this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
88 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
445 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Idk... Creator goes on about how ad funded internet ruined the internet and then does a hard 180 saying that he can't sustain himself without ad based internet as a content creator.

Which.... I thought that was his point? Idk very mixed messaging from him.

[–] Can_Utility@beehaw.org 30 points 1 year ago

I felt like he was very up front about how the current system, as unfriendly to users as it is, is what has made it possible for him to make a living doing what he loves to do. He even comes out at the end and says if big companies can't figure out a post-advertising business model, they'll likely die off, and that means he and people like him are out of a job, 'and that's probably the best scenario for users.' Both ideas — that ad-funded internet ruined the internet, and that ad-funded internet allowed him and thousands of people like him to make a living on that internet — can be true at the exact same time.

[–] MoogleMaestro@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, I think his point is pretty clear: No ad based content means potentially no more "influencers" or content creators, but with the up side that the internet would become healthier. He's basically acknowledging that his whole job is sustained by a business model that's not entirely healthy for the internet despite being entirely dependent on it.

[–] HQC@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I am not sure how to interpret "no more influencers" as anything but the primary upside.

Mostly that's a joke, but to be clear I do acknowledge that the same model that supports 'influencers' which I don't watch, also support creators that I do watch. On the other hand, most of the creators I care about already don't rely on ads, but accept donations via Patreon or equivalent, so maybe it wouldn't change anything after all!