[renholder]

>But online ads and the technology that makes them work have played a considerable part in the development of almost every aspect of what we’ve come to enjoy as the free and open internet of today.

Online ads and free and open internet are not synonymous and I really wish that people would stop trying to equate them as such. The pervasive advertising systems that are running today (e.g.: Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc.) aren't running to make the internet free and open but to squeeze out more profit margins for their respective shareholders and nothing more.

Were online ads the cause of the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet? I'd argue it was actually pictures, graphics, movies, etc. and the desire to be able to consume those at a reasonable rate that caused the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet.

How did advertising play a role in the development of that portion of the free and open internet? (Genuinely asking, in case I'm missing something here.)

[keerthiko]

Yes this. Most people who work outside software development and several within, are convinced that they have access to free internet services only because they are willing to tolerate ads.

Ads ≠ "free" services, and "free" services ≠ ads.

["free" in scare quotes to refer to not paying money per usage or to gain access to usage, but you may be paying in other ways]

Counter examples are public libraries (no ads but "free") and cable television (not "free" yet ads).

[simonh]

He didn't say that in principle the only way to make money on the internet was through ads. He's saying that in practice most (not all) of the services people actually use on the internet for free (at no direct cost to themselves) are in fact paid for by advertising.

As an observation, I think that's hard to argue with.

[UK-Al05]

"public libraries (no ads but "free")" - They're not free are they?

[merpnderp]

I'm not sure libraries are a good counter example. They're less free than "free" internet, because they cost real money from the user in the form of taxes. If you asked someone if they'd rather have their library plastered with ads and get their $50/year back in county/city taxes that goes to the library, many/most would likely say yes.

[isostatic]

Obviously you pay in other ways. When Tesco have an advert, they have to charge more to pay for that advert. The money still comes from me, the person shopping at Tesco.

[manigandham]

He never said they were synonymous. He also mentions ads - and the technology that makes them work - have played a part. Perhaps you should read the sentence you quoted again.

Advertising pays for most content on the internet, that's the "free" part as most consumers experience it. The rest is about the technical advances that have been made in building out modern adtech companies and infrastructure, and what those companies have then gone on to contribute afterwards.

[sametmax]

We had plenty of content on the web, if you make user count / content amount ratio, before it was overloaded with ads.

I spent hours a day on the net in 2000, and we had very few ads.

Even when google started showing ads, it was very discreet. No pop ups, modals, auto playing videos, invasive trackers and fake comments.

[jonathanstrange]

I can only speak for myself but I'd be happy to get my 90s Internet back. The Internet was much better before companies grabbed their share of it and eroded standards.

[isostatic]

Before or after Eternal September?

[richardwhiuk]

In what world was either dial-up, or high-speed internet free? You have to pay for a connection.

If you don't want to pay for the content, it needs to be funded in some manner - donations or ads - we haven't found any other business models.

[moreira]

> If you don't want to pay for the content, it needs to be funded in some manner - donations or ads - we haven't found any other business models.

I'd argue that it doesn't actually need to be funded at all. The internet and plenty of content on it existed prior to any advertising. People still talked on the internet, and they still put up their own content, even when there was no money to be made. Bloggers would still blog without ads. And we're right now using HN - a free service with free content provided by users, without ads or tracking.

Funding only matters in a worldview where everything you do has to somehow turn a profit and grow to a gigantic scale to bring in even more profit. There was a time when people on the internet weren't looking at it like "how can I get rich from this".

[Valmar]

Online ads are a very invasive business model that only penalizes the end-user, and rarely benefits them.

Especially when ads are often nasty vectors for malware.

[simonh]

>(e.g.: Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc.) aren't running to make the internet free and open but to squeeze out more profit margins for their respective shareholders and nothing more.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" - Adam Smith, 1776.

[TheOtherHobbes]

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chapter II.