Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxencecornet | Hacker News Reader

>To put it bluntly, that is their problem, not mine.

This reminds me of my friends that used to download games of thepiratebay because the gaming industry was a "flawed business model", but were still expecting content to be produced

If you don't support content creators with money, how can you expect content to be produced ? Content creators need to eat too, especially indie ones

>Based on the egregious attacks on privacy we've seen

I like how Brave tackle the privacy issue by displaying only privacy-friendly ads from Brave publishers network while giving a way for users to contribute towards content creator with the built-in tip feature. And this is a opt-in feature, so if you hate ads, you just don't have to opt-in and can still enjoy a fast and privacy-focused browser

I've ditched chrome 2 weeks ago, not going back anytime soon

View on HN

> Content creators need to eat too, especially indie ones

The vast majority of the World's photographers are amateurs, who derive little or no income from their hobby. Yet they collectively produce stunning photos that are amongst the best ever taken.

Why can't websites be the same? Like they were in the 90s. Why must side-projects monetise ASAP instead of being a hobby?

Perhaps Gmail wouldn't exist in that World, but Fastmail would. And postfix, dovecot, sendmail too.

Depends on what you do for a living. If you have an unrelated job/source of income, then yes, your site and your content can purely be a labour of love. It's an ideal aspiration, but it may not be feasible when EVERY Tom, Dick and Harry wants to have a site or produce content because a large proportion of people have poor or no income. It is also the case that not all content is 'free' to produce (except time & energy) like a blogpost. A news site for example needs to pay real money to employ people. Same with another SaaS solution. How will the creators recoup the expenses if they can't charge direct money or show ads?

You need an ideal world of universal basic income, healthcare and a reasonable standard of living for all if you want people to abandon all ideas of monetising their activities. Sadly we're very far from that world.

>"If you don't support content creators with money, how can you expect content to be produced ? Content creators need to eat too, especially indie ones"

They can throw content at me willy-nilly, but they can't expect me to watch it. I simply let my browser do the filtering, rather than my eyeballs. I also default-deny all 3rd-party frames and scripts, due to security concerns. That alone happens to filter out the majority of ads, all by itself.

This situation is not at all comparable to copyright infringement, where you have to actively seek out the content in question.

Besides, I would never click any ad anyway, no matter if it's a simple text ad or a spinning, jumping, music-playing animated pop-up monstrosity. Never.

But I do support content creators, most often through buying their games on Steam/GOG, though direct purchases on Bandcamp or through Patreon.

However the movie/TV show segment is missing a similarly accessible service. Netflix/HBO/etc. all limit my region to a very reduced catalogue, and they implement overly-strict DRM that prevents me from actually using their services without rebooting to my (gaming-only) Win10 install.

At least Spotify works brilliantly on Linux. The client may be a relatively heavy Electron app, but it works.

>"I like how Brave tackle the privacy issue by displaying only privacy-friendly ads from Brave publishers network"

I don't trust them, because I distrust the entire advertising and marketing industry on principle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com