I think this is sarcastic?
I mean I pay on several websites to not see ads, so it (paying to remove ads) seems like the normalest thing. And it should be the normalest thing.
The only weird thing here is that we pay a party that is not the one serving the ads, so the primary misses income from ads and potentially paying customers.
But I suspect that is what you meant with your remark.
Moreover, paying on every website is just insane overkill and very expense compared to the value you get from occasional visits (the sites I subscribe to I visit multiple times a day and they provide business value).
Something like Alby [0] could solve this though. But Crypto currency has become a dirty word around here ;) (Alby does allow fractions of cents to be transferred, like a stream, on website visits, it (among others) also powers per-second paying for Podcasts streams, splitting revenue between multiple podcast hosts, the podcast app and the central index if set up that way. It's hard to set up though, something fiat-currency, based with 0 overhead would be nice...).
No. Not having ads is the "normalest" thing. I would never pay. I would use an ad blocker, and if that does not work, I would not use the website at all. This is the "normalest" thing to do, not giving them money for using ads.
You are enabling them and paying them for using ads. How is that the "normalest" or even normal thing to do? How do you expect them to stop showing ads if not only the ads themselves work, but even the ones who don't click ads pay them for having ads (to not show them, but ultimately it is for them having ads)?
I think you misunderstood. I'm saying The normalest thing is to offer value for value. Value for the gathered information, as money, or you let them influence you via ads.
It is not normal to expect something for free. You do not have the right to someone else's productivity on your terms, you have it on theirs.
I got this far down in the comments before I realized that this subject was such a big deal to everyone because, for them, their phones are what they use to interact with websites. It's bizarre. Last year I needed to watch a video to do a simple furnace repair, and I could not watch it on my phone... I'd have to keep going back to my desk to watch it there, and then return to do the fix.
Even the laptop's difficult to do much on unless I have it plugged into the dock and the two monitors.
I'm not sure when everyone and myself diverged, but it feels pretty strange.
I do not watch videos on my phone either. I have never visited YouTube on my phone, for example. In fact, I rarely use my phone.
It's been normal for thousands of years to pay for services which you use.
Cool, no one argued against that.
I will not contribute to an ad-ridden world (whether by paying or using), but you do you.
But, I was talking about contributing to a world with less ads… I feel like something is going wrong here.
If that is the case, then I misunderstood you.
If I pay I expect not to see ads. If I would, I would not pay and stop the subscription.
Right. My problem is that we have to pay to not see ads (which enables them to show ads unless paid), or we do not pay and we see ads, but ultimately in either case we are paying for ads or because of ads, which means ads are going to stay here forever.
Ok, but what is the alternative?
Collectively not using the service, but I know it is just a dream. For the time being, adblockers and not paying for ads is a start?
You realize Hacker News is marketing for YC right?
Hacker News is shoving ads down your throat? I have no idea how you could compare it to what websites are typically doing, or what YouTube is doing.