4 ms·

This is not meant to be purely controversial, but I thought long and hard about WSJ back a few months ago when HN mod (always forget his name) said to stop comp

This is not meant to be purely controversial, but I thought long and hard about WSJ back a few months ago when HN mod (always forget his name) said to stop complaining about HN links being posted because paywalls were ok. I agree paywalls are ok. But some things are not ok. Take a look, for instance, at the WSJ.com home page with an ad blocker turned on (note all the missing letters and scrambled up titles). They want me to pay, and they want me to see ads, and they want to track my behavior? Should I send them my DNA also? Organizations like WSJ are exactly the disease that causes ad blockers to proliferate and ruin the web for all the decent publishers. They're at war with my privacy (by breaking their site intentionally when I visit with a blocker on). They want it all, ads, tracking, your private data, and subscription revenue, not to mention... # Agenda-Driven Content I mean, we're basically talking about NBC or Fox here, just on the web. Imagine every morning when you woke up you turned on the television and tune to some "news" show. After talking about the weather, they start talking about a lost pickle that is thought to be potentially alive and moving about with free will. Over the next two years, talk about the same pickle extends to every other TV show. Before you know it, everybody in the nation is talking about the same pickle. Years go by, and that pickle has become a part of our society, and that's not because people are born with an innate care the well-being of pickles, but because "news" shows taught them to be. That's not a good position to be in. I have to believe I'm not the only one in here that doesn't watch any TV. So, why do we all treat the same media giants differently on the web? We crave their content so much that we build browser add-ons to get to their content, etc.

Laaw 11y ago
If they make sending your DNA a requirement of consuming their content, then yes, you send it to them if you want their content. That's their right, as owners of something, to dictate its use. You aren't entitled to WSJ.com, NBC, or Fox.
- mangeletti 11y ago
  I'm not a collectivist, nor do I believe I'm "entitled" to anything, including human rights. I'm simply stating that "I don't support organizations like WSJ"... as you can clearly see, if you read my comment. I don't propose anyone ban them. I simply "don't know why we [as a society] support them", also clearly in my comment. My point, which your political diatribe disallowed you to notice, was that we're fighting awful hard to consume their garbage. Meanwhile, there is plenty of content out there there is free, not because of socialism or entitlement, but for the same reason as blockers became popular... because information is so readily available now that nobody is ready to send their DNA in.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
> Take a look, for instance, at the WSJ.com home page with an ad blocker turned on (note all the missing letters and scrambled up titles). I don't actually see what you're referring to; maybe its because I get redirected to http://www.wsj.com/europe http://www.wsj.com/europe. Maybe I have a different ad-blocker. Either way, it reminds me somewhat of NME's [1] homepage (New Musical Express, a popular music publication; not sure if it's really known outside of the UK). They deliver their images in such a way that they fall foul of my ad-blocker, although I haven't looked in enough depth to be certain whether this is a way of preventing ad-blockers, or purely unintentional. [1] http://www.nme.com/ http://www.nme.com/
0xffff2 11y ago
>Take a look, for instance, at the WSJ.com home page with an ad blocker turned on (note all the missing letters and scrambled up titles) Uh, what? Using uBlock origin, when I visit wsj.com I get what looks like a perfectly normal page. Nothing is scrambled at all.

Laaw 11y ago

If they make sending your DNA a requirement of consuming their content, then yes, you send it to them if you want their content. That's their right, as owners of something, to dictate its use. You aren't entitled to WSJ.com, NBC, or Fox.

mangeletti 11y ago
I'm not a collectivist, nor do I believe I'm "entitled" to anything, including human rights. I'm simply stating that "I don't support organizations like WSJ"... as you can clearly see, if you read my comment. I don't propose anyone ban them. I simply "don't know why we [as a society] support them", also clearly in my comment. My point, which your political diatribe disallowed you to notice, was that we're fighting awful hard to consume their garbage. Meanwhile, there is plenty of content out there there is free, not because of socialism or entitlement, but for the same reason as blockers became popular... because information is so readily available now that nobody is ready to send their DNA in.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

> Take a look, for instance, at the WSJ.com home page with an ad blocker turned on (note all the missing letters and scrambled up titles). I don't actually see what you're referring to; maybe its because I get redirected to http://www.wsj.com/europe http://www.wsj.com/europe. Maybe I have a different ad-blocker. Either way, it reminds me somewhat of NME's [1] homepage (New Musical Express, a popular music publication; not sure if it's really known outside of the UK). They deliver their images in such a way that they fall foul of my ad-blocker, although I haven't looked in enough depth to be certain whether this is a way of preventing ad-blockers, or purely unintentional. [1] http://www.nme.com/ http://www.nme.com/

0xffff2 11y ago

>Take a look, for instance, at the WSJ.com home page with an ad blocker turned on (note all the missing letters and scrambled up titles) Uh, what? Using uBlock origin, when I visit wsj.com I get what looks like a perfectly normal page. Nothing is scrambled at all.