11 ms·

Maybe try paying for the content through their plan that allows you to pay without seeing any ads? I get that this is a porn site we are talking about here, bu

Maybe try paying for the content through their plan that allows you to pay without seeing any ads? I get that this is a porn site we are talking about here, but why is "just pay for it" never discussed in these kinds of submissions? Why is it always "how do we keep getting all this content for free without paying" and not "why can't they make it easier to pay" or "how else can I pay for this without losing security or anonymity"?

sdoering 10y ago
The problem isn't (at least with me) not that I have a problem with paying for content, but with opening and attack vector that isn't even controlled by the primarily visited outlet (be it porn or journalism). It wouldn't (at least in my case) be a problem with advertisement per se. Adservers with additional adservers behind them (and cascading further down) where only one would have to be compromised to infect my machine is what makes me use hard rules not to let (unknown) third party requests on any page pass. I try to minimize my flank surface in regards to such online attack possibilities. In my case it is with adblocking, a curated and regularly updated host file, 3rd party request blockage and so on... OK, the net is mostly unusable and painful nowadays, but that is the price to pay.
tokenizerrr 10y ago
Because I really enjoy not getting malware installed on my computer. As long as ads are one of the major vectors for malware installations, and ad networks barely vet the ads they publish, I will be doing everything I can do to block them.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  If that were really the case, wouldn't paying the price for their premium package that has a 0% chance of having advertisements be better than using an adblocker which clearly has a greater than 0% chance at seeing ads?
  - bahjoite 10y ago
    Of course not. Using an ad blocker means that ads are blocked at all sites. Paying for content at one site clearly doesn't affect the ads delivered by other sites.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. You can have an adblocker, and still pay for content...
      - bahjoite 10y ago
        Correct. People using ad blockers want to block ads. They don't necessarily want to pay to avoid seeing ads. They may still wish to pay for content they like. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        But in this case, it's pretty black and white. If you wanted to block ads, paying for the subscription is not only the ethical thing to do, but also much safer as it brings the possibility of being served ads to 0% If you are okay with viewing ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue, as you will be served the ads just like before.
        bahjoite 10y ago
        I disagree that paying for the subscription is the ethical thing to do. The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free. That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.
m3rc 10y ago
Because that's a totally separate discussion. Blocking ads is about controlling what code runs on my machine, not about trying to obtain content without "paying" for it. There has been a nightmarish amount of malware served through ads and so blocking ads (and external JS content) is a security concern. After the fact, once all ads have been blocked, there can be a discussion about creators getting money for their content. In that conversation I am happy to talk about paying for Youtube Red, supporting people on Patreon, and sponsored segments in podcasts, all of which I am in favor of. But don't try and turn a security issue into an ethics issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Klathmon 10y ago
  But it is an ethics issue. They have a way to pay and get ads 0% of the time, guaranteed. If you really cared about your security, you would both block ads and pay for the subscription to ensure you never get served the code in the first place. And even if that weren't the case, why is it okay to just take what you want without paying just because you don't approve of the security. Often times I don't trust a website with my credit card info, the solution is to not use that website. The solution is to not try to hack in and take what I want without paying... Edit: i've now had threats sent to the email I had listed in my user profile about this. So i'm done talking here.
  - m3rc 10y ago
    You are making very strange false equivalencies the likes of which I haven't heard since those MPAA ads telling me not to download cars... Are you saying that blocking ads on a website is somehow the same thing as hacking the website and taking material?
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    To repeat: It is not about paying. I do pay for a number of services that do me right (Steam games, Google Play music, Netflix, others) and would pay for services if i could (Youtube Red). Personally i have no stake in pornhub since i don't use it. It's still, and entirely separately from payments, a very important issue. The real context here is: Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. Even if the internet had no ads and no tracking code and no malware anywhere whatsoever, there would still be a need for the technology to block and change the way in which my computer handles the things sent to it by other computers before showing them to me. I have a myriad blocks and css modifications and even site additions and other things set up that have absolutely nothing to do with ads, and being able to do that reliably is important.
wernercd 10y ago
Why do these topics always come up? Because places overcharge, make things too complicated or use insecure services... I don't block ads to stop creators from getting paid... I block ads because 99% of them are irrelevant, waste my time and are a massive attack vector. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe...
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Then don't use the site. When people make this argument, it sounds to me like they are telling me to just steal my food from a restaurant if I don't think their payment processor is 100% secure. I know that digital != physical goods in many ways, but the point is why does you not approving of their process, security, or price give you the right to just not do it?
  - Touche 10y ago
