> In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today.
People's reluctance to pay and their aversion to advertising is, I think, understandable and reasonable.
It is just a quirk of the time period that we find ourselves in that there is any "moral" dilemma attached to this situation.
The reason people perceive it as a moral situation is because we've established a society in which one must extract money out of others in order to survive.
Our welfare system is not yet currently capable of providing people with the basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, healthcare, education, and equal access to opportunities.
If it were, you would find that the cost of content really would approach $0. If, for example, artists did not have to worry about any of the previously mentioned necessities (if it was just given to them), then most of them would probably be perfectly happy to continue to produce content for free and without advertising.
I know, as a software developer and entrepreneur, that I personally would be happy to not charge anything for any software that I create (or charge very little), if these basics were taken care of.
As more people continue to lose their jobs to robots and automation, we will (if we can avoid destroying ourselves), move in that direction.
> Our welfare system is not yet currently capable of providing people with the basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, healthcare, education, and equal access to opportunities.
Even if the welfare system was capable of giving these, people would want more. We can examine this by looking current people model. Their desire to earn more is not decreasing when they reach the minimum or optimum level of necessities.
I think the problem is life standards that emphasized to us by ads. The goal will be always higher than our necessities. Because, this is the only way to keep alive current economic system, balance of production and consumption.
So, I don't believe giving more to people solves anything. But I do believe, people's desire should be left to themselves by standing a position against all ads or things serve to this purpose.
> I think the problem is life standards that emphasized to us by ads.
Heh, if that's true, that's another reason for folks to use adblockers. ;)
> So, I don't believe giving more to people solves anything.
When it comes to solving problems, the evidence is rather strong. Giving people more food, shelter, medicine, health care, education (even plain old money), results in striking benefits to individuals and communities.
This should not be surprising, but if you need studies, there are plenty:
I am trying to say, while you are giving people what they need, also you are(or others) saying that to people what they have is not enough and they need more to survive.
But of course people would motivated more if they didn't have to think about their necessities.
I dread the day where the only content available is what artists can produce independently. Movies like Interstellar, or the TV show Lost, are by their nature very expensive, and it would be a great loss if this type of content could no longer recoup its expenses. I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content.
> I hope there's a place in the future for both indie work and expensive "blockbuster" content.
Certainly. You'll note that as individual expenses go down, group expenses should go down as well since employers will no longer have to cover their employees cost of living. Prices of everything will continue to plummet (as they have been). If anything, they should be able to do more on the same budget.
EDIT: You might think "Well who's paying for all those basics? Surely that will imply higher taxes."
Compare the cost of a 1GHz CPU today to the cost 10 years ago. The price went down and yet taxes did not play a significant role in that. The basics could be covered by taxes, but they need not be. The price of basics goes down over time naturally as technology advances and builds off of the knowledge and efficiencies of the technology before it. Taxes can be used to accelerate this process, but they are not necessary for it to happen in the first place. Free, clean drinking water was not even a thing a few centuries ago. Now it is everywhere in first world countries. The same should happen with other necessities.
Gets me thinking about Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. Where people are banding together to maintain Walt Disney World in a post scarcity society.
I'd be interested to know what the Internet is like for folks in countries like Sweden where welfare systems are far more capable.
For example, do Swedish websites also rely heavily on advertising? How does the economy of Swedish content (in Swedish markets) compare to American content in America?
BTW: I should be clear that I am not advocating any particular type of welfare system. It does not even have to be government managed. The important thing is that a system exist to free people's minds from the mundane details of basic survival.
As such, a welfare system may allow capitalism to function better. Because it makes it easier for disgruntled employees to start a competing company, or reduce the worry about companies shutting down (though you may get a chain reaction depending on its size etc).
People's reluctance to pay and their aversion to advertising is, I think, understandable and reasonable.
It is just a quirk of the time period that we find ourselves in that there is any "moral" dilemma attached to this situation.
The reason people perceive it as a moral situation is because we've established a society in which one must extract money out of others in order to survive.
Our welfare system is not yet currently capable of providing people with the basic necessities: food, shelter, clothing, clean water, healthcare, education, and equal access to opportunities.
If it were, you would find that the cost of content really would approach $0. If, for example, artists did not have to worry about any of the previously mentioned necessities (if it was just given to them), then most of them would probably be perfectly happy to continue to produce content for free and without advertising.
I know, as a software developer and entrepreneur, that I personally would be happy to not charge anything for any software that I create (or charge very little), if these basics were taken care of.
As more people continue to lose their jobs to robots and automation, we will (if we can avoid destroying ourselves), move in that direction.