I don't like ads either, but what is the alternative? Since content costs money to produce and host, there must be a revenue source somewhere. Is the solution paywalls?
Personally, I'm fine paying for some ad-free content. But Mozilla wants much of the internet to be free (as in free beer) and open, so an internet which replaces all advertising with paywalls is not their vision. Advertising without tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers sounds better than advertising with tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers.
I'd love for their to be another driver, but so far nobody has come with a broadly applicable revenue model other that paying for content or viewing ads. Suggesting that "just delete advertising" without providing an alternative is feasible is patently false and everything that follows is compromised.
Perhaps one day we will live in a post-capitalist utopia, but in the meantime making online advertising less shitty would be nice.
The world simply does not need profit-motivated online content. The internet can be a place for physical business to interact with customers and individuals/groups to share their ideas and art. None of that requires ad funding. The only thing that does require advertising for revenue (and is of any value) is reporting work, and they're struggling in the current model anyway. What great conveniences are you worried about losing? Social media sites? Forums existed without any funding but donations. Maps? OSM and Apple Maps exist. YouTube? Free video hosting is more expensive to operate than other media, but I'd bet nerds would rig up some near-seamless webtorrent protocol for embedding and sharing video with distributed load. The people making YouTube/online content? They're mostly fan-supported via patron relationships anyway. If advertising were banned overnight there would be maybe a month of readjustments, a few tech companies would have to pivot, and then life would go on but be a bit less shitty.
> Advertising without tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers sounds better than advertising with tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers.
It does! But that can be achieved with contextual advertising rather than advertising that relies on spying on everybody.
Also, I don't think that Mozilla's proposal eliminates the tracking and surveillance. It just makes the browser itself the one doing the tracking and surveillance.
How much of the "content" (what a disgustingly dystopian word to describe people's creative output) that you "consume" (ugh again) only today is paid and how much is already made for free and just hosted on platforms that profit from it?
> I'd love for their to be another driver
There is. Humans are literally driven by their creative urges.
Personally, I'm fine paying for some ad-free content. But Mozilla wants much of the internet to be free (as in free beer) and open, so an internet which replaces all advertising with paywalls is not their vision. Advertising without tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers sounds better than advertising with tracking, surveillance and shady data brokers.
I'd love for their to be another driver, but so far nobody has come with a broadly applicable revenue model other that paying for content or viewing ads. Suggesting that "just delete advertising" without providing an alternative is feasible is patently false and everything that follows is compromised.
Perhaps one day we will live in a post-capitalist utopia, but in the meantime making online advertising less shitty would be nice.