4 ms·

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 ant

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
        > So you're willing to trade your time for feeling connected? Well, yes - that's life, basically :). Writing a comment here is also me trading time for feeling connected ;). > That's a shame. They offer Prime video in Poland? I don't even think we get it in Australia :/ I'm surprised, I thought Australia is usually right after US in such things. As for Poland, they've started offering it something like a week ago. I signed up immediately after I learned about it, mostly because I wanted to watch "The Man in the High Castle".
        sanswork 10y ago
        Sadly not, Australia is actually usually pretty far behind. Luckily being Canadian and having lived in the US I have access but it's a pain.
      - literallycancer 10y ago
    - dispose13432 10y ago
      >social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. So maybe that's the cost of not seeing ads, you don't get to participate in conversations. It's like if Stallman would, instead of making GNU, hack into MS and put the source online because he "just has to". Most of the time, taking a moral stand requires sacrifice.
      - literallycancer 10y ago
        You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.
        dispose13432 10y ago
        >Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how. You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? How are adblock-blockers (which are counterbalanced by adblock-blockers-blockers by adblockers) different?
        type0 10y ago
        > You own your machine but not the text. You don't get to own the text just because you can read it, see if you read this - it is still my text (because I wrote it!). >what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. And how would I know it's safe? I don't even let the closest friends on the wifi because they don't run adblockers on their phone and I don't want my router to get pwned [1] just because someone like Forbes is making a buck using Ads. > Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this. [1] https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-routers-under-attack-malvertising-windows-android-devices https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-route...
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]

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
        > So you're willing to trade your time for feeling connected? Well, yes - that's life, basically :). Writing a comment here is also me trading time for feeling connected ;). > That's a shame. They offer Prime video in Poland? I don't even think we get it in Australia :/ I'm surprised, I thought Australia is usually right after US in such things. As for Poland, they've started offering it something like a week ago. I signed up immediately after I learned about it, mostly because I wanted to watch "The Man in the High Castle".
        sanswork 10y ago
        Sadly not, Australia is actually usually pretty far behind. Luckily being Canadian and having lived in the US I have access but it's a pain.
    - literallycancer 10y ago
  - dispose13432 10y ago
    >social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. So maybe that's the cost of not seeing ads, you don't get to participate in conversations. It's like if Stallman would, instead of making GNU, hack into MS and put the source online because he "just has to". Most of the time, taking a moral stand requires sacrifice.
    - literallycancer 10y ago
      You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.
      - dispose13432 10y ago
        >Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how. You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? How are adblock-blockers (which are counterbalanced by adblock-blockers-blockers by adblockers) different?
        type0 10y ago
        > You own your machine but not the text. You don't get to own the text just because you can read it, see if you read this - it is still my text (because I wrote it!). >what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. And how would I know it's safe? I don't even let the closest friends on the wifi because they don't run adblockers on their phone and I don't want my router to get pwned [1] just because someone like Forbes is making a buck using Ads. > Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this. [1] https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-routers-under-attack-malvertising-windows-android-devices https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-route...

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]