10 ms·

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 servic

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.

Klathmon 10y ago
To repeat: It is about paying. If you paid, this would be a non-issue, as you would never be served the ads in the first place. If you are okay with ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue as you would be served the ads anyway.
- m3rc 10y ago
  Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan? And why should people who can't afford to pay, or wish to not have their money benefit someone, be forced to be opened up to security exploits?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamespo 10y ago
    Who are these people being "forced" to use pornhub?
    - m3rc 10y ago
      I don't remembering mentioning forcing people to visit particular sites, I remember talking about telling people they weren't allowed to ever block ads. I also don't remember saying this was unique to pornhub, or mentioning pornhub in any way.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    "Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan?" Honestly this really is the problem and honestly when I first read it I thought you were arguing against ad blockers. Having to have subscriptions is ridiculous, which is why ad supported really is the only currently realistic model for the majority of the internet. Everyone seems to be so concerned with security so instead of reaching for the nuclear option of just not paying people who provide us content why don't we actually think about how to make them safer? What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker?
    - domatic 10y ago
      I have criteria for this: 1. No videos, flashing animations, pop-overs, pop-unders or audio. Ever. 2. I WILL tolerate text, links, and moderately sized images. 3. No building a dossier on me. I may allow tasteful ads but I will still block trackers and analytics with extreme prejudice.
    - kelnos 10y ago
      > What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker? There's absolutely nothing they can do. If I can hide ads by any means, I will do so. I absolutely hate them. They slow down page loading and rendering, they slow down my browser, and they're tacky and distracting. I a few options: 1. A system of micropayments so I can pay cents or fractions of a cent for page views, ad-free. 2. Blocking content as well if an ad blocker is detected. I'm fine with this; my stance is that if you send me data in response to a GET request, I can do anything I want with that data, including stripping out portions I don't want to see. If you block the content when detecting I'm blocking ads, that's fine; I'll accept that and not try to circumvent it (and will likely just do without your content). 3. A general (monthly-subscription-type) paywall. I'm unlikely to pay for this, as there are few (no?) sites I read often to justify the expense, so I'd again just do without. And I think that's the thing: there are enough people who don't block ads that they're apparently still profitable enough that sites that would prefer to charge for content can't see doing so as a viable business model. I look forward to the day when selling advertising is no longer viable, and something like my #1 idea takes hold. Suggesting that it's immoral or unethical to block ads is just hogwash.
  - ec109685 10y ago
    Google Contributer lets you do that given they handle the micro payments on your behalf to publishers. I would definitely subscribe to it and at least not block double click': network if you are annoyed by ads like I am.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Sorry, i edited my reply a little late: 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. That is why this matters: Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. Besides, as i said, i don't even use pornhub. Heck, a number of sites i use this stuff on are sites where i pay profusely. My steam expenses are 6000$ at this point, and i block a lot of things there, primarily because they actually make it more difficult for me to find the things i want to spend money on.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - beambot 10y ago
    If sites made it clear that your patronage while stripping out ads was unwelcome, would you voluntarily stop using all those websites...? Or would you hide behind the "running on my machine" argument while gleefully skimming their content?
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      If sites make it clear, i stay out or pursue alternatives they offer. For example i don't use bild.de. And for other sites i've started contributing to payment schemes like Patreon. Mobile apps i often by the upgrade to remove ads, even though i can just block them altogether.
      - tdb7893 10y ago
        That's good for you! The truth is that most people don't do that at all. I feel that either we need to pay for content or ad companies need to sponsor us for the content. If some sites have terrible ads it's really not that hard to just not go there.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  You'd be served ads before you logged in.
- facetube 10y ago
  You can serve the ads all you want. You're trying to make people _display_ them. There's a huge difference.
kevincrane 10y ago
> Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. "receives from other people's machines" makes it sound like PornHub is seeking you out and sending you stuff you didn't ask for. If you visited their site, you and your computer asked for whatever they sent. If you don't want parts of what they send, they offer you a convenient way of stopping that by paying for their content.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  I understand you were in a hurry to get your incredible iceburn in, but did that really preclude you from reading the part where i mentioned i don't use it?
  - bduerst 10y ago
    They're referring to the argument you made for the internet in general, pornhub being the contextual example. No need to split hairs.
- rubicon33 10y ago
  Similarly, if they don't want me viewing their content without paying, they can setup a pay wall. In today's world, running a business on an ad model is just one step above asking for donations. If you want people to pay, make them pay. It really is that simple.
  - andreygrehov 10y ago
    > Similarly, if they don't want me viewing their content without paying, they can setup a pay wall. Well, you don't pay to walk in the store.
    - mhurron 10y ago
      You do when that 'store' is an art gallery or something similar and the purpose there is to view the wares.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"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. " This is not true at all. You see ads all the time in apps you have on your mobile device (i.e. non browser) - and there is nothing you can do about it. Is the world freaking out over the consumers ability to 'control which ads come up in a specific app'? Not really.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Ad blockers are a thing on mobile, too.
- problems 10y ago
  A few recommendations for you: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=ad&fdid=org.adaway https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=ad&fdid=org.... http://repo.xposed.info/module/tw.fatminmin.xposed.minminguard http://repo.xposed.info/module/tw.fatminmin.xposed.minmingua... Never seen an in-app ad on mobile personally. No one is freaking out because it's a solved problem already. If those don't do it for you, write an Xposed module to strip it like http://repo.xposed.info/module/ma.wanam.youtubeadaway http://repo.xposed.info/module/ma.wanam.youtubeadaway Don't underestimate people who hate ads, especially video ads.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Don't underestimate people who hate ads, especially video ads." If you don't want ads - then you have to pay for the apps. Get it? This has nothing to do with technology, ad-blockers, advertisers or anything else. It's not even at the level of 'economics'. No pay / No ads = no content. None of you teenagers have been able to counter that point yet. > 99% of Apps and Websites with content would disappear if there was no ad revenue or payment. I can't believe that any of you are finished school and have jobs, because all this talk of 'turing machines' is laughable and incredulous.
intrasight 10y ago
Totally agree, and I try to explain this whenever possible. I am not blocking ads. I am blocking 3rd party content. I wish publishers would change their nag message from "we see you are blocking ads" to "we see that you are blocking third party content and scripts". Perhaps if they did, they would realize how absurd is their proposition.

