• Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why would anyone pay for viewing a website?

    Or to put it another way,

    Why would anyone pay for using a service that costs money to provide?

    • chalupapocalypse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      We were spoiled when the web started, but now that ad revenue has dried up, someone has to pay for hosting and content creators to eat.

      I’m not a fan of giving every website $5 a month, there has to be a better way.

      • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I think the Brits have it right with BBC. It’s not perfect but everyone pays a tiny bit and it funds news and dedicated programming

        What we really need is to reinstate the Fairness Doctorine and stare straight at fox

        • zabadoh@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          That’s what NPR and PBS were supposed to be, but they’re so perpetually underfunded that they’re almost commercial stations. edit: with corporate sponsors and viewer funding pledge drives.

          Some public stations have been taken over by right wing orgs that came in with massive funding.

          Gift link to SF Chronicle article
          archived version

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Advertisers did it to themselves.

        Pop ups, pop unders, loud autoplay, focus stealing, taking up ungodly amounts of screen real estate, etc, etc.