6 ms·

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from acce

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place alternative content where the ads would be, requesting that I disable my ad blocker, or like them on facebook as an alternative. I think the "recommended price" of this "pay what you feel it is worth" model, which is usually watching advertising and allowing myself to be tracked, is too high. I have once or twice directly sent the creator $5-10, when they offered a payment method that didn't require a paypal account. If it's good content, that's pretty reasonable. Dans Data[1] /is/ good content, even if it's getting a bit dated these days. [1] http://www.dansdata.com http://www.dansdata.com

sanswork 10y ago
Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke. It's not a joke. It's avoiding death by thousand cuts. Time is literally the most valuable commodity we have. Anything you do to waste someone's time - like displaying obtrusive, annoying ads - is in my books an act of aggression.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? >There's enough better content available for free and without ads Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right?
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      > If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? Because I get linked to them. Also, social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. Also, YouTube. > Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right? Yeah, and I mostly do.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member?
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. See my point about social objects. > YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member? They don't offer it in my country, so no. But I do am a paying subscriber of Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Prime Video, FWIW.
        sanswork 10y ago
        So you're willing to trade your time for feeling connected? That's a shame. They offer Prime video in Poland? I don't even think we get it in Australia :/
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  >Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? It works fabulously as supplemental income for talented artisnal content creators who make their content because they care. They'll probably still need a day job like the rest of us, but there's a good chance people will hire them for those same skills that make them great content creators, whether they write interesting blogs or make neat-o electronics projects or produce great art or whatever. I'm all about supporting inspired human creation. Maybe we'll implement basic minimum income and some of these people can safely dedicate their life to their talent, and inspire others along the way? It can't possibly sustain content farms like buzzfeed. I consider this to be a great positive, and wish buzzfeed as swift and impactful a cratering as possible.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    You seem to think that all content costs only the creators time to develop. I think that says a lot.
    - Sir_Substance 10y ago
      Stating an untrue statement as fact and hoping your opposite number will debate it, thus tacitly accepting it, is an extremely low quality argumentative technique, sitting somewhere between "responding to tone" and "ad hominum" on the hierarchy of arguments[1]. You strike me as a standup chap who would not resort to such techniques, so I'm sure you'll now be willing to explain to me how you came to such a conclusion, so I can help dispel your misconception? [1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
      - sanswork 10y ago
        You're calling for a minimum income for them or suggesting they just do it as a side project(supplemented with a regular income). The fact is a lot of great content is expensive to produce.
        10y ago
- criddell 10y ago
  > As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. That seems incredibly tone deaf. Advertisers should be working on fixing the problems. Get rid of tracking, get rid of scripts, make promises about acceptable ad size and latency and every year reduce those numbers.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Ad blockers aren't a problem for advertisers since people using ad blockers likely aren't going to click on your ads anyhow. They are a problem for content creators.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - NickNameNick 10y ago
      they become a problem for advertising networks when they are no-longer able to proved enough money to be worth the content creators time to accept/administrate. And when a network ad-spots start drying up, the advertisers will have to switch. at least, that's how I'd hope it would work.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        Where do you expect the advertisers will switch to? Nah whats going to happen is that sites will just start doing one of two things. a) they will start blocking users that appear to be using ad blockers. b) they will start including ads in ways that make ad blockers ineffective. Embedding them in content or proxying the ads to come from the host itself. Ads aren't going away.
        sintaxi 10y ago
        > a) they will start blocking users that appear to be using ad blockers. Fine by me. I'll simply mark it as the malware that it is and never return to that domain again. > b) they will start including ads in ways that make ad blockers ineffective. This technology already exists but its ignored because harvesting and selling user data is a cash cow. This is perfectly possible today... <a href="someplace.com"><img src="/somead.png" /></a>
- literallycancer 10y ago
  You can think it's a joke, but I agree with parent completely. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, since I get to choose what runs on my hardware, and I choose not to see ads. Whether something is sustainable for content creators is not the users' concern, you don't go around worrying whether Walmart can make profit, why do you worry whether a random internet blogger can?
  - chc 10y ago
    I don't steal from or scam stores even if I can get away with it, because while I don't deep-down care if they make a profit, I do feel it's wrong to cheat them out of it. If I want what a store is offering, I feel like I should deal with them fairly. If I don't want it, I just don't patronize the store.
    - sintaxi 10y ago
      My program (Browser) can ask their program (Server) do things. It may deny ANY request it wishes based on ANY criteria that THEY get to set. Their program is under no obligation to do anything my program asks. Their program (Server) may ask my program (Browser) to do things and my program may deny ANY request based on ANY criteria that I get to set. My program is under no obligation to do anything their program asks. This is all perfectly reasonable and fair.
      - chc 10y ago
        Given the same premises, you can prove invasive tracking to be "reasonable and fair." I mean, they're just using information you sent them, right? In fact, it's not right, because this deliberately blinkered view of the interaction misses a lot of important details.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
dispose13432 10y ago
>The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place alternative content where the ads would be, requesting that I disable my ad blocker, or like them on facebook as an alternative. So would you suggest (or would you even use) AdBlockers identify themselves to the website (so I can write "if($_SERVER["AdBlocker]){echo "Sorry, see ads or leave}"? Because there are adblock blockers, and people write _adblock-blocker-blockers_.
- sintaxi 10y ago
  No need. Every web request implicitly has that header set already. Its completely within the content providers power to deny me content with that understood. When you buy a magazine from Starbucks do you tell the clerk what part of the magazine you intend to read what what you intend to ignore? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The clerk & publishers are well aware I may ignore or even rip out any or all of the magazine pages and the magazine is priced accordingly.
- imagist 10y ago
  There are already websites that detect my ad blocker and request that I turn on ads or leave, usually in condescending language, but I do leave.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
FWIW paying someone with PayPal doesn't require you to have an account, you can pay direct with a credit/debit card.

