• refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    That doesn’t mean we need to cater to their business model at the technical level.

    From what I have seen, it does… if you want to have a popular site that stays running well, and don’t charge your users for access.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        You might be right, but I don’t think that’s a problem they’re going to solve all on their own, meanwhile the rest of users will suffer.

          • refalo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            that is the only current accepted alternative to paying for website access, yes

            if you have better ideas though, we’d all love to hear them

            • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Your stance appears to be roughly “we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so let’s keep doing objectively harmful things”.

              The simplest idea is not to accept the premise that an objectively harmful business model that only brings value to a shrinking minority is acceptable. Maybe commercialism of every part of the web isn’t something that humanity needs. As for paying for access, there are plenty of extant models that have never been attempted with any seriousness.

              Then again, the whole Linux ecosystem is able to thrive without bending the knee to the ad industry. There’s no reason that a web browser cannot also thrive without ads except for a lack of desire to do so.