I started to notice that more sites are turning into paywalls, and I don’t like that and would prefer ads over subscriptions.

I am curious, what does the general community think about that?

  • Kintarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    I would rather have ads. If I were to subscribe to every website that asked me to subscribe I would be paying $1,000 a month.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’d accept paywalls If I could pay for a ‘package’ where I have access for all these paywalled websites and each gets money proportional to how often I’ve used them. There’s no way I am going to pay for all these separately.

    But there’s no such thing, so I just block ads, and whenever I see a paywalled website I just close it.

  • BitSound@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    False dichotomy, I’d rather see other funding models like Patreon/Kickstarter. Paying gets you early access/bonus stuff/whatever, and you don’t need intrusive technologies like ads/paywalls.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, I want to pay you directly. I, admittedly, pirate things. When those things are good, I make an effort to go send money to the creator directly. Sometimes it’s hard, especially with things like books. I don’t want to buy it on Amazon. And unless someone is self-published, they’re getting peanuts. I’d much rather Venmo an author money direct. When Radiohead released In Rainbows way back when and put it out for “pay what you want,” I gave them five bucks I think.

      I understand it can’t always be like that, and that the people between a content creator and me do serve some purpose.

  • Lucy :3@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 month ago

    I can block ads 100% reliably, and haven’t seen one, except in streams where the streamer had to watch one, or someone else’s device, in years. Paywalls are much harder to circumvent and need a whole plethora of extensions and 3rd party sites, instead of just uBlock + FF.

    • Dot.@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The question assumes that you will have to experience whatever you choose, so without ad blocking, what would you choose?

  • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I wound not mind ads if they met the following conditions (in no particular order).

    • Actually vet them, no scams and viruses.
    • minimal obstruction to what I’m there for. A bilboard on the side of the highway is fine, but when they put in the road, there’s a problem.
    • Mix it up. YouTube playing the same ad 500 times in a row is obnoxious.
    • No yelling/loud shit. Play your ad, don’t blow out my speakers.
    • If on a silent website, video ads must be auto muted.
    • if I’m on data or a metered network, don’t auto play ads and keep the total data usage to a minimum.
    • Medical and health ads aren’t allowed. You can have PSAs about conditions and that there are treatment options, but it should your doctor researching and recommending specific medicine not a patient going in with some ad.
    • NutinButNet
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Add political ads to the last one too.

      99% of the time it’s either an outright lie or stretched exaggeration of the truth. No one is getting any correct information from a political ad except either side’s specific spin on it and it causes a lot of average people to incorrectly believe they are informed on who and what they are voting on that they don’t need to do more due diligence before heading to the polls.

      Also favors rich politicians and more well funded campaigns over less well off politicians and less well funded organizations and causes.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ads, because there are too many separate sites implementing paywalls, I don’t like any of them enough more than the others to subscribe.

    Reader supported without subscription model is my favorite though - I will and have thrown $5 to Wikipedia, the Guardian, etc. If there was some monthly umbrella one I might consider it, or a $0.25 pay per article but absolutely not $100 a year for one site absolutely no.

    Basically I think my overall budget for all sites would be sustainable at $10/month or so, sure. But not that much for ONE site, no.

  • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It depends on the implementation, in both cases. I can somewhat tolerate:

    • ads that are visually distinct from the actual content, not personalised or targetted, not obstrusive or obnoxious
    • paywalls that apply to recent news, but don’t get in your way while you’re looking for older stuff

    Go past that and I’m avoiding your ads with uBlock and your paywalls with archive links. And, more importantly: there are other financing methods, such as Patreon.

  • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    I wouldn’t mind paying but once more and more site adopt the subscribtion model, then prices like $10 a month becomes unsustainable when you need dozens of subscribtions. I believe that microtransactions are the future of the internet. All content should cost for you to view but only a little bit so that it adds up to like 20 - 50 bucks a month and the money goes mostly to the creators rather than platform.

  • Nightsoul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ads over pay wall BUT with the option to pay to remove ads for a reasonable price. Then I have a way of supporting the content of I enjoy it enough