No, it doesn't, and that's one of the most pernicious myths.
1. It's not free. Advertising is a $600 billion industry annually, with online over a sixth of that. This is largely imposed on the wealthier billion global inhabitants, so figure roughly $600 overall or $100 for Internet, per person, per year, if you live in the EU, US, JP, CA, AU, NZ.
2. Good content goes wanting. Advertising seeks to maximise eyeballs, not content quality. Good sites go wanting: LWN, Linux Journal, Nautilus, just off the top of my head. Markets and information are a poor match.
Information is a pure public good. Finance it as such.
Joseph Stiglitz, "Knowledge as a Global Public Good," in Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg, Marc A. Stern (eds.), United Nations Development Programme, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 308-325.
I didn't say there were no other options. I just criticised the one option we would very likely end up with by default if advertising were to be curbed somehow.
1. It's not free. Advertising is a $600 billion industry annually, with online over a sixth of that. This is largely imposed on the wealthier billion global inhabitants, so figure roughly $600 overall or $100 for Internet, per person, per year, if you live in the EU, US, JP, CA, AU, NZ.
2. Good content goes wanting. Advertising seeks to maximise eyeballs, not content quality. Good sites go wanting: LWN, Linux Journal, Nautilus, just off the top of my head. Markets and information are a poor match.
Unless you omitted a sarcasm tag?