[Nilocshot]

The major argument against adblockers (at least as far as I have seen) is that it deprives content creators a source of revenue. I can't disagree with this statement because it is true, it is a (read: singular) source of income that we (read: users of an adblocking program/method) are eliminating. I for one believe that they should ge something.et paid for their work, but ads just don't seem to be the right solution. I know there is paypal donations, and patreon subscriptions (or similar services) but these don't seem to draw people to contribute. I can't seem to think of any other alternatives to these, but I'm sure there must be something. Anyone have any ideas?

[nfoz]

That people don't pay for content online is partly a social, historical, and technological problem. Crowdfunding is slowly but increasingly becoming viable, as it enters the social awareness/expectation for content creation.

Other options include government (known for relatively high-quality content in many parts of the world: for news, science, education, art, and other works that are widely considered to be a part of the common good).

But I'd like to see more of a rise in crowd-sourced "content pools" that, for example, would commission many works/creators in an ensemble centralized around broad topics (e.g. "participate in commissioning a cabal of high-quality tech blogs" if that's your fancy).

[Nilocshot]

As sort of an aggregator of content or a commission based system? Or more like a business with employees that produce content, such as columnists / reporters for a newspaper?

[pesfandiar]

I wrote a blog post about this a while back and said how the economy of web is changing and a lot of businesses have to adapt or die: http://www.pesfandiar.com/blog/2014/04/05/is-adblocking-unet...

I think content is becoming cheaper to create, but there will always be business models for high-end publishers other than advertising. (Like many other forms of art)