3 ms·

> whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world That fe

by untog 11y ago

> whatever value they provide is not greater than the cost of the malware they distribute. Them going out of business would be a net-good for the world That feels like a blanket statement. When we're talking about the free press going under because they aren't able to afford to keep running, that sounds a lot more like an Us problem than a You or Me problem. Yes, I realise that sounds hyperbolic, but...

coldpie 11y ago
To me this feels like a false dichotomy. There are business models other than "literally distributing malware" and the only reason they're not pursued is because distributing malware is currently profitable. We need to make that not the case so we can move on.
__jal 11y ago
No, we're not talking about "the free press" going under. We're talking about news (and "news" and entertainment and…) sites that take money from malware pushers. Think about that. If your news source is willing to take money from folks attacking your machine, what does that say about their trustworthiness? Sure, go on about the wall between church and state, or that it is the ad network and not blog, but there is a reason some of the larger corporations occasionally go on media buying sprees. I'm not sure that it is strictly impossible to be financially dependent on others and maintain a completely independent voice, but I can't think of an example. It is a suboptimal situation. I get that publishers are ending up with horrible tradeoffs. At the same time, if faced with a close friend who has ebola, I'm going to be incredibly sympathetic while also keeping quarantine. I also heard another complaint about my approach, which was that if I avoid sites like Forbes, why do I still need an ad blocker? And of course, the answer is that I rarely bump in to things or stumble, but still like guardrails on steps.

by untog 11y ago

coldpie 11y ago

To me this feels like a false dichotomy. There are business models other than "literally distributing malware" and the only reason they're not pursued is because distributing malware is currently profitable. We need to make that not the case so we can move on.

__jal 11y ago

No, we're not talking about "the free press" going under. We're talking about news (and "news" and entertainment and…) sites that take money from malware pushers. Think about that. If your news source is willing to take money from folks attacking your machine, what does that say about their trustworthiness? Sure, go on about the wall between church and state, or that it is the ad network and not blog, but there is a reason some of the larger corporations occasionally go on media buying sprees. I'm not sure that it is strictly impossible to be financially dependent on others and maintain a completely independent voice, but I can't think of an example. It is a suboptimal situation. I get that publishers are ending up with horrible tradeoffs. At the same time, if faced with a close friend who has ebola, I'm going to be incredibly sympathetic while also keeping quarantine. I also heard another complaint about my approach, which was that if I avoid sites like Forbes, why do I still need an ad blocker? And of course, the answer is that I rarely bump in to things or stumble, but still like guardrails on steps.