In comparing content and aesthetic choices of websites that are made for profit vs. websites that are made for projects or things people are just interested in, it exposes why i like stuff that "sucks".
There's an inherent undertone in anything thats made for profit that "this is for money". This is present across mediums, in visual art, websites, video, etc. its glitziness - glitziness has thus been equated with whats "good". This is an extension of people thinking that money is a symbol of moral superiority. This is obviously a myth that has been put in front of your eyes by people who have money. And what's put in front of peoples' eyes is that rich people are good. This idea is sent subconciously - it's not flashing text that says "rich people are good", instead its the camera angles they use while filming the rich characters.
Stuff that "sucks", then, is the opposite of this. It rejects popular aesthetic notions of what makes something "good", or quality, or worthy of viewing.i like that.