The idea feels like sci-fi because you’re so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.
The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn’t been valid for decades.
OTA tv would no longer be possible, nor radio AM or FM.
Newspapers (what is left of them) would no longer be possible, neither wouild magazines.
A good deal of the internet is supported by ads too.
If you are willing to give up everything that is supported by ads, I suppose it could work.
I sometimes wonder about this. If a company can’t stay afloat without being paid for by advertisements, if their product can’t make enough money on its own to keep the company working, then is that product that important?
I appreciate it doesn’t work that way.
I just think if taxes could pay for water, gas, electric, healthcare, roads and infrastructure etc, then maybe we dont really need a fridge that can make a shopping list for us whilst i play doom on the screen.
Maybe we dont need slap chops and shakeweights.
Maybe we dont need all the crap out there that just isnt important.
Does my phone really need a folding screen or web access? Do we really need social media? Or youtube? In some cases, maybe, yes. But in the majority? No. I dont think we do.
Lol.
You are aware that newspapers and magazines currently exist that are entirely behind paywalls right?
Both private subscriptions exist, as does government funding.
It is entirely possible to exist in a world that both has the BBC and has The Guardian…
You can call the cover price on a physical newspaper or magazine a paywall but it’s a bit odd…
either governments and/or individuals would need to support them, it’s hardly impossible
There is state funded news media called European Broadcasting Union, which can do whatever without ads.
Yet their flagship television program, the Eurovision Song Contest, is still being sponsored.
Well, then broadcasters might be beholden to the whims of the government. Certain content might be promoted, and other content suppressed.
Because that absolutely doesn’t happen now, it just removes the corporate middle man
It’s not a bad point, and also highlights how we’re simultaneously spoiled for “free” platforms, while we’re surveilled for content and metrics, and bombarded by general and targeted advertising.
It’s like, imagine a world where there was a water fountain at the corner of every street, every parking lot, and every bus stop. How convenient that would be! But every time you walked near one they would squawk out a little ad.
Sure without the ads, you wouldn’t have the water fountains. But given the choice, I’d rather put up with the inconvenience of having to carry a water bottle when I’m out for a long time.
To me the choice seems obvious. Maybe to some people the ads don’t feel like such a intrusion, though?
There is no mechanism by which OTA television can surveil you.
Large corporate owned would be impossible. What you would see are more locally small businesses that get more customers. However things would be more expensive overall at a glance. But I bet we would see general living go up for all.
Well yeah, less money leaving local economies.
They’re getting way more money from stealing and selling data than ads anyway and really, TV and Radio only need to exist over the air for emergency or government stations so no income is needed. We shut off 3G, freeing up those radio and TV bands would be no problem.
I don’t pay for cable.
I get 117 over the air television stations In Chicago, I could get more with a better antenna.
They receive ZERO data about me or my watching habits, no way to steal it.