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?
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.
They do, I use it, and it’s local. National/international could have something similar, but don’t.
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.
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.
maybe for-profit news organizations should get another business model. My computer is a temple and merchants can get out.
My computer is a temple and merchants can get out.
Gotta steal this one and start using it.
Paywalls, but the content has to be absolutely stellar for me to consider paying for an account.
False dichotomy, I’d rather see other funding models like Patreon/Kickstarter. Paying gets you early access/bonus stuff/whatever, and you don’t need intrusive technologies like ads/paywalls.
Neither; use FOSS!
But in all seriousness, ads. They may be filled with trackers from big tech to try to know my every waking thought and sell them, but I have handy dandy software to deal with that.
I keep telling people but if they keep using ad blockers, then they can expect less content to be available for free. Yet they all want to act like they’re not responsible for this trend even though they are.
they can expect less content to be available for free
Less corporate content. But if big business wants to fuck right off the internet forever, it’s okay by me.
I keep telling advertisers but if they continue using intrusive ads that send information to Facebook or appear after content has loaded forcing us to misclick, then they can expect more people to use ad blockers. Yet they all want to act like they’re not responsible for this trend even though they are.
It’s not that simple, unfortunately. Even if you were concerned about the impact of using an adblocker, the ads are not like billboards, merely visual distractions, but rather ads now include invasive tracking and surveillance, and other malicious code that can freeze or make a website unusable. Ads often create an accessibility nightmare for some users. They also tend to use up data, making the internet less accessible to those in third world countries where internet access is slow and large data are a bigger problem.
There have been some half-hearted attempts to create standards for advertisements, but the reality is that greed has always undermined attempts for the private sector to self-regulate on this issue, so short of some kind of legislative action to curb these problems, you are going to get people trying to protect themselves with adblockers.
