To be honest, in the pre-internet era, paid paper copy of FT had ads too. The delivery mechanisms for ads in the internet era are trillion times nastier and more annoying, of course. By the standards of today’s web, the print ad for Cartier on the second page of paper FT looks almost classy, interesting to read.

But there's a big difference. The paper copy didn't harvest data from you, didn't infect you, didn't spy on you or steal resources from your computer or internet bandwidth.

All the advertiser knew about you was you were a subscriber to FT, and maybe what the _average_ demographic of an FT subscriber was. Nothing about you personally.

The paper copy did do that, just not as individualized. People would choose which publications to put their ads in based on data collected about their subscribers.

The job of ad men has always been just as much about were to put the ad as much as what the ad was.

"just not as individualized" is an enormous "just". Each ad is based on the total audience for a single publication. No fine-grained filtering, no personal dossiers.

And none of the rest of that list of bad things happens.

I don't pay for any content that has ads in it, full stop. I decided this a while ago when I noticed how many full page ads were in magazines. I would cancel a subscription over this.

I pay a handsome subscription sum for The Wire music magazine. The ads are an important resource in a niche marketplace.

Somewhat similar but I love my niche Instagram ads. Meta serves me endless ads for diecast miniatures, art toys, obscure manga etc. Stuff that I love and would never have found otherwise.

Yeah same here. Google ads are almost always worthless, but IG ads seem to know my tastes exactly, and I hardly actually use Instagram (just log in to message people and watch some friends' stories a few times a week). I'm not sure how Google dropped the ball here, because I've been an active user of Google products forever.

I was shocked to find out tonight that WSJ's net profit margin was just 3.2% in 2024. I would have thought it was a lot more. Also, surprisingly Walmart's net profit margin is only 2.85% for 2025. You would think these huge companies are making huge profits.

Maybe the big players can get by with a smaller percentage of a huge number.

I’d also expect the competition in the “big leagues” to be more aggressive, resulting in leaner margins.

Also these are huge companies. Small companies might find a niche that is small in absolute terms, but large relative to the company. That niche might be underserved, allowing the small company to make large percentage based margins.

I thought Walmart was well known as an early innovator in precise-but-low-margin business operations?

> There's no longer any argument in favor of an ad model when you're paying 20-30 dollars a month already

Sure there is. CEO needs a new yacht. He can't afford to leave money on the table. All those subscribers? They must have a lot of disposable income if they can afford to blow it on "journalism". It would be stupid not to advertise to them.

Perhaps the actual solution is to ban ads through regulation, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

I am all for it but it would be hard to enforce. Ads are already hidden everywhere. Someone "review" a product? Most of the time it is a hidden ad even if the reviewer hasn't been paid with money for that. Watches a movie or a video clip? A lots of products are advertised through close ups on the logos, etc.

Even a sign on the street is basically an ad. That plastic cow or pig head telling you there’s a butcher or cheesemonger?

It’s basically an ad. Possibly one of the oldest type too!

Sings on the owners' houses aren't paid ads.

Parent wasn’t referring specifically to paid ads, just ads in general, and their omnipresence.

And to your point: shops rarely own the building they’re on the ground floor of.

So? What argument are you trying to make? We can ban what most people consider ads while still letting reasonable store signs stay if we want to.

> So? What argument are you trying to make?

That, as the comment I was replying to said, ads are indeed everywhere, sometimes hidden in plain sight.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is a payment, there is a good chance to track it.

Youtubers happily do "reviews" in exchange of receiving stuff, regardless if they can keep it or not. They also know that if they are too critical they may not receive anything more and they don't have any material to review. This was already true on paper magazines.

No money is exchanged in the process.

Payment can indeed be made with goods.

This is a false argument. Regulations are effective. When was the last time you breathed in second hand smoke while eating dinner? Or inhaled lead from a passing car? Or asbestos from your neighbor's new house?

Defeatism will always be defeated

For now, it is, yes; but we must both plan for a future when that might not be the case, and advocate for effective regulations regardless.

> Take online journalism as an example.

Depends entirely the kind of journalism you are referring to and the kind of business model they want. I can't imagine 404 Media adding ads to their premium feed.

Doing actual journalism is expensive and not many people are still willing to pay to read the news. These companies are definitely not printing money. That's why billionaires can buy them on the cheap. Not for the expected profit, but for the influence it brings them.

If you can, please support serious journalism with your subscription dollars!