When the internet first emerged, even before the advent of the World Wide Web in 1991, its early users were enthusiasts who did not charge for their activities. They pursued their endeavors as hobbies, enjoying the sense of belonging to a closed society reminiscent of anarchy. However, such societies could not endure for long, as evidenced by the sad demise of FIDOnet, which lacked clear leadership structure, leading to numerous difficulties and eventual collapse.

With the emergence of the World Wide Web, little changed. The internet continued to attract enthusiasts, but commercial projects started to appear, including internet stores, and so forth. However, the significant change was the rising cost of maintaining the infrastructure, prompting people to consider how to monetize their activities. There was an unspoken rule that informational websites were free. Advertising became the primary source of income, and everyone was content. Entrepreneurs created content, hosted advertisements, and users enjoyed free access — a sort of socialism.

As competition intensified and Web2.0 emerged, putting users in the forefront as content creators across various platforms such as social networks, blogs, forums, and more, the monetization mechanics remained unchanged. However, the costs of infrastructure maintenance increased, requiring more resources to manage projects. Meanwhile, advertising revenues didn't grow as fast. More advertising revenue flowed to platforms like Google, leaving less for those in the informational business. The media were the first to suffer, as the costs of content creation surpassed advertising revenue. Online media outlets increasingly turned to paid models, much to the dismay of users who were accustomed to getting everything for free, akin to socialism.

Recently, a controversy erupted when the website Stack Overflow decided to pursue additional monetization by collaborating with OpenAI and granting them the right to use materials created by thousands of people worldwide, which were previously freely available. Users were understandably displeased; some even began to delete their code from the platform.  

Of course, their concern stems from the fear that OpenAI will use their code to improve its own models, rendering them (the code authors) redundant. However, I believe the problem lies in Stack Overflow seeking alternative revenue streams because advertising likely isn't generating the desired income.  

I believe the socialist approach adopted on the internet is a wrong turn. It hinders the development of new players, leaving all the money in the hands of giants, while users consume vast amounts of services for free. It can be argued that this leads to the advancement of general education and access to information. However, the fact remains — someone has to create and enable the distribution of all this content. If we pay for access to the network to providers, why not pay for distribution to platforms like Stack Overflow?

Choosing the right monetization model is crucial, and opting for a free model with advertising monetization is a perilous move. It's important to understand that disabling such a model will be extremely difficult, as users become accustomed to socialism.