> Are you familiar with broadcast TV that is supported by viewers like you.

I’m old enough to know that even in the 80s Mr. Rogers was in front of congress asking the government not to cut funding because some conservative congressmen were opposed to some of the content.

And the actual phrase was “… and viewers like you”

PBS always had corporate “sponsors” they announced during pre or post show credits just like NPR does today. Corporate “sponsors” are just advertisers by a different name.

How do you think the current administration would think about PBS supporting gay pride month or Black history month? Would the current government help fund HBCU libraries or would they come under their “anti DEI” crusade?

> And historically TV advertising was banned until the FCC allowed it

This is not true. The earliest TV and radio broadcasting companies were advertising supported.

> You'd be surprised that... people used read the newspaper with their morning breakfast, which cost a few cents and was delivered by a paperboy.

And those papers still had advertising. The subscriptions never paid the total cost of newspaper publications

> when it was the default until the last 100 years or so

Coca Cola has been big in advertising since it was first incorporated in 1880s. Are you saying there was no advertising 100 years ago on media that didn’t exist like the radio, TV and internet?

> what's to stop the government from also subsidizing Google Search for poor people as well

You mean the same government today that is rewriting history, purging government websites and has a list of words that agencies can’t say? You want that government having more control of private speech? Or would you prefer the last government who also pressured private entities not to publish things that went against the government narrative about Covid? Even though now we know some of the things that they suppressed was true.

I don’t mean the anti-vax stuff. I mean the government wouldn’t admit for the longest that immunity from the vaccine waned and you needed another shot after six months even though other government’s health agencies started recommending them.

> Adding Google to the list as another subscription that they offer to library card holders for free is a nonissue.

And then also those sites that Google is linking to? What are the chances that the government allows libraries to pay for content that the government disagrees with?

Would the current government pay for access to Fox News and The Guardian or just Fox News? Today the government is withholding funding from colleges that don’t toe the line and says things it disagrees with. Oh yeah and deporting protesters who are here legally. This is the government that you want paying for and controlling content?

> Honestly, it just sounds like you've been brainwashed into being unable to visualize a society without advertising.

Well seeing that you are factually wrong about history and ignoring what the government is doing right now when it comes to making sure that only its views are heard….

And I’m bringing up porn because porn websites are regulated today heavily in some states and one of the most popular sites overall which is not hosted in the US is completely ignoring it.

As far as sites with negative capital, in todays client, any site that is pro-Palestine, LGBT, minorities, anti Musk/Trump etc not only has negative capital, it’s actually been pressured by the government and news organizations are already capitulating.