Klathmon 10y ago

To repeat: It is about paying. If you paid, this would be a non-issue, as you would never be served the ads in the first place. If you are okay with ads instead of paying, this is a non-issue as you would be served the ads anyway.

m3rc 10y ago
Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan? And why should people who can't afford to pay, or wish to not have their money benefit someone, be forced to be opened up to security exploits?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jamespo 10y ago
  Who are these people being "forced" to use pornhub?
  - m3rc 10y ago
    I don't remembering mentioning forcing people to visit particular sites, I remember talking about telling people they weren't allowed to ever block ads. I also don't remember saying this was unique to pornhub, or mentioning pornhub in any way.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  "Am I supposed to find every single website I might ever visit in the future and preemptively pay for their no-ads plan? How is that the answer? What about sites which don't offer such a plan?" Honestly this really is the problem and honestly when I first read it I thought you were arguing against ad blockers. Having to have subscriptions is ridiculous, which is why ad supported really is the only currently realistic model for the majority of the internet. Everyone seems to be so concerned with security so instead of reaching for the nuclear option of just not paying people who provide us content why don't we actually think about how to make them safer? What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker?
  - domatic 10y ago
    I have criteria for this: 1. No videos, flashing animations, pop-overs, pop-unders or audio. Ever. 2. I WILL tolerate text, links, and moderately sized images. 3. No building a dossier on me. I may allow tasteful ads but I will still block trackers and analytics with extreme prejudice.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    > What would an ad network have to do to make you allow them through an ad blocker? There's absolutely nothing they can do. If I can hide ads by any means, I will do so. I absolutely hate them. They slow down page loading and rendering, they slow down my browser, and they're tacky and distracting. I a few options: 1. A system of micropayments so I can pay cents or fractions of a cent for page views, ad-free. 2. Blocking content as well if an ad blocker is detected. I'm fine with this; my stance is that if you send me data in response to a GET request, I can do anything I want with that data, including stripping out portions I don't want to see. If you block the content when detecting I'm blocking ads, that's fine; I'll accept that and not try to circumvent it (and will likely just do without your content). 3. A general (monthly-subscription-type) paywall. I'm unlikely to pay for this, as there are few (no?) sites I read often to justify the expense, so I'd again just do without. And I think that's the thing: there are enough people who don't block ads that they're apparently still profitable enough that sites that would prefer to charge for content can't see doing so as a viable business model. I look forward to the day when selling advertising is no longer viable, and something like my #1 idea takes hold. Suggesting that it's immoral or unethical to block ads is just hogwash.
- ec109685 10y ago
  Google Contributer lets you do that given they handle the micro payments on your behalf to publishers. I would definitely subscribe to it and at least not block double click': network if you are annoyed by ads like I am.
Mithaldu 10y ago
Sorry, i edited my reply a little late: 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. That is why this matters: Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. Besides, as i said, i don't even use pornhub. Heck, a number of sites i use this stuff on are sites where i pay profusely. My steam expenses are 6000$ at this point, and i block a lot of things there, primarily because they actually make it more difficult for me to find the things i want to spend money on.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- beambot 10y ago
  If sites made it clear that your patronage while stripping out ads was unwelcome, would you voluntarily stop using all those websites...? Or would you hide behind the "running on my machine" argument while gleefully skimming their content?
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    If sites make it clear, i stay out or pursue alternatives they offer. For example i don't use bild.de. And for other sites i've started contributing to payment schemes like Patreon. Mobile apps i often by the upgrade to remove ads, even though i can just block them altogether.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      That's good for you! The truth is that most people don't do that at all. I feel that either we need to pay for content or ad companies need to sponsor us for the content. If some sites have terrible ads it's really not that hard to just not go there.
fweespeech 10y ago
You'd be served ads before you logged in.
facetube 10y ago
You can serve the ads all you want. You're trying to make people _display_ them. There's a huge difference.

