This kills me, and you're right - there's no escaping the ads even with a sub. Take online journalism as an example.

We're already being double-billed. Expensive subscription news like WSJ, Bloomberg and it's been a while but even FT require ad blockers even if you're subscribed.. If you're not subscribed you don't even see the ads because you can't see the full article.

It's wild that we've normalized this. There's no longer any argument in favor of an ad model when you're paying 20-30 dollars a month already - in this case, one wonders how journalism survives if they need that AND the ad revenue to pay the bills! It feels more like greed than "support."

▲

smikhanov 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be honest, in the pre-internet era, paid paper copy of FT had ads too. The delivery mechanisms for ads in the internet era are trillion times nastier and more annoying, of course. By the standards of today’s web, the print ad for Cartier on the second page of paper FT looks almost classy, interesting to read.

▲

malfist 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But there's a big difference. The paper copy didn't harvest data from you, didn't infect you, didn't spy on you or steal resources from your computer or internet bandwidth.

All the advertiser knew about you was you were a subscriber to FT, and maybe what the _average_ demographic of an FT subscriber was. Nothing about you personally.

	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The paper copy did do that, just not as individualized. People would choose which publications to put their ads in based on data collected about their subscribers. The job of ad men has always been just as much about were to put the ad as much as what the ad was.

▲

phyzix5761 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was shocked to find out tonight that WSJ's net profit margin was just 3.2% in 2024. I would have thought it was a lot more. Also, surprisingly Walmart's net profit margin is only 2.85% for 2025. You would think these huge companies are making huge profits.

▲

fsflover 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Perhaps the actual solution is to ban ads through regulation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

▲

prmoustache 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I am all for it but it would be hard to enforce. Ads are already hidden everywhere. Someone "review" a product? Most of the time it is a hidden ad even if the reviewer hasn't been paid with money for that. Watches a movie or a video clip? A lots of products are advertised through close ups on the logos, etc.

▲

npongratz 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Regulation is theater, effectively, thanks to regulatory capture.

	▲	malfist 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is a false argument. Regulations are effective. When was the last time you breathed in second hand smoke while eating dinner? Or inhaled lead from a passing car? Or asbestos from your neighbor's new house? Defeatism will always be defeated
	▲	danaris 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For now, it is, yes; but we must both plan for a future when that might not be the case, and advocate for effective regulations regardless.

▲

plagiarist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't pay for any content that has ads in it, full stop. I decided this a while ago when I noticed how many full page ads were in magazines. I would cancel a subscription over this.

	▲	browningstreet 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I pay a handsome subscription sum for The Wire music magazine. The ads are an important resource in a niche marketplace.