Do these people have the editorial freedom to criticise their major advertisers? Or potential advertisers?
Is their creativity, in fact, funnelled consciously or unconsciously into selling over-priced shit to people who don't need it?
Would there be more or less creativity in the world if it wasn't focussed on making a few hand-picked, advertiser-friendly people into elite-level, rich straight-white-men?
I don't think global creativity goes hand-in-hand with advertising. In my opinion, advertising just sucks the soul out of it. So, I disagree back.
> Do these people have the editorial freedom to criticise (sic) their major advertisers? Or potential advertisers?
That's actually one of the (uncelebrated) benefits of the exchange landscape. Because advertisers and publishers are so removed from each other, there's 0 risk of editorial freedom being jeopardized.
Honestly, I'm tired of the trite advertising hatred on HN. Advertising is basically the only thing making culture and creative work (from journalism to ballet) available to the general public. A world without advertising would be a much darker one, with entertainment only accessible to the wealthy few who can directly commission creativity.
Advertisers also tend to allow a lot more creative freedom than patrons.
I love that the Green brothers could quit their jobs & make quality content full time, and make it available to everyone.
I fully disagree.