"Ads are evil"

"Ads are evil"
"CoinHive is evil"

Just out of curiosity, how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20120328045016/http://gentoo.org
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

NEETbux, like the rest of Sup Forums

sell a product worth buying

Make love not war.

I've been running websites with advertisements on them since the 1990's.

Back in the days it was all about them pop-up's, some websites would use pop-up ads, some would not.

Some websites started using flash for advertisements, other stuck to text or banners. Some used .gif's, others didn't.

I fully understand why people are against ads on websites and I fully understand why they use adblockers. I use them myself even though I serve some ads on my own sites.

If everyone just used some small bar areas with static text advertisements then there probably wouldn't be much of a market for adblockers, I know I wouldn't bother with it myself. But that's not the case. Now there's advertisements with sound, video's, full-screen advertisements with sound and all kinds of nasty crap. You can't pull that shit and expect people to not look for blocking solutions.

You're the product and advertisers think a piece of your mind is worth paying for. You do get something back: Information or entertainment.

There is no free lunch, hosting websites does cost money and producing good content is even more expensive (unless it's a forum type thing like Sup Forums where the users generate most of the content themselves).

What you fail to understand OP, is that Sup Forums thinks the internet runs on wishes and dreams.

They want access to all the information in the world, but don't propose any methods of hosting to pay for it.

They're on NEETbux, so they can't donate because that would interfere with their mountain dew and dorito budget.

They won't unblock ads, because their autism/aspergers means any disruption causes them to go into a farting seizure.

They won't pay for things and will pirate them because "software shud b fwee", and forgetting that people need to be paid wages. They also extend this to music "hurrdurr dont b a band if u cant afford it"

They exist in the world of a child, they think that because mummy fed them chicken tendies on a spoon all their life, and she lets them live in her basement without board/lodgings, that everything should be free. They have no individuality, no loyalty, no generosity.

They are the most selfish fucks you will ever have the displeasure of associating with.

I think coin hive is a great idea actually. Far less intrusive than ads, doesn't collect data on you, there is literally nothing I dislike about that monetization strategy

I just don't think it's a very effective one, that's all

The mistake is believing that websites are meant to generate money simply by existing. They're not. They're an expense. A website is meant to be another means to reach out to people.

Website should be just a small aspect of the main business (thats if its not some online retailer that does majority of sales online), it should provide additional information etc

Same if its a personal website of an individual, the individul should keep the website up and running by using money that he actually earns from his job.

If its some informational website, again individual should have a real job, earn money and spend that money to keep their website up.

I run a web- and mailserver for three people: my mother, my father, myself.
Costs 10€ a month, which we split evenly.
If anybody would need an email address, I could accomodate up to 20-30 people with this server. That would cost everyone 30 Cents a month, then, or I could make it 50 and give some accounts away for free, to children and/or those with low income.
Anybody running a website for more than a handful of people is themselves responsible for answering your question. I don't care how people try to make money, but I reserve the right to block whatever method they choose. Because if their method relies on me viewing more than just the content on their website, then it's a shitty technique and they should use another one (like selling useful stuff).

Most websites I use can be hosted on a potato.
Don't understand what there is to "fund".
Renting some vps isn't exactly expensive either.

Who's paying for the bandwidth then?

They shouldn't.
just like a long time ago people hosted servers just because they wanted to

this so much. It's pathetic to cry "my business model isn't working because people are evil". No, your business model is just not viable, and your business deserves to die.

Get a fucking job and pay for your hosting yourself.

A GNU/Coinhive would be fine.

Retarded question.

>You're the product and advertisers think a piece of your mind is worth paying for. You do get something back: Information or entertainment.
>most ads are OMG YOU WONT BELIEVE WHO DIED CLICK HERE

why would i want that?

Cut down on the Javascript and pngs, slash the hosting cost and support it with lightweight banner ads people are less inclined to block
It isn't difficult.

I want websites that can't sustain themselves to disappear.

It's not like the web could just die. Companies wouldn't just stop lose millions of potential customers just because Facebook no longer hosts what is basically their website for free.
The would would just change.

sites made to just make money and mine data need to die. others can take donations or the owner can pay for it like many hobby sites do already.

>Just out of curiosity, how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?
>My thoughts and opinions deserve money! And not just enough to operate, but as much as I can possibly get!

