It’s fine for you if you like it. The problem is that ubiquitous ads pollute the attention of those of us who don’t like it.
Would have been a much different (and better) world if the early web established micro-payments as a way of funding content and platforms. For example I’m happy to pay for YouTube premium to avoid the bloody ads, though I respect the preferences of those who enjoy the ads…
^
Exactly Ads are 100% fine I just want the option to pay to avoid them.
Like black mirror I think had an episode or some movie had it where you watch an ad instead of paying for a bus ticket and that’s totally fine, cuz right now there is no alternative to paying for a bus ticket.
Send a pitch to Meta's board or executive suite describing how much you and your cohort would like to pay in aggregate for an ad-free experience for social media, then the rest of the internet based business as you wish.
There are absolutely alternatives, you won't use them because few others that you care about are on them. Similarly, free is the best price next to being paid.
Opened and closed a FB account in 2012 - that's my customer lifetime journey with Meta products. Like I was saying, I have no interest in ad-supported products. And I would say that the burden would be on meta to persuade me why I should use a product I don't want - rather than for me to be so naive as to try to convince a massive corporate monolith to change its business model just for me. Also haven't watched ad-supported TV since paying for streaming became available. Those of you who like ads, please enjoy them - and the rest of us will do something else - this is what makes a market!
They don't sound upset at all to me. In fact, they are saying they are fine with you having your world view. To be fair, you acted upon your feelings enough to engage in discussion.
Please don't claim victimhood (“censorship”) when your comments are flagged. The guidelines apply equally to everyone, and the flags on your comments are from good community members who have a track record of flagging responsibly, to help keep the discussions healthy.
HN’s purpose is to be a place for intellectual curiosity, not ideological battle or railing against things you find disagreeable.
If by "intelectual curiosity ' you mean groupthink and bias that flags opposing points of view members find uncomfortable, not the honest unbiased application of rules.
Flag-bombing is a real issues on HN in case you didn't know.
What's the point of a board that doesn't allow all viewpoints and just smells it's own farts?
We routinely turn off flags and unkill comments that have been wrongly flagged. Anyone can email us and ask us to review a flagged comment.
We work very hard to make HN a place where the spectrum of viewpoints can be expressed and debated. Just a few days ago via email support I made a special effort to persuade someone to stick with HN when they felt their views are too much in the minority. I would gladly do that daily to keep discussion on HN diverse and interesting.
We'd happily have you share your views if you can present them in a way that's interesting and kind to other community members. But a clear line is crossed when people approach discussions with a hostile, aggressive mentality, and that's what's been apparent in too many of your comments.
The guidelines, our stated goals, and expected behavioral standards on HN have been consistent for years. Everyone is expected to adhere to the guidelines, otherwise we have to ban them, to prevent the place from burning to the ground.
It's only by consistently doing this that we keep HN a place that people want to visit to discover and discuss interesting topics.
