And, for the foreseeable future at least, advertising is a key commercial engine of the internet, and the most efficient way to ensure the majority of content remains free and accessible to as many people as possible.
I'm afraid they aren't wrong. The majority of people aren't going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we'd end up with only the big players having usable sites.
People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.
Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website's target audience not the user's personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don't see why they couldn't go that way.
You posted this on Lemmy.
I don't believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.
There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.
There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.
There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.
There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.
I don't give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn't mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.
That doesn't mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.
From what I have seen, it does... if you want to have a popular site that stays running well, and don't charge your users for access.
That's a problem for site operators, not for browser developers.
You might be right, but I don't think that's a problem they're going to solve all on their own, meanwhile the rest of users will suffer.
So, instead, they should cater to an industry that has long been a known vector for malware, abuse, and PII theft?
that is the only current accepted alternative to paying for website access, yes
if you have better ideas though, we'd all love to hear them
Your stance appears to be roughly "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so let's keep doing objectively harmful things".
The simplest idea is not to accept the premise that an objectively harmful business model that only brings value to a shrinking minority is acceptable. Maybe commercialism of every part of the web isn't something that humanity needs. As for paying for access, there are plenty of extant models that have never been attempted with any seriousness.
Then again, the whole Linux ecosystem is able to thrive without bending the knee to the ad industry. There's no reason that a web browser cannot also thrive without ads except for a lack of desire to do so.
Maybe if people/browser makers didn't bend over to this nonsense, the websites would figure it out. You know, the people who's problem that is (because yes, if you run a website and want to make money off it, that's your problem to fix not mine, and it's certainly not my job to cater to it).
It's a problem for users.
Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.
It was a different place, but worked ok.
Sounds like you're forgetting about the dot com bubble. The internet wasn't fine abck then because nobody really had a sustainable business model.
The dot com bubble made the Internet explode, sure, but corporate sites weren't the entire internet back then. There were far more niche sites, web rings, forums, etc...
The reason I mentioned the dot com bubble is because a lot of the companies back then failed because they couldn't figure out a sustainable business model. It was mostly hype-driven with the idea of getting users first, then figuring out monetization later.
That's why we have ad-supported sites today. It was the main business model that was the most sustainable.
There were a lot of small sites, sure, but a lot of them were hosted on services with no real business model. Even back then, not a lot of people self-hosted.
That's a fair thing to bring up. I think your point went over my head, because I was mostly reminiscing about how the less capital-oriented parts of the internet were relatively pleasant before companies like Facebook came along and encouraged them all (with their newly acquired capital) to jump into the big centralized areas.
Surveillance advertisement was already around.
Social Media platforms simply capitalized on it.
And users sucked it up for "convenience".
More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.
For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.
If your product doesn’t generate enough revenue to turn a profit, you don’t have a viable business
I don't want the internet to be exclusively business
I'm afraid they aren't wrong. The majority of people aren't going to pay for access to random blogs etc. So we'd end up with only the big players having usable sites.
People kick off about ads but rarely suggest an alternative to funding the internet.
Back in the day ads were targeted based on the website's target audience not the user's personal data. It works fine but is less effective. Don't see why they couldn't go that way.
You posted this on Lemmy.
I don't believe a web browser should be designed specifically for one business model, period.
There are plenty of free sites. Truly free, with no ads.
There are plenty of paid sites, supported by subscribers.
There are plenty of sites funded by educational institutions, nonprofits, or similar.
There used to be plenty of sites that were supported by non-invasive ads.
I don't give a damn if everyone uses Facebook and Google. That doesn't mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.
From what I have seen, it does... if you want to have a popular site that stays running well, and don't charge your users for access.
That's a problem for site operators, not for browser developers.
You might be right, but I don't think that's a problem they're going to solve all on their own, meanwhile the rest of users will suffer.
So, instead, they should cater to an industry that has long been a known vector for malware, abuse, and PII theft?
that is the only current accepted alternative to paying for website access, yes
if you have better ideas though, we'd all love to hear them
Your stance appears to be roughly "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so let's keep doing objectively harmful things".
The simplest idea is not to accept the premise that an objectively harmful business model that only brings value to a shrinking minority is acceptable. Maybe commercialism of every part of the web isn't something that humanity needs. As for paying for access, there are plenty of extant models that have never been attempted with any seriousness.
Then again, the whole Linux ecosystem is able to thrive without bending the knee to the ad industry. There's no reason that a web browser cannot also thrive without ads except for a lack of desire to do so.
Maybe if people/browser makers didn't bend over to this nonsense, the websites would figure it out. You know, the people who's problem that is (because yes, if you run a website and want to make money off it, that's your problem to fix not mine, and it's certainly not my job to cater to it).
It's a problem for users.
Internet was fine in the early 2000s before the rise of social media platforms resulted in surveillance advertisement complex.
It was a different place, but worked ok.
Sounds like you're forgetting about the dot com bubble. The internet wasn't fine abck then because nobody really had a sustainable business model.
The dot com bubble made the Internet explode, sure, but corporate sites weren't the entire internet back then. There were far more niche sites, web rings, forums, etc...
The reason I mentioned the dot com bubble is because a lot of the companies back then failed because they couldn't figure out a sustainable business model. It was mostly hype-driven with the idea of getting users first, then figuring out monetization later.
That's why we have ad-supported sites today. It was the main business model that was the most sustainable.
There were a lot of small sites, sure, but a lot of them were hosted on services with no real business model. Even back then, not a lot of people self-hosted.
That's a fair thing to bring up. I think your point went over my head, because I was mostly reminiscing about how the less capital-oriented parts of the internet were relatively pleasant before companies like Facebook came along and encouraged them all (with their newly acquired capital) to jump into the big centralized areas.
Surveillance advertisement was already around.
Social Media platforms simply capitalized on it.
And users sucked it up for "convenience".
More effective is a massive understatement. Now they can precisely measure effectiveness and adjust their strategy in real time to maximize output. They have increased effective effectiveness several fold. The cat is out of the bag, even if we try to roll this back the googles of the world know the data is there and can’t not harvest it. Our best strategy has to combine regulation and monopoly busting, break these companies into smaller ones that have less power to comb through big data.
For a good read on this, check out The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuniga.
If your product doesn’t generate enough revenue to turn a profit, you don’t have a viable business
I don't want the internet to be exclusively business