Nope.

You start a small site with say a $5 VPS that has a certain cap on bandwidth.

Then your site explodes and you're delivering thousands of users content every day.

Who's going to fund the additional bandwidth?

the person who previously was paying 5$, and nobody else. If that person can't or won't pay, then no more bandwidth. Says right so in the contract. Can't you read?

You don't make the mistake of buying a vps with limited bandwidth.
Serving 1000s of Users also isn't exactly much depending on what you are delivering.

The most worthwhile sites are personal blogs and shit that cost pocket change to host. Not-for-profit stuff like Wikipedia will remain around, as will online stores that fund themselves by, you know, actually selling products.

If advertising and coinhive and so on are all widely blocked, yeah, lots of big sites will be unable to make money, but those places are the Gawkers and Buzzfeeds of the world, and we're better off without them. I wouldn't cry if Google, Facebook, and Twitter eventually went the way of Myspace and Yahoo, either.

You're not wrong, but you might be projecting.

But would you pay for Sup Forums or a similar board? Even knowing that it would be a ghost town?

The point where Sup Forums grew too large to be supportable as someone's hobby project is approximately the point at which it grew large enough to get cancer. So no, I wouldn't pay, and I'd be okay with seeing it go as a result.

Pay more than 5$.
If you don't have the money to deliver the required bandwidth, maybe you're website is shit and you should "unbloat"/optimize it. You know, make the web a little healthier...

Literally how fucking new are you? Moot has always, always, always begged for donations and toyed around with ads.

pic very much related. Sup Forums for a while was hosted in Moot's basement.

Sell merchandise, partner with other websites to form your own brand networks, don't start a website if you're a fucking poorfag

> I wouldn't cry if Google, Facebook, and Twitter eventually went the way of Myspace and Yahoo, either.
>the biggest innovators on the web today
>hurrdurr i wish they were dead

retard

Then stop using Sup Forums right now freeloader

Yeah, them inventing new ways to invade our privacy and centralize control of the internet is really worth the money. Truly our greatest allies.

how about some arguments to counter, instead of insults?

>it's cancerous

And yet here you are posting.

point to where your arguments are instead of "its bad because my anecdotal reasons"

Give me an argument to engage in, or I will fight shitflinging with shitflinging.

>wish for myspace to die
>gleefully sign up for Facebook
>wish for Facebook to die
>gleefully sign up for the next bullshit social media platform that will monitor you with cameras 24/7

Fuck off

>the biggest innovators on the web today
Lol.

not an argument

>>Then stop using Sup Forums right now freeloader
all you have to do to keep me out is put up a paywall. :^)

Point to a bigger innovator
.

>1. of considerable size or extent.
>2. of considerable importance or seriousness

I'll wait

they're not my arguments, but in the other user's post you can already see the following arguments:
- "the biggest innovators on the web today" are not
- they invade our privacy and centralize control of the internet
- this isn't worth supporting
- they're not our friends

now you

The only thing innovative come from google is maps (and even that they probably bought from another company innitially). Everything else is mostly bloat and useless/unneccesary. Other companies like facebook are literally against, stifling innovtion.

Ad blocking users are a non issue for most websites. If your website has an abnormal amount of ad blocking users, then you should either cater to other crowds or try to monetize your website in some other way. You can even try blocking such users with elaborate javascript usage, since many of them don't know how to circumvent that. You can also host your own ads from sponsors so ad blocking extensions won't detect them.

I am not debating with you, I am laughing because you are an idiot.
I don't care how greedy people want to make money off their webservices, since I usually just don't use them, and when I do, I block their ads and scripts.
If its a site I like I will buy merch or donate.

Someone who develops lots of novel ways to conduct surveillance, control people, and extract money from others using these may be called innovative. They may be an innovator of considerable size and importance. But their "innovations" are things that are bad for us, for the internet, and for society, and as such we should not welcome them, and should work to undermine them, and their business model.

I don't. Why do you keep conflating hypertext with e-Commerce? Do you honestly think clickbait, banner ads, pop-up ads, drive-by downloads, various awful cookie trackers and the like were actually positive things for w3?

For god's sake this was meant for research papers. Look what happened to it.