    That's not how the web works. Websites give you their website for free. Your web browser does a GET / and their server responds 200 OK with some content. How you view that content once it is transferred onto your computer is 100% up to you. You can block ads, you can make plugins click-to-play, you can change the styles using Stylish; whatever you want. For your own viewing purposes, it is now yours.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      Websites are not giving you the content for free, they are giving it to you with an expectation that you take the ads along with them, or you pay for the subscription. This excuse is so played out it's annoying. You could say this about anything: That's not how the real world works. Stores offer you things for free on a shelf, you walk up and take the item, and the store responds by letting you have it. How you pay for that item is 100% up to you. But that's not true. Just like how a store expects you to pay for something, the website expects payment in the form of a subscription/payment, or by running the ads. (and i'm just using the comparison as an analogy, I know digital vs physical is a whole other discussion, and i'm not implying that viewing a page without ads is the same as stealing physical items) Where do you draw the line there? Is it okay to flip some bits in your bank account and give yourself money because the computer responds letting you? Are you allowed to download paid software for free because someone somewhere served it to you?
pjc50 10y ago
I note that many of the "free" porn sites are in fact copyright infringing; so even if you do pay them for it, it doesn't go to the people who actually made it in the first place.
wlll 10y ago
Maybe it's not worth it? Maybe the value add just isn't there? I don't know how much Pornhub charge (I checked, £9.99/month, joys of working from home), but I do get harangued every once in a while for newspaper sites. "Only £x/month!", problem is it's not worth it for me. I generally don't consume one newspaper, I don't read articles from one place, I read them from multiple places. I pick and choose. I follow links on Twitter or Hacker News. I see these sites more like buskers than businesses. Perhaps if I could drop 10p in the pot with zero effort I might. I don't know. I'm certainly not going to go through the hassle of digging out the the first, third and eighth digits of my credit card 3dsecure passcode for it. Perhaps if they had a zero effort way of charging 10p every time someone used the site they'd get more people paying. Also, just comparing specific examples here. The Guardian ask for £5/month to become a supporter. It's almost tempting at that amount. For that you get stuff they've actually created. Pornhub want to charge £10/month for content they've basically stolen from somewhere else and are now serving with a simple tag based categorisation and video player. > "how do we keep getting all this content for free without paying" Maybe this is what people are saying, but not what they actually mean. Almost without fail adverts are intrusive, obnoxious, sometimes disgusting, CPU spinning malware delivery vectors. Perhaps the lack of middle ground between that, and paying more money than we think something is worth, is non-existent, and therefore filled with a workaround; adblockers. I think it's been done (micropayments), but perhaps being able to pay for a fraction of something is needed these days. Not one whole newspaper (the past) but one article (the present)
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Cat and mouse was mentioned, so maybe it's the game?
bahjoite 10y ago
Leaving aside that some people feel that ads are an imposition: we are not obliged to see ads, nor to execute code delivered by a website. The web is a public place where the majority of content is free to consume. Those publishers who wish not to provide content for free are free to demand payment for it. They're free to raise revenue by delivering ads too, but we're not obliged to see them.
ekimekim 10y ago
Sibling comments made the security argument at length, but I'll add another aspect: one of sovereignty. I'm displaying content on my screen. It's my screen, and my computer, and I don't see a difference between an ad blocker and, say, putting post-it notes over the screen to physically block the space the ads are appearing in. In the same way, I can control whether I watch a video muted or at 100% volume. I can control what font I use, whether my browser is fullscreen. I can modify the displayed content so all instances of the word "millennials" read as "snake people". I can choose not to display ads. I'm not articulating this well, but I hope I got my point across. I view anti-adblockers like I do DRM - it's a program or piece of data (edit: ...that is running on my computer, not remotely) that is causing my computer to behave in ways I do not want my computer to behave, and so fits the definition of malware.
- trylist 10y ago
  Their argument is pretty silly. If I close my eyes and mute my TV when commercials come on am I ripping off TV networks?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - thomaskcr 10y ago
    No because they get paid to show you the ad, not make sure you watched it. Adblockers prevent the ad from being shown which is fundamentally different. On recording and fast forwarding later since it's a closer analog, the network is being paid to show that ad to people during that time period - generally the numbers used to sell ad space exclude people recording for later (they are broken out). So that is also not ripping them off since the ads are part of the "cost" of watching the show at that time, not in general.
    - problems 10y ago
      So would it then be okay by your logic to load the ad in the background and just hide it from the page like muting a radio ad? Old school Adblock used to do this in the early days.
duaneb 10y ago
Facebook doesn't allow you to pay, and that's normal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
andygates 10y ago
Because I've no expectation for the adverts to go away. Slightly fewer adverts and "that one isn't an advert its a promoted link" lies don't cut it. (also: because they're shady as hell popunder scam ads, so this is by definition a shady actor, and shady actors don't get my financials) And for all the talk of innovation, they keep putting terrible adverts up. Seriously, porn industry, mistargeted kinks are a turn-off that drives customers away, surely?

