I mean… Yeah. I’d much rather Mozilla serve me ads that help them fund Firefox and be less reliant on Google while also being less evil than Google. If I have to choose I’ll take ads that don’t use as much data from me even if a little bit, as long as it’s not Google or meta levels
I look at the Open-Source/Foss ecosystem and see amazing projects being built, tested, and utilized. All the while lacking the advertisements that some people seem to think are pivotal.
That may also potentially be survivorship bias. IMO the only open source projects that would live to tell the tale are:
Foundational projects that are critical components in major tech stacks, having a backing in the form of funded developers or donations from companies involved in those tech stacks
Enterprise-scale projects born out of a consortium of companies
Hobby projects that the creators aren’t relying on as their sole source of income
At least two of those categories are reliant on funding from companies, which in turn relies on either their well-entrenched presence in their respective market, or their ability to market themselves effectively (ex, via advertising).
That’s understandable, primarily I would define it as being in active development that ensures it remains at least functional (for example, compatible with modern versions of their target platforms), since the main way I see projects failing is by lack of development for upkeep. One-and-done projects are possible, but change is the only constant, and factors beyond the project’s control can make it non-functional
In my opinion, the internet seeing, for example, corporate-run parts of itself go to walled gardens (something I’ve heard mentioned before in this discussion), would be fine.
Take YouTube, it is extremely entrenched to the point that when I tell some people I don’t ever actually go to YouTube[.]com, they act as if it is a life requirement I have magically shirked.
It is not. There are other platforms. There are other media.
If YouTube simply shut down tomorrow, the internet would live on. If it required a monthly subscription via and required an account, the internet would live on. Some would give in and use it, some wouldn’t, and they would put more pressure on projects such as PeerTube to succeed.
In all of this, the “internet” (A bunch of interconnected servers using the HTTP(S) protocol), is still alive. It just changed.
Let’s not convince ourself that the floor will fall out from under us because you will have content that ceases to exist, or, more likely, you just have to pay.
If it were the 80s, you could probably see similar ideas. How could tech ever be anywhere close to usable if you just used free software? Well here we are. You can. And at least for me, its damn good.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sure, sure
I mean… Yeah. I’d much rather Mozilla serve me ads that help them fund Firefox and be less reliant on Google while also being less evil than Google. If I have to choose I’ll take ads that don’t use as much data from me even if a little bit, as long as it’s not Google or meta levels
At this point if you still belive the Internet can survive without ads, you’re just being naïve.
Meaning what?
I look at the Open-Source/Foss ecosystem and see amazing projects being built, tested, and utilized. All the while lacking the advertisements that some people seem to think are pivotal.
That may also potentially be survivorship bias. IMO the only open source projects that would live to tell the tale are:
At least two of those categories are reliant on funding from companies, which in turn relies on either their well-entrenched presence in their respective market, or their ability to market themselves effectively (ex, via advertising).
This is again vague wordage. What does this mean exactly?
That’s understandable, primarily I would define it as being in active development that ensures it remains at least functional (for example, compatible with modern versions of their target platforms), since the main way I see projects failing is by lack of development for upkeep. One-and-done projects are possible, but change is the only constant, and factors beyond the project’s control can make it non-functional
deleted by creator
In my opinion, the internet seeing, for example, corporate-run parts of itself go to walled gardens (something I’ve heard mentioned before in this discussion), would be fine.
Take YouTube, it is extremely entrenched to the point that when I tell some people I don’t ever actually go to YouTube[.]com, they act as if it is a life requirement I have magically shirked.
It is not. There are other platforms. There are other media.
If YouTube simply shut down tomorrow, the internet would live on. If it required a monthly subscription via and required an account, the internet would live on. Some would give in and use it, some wouldn’t, and they would put more pressure on projects such as PeerTube to succeed.
In all of this, the “internet” (A bunch of interconnected servers using the HTTP(S) protocol), is still alive. It just changed.
Let’s not convince ourself that the floor will fall out from under us because you will have content that ceases to exist, or, more likely, you just have to pay.
If it were the 80s, you could probably see similar ideas. How could tech ever be anywhere close to usable if you just used free software? Well here we are. You can. And at least for me, its damn good.