4 ms·

The uproar over web clients using adblockers strikes me as "not my problem". The web works like this: - A client sends an HTTP request to a server. - The serv

The uproar over web clients using adblockers strikes me as "not my problem". The web works like this: - A client sends an HTTP request to a server. - The server responds with data - The client interprets that data as it is configured to. The assumption that all clients are standards-conforming web browsers that will run all JavaScript, use provided CSS, download all resources, etc. is incorrect. Once that data is out of the server's hands, it has no control. Are Lynx, curl, wget, etc. somehow evil now? Sending mail to a daemon that downloads the page and emails it to you? If you built your business on sending data to an unknown remote client and expecting it to perform in an exact way, you should probably reconsider your business model.

ryandvm 11y ago
"Not my problem" is a perfect characterization of ad blocking. Of course, so is recycling or voting or any number of choices you make. It doesn't actually matter if you do or don't personally use an ad blocker. Just like it doesn't really matter if you recycle or not. But if everyone uses an ad blocker, well, things on the Internet are going to change drastically. At this point, I am in favor of us just getting it over with, enabling ad blockers everywhere, and making the transition to micropaying for content (or the less pleasant alternative of submarine advertising). I'll totally agree that advertisers and content producers have brought this on themselves by allowing ever increasingly annoying advertisements on their sites. Hell, I vacillate between using an ad blocker or not myself. Nonetheless, I find that people that use an ad blocker and claim they're not ripping anybody off are being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that viewing ads and thus generating revenue for the content producer is the entire, if implicit, point of the free-content arrangement. It's like not tipping your waitstaff - sure it's voluntary, but you're still ripping someone off.
- mercer 11y ago
  > It's like not tipping your waitstaff - sure it's voluntary, but you're still ripping someone off. That's a good analogy, precisely because many people (myself included) consider the concept of tipping as it exists in the US to be absolutely ridiculous. It's technically voluntary, except it's really mandatory. And this causes a bunch of issues that seem entirely avoidable to me. Over here in my part of the world tipping is actually voluntary, as it should be. If content producers provide content online for free, it should be free. If they want to get paid, well, they should put a paywall, use microtransactions, ask for donations, or think of other ways to make money. It's not my job as consumer to go out of my way to make their business model work. Especially not if this business model relies on the scummy world of (online) advertising. Edit: If anything, comparing ad blocking to neglecting to vote or recycle is intellectually dishonest.

ryandvm 11y ago

"Not my problem" is a perfect characterization of ad blocking. Of course, so is recycling or voting or any number of choices you make. It doesn't actually matter if you do or don't personally use an ad blocker. Just like it doesn't really matter if you recycle or not. But if everyone uses an ad blocker, well, things on the Internet are going to change drastically. At this point, I am in favor of us just getting it over with, enabling ad blockers everywhere, and making the transition to micropaying for content (or the less pleasant alternative of submarine advertising). I'll totally agree that advertisers and content producers have brought this on themselves by allowing ever increasingly annoying advertisements on their sites. Hell, I vacillate between using an ad blocker or not myself. Nonetheless, I find that people that use an ad blocker and claim they're not ripping anybody off are being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that viewing ads and thus generating revenue for the content producer is the entire, if implicit, point of the free-content arrangement. It's like not tipping your waitstaff - sure it's voluntary, but you're still ripping someone off.

mercer 11y ago
> It's like not tipping your waitstaff - sure it's voluntary, but you're still ripping someone off. That's a good analogy, precisely because many people (myself included) consider the concept of tipping as it exists in the US to be absolutely ridiculous. It's technically voluntary, except it's really mandatory. And this causes a bunch of issues that seem entirely avoidable to me. Over here in my part of the world tipping is actually voluntary, as it should be. If content producers provide content online for free, it should be free. If they want to get paid, well, they should put a paywall, use microtransactions, ask for donations, or think of other ways to make money. It's not my job as consumer to go out of my way to make their business model work. Especially not if this business model relies on the scummy world of (online) advertising. Edit: If anything, comparing ad blocking to neglecting to vote or recycle is intellectually dishonest.