-4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
-4 points (47.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43944 readers
836 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
No, this is rewarding the implementation of ads and can't be thought of as donating anymore. You are paying to remove ads thus giving them money for having added ads to the site.
What if the ads are optional, they're turned off by default, but if you can't afford to donate but still want to support you can turn them on for yourself?
Would you do that? I'm asking genuinely
Tbh yeah, as long as the ads weren't malicious or intrusive I'd happily have ads if it supported the instance
It all sounds like semantics to me. You could implement donations first and then say OK for all you people who haven't donated we're going to punish you by showing you ads. Bottom line is this shit isn't free. It has to get paid for somehow.