4 ms·

No one signed a covenant saying that they would point their eyeballs towards ads, be they web surfers with ad block or television audiences with TiVo. The flip

No one signed a covenant saying that they would point their eyeballs towards ads, be they web surfers with ad block or television audiences with TiVo. The flip side being, no one (or very few) ever signed a covenant saying they would not spy on you and sell the information you handed over to them, intentionally or not. It is not stealing to install ad blockers. It is not stealing to fingerprint browsers.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I agree. I'm only saying they take something while dodging all methods to compensate its creator(s). Quite a selfish choice which damages creators. There's other angles but isn't it odd that not one person (except me) admits to doing that? Like they're reframing it in their heads to be A Good Thing rather than some selfish benefits plus potential harm.
- fabulist 11y ago
  It is definitely problematic, and I don't feel great about it. I recognize the need to compensate the creators of the content we consume. But the industry needs to move on from the surveillance business model before it rots away under them. I guess this might be a good time for me to buy a subscription to NYT and WP.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Least you're thinking on it now. You might like this article that sums up the situation, how we got here, the issues, and possibilities for a better Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advert... Personally, the echo chamber risk is the scariest for me as I get to see every day a democracy subverted by major media companies that do exactly that. It's incredibly effective. Far as alternative models, I think one start we can push is paying to make ads go away. I could be one time, monthly subscription, etc on a per-site basis priced at whatever you'd likely be worth in per-user ad revenue. Plus invest money into smart youth in academia or even private sector to work on alternative business models that optionally start with ads given their value to startups. Just ideas I've been toying with.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I agree. I'm only saying they take something while dodging all methods to compensate its creator(s). Quite a selfish choice which damages creators. There's other angles but isn't it odd that not one person (except me) admits to doing that? Like they're reframing it in their heads to be A Good Thing rather than some selfish benefits plus potential harm.

fabulist 11y ago
It is definitely problematic, and I don't feel great about it. I recognize the need to compensate the creators of the content we consume. But the industry needs to move on from the surveillance business model before it rots away under them. I guess this might be a good time for me to buy a subscription to NYT and WP.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Least you're thinking on it now. You might like this article that sums up the situation, how we got here, the issues, and possibilities for a better Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advert... Personally, the echo chamber risk is the scariest for me as I get to see every day a democracy subverted by major media companies that do exactly that. It's incredibly effective. Far as alternative models, I think one start we can push is paying to make ads go away. I could be one time, monthly subscription, etc on a per-site basis priced at whatever you'd likely be worth in per-user ad revenue. Plus invest money into smart youth in academia or even private sector to work on alternative business models that optionally start with ads given their value to startups. Just ideas I've been toying with.