sdoering 10y ago

The problem isn't (at least with me) not that I have a problem with paying for content, but with opening and attack vector that isn't even controlled by the primarily visited outlet (be it porn or journalism). It wouldn't (at least in my case) be a problem with advertisement per se. Adservers with additional adservers behind them (and cascading further down) where only one would have to be compromised to infect my machine is what makes me use hard rules not to let (unknown) third party requests on any page pass. I try to minimize my flank surface in regards to such online attack possibilities. In my case it is with adblocking, a curated and regularly updated host file, 3rd party request blockage and so on... OK, the net is mostly unusable and painful nowadays, but that is the price to pay.

tokenizerrr 10y ago

Because I really enjoy not getting malware installed on my computer. As long as ads are one of the major vectors for malware installations, and ad networks barely vet the ads they publish, I will be doing everything I can do to block them.

Klathmon 10y ago
If that were really the case, wouldn't paying the price for their premium package that has a 0% chance of having advertisements be better than using an adblocker which clearly has a greater than 0% chance at seeing ads?
- bahjoite 10y ago
  Of course not. Using an ad blocker means that ads are blocked at all sites. Paying for content at one site clearly doesn't affect the ads delivered by other sites.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. You can have an adblocker, and still pay for content...
    - bahjoite 10y ago
      Correct. People using ad blockers want to block ads. They don't necessarily want to pay to avoid seeing ads. They may still wish to pay for content they like. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        But in this case, it's pretty black and white. If you wanted to block ads, paying for the subscription is not only the ethical thing to do, but also much safer as it brings the possibility of being served ads to 0% If you are okay with viewing ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue, as you will be served the ads just like before.
        bahjoite 10y ago
        I disagree that paying for the subscription is the ethical thing to do. The publisher expressly allows the content to be consumed for free - they don't require payment for the content. Therefore it is not unethical to consume that content for free. That they desire us to view ads is beside the point: we're not obliged to view them, nor is it unethical to choose not to view them.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        They aren't expressly allowing the content to be consumed for free any more than a store-front that shows off products is allowing them to be taken for free. There is the expectation that you serve the ads along with the content given, and violating that expectation is an ethical issue. It might not be an issue for you, but to pretend it doesn't exist is ignorant at best.

m3rc 10y ago

Because that's a totally separate discussion. Blocking ads is about controlling what code runs on my machine, not about trying to obtain content without "paying" for it. There has been a nightmarish amount of malware served through ads and so blocking ads (and external JS content) is a security concern. After the fact, once all ads have been blocked, there can be a discussion about creators getting money for their content. In that conversation I am happy to talk about paying for Youtube Red, supporting people on Patreon, and sponsored segments in podcasts, all of which I am in favor of. But don't try and turn a security issue into an ethics issue.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Klathmon 10y ago
But it is an ethics issue. They have a way to pay and get ads 0% of the time, guaranteed. If you really cared about your security, you would both block ads and pay for the subscription to ensure you never get served the code in the first place. And even if that weren't the case, why is it okay to just take what you want without paying just because you don't approve of the security. Often times I don't trust a website with my credit card info, the solution is to not use that website. The solution is to not try to hack in and take what I want without paying... Edit: i've now had threats sent to the email I had listed in my user profile about this. So i'm done talking here.
- m3rc 10y ago
  You are making very strange false equivalencies the likes of which I haven't heard since those MPAA ads telling me not to download cars... Are you saying that blocking ads on a website is somehow the same thing as hacking the website and taking material?
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  To repeat: It is not about paying. I do pay for a number of services that do me right (Steam games, Google Play music, Netflix, others) and would pay for services if i could (Youtube Red). Personally i have no stake in pornhub since i don't use it. It's still, and entirely separately from payments, a very important issue. The real context here is: Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. Even if the internet had no ads and no tracking code and no malware anywhere whatsoever, there would still be a need for the technology to block and change the way in which my computer handles the things sent to it by other computers before showing them to me. I have a myriad blocks and css modifications and even site additions and other things set up that have absolutely nothing to do with ads, and being able to do that reliably is important.

wernercd 10y ago

Why do these topics always come up? Because places overcharge, make things too complicated or use insecure services... I don't block ads to stop creators from getting paid... I block ads because 99% of them are irrelevant, waste my time and are a massive attack vector. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbes-site-after-begging-you-turn-off-adblocker-serves-up-steaming-pile-malware-ads.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160111/05574633295/forbe...

