• electriccars@startrek.websiteOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I too dream of a world where we’ve moved on from capitalism to a socialist utopia like is in the United Federation of Planets, but we are not currently in that world. So until that time, we all have to earn a living to pay our landlords and feed ourselves.

    For most things we are given a choice between ads or paying, and I almost always choose paying for no ads as I can’t stand them either. But until developers can live without bills and only do work for free because they enjoy it, our choice remains pay for no ads or be served ads. So I paid for no ads.

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I deleted the original comment because I found out that there was more to the Sync story than just advertising, and I realized that my comment wasn’t up to snuff. I didn’t mean to deceive anyone.

      But until developers can live without bills and only do work for free because they enjoy it, our choice remains pay for no ads or be served ads.

      That was exactly my point though: we do not have only two choices [(1) to pay for no ads and (2) to be served ads]. I listed some some alternative monetization schemes that don’t encourage consumerism. Namely, premium support for paying users, custom feature requests for users willing to pay the development cost, or luxury features that, while nice to have, aren’t necessary for the functioning of the app.

      This point was probably in response to the section of the deleted comment where I argued that stuff that is done only for money probably shouldn’t happen at all. I stand by that. However, I do recognize the need for developers to eat. (I thought I said as much in the deleted comment.) For this reason, I use all sorts of software that I have paid for, and will continue to do so [2]. However, I will not pay a developer for their software if the functionality they’re selling me is “not having ads,” because ads shouldn’t exist.

      I shouldn’t have to pay for my software not to kick me in the balls; similarly, I shouldn’t have have to pay for my software not to show me ads. Unlike being kicked in the balls [1], every waking moment of my life up until recently has been crammed with ads.

      There are an infinite number of ways to make money that don’t require advertising, and I would be willing to pay for them in general [2]. Hell, I’ll be willing to donate for no reward [2]. I’m not against making money in an arbitrary way (at least under current conditions), but I most certainly oppose advertising as a specific way of making money.

      [1] I’m not “into” that, but in case it isn’t clear, I would rather be kicked in the balls than see one more godforsaken advertisement. I cannot stress enough how much I hate advertising.

      [2] …once I have a non-zero income.

      • settoloki@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know you’re not paying for “no ads” right? You’re simply using an alternative payment method. If somebody can’t afford something you’re suggesting we exclude them? Make it paid for only? The ads serve as payment for those without the means or are just unwilling to pay and still get the same options as everyone else. For someone that hates capitalism you’re sure good at preaching it.

        • Misconduct@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whaaaat noooo. Silly. The dev should just cater to people with money or quit their source of income and be happy… Or something?

      • electriccars@startrek.websiteOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Instead of seeing it as a charge to remove ads, maybe look at it as buying the ad free app from the dev? That’s how I see it. And giving people the option to use the app for free with ads is IMO a decent trade off.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          maybe look at it as buying the ad free app from the dev?

          I would rather just give the dev money for literally nothing if it allows everyone else an ad-free experience. Literally the second I get a non-zero income, I’ll begin donating to FOSS projects.

          And giving people the option to use the app for free with ads is IMO a decent trade off.

          I mean it’s a better tradeoff than “pay vs. be excluded”, but I don’t think people fully realize the tradeoff they’re making: time is a lot more valuable than money in my view. No matter how much money you throw at the problem, you will eventually run out of time and die. Your time is precious! If that’s the tradeoff you want to make then it would be wrong of me to stop you, but I really wish that people would stop and think “do I really want to spend my finite time on this miserable planet on this?”.

          I’ve spent more than enough of my time being bored by advertisements, and even as I try to remove them from my life, people close to me insist that I waste my time on ads because they want to show me something but they were too lazy to install an adblocker. Ads are constantly being blasted from my parents’ and grandmother’s TV’s, they invade our computers, they even talk about ads at the dinner table. It breaks my heart.

          I know that my anti-advertisement position is a bit extreme, but I feel like I have to push back against the constant intrusions of capitalism into our personal lives, advertising being the primary front of this battle. Of course I’m willing to agree to disagree, but I still feel it necessary to debate this.