I am aware of that. Either way, in this context, it is not useful to go over the long history of writing or print technology. I just wanted to say that even the now largely dysfunctional business models of the print media - I mean, of course, the opinion-forming press, such as newspapers or magazines - are historically linked to advertising sales. There were even advertisements in books. This is how journalism has always been financed (in fact, subscriptions still only account for a small proportion of revenues). And it's the same on the Internet: News sites are essentially funded by ads - the same way all major social media platforms and most of major websites work. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to claim that marketing revenues can be dispensed with, because creating content is very time-consuming and therefore costly.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I honestly didn't realize anyone was making fun of me (the joke is on me I guess, I just don't get it). I don't have a problem with the current times tho. But I know the content business. I don't call it that because I have no appreciation for art, writing or other creative arts, but because that's the term used in business. And from this environment I also know that profits are unfortunately placed above good content, which is why creative people, aka content creators, are not paid appropriately imo. I have also recognized this spirit, which I do not approve of at all, in many Lemmy posts. Only in disguise, so to speak: namely with people who think that intellectual property only helps large corporations like Disney. In my experience, that's not the case at all. People make a living from their creative work and patreon donations are simply not enough - at least not for a regular and secure income. What I was getting at with my comment is that it doesn't make sense imo to complain about a content creator signing marketing contracts - that has always been part of this business, even in the days of print media.