Hacker News Reader

Not all sites need to survive.

If I have a business that exists and makes money but is horrible, then I shouldn’t want to do that business.

“I have to shovel pop up ads and trash to people or I won’t be able to make my Tesla payments” is not a good reason.

Telemarketers have a revenue stream. Transatlantic slave trade had a revenue stream. Etc etc (yes, businessinsider is exactly the same as slave ships /s)

I wasn't justifying shitty sites or business practices. just saying it's paying the bills some how. May it's charity maybe it's from someone's salary.

If you want mostly unbiased opinions about products pay for consumer reports or something like that.

No, not all sites need some revenue stream to survive. There are excellent sites that have existed for decades without monetizing at all.

yep the exception that proves the rule.

Are you able to provide support for this claim?

entropy, eventually you need to pay for stuff some how. even if you run your own server it's going to break.

I'm not saying there aren't charity sites.

I guess I should have said "all sites have costs" and they need paid somehow.

And if all a sites users are doing is taking then eventually the owner of the site is going to tire of it.