4 ms·

If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm

by Drakim 11y ago

If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for it's execution.

sbarre 11y ago
The problem with this approach is it's only arguable because your computer gives you more control over how you use the content you are requesting from them. When you watch TV, you are requesting the broadcast from your provider, and that comes with embedded ads that you have no way of removing (ignoring TIVO and all that). You don't charge back the electricity used by your TV to your provider, right? When you access someone's website, you are requesting that they send you the data. They are not forcing it on you, so they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. You are of course able to refuse to request more, or using your computer you can modify and dissect it (like using ad blockers) but that's a different issue. Anyways.. all I'm saying is that expecting 100% control over how someone else's data is delivered to your computer is a position just as bad as the advertisers who say you should not be able to block their ads. The right solution is somewhere in the middle.
- Drakim 11y ago
  If I taped the content on my old VHS, and then fast forwarded past the ads, and they argued that I shouldn't be allowed to do this, then sure, I would argue they should pay for my electricity for showing that ad, since apparently they are the ones who are in charge of how my VHS should be used. I'd say the argument I'm making isn't something new that just appeared with computers. To drag this point out, imagine if in addition to the video ad, the website included one of those fancy bitcoin miners that is written in JavaScript. Should it be illegal for me to prevent it from running while I read their article? If it MUST run, then surely it's fair that they foot the extra electricity I end up using? There is no rational world where they control the usage and I foot the bill. That sort of system would require slavery to be logically consistent.
  - sbarre 11y ago
    I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming. Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement. The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered. Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model. The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business. Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...
        Nadya 11y ago
        My use of an adblocker is not an "approach" to the problem. My suggested approach is to find a sustainable business model, which could keep them in business. The business model is their problem - not mine. Even if I'm the cause of why their business model is failing, it's not my problem to solve. Companies with better business models will eventually replace the companies that go out of business. If an ad-supported site goes offline, I do not care. A site with similar content and a more sustainable business model will replace them. If their content was valued enough - a donation funded site will replace it.
- lostcolony 11y ago
  I can turn the TV off during that time. But, because it's such a small cost, and so minimally invasive, I just mute it instead. Ads that are minimally invasive and minimal bandwidth I have no problem with. The problem is that no ad provider guarantees that ads will be under a given size per page load, and be minimally invasive to the content I want to consume. Hence, they all get turned off.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > requesting the broadcast from your provider This is identical with HTML. I request a page via HTTP, and they send it to me. What I do with that page is up to me. Just like I can mute a commercial on TV, change the channel, or shut the TV off[1]. > they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. Correct. The problem comes when this is extended to include what someone does with that data after it changes hands. We have historically described this situation as the publisher's rights ending at the "1st sale"[2]. Anybody that wants rights to restrict what someone does with the data they are sent should get a contract that describes these requirements. (an EULA, writing at the bottom of a previously-requested page, and the HTTP headers are not contracts) As for paying by CPU usage: I'll run the javascript and load the image or video files only after I receive a payment for electricity usage (CPU time) and compensation for my lost personal time. Hourly rates are available upon request. > The right solution is somewhere in the middle. The right solution respects users instead of trying to move the Overton Window[3]. [1] Max Headroom, Episode 1.6 "The Blanks" Janie Crane: "An off switch?" Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

by Drakim 11y ago

If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for it's execution.

sbarre 11y ago

The problem with this approach is it's only arguable because your computer gives you more control over how you use the content you are requesting from them. When you watch TV, you are requesting the broadcast from your provider, and that comes with embedded ads that you have no way of removing (ignoring TIVO and all that). You don't charge back the electricity used by your TV to your provider, right? When you access someone's website, you are requesting that they send you the data. They are not forcing it on you, so they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. You are of course able to refuse to request more, or using your computer you can modify and dissect it (like using ad blockers) but that's a different issue. Anyways.. all I'm saying is that expecting 100% control over how someone else's data is delivered to your computer is a position just as bad as the advertisers who say you should not be able to block their ads. The right solution is somewhere in the middle.

Drakim 11y ago
If I taped the content on my old VHS, and then fast forwarded past the ads, and they argued that I shouldn't be allowed to do this, then sure, I would argue they should pay for my electricity for showing that ad, since apparently they are the ones who are in charge of how my VHS should be used. I'd say the argument I'm making isn't something new that just appeared with computers. To drag this point out, imagine if in addition to the video ad, the website included one of those fancy bitcoin miners that is written in JavaScript. Should it be illegal for me to prevent it from running while I read their article? If it MUST run, then surely it's fair that they foot the extra electricity I end up using? There is no rational world where they control the usage and I foot the bill. That sort of system would require slavery to be logically consistent.
- sbarre 11y ago
  I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming. Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement. The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered. Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model. The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business. Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...
      - Nadya 11y ago
        My use of an adblocker is not an "approach" to the problem. My suggested approach is to find a sustainable business model, which could keep them in business. The business model is their problem - not mine. Even if I'm the cause of why their business model is failing, it's not my problem to solve. Companies with better business models will eventually replace the companies that go out of business. If an ad-supported site goes offline, I do not care. A site with similar content and a more sustainable business model will replace them. If their content was valued enough - a donation funded site will replace it.
lostcolony 11y ago
I can turn the TV off during that time. But, because it's such a small cost, and so minimally invasive, I just mute it instead. Ads that are minimally invasive and minimal bandwidth I have no problem with. The problem is that no ad provider guarantees that ads will be under a given size per page load, and be minimally invasive to the content I want to consume. Hence, they all get turned off.
pdkl95 11y ago
> requesting the broadcast from your provider This is identical with HTML. I request a page via HTTP, and they send it to me. What I do with that page is up to me. Just like I can mute a commercial on TV, change the channel, or shut the TV off[1]. > they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for. Correct. The problem comes when this is extended to include what someone does with that data after it changes hands. We have historically described this situation as the publisher's rights ending at the "1st sale"[2]. Anybody that wants rights to restrict what someone does with the data they are sent should get a contract that describes these requirements. (an EULA, writing at the bottom of a previously-requested page, and the HTTP headers are not contracts) As for paying by CPU usage: I'll run the javascript and load the image or video files only after I receive a payment for electricity usage (CPU time) and compensation for my lost personal time. Hourly rates are available upon request. > The right solution is somewhere in the middle. The right solution respects users instead of trying to move the Overton Window[3]. [1] Max Headroom, Episode 1.6 "The Blanks" Janie Crane: "An off switch?" Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!" [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window