7 ms·

Serious question: Shouldn't average users provide or retract traffic based on these preferences, and not Google as user-in-chief? Personally I'd prefer that Go

Serious question: Shouldn't average users provide or retract traffic based on these preferences, and not Google as user-in-chief? Personally I'd prefer that Google not play party whip in setting behavior patterns; I'd rather it be as decentralized as possible. To me that's one of the advantages of the web over the app ecosystem: power is more atomized.

vorpalhex 10y ago
In general, users do make their choice. Product designers counter by making it more difficult to leave or get content. I'm a firmly bitter user who has stopped frequenting a lot of websites because they don't load well or don't give me what I consider to be an acceptable value prop (I'll happily turn off my adblocker if your ads are well behaved, I won't take a survey to read a one paragraph article). But most users, and especially most non-technical users, aren't willing to take that same stance despite being very frustrated. It seems to vary between "well that's just how the internet is" to "I don't know any other sources". Having google prioritize non-terrible sources is a big boon to those non-technical users in my eyes, cemented firmly when I watch my mom or other older family members try to search the internet.
- username223 10y ago
  > But most users, and especially most non-technical users, aren't willing to take that same stance despite being very frustrated. That's where you can help! The next time you visit your parents or non-techie friends, install something like Ghostery for them. It's not a long-term solution to web awfulness, but it makes the web less terrible for now.
- undersuit 10y ago
  I'm a long time user of Google's Personal Blocklist https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist... I got so tired of sites with scraped content behind ads and logins. It's not perfect but it helps.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  I've noticed that I visit Forbes far less often and I'm much happier for it
criley2 10y ago
Serious answer: companies use aggressive and abusive tactics because they work. Why? Because users aren't power users. Most don't know better.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dnr 10y ago
So I'm supposed to keep a mental database of all the sites I might visit, and whether their ads, pushy JS popups, autoplay videos, and other crap are too heavy for my taste? And consult that database every time I see an interesting-sounding headline on facebook or twitter or my news app, before I click on the link? If it's a site I've never visited, how do I even know whether the UX will be acceptable to me before I click? I admit I do keep track of a handful of bad offenders in my head, but I really shouldn't have to do that. Sure, it would be better if there was a trusted decentralized system to enforce rules and guarantee a decent UX, perhaps with more granularity so people could set different acceptable points, but until that exists, of course I'm going to use the presence of an instant articles or AMP icon to guide my browsing.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  You should probably use a "defense as default" mindset. Why, by default, do you assume sites you go to will be safe or sane? I don't
  - dnr 10y ago
    Because that's how the web used to work, and I've been using it for a while. But how exactly are you suggesting I browse the web? Not following links unless I recognize the destination and know it to be a reasonable site? That just changes a mental blacklist into a whitelist. And how would I ever discover new reasonable sites? Use an ad blocker? That feels like escalating a arms race, and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. (I currently use Disconnect, which is only a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker, although some sites seem to think it is.)
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      > Use an ad blocker? That feels like escalating a arms race, and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. Yes, I'd also recommend a JS blocker. If you don't want to do that, that's OK, but don't expect any sympathy if you get compromised in any way. If you don't lock your front door, don't be surprised if someone breaks into your house.
kevincox 10y ago
I do. If a site obstructs the content in any way, or starts playing sound and I didn't expect it (for example video sites may be acceptable) I hit back immiedately. I don't expect most users behave in this way.
deftturtle 10y ago
Most people don't give a shit. Plenty of my friends don't block ads. They don't care enough to care about anything "technical." Kind of like how my dad refuses to learn how to upload documents in an email. So we might make decisions and change our behavior, but I can assure you that the masses just go with the flow and probably don't care. It's why people shop at Walmart and don't change their privacy settings. They don't care enough to do differently, or sometimes it's not feasible. It takes a while to lock down your Facebook properly, and even then, they still collect so much data on you. Pretty much everyone I know wouldn't care to hear about the NSA, security, Facebook, etc. None of it matters. This is a pretty poorly worded and incoherent post, but my point is that many people don't even know what could be better. They don't realize the flaws in websites or companies or government programs, and they don't want to think about it. At least that's been my experience.

