3 ms·

Here is the moral ground that I stand on: I pay for the data coming down my link, you don't. Your ads and trackers cost me money, and there is every chance that

Here is the moral ground that I stand on: I pay for the data coming down my link, you don't. Your ads and trackers cost me money, and there is every chance that your ads cost me more money than the site owner gets from that "ad impression." You can not claim any moral ground at all. Claiming that web sites will fold if you don't exist is like a drug dealer claiming that taking them off the street will make life worse for the drug addicts. Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. I would like to see a micropayment system where I can load up a few dozen dollars a month and pay shares through +1 or liking pages. Sure, 1/1000 of my $50/month isn't going to make much of a difference, but if you are getting paid through ad impressions you will get a similar monthly return. Even better, you will make more money by producing content people like, with reduced incentive to split a five word article over six pages of ads. These days the ads are to the point that if I see a site start janking around as the stylesheets load and ads start pushing content around, I just force quit Safari right there on the spot. I don't have the time or money to support a web fuelled by the advertising dollar.

bad_user 11y ago
If you don't want that data consuming your bandwidth, then don't load those websites. It's as simple as that. Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. > Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. But that's the point - they won't adapt in the direction that you want and they won't die. Why? Because you're not punishing the bad actors. Expect ad-blockers to stop working in the coming months. They only worked until now because they weren't considered to be mainstream ;-) > I would like to see a micropayment system ... Right, because that would solve the privacy thing. Micropayment systems for rewarding websites and projects with donations have already been tried and it's not working. For one because people claiming this never put their money where their mouth is. And also because the pool of people that can afford to spend $50 a month on reading websites is not that big, as we're speaking about the middle-class living in first-world countries, many of whom as I said don't give a shit. #firstWorldSolutions
- manicdee 11y ago
  How do I know whether a link takes me to a Verge or Buzzfeed clone site without following it? Find a better way to fun the web site. We are engaged in a tech war which is going to end up with users turning off CSS and JavaScript. Then how will you feed ads to people?
- manicdee 11y ago
  > Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. Except that I'm the one paying for the traffic, through my ISP. If carriers complain that there's too much traffic for the money they're paid, that's an issue of not charging the user enough for the service being provided. I can always pay more money for more quota. I still can not understand the mentality of US mobile service providers who just give you one-price-fits-all service. They're selling a limited resource (i.e.: consumption of broadcast bandwidth), but don't charge the heavy users more than the light users. It's foolishness like that that makes ISPs start thinking about charging high volume content originators for use of their network. If I choose to not download certain parts of your web site (e.g.: the JavaScript and third party resources), that's my way of controlling costs. It's not up to my ISP to make that decision for me (much less start charging content providers for the privilege of transit).

bad_user 11y ago

If you don't want that data consuming your bandwidth, then don't load those websites. It's as simple as that. Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. > Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. But that's the point - they won't adapt in the direction that you want and they won't die. Why? Because you're not punishing the bad actors. Expect ad-blockers to stop working in the coming months. They only worked until now because they weren't considered to be mainstream ;-) > I would like to see a micropayment system ... Right, because that would solve the privacy thing. Micropayment systems for rewarding websites and projects with donations have already been tried and it's not working. For one because people claiming this never put their money where their mouth is. And also because the pool of people that can afford to spend $50 a month on reading websites is not that big, as we're speaking about the middle-class living in first-world countries, many of whom as I said don't give a shit. #firstWorldSolutions

manicdee 11y ago
How do I know whether a link takes me to a Verge or Buzzfeed clone site without following it? Find a better way to fun the web site. We are engaged in a tech war which is going to end up with users turning off CSS and JavaScript. Then how will you feed ads to people?
manicdee 11y ago
> Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. Except that I'm the one paying for the traffic, through my ISP. If carriers complain that there's too much traffic for the money they're paid, that's an issue of not charging the user enough for the service being provided. I can always pay more money for more quota. I still can not understand the mentality of US mobile service providers who just give you one-price-fits-all service. They're selling a limited resource (i.e.: consumption of broadcast bandwidth), but don't charge the heavy users more than the light users. It's foolishness like that that makes ISPs start thinking about charging high volume content originators for use of their network. If I choose to not download certain parts of your web site (e.g.: the JavaScript and third party resources), that's my way of controlling costs. It's not up to my ISP to make that decision for me (much less start charging content providers for the privilege of transit).