5 ms·

This does not work for me. I'm using 'ghostery' to block ads though, not 'ad-block'.

by 4e1a 11y ago

rogeryu 11y ago
Well I'm using Privacy Badger. It is not about the used technology. It's about the idea, the concept. If you don't want to see ads, you pay a small amount using bitcoins. I don't see it working unless it's forced upon you.
- contravariant 11y ago
  >If you don't want to see ads, you pay a small amount using bitcoins. I don't see it working unless it's forced upon you. Reminds me of that Black Mirror episode. Spoiler: things go very badly if it's forced upon you.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Very different concept. In Black Mirror, you're forced to watch media and ads every moment you're awake unless you pay not to. Here, if you choose to willingly visit a website to consume some sort of content but refuse to look at the ads that fund that content, you're asked to make a payment to fund said content. This is, afterall, what the majority of adblock and anti-tracking proponents have been lobbying for. 'We don't want to have to deal with ads. We don't want to be tracked. We want to pay for content.' This simply gives them the opportunity. Note that it is also voluntary and doesn't prevent the content from being displayed. Heck, it says "would you consider" and has a suggested bitcoin donation equivalent to 1 penny.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Black Mirror simply falls down the slippery slope and tells the story of people living at the bottom of it. Voluntary transaction is truly voluntary only if neither side needs it to live a productive life.
  - pyython 11y ago
    This is exactly what I've been thinking about re:the recent slew of adblock news on HN. Content creation and distribution have real costs, and I see other, far more intrusive models developing to combat loss of ad revenue if ad blockers become the norm. Not to mention the contribution to rising income inequality/decreasing social mobility. If all useful information is behind a paywall, only those that can afford it will have access - further increasing the return to capital. All this to say, be careful what you wish for...
    - hardwaresofton 11y ago
      Yes, except the most useful content out there is available largely for free (or would cost a crazy small amount to keep funded, if the userbase contributed as little as $1 or $3). In particular, I'm thinking of: Wikipedia Google Also, maybe it will lead people to start putting trust in offline archives of information, which wouldn't be terrible either. Honestly, a lot of the "content" on the internet is garbage/not productive. I can at the very least argue that lots of bandwidth that's being used on the internet is just watching shit that's usually not educational.
      - pyython 11y ago
        Google runs the largest ad network on the planet. It's absolutely critical to their business model. Wikipedia is great, but they produce no content of their own and lack any sort of curation. Of course there's a lot of crap on the Internet, but I personally find many types of well-curated, professional content extremely valuable. I personally would be willing to pay for much of it, but I'm in a better position to do so than many - which is exactly my point.
        hardwaresofton 11y ago
        My point was that if Google decided to change it's business model, and charged something like a $1 for a monthly subscription to using it's search services, it would be more than safe. I don't think the fact that wikipedia produces it's own content is relevant, and whether it lacks curation being relevant either. Regardless of those two facts, it is immensely useful. The majority of articles, especially on highly technical/useful topics (like farming techniques) are mostly accurate. Just because some may not be in a position to buy/afford something doesn't mean that everyone should endure inefficiency. Also, depending on the price, the truly important information would still be worth it. I don't think what's going to keep the less fortunate from using web services is a reasonably priced web service. Currently, you can get a VPS for roughly $10/month, and a domain name for something like $70 (a .com usually costs this much I think). If you had monthly subscribers who were asked to pay $1 a month, the amount of subscribers to keep you in business (nevermind that today's tech can easily scale up to thousands of users on one box), is not high at all.
- ksowocki 11y ago
  It all depends on the customer's relationship with the brand. The thesis here is that consumers will support brands they are loyal to and/or have an affection for. Even with it being forced upon them.
- teps 11y ago
  When I go have a beer in a bar, I often give between 0.2 and 1$ tips. Why? Because it really easy and require no effort. I would with no hesitation give 0.1$ to a interesting article if it were only one click away. I would easily give 0.5-1$ after a good episode of a TV show if I only had to do one click. Yes, that include pirated TV shows. The problem is that there is no way to easily give a small amount of money to a content creator on its creations.
  - schorgie30 11y ago
    Hey teps, Cameron Schorg with a new startup called SnipBit. We are working on making a platform very similar to what you talked about. The main difference is that we would charge for the content on the front end and then offer a refund option if you didn't like the content. You should check us out at www.snipbit.io and if you would be willing, I'd would love to have a chat as we are ALWAYS doing customer discovery (schorgie30@gmail.com).
  - rogeryu 11y ago
    Take a look at Blendle. https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/
- happimess 11y ago
  I think 4ela was talking about a technical problem, not a philosophical objection.
  - ksowocki 11y ago
    This project is in 'proof of concept' stage right now. Will be solving the technical problem of cross-device/browser/adblocker testing next.
ksowocki 11y ago
OP here. Thanks for the feedback, I've tested with uBlock and AdBlock Plus, will give ghostery a go as well.