sanswork 10y ago

Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke. It's not a joke. It's avoiding death by thousand cuts. Time is literally the most valuable commodity we have. Anything you do to waste someone's time - like displaying obtrusive, annoying ads - is in my books an act of aggression.
- sanswork 10y ago
  If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? >There's enough better content available for free and without ads Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? Because I get linked to them. Also, social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. Also, YouTube. > Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right? Yeah, and I mostly do.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member?
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        > So you just follow random links people send you? That seems like a horrible waste of your most precious commodity. See my point about social objects. > YouTube offers a way to pay for an ad free experience. Are you a paying member? They don't offer it in my country, so no. But I do am a paying subscriber of Netflix, Spotify and Amazon Prime Video, FWIW.
        sanswork 10y ago
        So you're willing to trade your time for feeling connected? That's a shame. They offer Prime video in Poland? I don't even think we get it in Australia :/
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
Sir_Substance 10y ago
>Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? It works fabulously as supplemental income for talented artisnal content creators who make their content because they care. They'll probably still need a day job like the rest of us, but there's a good chance people will hire them for those same skills that make them great content creators, whether they write interesting blogs or make neat-o electronics projects or produce great art or whatever. I'm all about supporting inspired human creation. Maybe we'll implement basic minimum income and some of these people can safely dedicate their life to their talent, and inspire others along the way? It can't possibly sustain content farms like buzzfeed. I consider this to be a great positive, and wish buzzfeed as swift and impactful a cratering as possible.
- sanswork 10y ago
  You seem to think that all content costs only the creators time to develop. I think that says a lot.
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    Stating an untrue statement as fact and hoping your opposite number will debate it, thus tacitly accepting it, is an extremely low quality argumentative technique, sitting somewhere between "responding to tone" and "ad hominum" on the hierarchy of arguments[1]. You strike me as a standup chap who would not resort to such techniques, so I'm sure you'll now be willing to explain to me how you came to such a conclusion, so I can help dispel your misconception? [1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
    - sanswork 10y ago
      You're calling for a minimum income for them or suggesting they just do it as a side project(supplemented with a regular income). The fact is a lot of great content is expensive to produce.
      - 10y ago
criddell 10y ago
> As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. That seems incredibly tone deaf. Advertisers should be working on fixing the problems. Get rid of tracking, get rid of scripts, make promises about acceptable ad size and latency and every year reduce those numbers.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Ad blockers aren't a problem for advertisers since people using ad blockers likely aren't going to click on your ads anyhow. They are a problem for content creators.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - NickNameNick 10y ago
    they become a problem for advertising networks when they are no-longer able to proved enough money to be worth the content creators time to accept/administrate. And when a network ad-spots start drying up, the advertisers will have to switch. at least, that's how I'd hope it would work.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Where do you expect the advertisers will switch to? Nah whats going to happen is that sites will just start doing one of two things. a) they will start blocking users that appear to be using ad blockers. b) they will start including ads in ways that make ad blockers ineffective. Embedding them in content or proxying the ads to come from the host itself. Ads aren't going away.
      - sintaxi 10y ago
        > a) they will start blocking users that appear to be using ad blockers. Fine by me. I'll simply mark it as the malware that it is and never return to that domain again. > b) they will start including ads in ways that make ad blockers ineffective. This technology already exists but its ignored because harvesting and selling user data is a cash cow. This is perfectly possible today... <a href="someplace.com"><img src="/somead.png" /></a>
literallycancer 10y ago
You can think it's a joke, but I agree with parent completely. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, since I get to choose what runs on my hardware, and I choose not to see ads. Whether something is sustainable for content creators is not the users' concern, you don't go around worrying whether Walmart can make profit, why do you worry whether a random internet blogger can?
- chc 10y ago
  I don't steal from or scam stores even if I can get away with it, because while I don't deep-down care if they make a profit, I do feel it's wrong to cheat them out of it. If I want what a store is offering, I feel like I should deal with them fairly. If I don't want it, I just don't patronize the store.
  - sintaxi 10y ago
    My program (Browser) can ask their program (Server) do things. It may deny ANY request it wishes based on ANY criteria that THEY get to set. Their program is under no obligation to do anything my program asks. Their program (Server) may ask my program (Browser) to do things and my program may deny ANY request based on ANY criteria that I get to set. My program is under no obligation to do anything their program asks. This is all perfectly reasonable and fair.
    - chc 10y ago
      Given the same premises, you can prove invasive tracking to be "reasonable and fair." I mean, they're just using information you sent them, right? In fact, it's not right, because this deliberately blinkered view of the interaction misses a lot of important details.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

dispose13432 10y ago

>The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place alternative content where the ads would be, requesting that I disable my ad blocker, or like them on facebook as an alternative. So would you suggest (or would you even use) AdBlockers identify themselves to the website (so I can write "if($_SERVER["AdBlocker]){echo "Sorry, see ads or leave}"? Because there are adblock blockers, and people write _adblock-blocker-blockers_.

sintaxi 10y ago
No need. Every web request implicitly has that header set already. Its completely within the content providers power to deny me content with that understood. When you buy a magazine from Starbucks do you tell the clerk what part of the magazine you intend to read what what you intend to ignore? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The clerk & publishers are well aware I may ignore or even rip out any or all of the magazine pages and the magazine is priced accordingly.
imagist 10y ago
There are already websites that detect my ad blocker and request that I turn on ads or leave, usually in condescending language, but I do leave.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

FWIW paying someone with PayPal doesn't require you to have an account, you can pay direct with a credit/debit card.