This is a lame dig at the “average internet user.” It makes it feel like you’re pretending to make a reasoned argument, only to let the mask slip at the very last moment, to reveal that you’re actually quite irked, and unable to imagine a future in which small content producers could be paid in any other way than through ads. It also makes it seem that you don’t really care about small content producers — who are, after all, in so many cases, “average internet users.” Ending the piece with that line takes all the value out of your argument. You condemn average Internet users because of the way they consume ad-supported content, yet defend average Internet users because they are noble enough to produce it. You can’t have it both ways. And even if you do hold some combination of views that is internally consistent (which I suspect is the case), you do those views an injustice by capping your argument with a lame ad hominem attack that stereotypes a billion-plus people, that is wrong (they don’t need forgiving; thinking through downstream effects is not their job), and which makes it look like you care more about your own bottom line (or that of your portfolio companies) than you do about the availability of quality content on the web. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that’s what that closing line makes it look like. To me.

That’ll be $0.99 please ;)