> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads".

Or in the case of X, how about just let me browse without creating an account? Likewise with meta/FB, IG, etc. The reality is businesses and other services post here, share status updates, etc. often before their main pages. I'd like to read those, and yet I have no desire to actually post or interact with any of the content, just read it. I should not need an account for that.

▲

WarmWash an hour ago | parent [-]

Then the correct action is to either create a competitor, or point money/ad views at a competitor.

But like I said, the internet is largely unwilling to do this. You won't make a competitor that is a charity, and the internet at large won't point dollars and ad-views at a nascent start-up in the space.

▲

kennywinker a minute ago | parent | next [-]

> But like I said, the internet is largely unwilling to do this

Sorry, what? The internet is unwilling to create twitter clones?

Bluesky, mastodon, pleroma, misskey, diaspora, threads, fucking truth social… there is no shortage of twitter alternatives.

▲

thewebguyd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

None of that has to do with blocking the content behind a login wall. X can still serve ads just fine to non-logged in users. I'm against the site running ads, at all, I'm against mandatory account creation. The internet ran ad supported without mandatory accounts for years.

	▲	arjie 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		True, and Britain ruled the waves with wooden warships for a long time. But if they went back to wooden warships they would not rule the waves. The world has changed. Adblock, archive.is, third party mirrors all exist today.
	▲	WarmWash 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can rest assured, 100%, that account walls are also there for money. I'd be tickled if you argue that corporations create friction for any other reason than money.