Why ads are a problem

Maybe their product isn't worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

As for willingness to pay, you seem to be projecting your own selfish behavior onto others. I know quite a few counter-examples that prove people are willing to pay for content they actually value. They have embraced technology to lower costs, and have cultivated very generous audiences using places like Patron.

> only example of donations working at scale

LOL. Only if you don't look. Also, why do you think everything has to work "at scale"? Small-but-loyal audiences are fine.

2) Ads only created part of the internet. Insisting otherwise only makes you willfully ignorant.

3) Welcome to capitalism. Websites will get to find out their true value. I look forward to a lot of worthless junk going away.

I believe this is what you're doing with your comments. A few counter examples are great but we already have billions of people online constantly generating data and plenty of experiments that have shown that donations do not work.

> Also, why do you think everything has to work "at scale"?

Because the internet is at scale. I'm not talking about a specific site but rather the donation model in general. Very few actually donate and thus it cannot sustain the quality and quantity of content that is available today. A few site/podcasts/shows/whatever might be able to work with this but it will not work for the internet as we know it today.

Value is subjective, just because it might not be worth direct payment doesn't mean it's worthless (ie: Facebook). As a common example take a look at adblocking: if you don't like the ads on a site, then you should stop visiting the site. By using adblocker and continuing to go to the site, your actions show that you find value in the content but do not care to let the publisher be compensated. This is just one of many manifestations of the human behavior I've described where donations by the few does not support content for the many.

Saying that doesn't make it true. The article says otherwise, and I believe it. I really don''t understand how you think this could be true.

Also "not that big of a deal"? So you think it's fine if I quietly tap into your power lines and steal some of your electricity, as long as it's only a small amount that "isn't that big of a deal"?

> Do you get upset that articles have images in them?

Do you have a hard time understanding the differenced between the content I requested, and crap added in that has nothing to do with the content I requested, which is specifically designed to distract me from that content?

If you truly cannot see the difference here, I don't know how to help you.

> I believe you're conflating the what I mentioned about the effort involved in choosing to pay vs types of annoying ad formats.

NO, I am NOT.

The type of ad format isn't particularly relevant. Advertising - any type - is by definition designed to distract people that see them, and it takes a significant mental effort to work around these distractions.

Be aware that if you want to argue against this point, you're challenging one of the basic laws of marketing as it has been practiced for many decades.

> Actually the idea is to gain your attention.

Thank you for admitting advertising is trying to be distracting. That is, the opposite of "passive". You seem to be arguing against your previous claims.

> having to decide to pay every time you load a new page.

This is a complete straw-man argument. You're suggesting that "paying every time" is the only alternative to advertising, which is patent nonsense. Even in the case of a paywall model, nobody would "pay every time"; subscription models have always existed.

Are you going to pretend that Patreon doesn't exist? Many models of funding exist and are being used successfully.

> Everything is a vector.

If you don't understand the concept of minimizing the attack surface, you really should refrain from making security claims. Advertising is adding additional attack vectors.

Besides, it is incredibly dishonest to try to say advertising is on equal footing here. Ad networks have been the vector of choice for a long time. Some of that is because of their utter disregard for security. They are also chosen as a vector because ad networks by definition reach a wide audience.

> What tracking information and what is harming you?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you seriously ignorant of the tracking done by ad networks? Or did you miss the last few years of data breeches that expose information and the powerful new machine learning tools we have to analyze large databases?

If you are gathering information - ANY information - about what people do on the internet, you are creating a target. If you are aggregating that information - again, ANY information - across sites, even if you supposedly anonymize[1] it, you are creating datasets that are the most tempting target imaginable for insurance companies, extortionists, stalkers, and governments with national security letters.

In a sane world, you would be liable for any damage caused by that database you created.

[1] As DJB says[2], "Hashing is Magic Crypto Pixie Dust, which takes personally identifiable information, and makes it incomprehensible to the marketing department."

[2] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...

That implies "most" content has negligible value. People that offer quality content seem to have no problem getting people to donate. Just because you haven't seen this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> They certainly fail any game theoretic model. > A rationally self-interested person would not donate,

This isn't particularly relevant, as humans are not "rational actors". Even thought economists like to pretend otherwise, "Homo economicus" obviously doesn't actually exist in reality.

> Naive articles like this don't bother factoring in what the chance is that your donation will make a difference

Sure they did. You just don't like the results. Good content will usually be paid for, and junk content will go out of business, just like they should.

> most people would rather be a freeloader than a sucker.

Your politics is showing. Such a limited view is not helpful.