This does not work for me. I'm using 'ghostery' to block ads though, not 'ad-block'.

by 4e1a 11y ago

This does not work for me. I'm using 'ghostery' to block ads though, not 'ad-block'.

Well I'm using Privacy Badger. It is not about the used technology. It's about the idea, the concept. If you don't want to see ads, you pay a small amount using bitcoins. I don't see it working unless it's forced upon you.

contravariant 11y ago
>If you don't want to see ads, you pay a small amount using bitcoins. I don't see it working unless it's forced upon you. Reminds me of that Black Mirror episode. Spoiler: things go very badly if it's forced upon you.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Very different concept. In Black Mirror, you're forced to watch media and ads every moment you're awake unless you pay not to. Here, if you choose to willingly visit a website to consume some sort of content but refuse to look at the ads that fund that content, you're asked to make a payment to fund said content. This is, afterall, what the majority of adblock and anti-tracking proponents have been lobbying for. 'We don't want to have to deal with ads. We don't want to be tracked. We want to pay for content.' This simply gives them the opportunity. Note that it is also voluntary and doesn't prevent the content from being displayed. Heck, it says "would you consider" and has a suggested bitcoin donation equivalent to 1 penny.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Black Mirror simply falls down the slippery slope and tells the story of people living at the bottom of it. Voluntary transaction is truly voluntary only if neither side needs it to live a productive life.
- pyython 11y ago
  This is exactly what I've been thinking about re:the recent slew of adblock news on HN. Content creation and distribution have real costs, and I see other, far more intrusive models developing to combat loss of ad revenue if ad blockers become the norm. Not to mention the contribution to rising income inequality/decreasing social mobility. If all useful information is behind a paywall, only those that can afford it will have access - further increasing the return to capital. All this to say, be careful what you wish for...
  - hardwaresofton 11y ago
    Yes, except the most useful content out there is available largely for free (or would cost a crazy small amount to keep funded, if the userbase contributed as little as $1 or $3). In particular, I'm thinking of: Wikipedia Google Also, maybe it will lead people to start putting trust in offline archives of information, which wouldn't be terrible either. Honestly, a lot of the "content" on the internet is garbage/not productive. I can at the very least argue that lots of bandwidth that's being used on the internet is just watching shit that's usually not educational.
    - pyython 11y ago
      Google runs the largest ad network on the planet. It's absolutely critical to their business model. Wikipedia is great, but they produce no content of their own and lack any sort of curation. Of course there's a lot of crap on the Internet, but I personally find many types of well-curated, professional content extremely valuable. I personally would be willing to pay for much of it, but I'm in a better position to do so than many - which is exactly my point.
      - hardwaresofton 11y ago
        My point was that if Google decided to change it's business model, and charged something like a $1 for a monthly subscription to using it's search services, it would be more than safe. I don't think the fact that wikipedia produces it's own content is relevant, and whether it lacks curation being relevant either. Regardless of those two facts, it is immensely useful. The majority of articles, especially on highly technical/useful topics (like farming techniques) are mostly accurate. Just because some may not be in a position to buy/afford something doesn't mean that everyone should endure inefficiency. Also, depending on the price, the truly important information would still be worth it. I don't think what's going to keep the less fortunate from using web services is a reasonably priced web service. Currently, you can get a VPS for roughly $10/month, and a domain name for something like $70 (a .com usually costs this much I think). If you had monthly subscribers who were asked to pay $1 a month, the amount of subscribers to keep you in business (nevermind that today's tech can easily scale up to thousands of users on one box), is not high at all.
ksowocki 11y ago
It all depends on the customer's relationship with the brand. The thesis here is that consumers will support brands they are loyal to and/or have an affection for. Even with it being forced upon them.
teps 11y ago
When I go have a beer in a bar, I often give between 0.2 and 1$ tips. Why? Because it really easy and require no effort. I would with no hesitation give 0.1$ to a interesting article if it were only one click away. I would easily give 0.5-1$ after a good episode of a TV show if I only had to do one click. Yes, that include pirated TV shows. The problem is that there is no way to easily give a small amount of money to a content creator on its creations.
- schorgie30 11y ago
  Hey teps, Cameron Schorg with a new startup called SnipBit. We are working on making a platform very similar to what you talked about. The main difference is that we would charge for the content on the front end and then offer a refund option if you didn't like the content. You should check us out at www.snipbit.io and if you would be willing, I'd would love to have a chat as we are ALWAYS doing customer discovery (schorgie30@gmail.com).
- rogeryu 11y ago
  Take a look at Blendle. https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/
happimess 11y ago
I think 4ela was talking about a technical problem, not a philosophical objection.
- ksowocki 11y ago
  This project is in 'proof of concept' stage right now. Will be solving the technical problem of cross-device/browser/adblocker testing next.

ksowocki 11y ago

OP here. Thanks for the feedback, I've tested with uBlock and AdBlock Plus, will give ghostery a go as well.