vorpalhex 10y ago

In general, users do make their choice. Product designers counter by making it more difficult to leave or get content. I'm a firmly bitter user who has stopped frequenting a lot of websites because they don't load well or don't give me what I consider to be an acceptable value prop (I'll happily turn off my adblocker if your ads are well behaved, I won't take a survey to read a one paragraph article). But most users, and especially most non-technical users, aren't willing to take that same stance despite being very frustrated. It seems to vary between "well that's just how the internet is" to "I don't know any other sources". Having google prioritize non-terrible sources is a big boon to those non-technical users in my eyes, cemented firmly when I watch my mom or other older family members try to search the internet.

username223 10y ago
> But most users, and especially most non-technical users, aren't willing to take that same stance despite being very frustrated. That's where you can help! The next time you visit your parents or non-techie friends, install something like Ghostery for them. It's not a long-term solution to web awfulness, but it makes the web less terrible for now.
undersuit 10y ago
I'm a long time user of Google's Personal Blocklist https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist-by-goo/nolijncfnkgaikbjbdaogikpmpbdcdef https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/personal-blocklist... I got so tired of sites with scraped content behind ads and logins. It's not perfect but it helps.
hkmurakami 10y ago
I've noticed that I visit Forbes far less often and I'm much happier for it

criley2 10y ago

Serious answer: companies use aggressive and abusive tactics because they work. Why? Because users aren't power users. Most don't know better.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dnr 10y ago

So I'm supposed to keep a mental database of all the sites I might visit, and whether their ads, pushy JS popups, autoplay videos, and other crap are too heavy for my taste? And consult that database every time I see an interesting-sounding headline on facebook or twitter or my news app, before I click on the link? If it's a site I've never visited, how do I even know whether the UX will be acceptable to me before I click? I admit I do keep track of a handful of bad offenders in my head, but I really shouldn't have to do that. Sure, it would be better if there was a trusted decentralized system to enforce rules and guarantee a decent UX, perhaps with more granularity so people could set different acceptable points, but until that exists, of course I'm going to use the presence of an instant articles or AMP icon to guide my browsing.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CaptSpify 10y ago
You should probably use a "defense as default" mindset. Why, by default, do you assume sites you go to will be safe or sane? I don't
- dnr 10y ago
  Because that's how the web used to work, and I've been using it for a while. But how exactly are you suggesting I browse the web? Not following links unless I recognize the destination and know it to be a reasonable site? That just changes a mental blacklist into a whitelist. And how would I ever discover new reasonable sites? Use an ad blocker? That feels like escalating a arms race, and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. (I currently use Disconnect, which is only a tracking blocker, not an ad blocker, although some sites seem to think it is.)
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > Use an ad blocker? That feels like escalating a arms race, and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. Yes, I'd also recommend a JS blocker. If you don't want to do that, that's OK, but don't expect any sympathy if you get compromised in any way. If you don't lock your front door, don't be surprised if someone breaks into your house.

kevincox 10y ago

I do. If a site obstructs the content in any way, or starts playing sound and I didn't expect it (for example video sites may be acceptable) I hit back immiedately. I don't expect most users behave in this way.

deftturtle 10y ago

Most people don't give a shit. Plenty of my friends don't block ads. They don't care enough to care about anything "technical." Kind of like how my dad refuses to learn how to upload documents in an email. So we might make decisions and change our behavior, but I can assure you that the masses just go with the flow and probably don't care. It's why people shop at Walmart and don't change their privacy settings. They don't care enough to do differently, or sometimes it's not feasible. It takes a while to lock down your Facebook properly, and even then, they still collect so much data on you. Pretty much everyone I know wouldn't care to hear about the NSA, security, Facebook, etc. None of it matters. This is a pretty poorly worded and incoherent post, but my point is that many people don't even know what could be better. They don't realize the flaws in websites or companies or government programs, and they don't want to think about it. At least that's been my experience.