It's 2017. I run a site that moves 100TB traffic a month and pay £30 a month for it. About the only thing that would present an issue now is streaming video, and streaming video that the other end isn't downloading to keep or in some way using P2P for is frankly a horrific waste of internet bandwidth.

Who is Moot?

>- "the biggest innovators on the web today" are not
See >- they invade our privacy and centralize control of the internet
Google, Facebook etc have given more people in the world access to free information than ever before, and you are calling this bad?

>- this isn't worth supporting
That's an opinion, I deal in facts and measurement of scale bucko.

>- they're not our friends
Why are you trying to make friends with businesses? A business isn't a person, they exist to make money, and anyone who thinks otherwise or doesn't realise this is deluding themselves

Android? Google Fibre? Hangouts? Image Search? Google Scholar? Youtube? Trends? Patents? Google Earth? Google Translate?

Just because you do not use it, does not mean millions to billions of others do not.

>Someone who develops lots of novel ways to conduct surveillance, control people, and extract money from others using these may be called innovative.
Google, Facebook etc have given more people in the world access to free information than ever before, and you are calling this bad?

>You're the product and advertisers think a piece of your mind is worth paying for.
If I'm the product then you won't be getting any money from me.

>You do get something back: Information or entertainment.
I don't want this, the internet is already overloaded with low-cost information and entertainment.

>There is no free lunch, hosting websites does cost money and producing good content is even more expensive
Then maybe you should make a product that your users want to buy instead of just complaining at them to pay you for hosting "content" that they don't care about.

Newfag like yourself

We'd be better off without all those garbage ad-reliant websites.

>Just out of curiosity, how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?
I don't care, most are easily replaceable

>Android? Google Fibre? Hangouts? Image Search? Google Scholar? Youtube? Trends? Patents? Google Earth? Google Translate?
>Just because you do not use it, does not mean millions to billions of others do not.
Yeah none of those are innovation, just small technological increasements, everytime hardware/processing improved, software written for that hardware also improved a little.

And because billions use facebook - waste countless hours everyday doing nothing (and often even during their actual work time) it does not automaticlly become innovation, its in fact cancer of 21 century.

>>Google, Facebook etc have given more people in the world access to free information than ever before, and you are calling this bad?
Yes, because they are not doing this altruistically. They're doing it to sell ads, and, as has recently been shown, they have no ethical problems with censorship, only legal and financial ones. They're happy to restrict that "free access" when politicians demand, or when their revenue stream is more threatened by failing to censor than it is by censoring. They're also happy to just favor themselves when deciding what information to show you, as was the subject of a recent antitrust case in the EU. How can information be free if one company controls access to it?

>That's an opinion, I deal in facts and measurement of scale bucko.
You're trying to split hairs over terminology, quibbling with the definition of innovator, or what size qualifies an innovator as "big", while trying to disguise the opinion you're arguing for: that that innovation is necessarily good, and that therefore a big innovator that produces lots of it is good. You accept this implicitly, and my argument is that that's wrong and that you shouldn't.

>Why are you trying to make friends with businesses? A business isn't a person, they exist to make money
I don't argue with that at all. And because they're not friendly to me or my interests or those of society, I'm saying that we should undermine their business model, which is collecting data on people and showing them advertising.

>Just because you do not use it, does not mean millions to billions of others do not.
I also don't use heroin, even though many others do. Just because lots of people use something and even like it, doesn't mean its a good thing.

>how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?
This user got it spot-on:
It really isn't rocket science.

>Yes, because they are not doing this altruistically. They're doing it to sell ads, and, as has recently been shown, they have no ethical problems with censorship, only legal and financial ones.
Then get your money together and make an alternative? Can't do it? Too bad.

>They're happy to restrict that "free access" when politicians demand, or when their revenue stream is more threatened by failing to censor than it is by censoring.
Welcome to a free market. Don't like it? You're a communist/socialist, and I'll let history dictate how well those systems worked.

>They're also happy to just favor themselves when deciding what information to show you, as was the subject of a recent antitrust case in the EU. How can information be free if one company controls access to it?
We aren't in a one company system, there are other places you can go. As I've already stated, start your own service and make it big and "truly innovate".

>You're trying to split hairs over terminology, quibbling with the definition....
I'm not quibbling with definitions or arguing over terminology. I am using words as they are written and defined in the English dictionary/thesaurus.You can't change the definition of something just because it doesn't fit you're narrative, otherwise you may as well join the SJWs on the other side of the fence.