Klathmon 10y ago
Then don't use the site. When people make this argument, it sounds to me like they are telling me to just steal my food from a restaurant if I don't think their payment processor is 100% secure. I know that digital != physical goods in many ways, but the point is why does you not approving of their process, security, or price give you the right to just not do it?
- Touche 10y ago
  That's not how the web works. Websites give you their website for free. Your web browser does a GET / and their server responds 200 OK with some content. How you view that content once it is transferred onto your computer is 100% up to you. You can block ads, you can make plugins click-to-play, you can change the styles using Stylish; whatever you want. For your own viewing purposes, it is now yours.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    Websites are not giving you the content for free, they are giving it to you with an expectation that you take the ads along with them, or you pay for the subscription. This excuse is so played out it's annoying. You could say this about anything: That's not how the real world works. Stores offer you things for free on a shelf, you walk up and take the item, and the store responds by letting you have it. How you pay for that item is 100% up to you. But that's not true. Just like how a store expects you to pay for something, the website expects payment in the form of a subscription/payment, or by running the ads. (and i'm just using the comparison as an analogy, I know digital vs physical is a whole other discussion, and i'm not implying that viewing a page without ads is the same as stealing physical items) Where do you draw the line there? Is it okay to flip some bits in your bank account and give yourself money because the computer responds letting you? Are you allowed to download paid software for free because someone somewhere served it to you?

pjc50 10y ago

I note that many of the "free" porn sites are in fact copyright infringing; so even if you do pay them for it, it doesn't go to the people who actually made it in the first place.

wlll 10y ago

Maybe it's not worth it? Maybe the value add just isn't there? I don't know how much Pornhub charge (I checked, £9.99/month, joys of working from home), but I do get harangued every once in a while for newspaper sites. "Only £x/month!", problem is it's not worth it for me. I generally don't consume one newspaper, I don't read articles from one place, I read them from multiple places. I pick and choose. I follow links on Twitter or Hacker News. I see these sites more like buskers than businesses. Perhaps if I could drop 10p in the pot with zero effort I might. I don't know. I'm certainly not going to go through the hassle of digging out the the first, third and eighth digits of my credit card 3dsecure passcode for it. Perhaps if they had a zero effort way of charging 10p every time someone used the site they'd get more people paying. Also, just comparing specific examples here. The Guardian ask for £5/month to become a supporter. It's almost tempting at that amount. For that you get stuff they've actually created. Pornhub want to charge £10/month for content they've basically stolen from somewhere else and are now serving with a simple tag based categorisation and video player. > "how do we keep getting all this content for free without paying" Maybe this is what people are saying, but not what they actually mean. Almost without fail adverts are intrusive, obnoxious, sometimes disgusting, CPU spinning malware delivery vectors. Perhaps the lack of middle ground between that, and paying more money than we think something is worth, is non-existent, and therefore filled with a workaround; adblockers. I think it's been done (micropayments), but perhaps being able to pay for a fraction of something is needed these days. Not one whole newspaper (the past) but one article (the present)

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Cat and mouse was mentioned, so maybe it's the game?

bahjoite 10y ago

Leaving aside that some people feel that ads are an imposition: we are not obliged to see ads, nor to execute code delivered by a website. The web is a public place where the majority of content is free to consume. Those publishers who wish not to provide content for free are free to demand payment for it. They're free to raise revenue by delivering ads too, but we're not obliged to see them.

ekimekim 10y ago

Sibling comments made the security argument at length, but I'll add another aspect: one of sovereignty. I'm displaying content on my screen. It's my screen, and my computer, and I don't see a difference between an ad blocker and, say, putting post-it notes over the screen to physically block the space the ads are appearing in. In the same way, I can control whether I watch a video muted or at 100% volume. I can control what font I use, whether my browser is fullscreen. I can modify the displayed content so all instances of the word "millennials" read as "snake people". I can choose not to display ads. I'm not articulating this well, but I hope I got my point across. I view anti-adblockers like I do DRM - it's a program or piece of data (edit: ...that is running on my computer, not remotely) that is causing my computer to behave in ways I do not want my computer to behave, and so fits the definition of malware.

trylist 10y ago
Their argument is pretty silly. If I close my eyes and mute my TV when commercials come on am I ripping off TV networks?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- thomaskcr 10y ago
  No because they get paid to show you the ad, not make sure you watched it. Adblockers prevent the ad from being shown which is fundamentally different. On recording and fast forwarding later since it's a closer analog, the network is being paid to show that ad to people during that time period - generally the numbers used to sell ad space exclude people recording for later (they are broken out). So that is also not ripping them off since the ads are part of the "cost" of watching the show at that time, not in general.
  - problems 10y ago
    So would it then be okay by your logic to load the ad in the background and just hide it from the page like muting a radio ad? Old school Adblock used to do this in the early days.

duaneb 10y ago

Facebook doesn't allow you to pay, and that's normal.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

andygates 10y ago

Because I've no expectation for the adverts to go away. Slightly fewer adverts and "that one isn't an advert its a promoted link" lies don't cut it. (also: because they're shady as hell popunder scam ads, so this is by definition a shady actor, and shady actors don't get my financials) And for all the talk of innovation, they keep putting terrible adverts up. Seriously, porn industry, mistargeted kinks are a turn-off that drives customers away, surely?