Remix.run Logo
saghm 8 hours ago

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

TZubiri 5 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

tomhow 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You've been asked before to make your points without swipes. Please make the effort to observe the guidelines; the only reason this is a place people want to discuss things is that we have them and others make the effort to observe them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're assuming 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

Even if they have 2, they can still make even more money by also including 3, so almost certainly will do so.

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

Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free."

People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side.

Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.

encom 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

tomhow 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. It just makes things worse.