>And because they're not friendly to me....
You're being a special snowflake in this regard. "thing is bad because it doesn't exactly slide into my meticulously defined view of the world"

>Just because lots of people use something and even like it, doesn't mean its a good thing.
Heroin has no observable benefit to anyone other than criminals and junkies. The services I listed have been of great benefit to many people. You are also forming an argument of using a drug against software. Not a solid one.

I'll never forget the time my boss said that the internet is supposed to be for businesses to make money.

They should support themselves with ads. Sorry, I prefer to use adblocker because I don't want to see ads, but there are a million people who don't use ad blocker for every one that does. they can make money off those people

He wasn't wrong/

>hurr durr, I'll make a website to express my opinions
>hurr durr, it costs money, should add some ads
>hurr durr, 16 of my 19 unique visitors block ads! OMG, it's so unfair! OMG, they are literally stealing my content!!!
I fucking hate any website owner who at his own will makes blogsite, post his fucking opinion and thinks that he deserves to get money for this.
Fuck you, morron. If you want money, make product, no one gives a fuck about your opinion.

>not wanting abusive totalitarian monopolies means you're a communist/socialist

It would appear the only communist here is you, as you want to allow these companies to have permanent global control over information.

Blogsite owners aren't the ones you should care about.

Larger news organisations, journalists, whistleblowers, content creators all need money to keep the good work they do going, freeloader.

They shouldn't, we need to start over.

>as you want to allow these companies to have permanent global control over information.

Point to where I said or inferred that. I'll wait.

facebook makes $701 million
I block ads on facebook

Sites can make money while people block ads

I mean there are people who will pay to read stuff. New York Times and the Wall Street Journal do pretty well out of having a paywall and charging subscriptions. But thats a pretty high bar to clear. The reason most sites are so butthurt about adblocking is that they know that if they put up a paywall nobody would think their stuff was valuable enough to trade actual money for. They can either give it away for free or close up shop. I'm fine with them facing that choice.

They shouldn't. Websites shouldn't be something you make money from.

then pretty much no one would run them retard

>Then get your money together and make an alternative? Can't do it? Too bad.

typical "we won, you lose, gtfo and never come back" attitude i see from shitty internet entrepreneurs who think they actually earned their dollars and are smarter than everyone, rather than just exploiting the current political climate of extreme corporate welfare

And their business model, or viability, is not my problem.

Its as if a store was selling loss-leader products to get people in the door, and then bitches that they're buying the stuff he loses money on but aren't buying the stuff he makes money on. Well too bad, bucko, if you don't want me buying widgets that lose you money on each sale, don't sell them at that price. Your not managing to make money is no concern of mine. If you go out of business there'll be someone behind you waiting to try his hand at it.

You don't open a shop, have people come in without buying shit and expect to make money.

Trying to make money with a website as a product is stupid unless you have something amazing and a lot of luck.

What the fuck are you talking about.
Most sites don't have ads and aren't a product

>typical "we won, you lose, gtfo and never come back" attitude
That's how the world works kid, those who do the best are rewarded for their hard work. You don't have the means to produce an alternative, so until such time, you shouldn't bitch that someone is making more shekels than you.

>shitty internet entrepreneurs who think they actually earned their dollars and are smarter than everyone
You sound like you got burned one time.

>rather than just exploiting the current political climate of extreme corporate welfare
Maybe in your country, you can't speak for elsewhere.

Agreed.
The best sites are just hobby projects and/or funded by donations.

>internet is invented
>WWW is invented to share information
>Capitalists try to make money from it
>Complain they can't

NotMyFuckingProblem.gif

They shouldn't. Monetizing the web was a mistake. We should have moved to decentralized hosting and open source software. Open protocols like email and IRC instead of the walled garden locked down shit we have now.

I have zero sympathy for the websites that suffer because of my ad/coin blocking. Their business model is malicious and needs to die in a fire.

