5 ms·

Interesting concept, but do we really need to make web sites even slower to load? --- START OF RANT If you block ad-blockers (like forbes.com just did to me)

by pawadu 10y ago

Interesting concept, but do we really need to make web sites even slower to load? --- START OF RANT If you block ad-blockers (like forbes.com just did to me), I will only share your articles via archive.is . Sure, your children may starve to death, your wife may leave you but don't blame me because in the end you did all this to yourself. I was happy to use your site when it had a couple of non-intrusive text ads to pay the bills but then you went to fill 60% of the screen with flashing images, autoplaying videos and malware installing flash ads. END OF RANT

mechazawa 10y ago
I hate adBlockers as much as the next guy. But it's mostly a brainfart to see if I, while stoned, can make a better adBlock detector then companies that pour a lot of money into it.
- pawadu 10y ago
  That okay, just don't try to build an AI while stoned ;)
  - izietto 10y ago
    LOL
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Or do! But expect it to mostly concern itself with delivery junk food.
ffggvv 10y ago
Why do people feel so entitled? Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all.
- Nadya 10y ago
  Is it entitlement to not want malware? Or are we really so quick to forget: 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... I don't block ads to prevent companies from getting ad revenue. I block ads for my own safety and malware prevention.
  - detaro 10y ago
    The parent post is not saying anything against adblocking, it says something against copying content to other sites to access it despite the site owner not wanting you to.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      Given the context of the grandparent quote - I do not believe you are correct but I can see the ambiguity. I see it as them using the argument of "if you don't like the ads, don't visit the website" which has been argued ad nauseum (pun intended) in nearly every discussion on HN that involves ads and ad blockers. They aren't visiting the site if they read it via archive.is links. So "Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all." is out of place there if not talking about ad blockers but actually talking about the practice of using archive.is links. And giving people you know archive.is links, since you may not know if they run an ad blocker or not, also serves to protect them from malware. So my point stands - except I'm protecting my friends/family from malware instead of myself. Get rid of the user-tracking, Javascript-enabled/Flash-enabled/3rd-party ads that can serve malware and maybe they could convince the security/privacy concerned users (I'm purposefully excluding users who block ads to block ads from my list) to whitelist their advertisements.
- shakna 10y ago
  Why do you feel they should dictate how content that has already been delivered should be rendered?
  - hsod 10y ago
    OP was talking about content that has not yet been delivered. Forbes is in fact refusing to serve him content (as is their inarguable right) and he's promising to maliciously work around that and distribute it on his own. It's hard for me to imagine a legitimate defense of this that isn't a wholesale rejection of the concept of intellectual property.
    - shakna 10y ago
      > Forbes is in fact refusing to serve him content Are they? A Google referrer gets you the content of the article at most, and at least it gets you some JavaScript. Which is executed client-side. Forbes serves up code, which the client should be able to parse, render and execute in any way they see fit, as it was served to their machine upon a simple GET request. The client is under no obligation to behave well, in a programmatic sense, because it is just handed markup and source code, with an expectation of parsing and rendering it in a way fit for the client's user, otherwise you may as well ban screen reader's for doing things in unexpected ways. > ... distribute it on his own We both agree here that it would be bad ethics to do this.
      - hsod 10y ago
        I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I think it leans far too heavily on the specific technical details of the web while remaining blind to the higher level reality of the situation. Put another way, I don't believe the specifics of the way the web operates serve as a solid foundation for an ethical principle. Far better, I think, to look at the people involved and focus on treating them fairly and honestly, abstracting away the medium of communication as an implementation detail.
        shakna 10y ago
gogopuppygogo 10y ago
Sites will just start blocking Archive.is next.
- nkristoffersen 10y ago
  This is a much worse fate than simply suffering through a couple ads for content you did not pay for.

by pawadu 10y ago

mechazawa 10y ago

I hate adBlockers as much as the next guy. But it's mostly a brainfart to see if I, while stoned, can make a better adBlock detector then companies that pour a lot of money into it.

pawadu 10y ago
That okay, just don't try to build an AI while stoned ;)
- izietto 10y ago
  LOL
- Kalium 10y ago
  Or do! But expect it to mostly concern itself with delivery junk food.

ffggvv 10y ago

Why do people feel so entitled? Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all.

Nadya 10y ago
Is it entitlement to not want malware? Or are we really so quick to forget: 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... I don't block ads to prevent companies from getting ad revenue. I block ads for my own safety and malware prevention.
- detaro 10y ago
  The parent post is not saying anything against adblocking, it says something against copying content to other sites to access it despite the site owner not wanting you to.
  - Nadya 10y ago
    Given the context of the grandparent quote - I do not believe you are correct but I can see the ambiguity. I see it as them using the argument of "if you don't like the ads, don't visit the website" which has been argued ad nauseum (pun intended) in nearly every discussion on HN that involves ads and ad blockers. They aren't visiting the site if they read it via archive.is links. So "Don't like the ads on forbes? Pay them or don't visit them at all." is out of place there if not talking about ad blockers but actually talking about the practice of using archive.is links. And giving people you know archive.is links, since you may not know if they run an ad blocker or not, also serves to protect them from malware. So my point stands - except I'm protecting my friends/family from malware instead of myself. Get rid of the user-tracking, Javascript-enabled/Flash-enabled/3rd-party ads that can serve malware and maybe they could convince the security/privacy concerned users (I'm purposefully excluding users who block ads to block ads from my list) to whitelist their advertisements.
shakna 10y ago
Why do you feel they should dictate how content that has already been delivered should be rendered?
- hsod 10y ago
  OP was talking about content that has not yet been delivered. Forbes is in fact refusing to serve him content (as is their inarguable right) and he's promising to maliciously work around that and distribute it on his own. It's hard for me to imagine a legitimate defense of this that isn't a wholesale rejection of the concept of intellectual property.
  - shakna 10y ago
    > Forbes is in fact refusing to serve him content Are they? A Google referrer gets you the content of the article at most, and at least it gets you some JavaScript. Which is executed client-side. Forbes serves up code, which the client should be able to parse, render and execute in any way they see fit, as it was served to their machine upon a simple GET request. The client is under no obligation to behave well, in a programmatic sense, because it is just handed markup and source code, with an expectation of parsing and rendering it in a way fit for the client's user, otherwise you may as well ban screen reader's for doing things in unexpected ways. > ... distribute it on his own We both agree here that it would be bad ethics to do this.
    - hsod 10y ago
      I see your point, but I don't agree with it. I think it leans far too heavily on the specific technical details of the web while remaining blind to the higher level reality of the situation. Put another way, I don't believe the specifics of the way the web operates serve as a solid foundation for an ethical principle. Far better, I think, to look at the people involved and focus on treating them fairly and honestly, abstracting away the medium of communication as an implementation detail.
      - shakna 10y ago

gogopuppygogo 10y ago

Sites will just start blocking Archive.is next.

nkristoffersen 10y ago
This is a much worse fate than simply suffering through a couple ads for content you did not pay for.