So because the user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, it shouldn't get funded?
No. You're mixing two different subjects:
A. Because the typical end-user has a flawed concept on how a thing gets funded, means that you can't pin the reason the users is unknowingly disrupting the (broken) funding mecanism on "wanting to get content for free". The users was already getting it for free in their mind.
That is why I started answering in this thread, and that is what you seemingly fail to understand I'm trying to convey.
Several posts upward you said:
No, what has happened, is people have found a way to get a thing for free. This is not a novel idea. If you can get $thing or $thing for free (and the exact same $thing), which one do you think people will choose?
What I'm trying to say is that, in the present situation, in the end-users mind both are "$thing for free". The user is completely unable to understand that one of the two wasn't actually "for free". (Due to "flawed concept" as you mention).
What I'm trying to convey for the past several post, is that for users, both are exactly the same (they think it's "$thing for free" in both case) and thus there is no incentive to "get a thing for free". They didn't find "a way to get a thing for free". It's not new to them, to them it was free already even before adblock.
B. *I PERSONALLY* think it shouldn't get funded, because of the horrendous and stupid way the content provider has decided to fund it.
If this causes the content to disappear (behind a paywall, or go out of business), well good ridance, I won't be missing it.
There's plenty of other content that I don't care about either that I can stumble upon as well.
But I personally think that ads are nearly as bad as SPAM. (The only difference necessitating the "nearly" is that in case of SPAM, the product advertised is almost always garanteed to be awful, even the maker knows it, that's why they are counting on awful tactics to get it sold. Whereas some of the content supported by ads instead of being in the "it's disgusting" level can sometime be only in the "I don't care that much about it" level).
Therefor, just as I think as SPAM is something that needs to die, I also think that advertising is something that I'd rather not be exposed to.
Only the strategy of *how* to to be exposed to ads change.
- If it's something I genuinely care about and are actively seeking as a content : then I use my wallet, so the author isn't forced to expose me to ads just to be able to afford to eat.
- If it's something that I don't care about, I simply shield my self from the ads (ublock and privacy badger and noscript) which isn't that much different from taking a pee during the commercial break or fast forwarding them on the VCR (yup, I really said VCR. That in it self shows you how much often I expose my self to the TV in recent years).
Hm this road I drive on isn't a toll road, therefore it shouldn't be paid by the government either.
Not exactly. In the "A" part above (The one I'm using to respond to your "AdBlock was invented because people want $things for free" model mentioned above)
It's more among the lines of:
- this road isn't a toll road. Therefor it's surely free for me anyway. I don't need to do anything about it! I got a road for free! Yay!
- I hate tax! Taxes suck! I've had worked hard to earn my pay! Why should the evil government come and steal my hard earned pay from me ?! Fuck taxes, I don't need them
- (User don't realise the link between this two parts).
Therefore you can't use "Users want toll-free roads for free, that's why the are avoiding to pay taxes" argument.
- From my impression online, there seem to be tons of people thinking the "I hate tax, fuck taxes, stop stealing my hard earned cash" though, specially in the US, less here around in EU.
- the tax example is a bad example. Taxes aren't considered harmful to health. Where Ads is provably as bad as SPAM to the health of your computer.
it's nice that you support subscriptions, but they have issues. I have to have a subscription to every site I may stumble across now?
Subscription to every site you visit ? No. Not at all.
To things that you actually find interesting enough to try to get more content from? Yes.
To things that you just randomly stumbled upon, don't care much about it, and would certainly not miss if they disappeared, you would probably be stumbling upon something else ? Nope.
Add to other support models:
- limited free view sites: newspapers where the 1st or a few couple of of articles are free, then you're required to register and/or subscribe and/or pay and/or sacrifice your first born too: okay by me. I most probably won't read a 2nd article from you anyway as I don't care about you.
- limited part view sites: first couple of paragraphs (introduction) are freely accessible. register/pay for the rest of the article.
I approve, though most of the time I don't give a shit about it. Most of the time, either the introduction has the few info I need, and I don't care enough about the subject to pay for it anyway (again: don't care = won't pay), or the introduction is piece of junk that only appeals to emotions without any useful information (all the "first I laught, but then I couldn't beleive what the guy did"-titled clickbait), in which case it wasn't even worth my time.
Note, BTW, that this model is exactly what was used by the scientific journals for ages. Though that one as come under criticism
(because the actual substance itself - the actual experiment and research isn't funded by the journals - they only fund the publishing and review - Instead the research has usually been funded by public grants, and therefor it would be ethical if the public - i.e.: the tax payers that actually paid for these grants - could have access to this research. but that's an entirely different kind of subject).
And other valid way to monetise that I've forgoten on my initial list:
merchandise. if I like an artist, I might as well buy T-Shirt featuring the artists design.
Paying per article would probably be too small to charge to a card without more of it being in fees.
...AND that's why people have been pushing:
- ...for micro transaction, like flattr. You pay a small amount that is chargeable, and then it's up to flattr to split these tips among the artist you support, and then gather all the tips each artist has received from anyone to be able to reach a payable amount.
- ...for crypto currencies, like bitcoin, etc. that can be split down to satoshi-levels. (Like being able to charge 0.00001$ per page. That's not possible with credit card, because the credit card company needs to be able to have a share. But that's entirely possible in a distributed system like bitcoin).
Essentially the rich are in control of what content exists? That's a scary thought.
- ...I'm not that rich my self. I'm not very high in the food chain, and was not that long a ago a poor student. Still I am able to give small tips to the authors of the various content I appreciate. The time were only being a Medici could give the capability to pay an artist are long gone by.
- ...You can see it as control. You can also think of it as freedom to express/innovate.
If a content creator counts only on ads for revenue, that creator will be strongly biaised toward producing content that can attract as many eyeballs as possible that can then be resold for money to advertiser.
That mean producing low quality/content click-bait material, not something genuinely interesting, just something that leads users to click. Do junk, as long as this shit makes the user click on the title and get exposed to the ton of ads. Exploitation content. Go for emotion, go for inflamatory subjects, go for populism. Well you could almost be a politician with this kind of content.
If a content creator counts on subscription or tipping or merchandising to earn money to afford food, that creator will be enticed to produce content that the readership appreciate, like and are ready to come back to seek again.
be creative, try to do something that will captivate your audience. Not something that will just make them click once so you can sell them to advertiser. Something that will make them wanting more.
And that's not quite a scary thought.