitful, self-promoting for its originators, in excess of what people actually need to know about specific companies or products, and based on manipulation techniques and de-facto brainwashing. This twists decision-making for the entire society.

          The only defense is that it’s a “necessary evil” because of the perverse economic structures in our society.

          And P.S., the fact something’s been around for a long time is not an ethical defense, and people “unreasonably susceptible to suggestion” (i.e. influenced by ads) are a staggering % of the popularity, probably a majority.