If ads on the web are to be considered &quot;payment&quot; for all the &quot;content&quot; we&#x27;re consuming on the web, like everybody seems to keep repeating--yes, I disagree--have a look all this &quot;content&quot; that it&#x27;s supposedly buying us.<p>Where are most of these ads? What &quot;content&quot; is making all that money?<p>You&#x27;ve seen it. 95% (or more) is nearly spam. Or actual spam in some way or another. It&#x27;s all those listicles (&quot;The 10 best X&quot;), or these photo image traps (there was a name for them, the &quot;You won&#x27;t believe bla this celebrity something embarrassing mistake&quot;).<p>I didn&#x27;t consent to buying that. And I most definitely will not spend my precious currency of attention on it.<p>Do we all recall the bad old days of blackhat SEO, linkfarms and all that crap? It&#x27;s still going on but I call it the bad old days because it used to be you couldn&#x27;t research stuff on the Internet without bumping into those things all the time.<p>Do we remember how a lot of these things worked? I&#x27;ve always had a morbid fascination for those things, some were such weird places. Initially it just started with endless algorithmically generated pages linking to pages in ways that exploited Google&#x27;s classic PageRank algorithms. Google got wise to that, so the blackhat SEOs sprinkled in some content. Google got wiser, and at some point (this was still when About.com was a serious &quot;competitor&quot; to Wikipedia) there were actual humans churning out tiny &quot;content&quot; articles, 300 words, really about almost <i>anything</i>, just a few paragraphs, puke a few words on any topic you could possibly imagine and people would get a tiny pay for writing it and into another SEO-machine they went, extracted keywords linked to all the things and back to spam.<p>That&#x27;s not the type of content industry we want to support, right? But THIS is what happened. Of course Google Ads got wise-ish to that as well, and over time this content-farming industry kept incrementing the content quality of their spam <i>just</i> enough until the listicles that nobody ever asked for are just <i>barely</i> good enough that the public will actually swallow it.<p>And that is what we have today, and there is no real economic incentive to get any better. Maybe a tiny bit better, but remember this trash grew organically from the economic incentives of spam. It&#x27;s never going to grow into the awesome well-researched high quality articles everybody is furiously imagining when they talk about an ad-supported content web or micropayments or whatever.<p>It&#x27;s a mistake.<p>Ads never really significantly supported high quality content publishers, most of the really great content on the Internet has always been on free websites. If you don&#x27;t believe me it&#x27;s because the ad-networks never linked you there or you never thought to look. The vast majority of these ad-networks, all what they ever gave us was spam and economic incentives for more spam. And micropayments are not going to be any different.<p>You&#x27;re imagining growth the wrong way. The only thing that will grow is the spam, and it&#x27;ll get a bit &quot;better quality&quot; if it makes more money <i>maybe</i> but there&#x27;s no reason for it to grow until it reaches the actually <i>good</i> quality. You get a pretty mushroom growing from the fungus.<p>All of the higher quality content websites with nice chewy articles, that figured out a way to be financially supported by their audience, none of them do it with ads. It doesn&#x27;t make them nearly enough money to account for the readers put off by it. And that&#x27;s not an &quot;oh eww! this otherwise-quality-article has an ad on it, I&#x27;ll just go read something else&quot;, no that&#x27;s of course silly. It&#x27;s the image of the thing. Having a big, ugly, ad-network operated ad right next (or inside) your otherwise-quality-article diminishes the value of it. Having to cut up that article into multiple pages for no reason other than boosting pageviews, diminishes the value.<p>Write a great article, inject it with ads, becomes a mediocre article. If you don&#x27;t believe me, imagine you found a cool programming tutorial on some topic you find interesting. The tutorial is split into multiple small pages, content making up less than 33% of the screen, and browsing back and forth between pages is slow because of all the 3rd party components and ubiquitous JS frameworks. Then imagine the same tutorial on one page, written in markdown, on github pages or whatever, and that&#x27;s it. Value? To me it&#x27;s an order of magnitude difference. So much difference that I&#x27;ve occasionally taken that content, copypasted and reformatted into a nice quiet format, strictly for personal use, as alternative to bookmarking. The value of the time it cost me to do that is actually worth <i>several</i> orders of magnitude more than what I would ever pay for an article.<p>Maybe the publisher doesn&#x27;t even care, ultimately the writers do. Sure, from a rational economical financial free-marketable point of view it just makes business sense to trash high-quality articles with ads until the costs and benefits line up sufficiently that any more trashing would just be done out of sadistic glee. But writing is a creative process. It&#x27;s not all about money. And if you keep that up, you&#x27;re gonna kill the creativity regardless, because all you end up with is regurgitated contentfarm poop, the worst of both worlds, no actual quality content and a world of ads. I&#x27;m a creative person, I create content just for the heck of it. I never needed to rationalize why I hate ads. I <i>know</i> why they are bad and what happens when I let them near my creative processes.<p>Sorry this post got a bit long :-)