Consider this: every website where you block ads is now inaccessible to you. How did that belief work out?
Comment on Improving online advertising through product and infrastructure | The Mozilla Blog
tux0r@feddit.org 1 month agoCreators and journalists need money to survive, and currently, ad-supported viewing is necessary for that to happen.
The only way out of this is to block advertising. I, personally, think that you should not have a website if you can’t pay for it yourself, but the only acceptable kind of website income is a paywall. If you just have “better advertising”, advertising will never go away. And I hate ads.
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 1 month ago
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
You might want to consider how expensive web hosting can be, depending on the content and traffic. A belief like that can shut out a huge portion of the world from being able to even bother with a web site. Even a simple blog can get very expensive due to traffic. Maybe not expensive enough for your average 1st world individual… But that still excludes a large portion of the population with internet access.
tux0r@feddit.org 1 month ago
So? Is anyone who can’t afford one legally obliged to have a website?
d0ntpan1c@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
No, but if its prohibitively impossible to do so, people with legitimate good ideas will never be able to do anything about it. Barriers to entry only serve the wealthy.