3 ms·

> Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply rende

> Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.

swombat 17y ago
First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.
- dandelany 17y ago
  > Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention. > Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter. > Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff. > In any case, fuck'em. I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.

swombat 17y ago

First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wild world out there. If you don't wanna deal with it, don't. There'll be plenty of other publications willing to step in to fill the gap.

dandelany 17y ago
> Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention. > Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter. > Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff. > In any case, fuck'em. I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.