4 ms·

That's not our problem. It's the reporter's. We are not responsible for helping businesses prop up their failing revenue streams.

krapp 11y ago
Arguably, you are somewhat responsible if the revenue stream is failing because you want to consume content without caring whether anyone gets compensated for it.
- __david__ 11y ago
  That's approaching from the wrong angle. I am not responsible for publishers adopting a distribution format that allows me to render their content without ads (HTML). If they can't survive in an environment where people can freely (ethically, morally, and legally) block ads [1] then that really is their problem and not mine. The web has changed the face of publishing, but the world has no obligation to keep someones revenue stream going. [1] It really shouldn't be called "blocking" ads. It's really just choosing not to render them. When I control the rendering device (my browser), I can make it do whatever I want. Good luck showing me your video ad when I'm browsing with "links".
  - acdha 11y ago
    Your point #1 is sophistry. They're making things available with the clear expectation of getting ad revenue. If you don't like ads, either don't visit the site or complain when it all goes behind a paywall. Besides, your argument is essentially “If you want me to pay, use DRM”. I would suggest that this is not a direction we need to try going down again.
    - __david__ 11y ago
      It's hardly sophistry. My point is the web as it stands has certain features. One of those features is that servers can't control how clients render content. I think it's pure hubris for content providers to move onto the web and then suddenly demand that things work the way they want ("you must render our ads or you're stealing") ignoring the way things actually work. > Besides, your argument is essentially “If you want me to pay, use DRM”. I would suggest that this is not a direction we need to try going down again. That sort of is my point, but not quite. Because once DRM is in the picture then I (and everyone else) won't partake of the content, which is what they want of me anyway. Until that time, I feel morally, ethically, and legally free to render their content as I see fit.
- teddyh 11y ago
  If your business model is publishing content on the Internet for free, it is not the responsibility of the readers to consume the content in a specific way to get you paid, or to come up with a way for you to get paid. You chose to publish on the Internet, without paywall. If you don’t like it, go back to not publishing.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Arguably? I don't think so. If the producer wants to protect their content, put it behind a paywall or similar. If you're sending out content to anyone for free, you can have no expectations of making money. Either guard it or don't, but don't try to put blame on others for your stupid decision to not guard it.

krapp 11y ago

Arguably, you are somewhat responsible if the revenue stream is failing because you want to consume content without caring whether anyone gets compensated for it.

__david__ 11y ago
That's approaching from the wrong angle. I am not responsible for publishers adopting a distribution format that allows me to render their content without ads (HTML). If they can't survive in an environment where people can freely (ethically, morally, and legally) block ads [1] then that really is their problem and not mine. The web has changed the face of publishing, but the world has no obligation to keep someones revenue stream going. [1] It really shouldn't be called "blocking" ads. It's really just choosing not to render them. When I control the rendering device (my browser), I can make it do whatever I want. Good luck showing me your video ad when I'm browsing with "links".
- acdha 11y ago
  Your point #1 is sophistry. They're making things available with the clear expectation of getting ad revenue. If you don't like ads, either don't visit the site or complain when it all goes behind a paywall. Besides, your argument is essentially “If you want me to pay, use DRM”. I would suggest that this is not a direction we need to try going down again.
  - __david__ 11y ago
    It's hardly sophistry. My point is the web as it stands has certain features. One of those features is that servers can't control how clients render content. I think it's pure hubris for content providers to move onto the web and then suddenly demand that things work the way they want ("you must render our ads or you're stealing") ignoring the way things actually work. > Besides, your argument is essentially “If you want me to pay, use DRM”. I would suggest that this is not a direction we need to try going down again. That sort of is my point, but not quite. Because once DRM is in the picture then I (and everyone else) won't partake of the content, which is what they want of me anyway. Until that time, I feel morally, ethically, and legally free to render their content as I see fit.
teddyh 11y ago
If your business model is publishing content on the Internet for free, it is not the responsibility of the readers to consume the content in a specific way to get you paid, or to come up with a way for you to get paid. You chose to publish on the Internet, without paywall. If you don’t like it, go back to not publishing.
joesmo 11y ago
Arguably? I don't think so. If the producer wants to protect their content, put it behind a paywall or similar. If you're sending out content to anyone for free, you can have no expectations of making money. Either guard it or don't, but don't try to put blame on others for your stupid decision to not guard it.