kevincrane 10y ago

> Controlling what my own mechanical device does with the information it receives from other people's machines. "receives from other people's machines" makes it sound like PornHub is seeking you out and sending you stuff you didn't ask for. If you visited their site, you and your computer asked for whatever they sent. If you don't want parts of what they send, they offer you a convenient way of stopping that by paying for their content.

Mithaldu 10y ago
I understand you were in a hurry to get your incredible iceburn in, but did that really preclude you from reading the part where i mentioned i don't use it?
- bduerst 10y ago
  They're referring to the argument you made for the internet in general, pornhub being the contextual example. No need to split hairs.
rubicon33 10y ago
Similarly, if they don't want me viewing their content without paying, they can setup a pay wall. In today's world, running a business on an ad model is just one step above asking for donations. If you want people to pay, make them pay. It really is that simple.
- andreygrehov 10y ago
  > Similarly, if they don't want me viewing their content without paying, they can setup a pay wall. Well, you don't pay to walk in the store.
  - mhurron 10y ago
    You do when that 'store' is an art gallery or something similar and the purpose there is to view the wares.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"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. " This is not true at all. You see ads all the time in apps you have on your mobile device (i.e. non browser) - and there is nothing you can do about it. Is the world freaking out over the consumers ability to 'control which ads come up in a specific app'? Not really.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Ad blockers are a thing on mobile, too.
problems 10y ago
A few recommendations for you: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=ad&fdid=org.adaway https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdfilter=ad&fdid=org.... http://repo.xposed.info/module/tw.fatminmin.xposed.minminguard http://repo.xposed.info/module/tw.fatminmin.xposed.minmingua... Never seen an in-app ad on mobile personally. No one is freaking out because it's a solved problem already. If those don't do it for you, write an Xposed module to strip it like http://repo.xposed.info/module/ma.wanam.youtubeadaway http://repo.xposed.info/module/ma.wanam.youtubeadaway Don't underestimate people who hate ads, especially video ads.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Don't underestimate people who hate ads, especially video ads." If you don't want ads - then you have to pay for the apps. Get it? This has nothing to do with technology, ad-blockers, advertisers or anything else. It's not even at the level of 'economics'. No pay / No ads = no content. None of you teenagers have been able to counter that point yet. > 99% of Apps and Websites with content would disappear if there was no ad revenue or payment. I can't believe that any of you are finished school and have jobs, because all this talk of 'turing machines' is laughable and incredulous.

intrasight 10y ago

Totally agree, and I try to explain this whenever possible. I am not blocking ads. I am blocking 3rd party content. I wish publishers would change their nag message from "we see you are blocking ads" to "we see that you are blocking third party content and scripts". Perhaps if they did, they would realize how absurd is their proposition.