Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I came here to raise this. On balance, I think it is reasonable if done openly, as is "turn off adblock or pay" initiatives. The fact of the matter is, we have optimized paying carriers rather than the actual item.

Essentially we pay large postage fees for a package, the package itself being what we want and mostly unaffiliated with carriers.

So while I wouldn't turn adblock off to read an article, I understand why a publisher would want payment for their services, especially if a 3rd party is being paid and not them.

Adblock tries to strike a balance by permitting "reasonable" ads. It is hard to do and I am not sure how well they succeed but they are up front about this. This is an extension of the model described above except it tries to be a reputation broker.

Tracking by most companies has made the internet much less useful in a lot of ways. I connect to google, linked in, twitter and facebook beacons so tgey can track my preferences, then i am served the huge modal asking if I want to buy x or subscribe (or just taken to appstore out of nowhere on mobile) then the content loads but the 1/3 screen banner advert is clicked accidentally on mobile because i cant scroll.

So yes, if there was a universal $20 content fee, people would pay (and there sort of is and they sort of do) but they end up being a power broker.

Hard problem



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: