6 ms·

> Some of us just do not like to have all our movements scrutinized, even by 1st parties -- I personally consider this a healthy stance, I just do not like to b

> Some of us just do not like to have all our movements scrutinized, even by 1st parties -- I personally consider this a healthy stance, I just do not like to be treated as a product. And that is your choice and I can respect that, but please, don't be one of those entitled people who complain about a website completely blocking you for blocking their stuff. And for the record, I love uBlock and your work. I use it myself, but I use it in blacklist mode only. Which I feel is the best way to do it. Block the shady sites, don't hurt the ones who just want to get a little analytics.

nitrogen 11y ago
If you make it an arms race, you will never be done racing. You should be honored that people want to use your site, not angry because you feel entitled to creep on them just because they made a GET request.
- joshmanders 11y ago
  Yeah, I get it. I should be honored to pay a server bill to display content that you want to see, and not get anything out of it. You should be honored I had the content you wanted to see and agree to what I require in exchange to view said content. So many people claim they'd rather pay a fee to view a site than have an ads shown to them.. But in practice, I highly doubt anyone would pay for the amount of sites they visit daily that display ads in exchange for delivering the content they want to see.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Why are you so hung up on the server bill? The costs of distributing information are next to '0'. The cost of the creation is an entirely different matter.
    - joshmanders 11y ago
      Cost of creation is one aspect, a server bill is the most tangible way to show cost. Take your post for example. Did it cost you a lot to write it? No. But I bet the cost in resources on your server for it making the front page of HN did go up.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        It's negligible compared to the time I spent writing it. At the same time, there are no ads on that page and there isn't a single tracker on it either. And the way the page has been slimmed down the bandwidth costs are a lot lower than what you might think they would be (that page transfers less than 15K of data). If server costs are a worry then definitely spend some time on thinking about slimming down the presentation to the point where those are no longer a worry. Whether that page gets viewed 10K or 100K times doesn't bother me, if it would get into the millions I'd have to do something about it (probably slim it down even further).
        joshmanders 11y ago
        I mean don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved your post and I understand it, but your argument right now is pure anecdotal. I haven't ran a site in the last 5 years that had an advertisement on it. But I have ran sites in the past that served over 400,000 unique visitors a day, and the only way I could afford to continue delivering the content that those visitors came for was to either require them to pay for it, or put advertisements on it. I couldn't afford at that time a $1500/mo server bill to give content out for the love of it. It was a full time job just to curate and provide the content let alone work a full time job to pay for it too. I see both sides. If you want to block ads and trackers, I fully understand and that is your right. I just don't like the fact that people feel entitled to the content of the website without agreeing to view the other stuff on the same page. Once again, if you block my ads, go for it, your right. But it's also my right to deny you that content on the fact that you blocked my ads.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Ah, but you are conflating ads and trackers, which is exactly the root of the problem. I'd be more than happy to view the ads, I might even click on them. But I point blank refuse to be profiled/tracked/long term cookied/finger printed and served a side of malware to boot. That is the problem here.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    The way trackers are implemented, they aren't a trade of good content for some info. They're a proposal of "I won't even let you find out whether I have good content unless you give me your info up-front". It's literally the privacy-invading equivalent of a clickwrap EULA that you can't read until after you've already agreed to it. To which the answer is "no, now take the business model that you thought required this and shove it somewhere anatomically improbable".

nitrogen 11y ago

If you make it an arms race, you will never be done racing. You should be honored that people want to use your site, not angry because you feel entitled to creep on them just because they made a GET request.

joshmanders 11y ago
Yeah, I get it. I should be honored to pay a server bill to display content that you want to see, and not get anything out of it. You should be honored I had the content you wanted to see and agree to what I require in exchange to view said content. So many people claim they'd rather pay a fee to view a site than have an ads shown to them.. But in practice, I highly doubt anyone would pay for the amount of sites they visit daily that display ads in exchange for delivering the content they want to see.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Why are you so hung up on the server bill? The costs of distributing information are next to '0'. The cost of the creation is an entirely different matter.
  - joshmanders 11y ago
    Cost of creation is one aspect, a server bill is the most tangible way to show cost. Take your post for example. Did it cost you a lot to write it? No. But I bet the cost in resources on your server for it making the front page of HN did go up.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      It's negligible compared to the time I spent writing it. At the same time, there are no ads on that page and there isn't a single tracker on it either. And the way the page has been slimmed down the bandwidth costs are a lot lower than what you might think they would be (that page transfers less than 15K of data). If server costs are a worry then definitely spend some time on thinking about slimming down the presentation to the point where those are no longer a worry. Whether that page gets viewed 10K or 100K times doesn't bother me, if it would get into the millions I'd have to do something about it (probably slim it down even further).
      - joshmanders 11y ago
        I mean don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved your post and I understand it, but your argument right now is pure anecdotal. I haven't ran a site in the last 5 years that had an advertisement on it. But I have ran sites in the past that served over 400,000 unique visitors a day, and the only way I could afford to continue delivering the content that those visitors came for was to either require them to pay for it, or put advertisements on it. I couldn't afford at that time a $1500/mo server bill to give content out for the love of it. It was a full time job just to curate and provide the content let alone work a full time job to pay for it too. I see both sides. If you want to block ads and trackers, I fully understand and that is your right. I just don't like the fact that people feel entitled to the content of the website without agreeing to view the other stuff on the same page. Once again, if you block my ads, go for it, your right. But it's also my right to deny you that content on the fact that you blocked my ads.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Ah, but you are conflating ads and trackers, which is exactly the root of the problem. I'd be more than happy to view the ads, I might even click on them. But I point blank refuse to be profiled/tracked/long term cookied/finger printed and served a side of malware to boot. That is the problem here.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  The way trackers are implemented, they aren't a trade of good content for some info. They're a proposal of "I won't even let you find out whether I have good content unless you give me your info up-front". It's literally the privacy-invading equivalent of a clickwrap EULA that you can't read until after you've already agreed to it. To which the answer is "no, now take the business model that you thought required this and shove it somewhere anatomically improbable".