This isn't entirely wrong. Without payment, content is much more sparse and lower budget and ad blockers reduce revenue. Of course, the real problem isn't so much ads as the ads being insufferable and far too often an avenue for malware. And this itself is a result of execs misunderstanding online ads; online ads can track engagement but often these are massively weighted at the expense of the original purpose of ads which was exposure and this weighting leads to ads being made more and more intrusive and annoying to target metrics to make out of touch executives happy.
Not so sure if the content quality was better. Prior to the dot com boom (and bust) the internet had very little content compared to now. The highlight was practically IRC. Today you can stream 4k content off the web and it's much easier to find content and there's way more of it.
Ads suck, I'm not going to argue that. I included some reasons why ads suck in my previous post. But it's hard to argue that they aren't contributing to making better quality content and making it accessible. Just because some shit exists out there doesn't mean the entirety of the modern internet is a failure. Just learn how to apply some filters to get the good stuff. That's what scored.co's algorithm is after all, it's a filter to help us find quality content.
And it would be incredibly naive to think the admins of this site weren't putting in all of this effort to make a functional and attractive site if making some coin by selling it off (to someone that would put ads on it) wasn't on the table.
Good. He's insufferable, especially when he compared ad blockers to piracy
This isn't entirely wrong. Without payment, content is much more sparse and lower budget and ad blockers reduce revenue. Of course, the real problem isn't so much ads as the ads being insufferable and far too often an avenue for malware. And this itself is a result of execs misunderstanding online ads; online ads can track engagement but often these are massively weighted at the expense of the original purpose of ads which was exposure and this weighting leads to ads being made more and more intrusive and annoying to target metrics to make out of touch executives happy.
It's a complex topic.
Not so sure if the content quality was better. Prior to the dot com boom (and bust) the internet had very little content compared to now. The highlight was practically IRC. Today you can stream 4k content off the web and it's much easier to find content and there's way more of it.
Ads suck, I'm not going to argue that. I included some reasons why ads suck in my previous post. But it's hard to argue that they aren't contributing to making better quality content and making it accessible. Just because some shit exists out there doesn't mean the entirety of the modern internet is a failure. Just learn how to apply some filters to get the good stuff. That's what scored.co's algorithm is after all, it's a filter to help us find quality content.
And it would be incredibly naive to think the admins of this site weren't putting in all of this effort to make a functional and attractive site if making some coin by selling it off (to someone that would put ads on it) wasn't on the table.