4 ms·

I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. You could j

by untog 11y ago

I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. You could just stop visiting the site that offends you. That would be the actual principled way to treat this - the content is not worth the price of admission. Instead, ad blockers let you take the content and sidestep the price of admission. I absolutely agree that media companies have not been creative enough in monetization, but "I'm going to take the content from you until you find a way for me to pay that I like" strikes me as a very entitled stance.

Filligree 11y ago
I'm signed up for Contributor. I blacklist ads on every site where I see them, which is most of them; as far as I can tell, this also stops Contributor from working on those sites. Seriously. Take my money. But you don't get to show me ads. And I'm not going to bow out of visiting those sites; that would almost cut me off from the internet entirely.
- untog 11y ago
  I'm not going to bow out of visiting those sites; that would almost cut me off from the internet entirely. This is exactly the entitled attitude I was referring to.
  - Filligree 11y ago
    Is it entitled to want to keep up with society, when I pay $10/GB for bandwidth?
    - untog 11y ago
      Why on earth are you paying $10/GB for bandwidth?
      - soylentcola 11y ago
        Mobile data plans can be very expensive, especially if they're sold by a provider with a lock on a particular user's region.
      - dublinben 11y ago
        Presumably because that is the price that their provider sells it for. Most people do not have a choice of ISP, and cannot negotiate the terms of their service.
        untog 11y ago
        ...which is why I'm curious to know who they are getting their service from. A price point like that ought to be named and shamed if users have no other option.
        Filligree 11y ago
        Ice.net. And I misremembered the cost; it's actually "only" $5/GB.
vitd 11y ago
"strikes me as a very entitled stance" Not at all. This is exactly the same as broadcasters putting ads in their shows, and you muting them, fast-forwarding through them, going to the bathroom when they're on, etc. The attitude that "if I put this out there and show ads, all viewers will need to view the ads before or while reading it so I can make money from this" is the entitled stance. If you put it out there, I'll choose whether to download the content, the ads, both, or neither. If you don't like that, it's on you to find another way to monetize it or stop me from having access. I'm not going to pirate or try to break-in. But if it's just sitting there and I can legally download it, I will. It doesn't stop anyone else from doing it differently.
lmm 11y ago
By the time I've clicked the link I've already seen the ad. Or more likely been redirected to a malware site. If links came with a little tag on them saying "this will take you to a site with malicious advertising" then I'd do as you'd suggest. But they don't. So it's either block ads, or only visit sites I already know about.
icebraining 11y ago
You could just stop visiting the site that offends you. That would be the actual principled way to treat this - the content is not worth the price of admission. No, it'd be your principled way to treat this. Not everyone shares your principles. I don't share your principle that site owners have the right to demand that you accept their unilateral rules on how I should view the content they're sending me. I never explicitly nor implicitly agreed to those conditions. They are free to refuse my request, but if they don't, I am breaking no promise. I could see your position for sites that click-wrapped their content with that condition, getting you to accept it, but not otherwise. (By the way, I don't use ad blockers)

by untog 11y ago

Filligree 11y ago

I'm signed up for Contributor. I blacklist ads on every site where I see them, which is most of them; as far as I can tell, this also stops Contributor from working on those sites. Seriously. Take my money. But you don't get to show me ads. And I'm not going to bow out of visiting those sites; that would almost cut me off from the internet entirely.

untog 11y ago
I'm not going to bow out of visiting those sites; that would almost cut me off from the internet entirely. This is exactly the entitled attitude I was referring to.
- Filligree 11y ago
  Is it entitled to want to keep up with society, when I pay $10/GB for bandwidth?
  - untog 11y ago
    Why on earth are you paying $10/GB for bandwidth?
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Mobile data plans can be very expensive, especially if they're sold by a provider with a lock on a particular user's region.
    - dublinben 11y ago
      Presumably because that is the price that their provider sells it for. Most people do not have a choice of ISP, and cannot negotiate the terms of their service.
      - untog 11y ago
        ...which is why I'm curious to know who they are getting their service from. A price point like that ought to be named and shamed if users have no other option.
        Filligree 11y ago
        Ice.net. And I misremembered the cost; it's actually "only" $5/GB.

vitd 11y ago

"strikes me as a very entitled stance" Not at all. This is exactly the same as broadcasters putting ads in their shows, and you muting them, fast-forwarding through them, going to the bathroom when they're on, etc. The attitude that "if I put this out there and show ads, all viewers will need to view the ads before or while reading it so I can make money from this" is the entitled stance. If you put it out there, I'll choose whether to download the content, the ads, both, or neither. If you don't like that, it's on you to find another way to monetize it or stop me from having access. I'm not going to pirate or try to break-in. But if it's just sitting there and I can legally download it, I will. It doesn't stop anyone else from doing it differently.

lmm 11y ago

By the time I've clicked the link I've already seen the ad. Or more likely been redirected to a malware site. If links came with a little tag on them saying "this will take you to a site with malicious advertising" then I'd do as you'd suggest. But they don't. So it's either block ads, or only visit sites I already know about.

icebraining 11y ago

You could just stop visiting the site that offends you. That would be the actual principled way to treat this - the content is not worth the price of admission. No, it'd be your principled way to treat this. Not everyone shares your principles. I don't share your principle that site owners have the right to demand that you accept their unilateral rules on how I should view the content they're sending me. I never explicitly nor implicitly agreed to those conditions. They are free to refuse my request, but if they don't, I am breaking no promise. I could see your position for sites that click-wrapped their content with that condition, getting you to accept it, but not otherwise. (By the way, I don't use ad blockers)