I agree but you can still make money with websites. You can use them to sell actual products/servies

Websites need to fund:
>programmer time
>intellectual property
>electricity
>server maintenance

For those, respectively:
>individuals should be granted an allowance by the government to pay for basic needs. those who make something of great material use can apply to some level of government to have more wants of theirs addressed, and those who make something of aesthetic use can expect to have others willing to share more things with them
>intellectual property shouldn't exist barring simply mentioning a person's name if you use their ideas
>sustainable power sources should be ramped up considerably, and wasteful use of electricity should be curbed; from that increased amount of power, the government would allocate the quantity given according to democracy
>for labor, automation or ditto programmer. for materials, ditto electricity

>how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?
By funding themselves.

What you're thinking is how should they make money? And they shouldn't.

>individuals should be granted an allowance by the government to pay for basic needs. those who make something of great material use can apply to some level of government to have more wants of theirs addressed, and those who make something of aesthetic use can expect to have others willing to share more things with them
Literal socialist government welfare, fuck off.
>say something the government doesn't like online
>government takes away your NEET allowance.
Nice going

>intellectual property shouldn't exist barring simply mentioning a person's name if you use their ideas
>no one should own things because I should have all the things too WHY WONT YOU SHARE

Can't even continue with your post because its pure communist garbage

Netflix doesn't have ads
Facebook doesn't have ads
They make lots of money

Tesco doesn't have ads
Walmart/Asda doesn't have ads
They make lots of money

My shitty little website that offers nothing of much interest has ads.
Doesn't make a lot of money

and no shits were given

>Facebook doesn't have ads
wrong

>Tesco doesn't have ads
>Walmart/Asda doesn't have ads
Double wrong

>My shitty little website that offers nothing of much interest
Then make it interesting.

>and no shits were given
yet you made this shitpost

tesco and asda don't have ads

>Larger news organisations
Shit content
>journalists
Shit content
>whistleblowers
Wikileaks will host that
>content creators
Shit content

Now open my image child

>asda.com
>doubleclick.net
>facebook.net
>googleadservices.com

Now open my image child

>asda.com
>no ads
>no ads
>no ads

...

Nice advert...

Ads are fine if they aren't dialed up to mega AIDS levels. This means they are unintrusive and DO NOT maliciously track the user. I suggest they do that, but the problem nowadays is that ads are so shit they cannot be trusted, even if a site uses unobtrusive ads which don't track you, how can you know and how can you trust them? You can't, they've basically poisoned the well at this point.

There are several options though:
>intrusive malware ads are dropped en masse until user trust is built up and adblockers become largely irrelevant, since ads aren't actually a problem anymore (will never happen)
>actually provide such a high quality product that people will pay for it straight-up
>use miners which are OK if the user explicitly allows it to use a certain amount of CPU time and if they're smart enough to not run on battery powered devices by default (probably wouldn't be viable if it doesn't assrape everything by default)
>fuck off

>there's no ads on these sites
>here's evidence of ads and ad scripts running
>HURRDURR NICE ADS LMAO

>use miners which are O
Stopped reading

>there's ads on the site
>says there's ads when there clearly isn't if you go to the asda.com
>hurrrdurrr i'll open the eleet hacker dev options and pretend that this screen shot shows evidence of an advert

Classic ads, basically well placed static images.

It'd extend that to saying any attempt to monetize an audience has poisoned the well, and most have done so several times. Any attempt at monetization is suspect, because they'll all invariably get taken too far, because why make some money when you could make more money? Anything that works will be used more and more until it stops working. eg, I have no illusions that coin miners will be a substitute for ads. They'll be used in addition to ads. and I'll block them just like ads.

>e-commerce
obvious
>public interest (wikipedia...)
donation, fundraising, charity, subvention
>the rest
from your pocket faggot

>That's how the world works kid, those who do the best are rewarded for their hard work.
yeah begging other rich people for handouts and begging the government for tax breaks sure is hard work

>You sound like you got burned one time.
multiple times actually, you fags are all the same

>Maybe in your country, you can't speak for elsewhere.
yes, i'm sure your country is a utopia, and it's all because you are the smartest person alive who turns everything you touch into gold right?

>Just out of curiosity, how does Sup Forums propose that websites fund themselves?

I don't mind non-cancerous ads. Still image, no animations, no half megabyte memescript to display the ad, no clickbait, no borderline offensive.
Like how ads were on the old gentoo homepage: web.archive.org/web/20120328045016/http://gentoo.org they are on the right.

On a bunch of sites I literally spend a lot of time on every day I don't even mind subscribing.