5 ms·

It would be great that the people that promote blocking ads would also promote sponsoring the websites that they frequent somehow. There is a real problem out t

It would be great that the people that promote blocking ads would also promote sponsoring the websites that they frequent somehow. There is a real problem out there for all sorts of websites trying to survive and their problems are at least as great as the privacy concerns the ads introduce. Do consider what killing off most of the independent professional info websites will do to the Internet.

victormours 9y ago
That's exactly the problem the Brave browser is trying to solve, I highly recommend checking it out: https://brave.com https://brave.com.
- jkeat 9y ago
  Flattr is another option: https://flattr.com https://flattr.com
  - geekamongus 9y ago
    Sounds like there are too many options.
    - _eht 9y ago
      Ajit? Is that you?
iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
Regardless of promotion, ad blocking is inevitable on the web. Imagine if your TV could distinguish a sporting event from the ads and logos displayed on the field, and automatically hide (in real time) everything but the game you want to watch? Advertisers would lose their minds... but this is exactly how the web works and always has. The site delivers instructions for drawing its parts, and my browser can choose how/if to render that content. The business model has always been tenuous, and that's not my problem, because it's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter.
- geekamongus 9y ago
  Yes. The Internet wasn't created to support someone's ad network.
- Arcsech 9y ago
  There have been lawsuits over exactly that, I think - specifically about ad-skipping DVRs.
  - vanadium 9y ago
    ReplayTV back in the day. Man, was that an awesome, if underappreciated, product for its time. Seriously loved the upgrade capability and user-centric features (like commercial-skipping, until litigation came along).
- syphilis2 9y ago
  The example of automatically removing logos from video seems like a great computer vision project.
- groby_b 9y ago
  "When I shoot you, you might be dead. It's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter" Calling that line of reasoning tenuous would give it too much credit. I'm not surprised to hear it - it's a fairly common approach in the tech world. We only stop to think if we can do it, not if we should do it. Which has landed us where we are, in an arms race around ads, where everybody mostly only cares about their personal interests and technological feasibility. It's time we started talking about ethics. And if you open up that dialog, what you're doing is deeply problematic - you deliberately violate an unspoken assumption, that content creators deserve some kind of remuneration for their work. It is, in the limit, giving up on the social compact in favor of pure individualism. It's never worked out in human history, and it won't work out this time, either. We can either all return to the table and try to find solutions that respect everybody, or we can devolve into individual greed followed by social chaos. It's just the fact of the matter.
  - brucelidl 9y ago
ouid 9y ago
What service exactly are these web developers even providing in the first place? The site is built. The servers are running. Any technical upgrades are almost certainly to the advertising machinery, and if you want to make back your server costs, you probably already manage that with donations. The internet is cheap as dirt. If you are trying to make more than that, beyond of course the actual work that you put in, the reason you want to do so is because of the massive capital investment that you have to justify. Capital investment that was attracted because of the promise of advertising revenue.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  You obviously have no clue, nor respect, of what efforts go into substantive websites that create original content. Just because you found a technical way to avoid advertising doesn't mean that you morally deserve to receive free content. All you're doing is killing the Internet so that all you'll end up with is Facebook where you can't get rid of the ads and small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990's. Enjoy.
  - ouid 9y ago
    A webservice is not "content".
    - yostrovs 9y ago
      Do you even know what you're arguing about?
    - _eht 9y ago
      Ajit? Is that you?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6d6b73 9y ago
    Advertisers and their morality.. It's not less moral for me to get you're content for free as it is for you to create content to get my attention, and potentially my money. Just as you have right to do everything in your power to make money on your content, I have a right to do with that content whatever I want, and that includes stripping it from any and all ads.. If you don't like it you can hide it behind a paywall, DRM it, or get out of business.
6d6b73 9y ago
Capitalism works in both ways.. I don't buy stuff I can't afford, and businesses don't have to produce content that is not profitable for them.
tomjen3 9y ago
I remember back when hosting a website was orders of magnitudes more expensive than today, and how many hosted their own website, about something they had a passion about. If all those who make websites to peddle ads were forced of the net, maybe there would be a space for those who have a passion and love to create.
- ogdoad 9y ago
  If we cut down all these pesky trees we'll be able to enjoy the beautiful flowers of the forest. Where does that leave the forest though? The net has a problem with noise, not space.
  - tomjen3 9y ago
    You are right - harddrives are so cheap today that we can trivially host all the text anybody cares to write. On the other hand, for any given query there is only 10 spots on the first page of google, and I really rather not have any of them taken over by spammers.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Affiliate links via standard anchor tags. Self hosted images if an image is needed. The targeting thing is such a waste of effort, everyone needs light bulbs, batteries, etc. Put a link up that says "If you need AAA batteries and you'd like to support our site click here". Batteries alone would probably work on me once a month "Thanks for the reminder, I will click that link with a smile."
imgabe 9y ago
Put up a paywall and charge for your service. If your service is not one that people will pay you actual money for, reconsider whether it's actually all that valuable. How does a lack of advertising revenue kill off independent publishers? Anyone can get a VPS for $5 / month and host whatever they want. 99.9% of them will never achieve a level of traffic that would either require additional investment or produce any significant advertising revenue anyway.
craigsmansion 9y ago
A noble thought, but > Do consider what killing off most of the independent professional info websites will do to the Internet. Where do I sign up for that? The web was never a platform for publishers, it was a platform for users (some of them publishers). Big publishers never wanted it and hated it but were forced to use it or face irrelevance. Now they act like they own the place and are entitled to their business model. If you don't want your readers to be able to triage content and data once they receive it, go build your own network and publish on there. Using advertisement blockers is not only not an unethical thing to do, it is the right to do to force back those who seek to usurp and abuse a popular commons that was build to serve all equally.
- seorphates 9y ago
  Well, I couldn't agree more. The concept that ad-blocking is bad is right up there with the content industry thinking, believing that the Internet couldn't, wouldn't exist without them. Rubbish.
- yostrovs 9y ago
  The Internet was not a platform for users. It was a platform for nuclear weapons, therefore by your logic anything that's been done to it since the 1960s must simply be wrong. Why don't you go and start your own network where you can read and write, post videos, and exchange other information?
OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago
The 'morality card' pulled for... ads? Sorry, the ad companies never gave a shit about those poor ole websites. Stop trying to pull on our 'oh those guys, they're just hosting little sites that NEED the revenue from the scumbag departments'. If you live with worms, you get eaten by them.

victormours 9y ago

That's exactly the problem the Brave browser is trying to solve, I highly recommend checking it out: https://brave.com https://brave.com.

jkeat 9y ago
Flattr is another option: https://flattr.com https://flattr.com
- geekamongus 9y ago
  Sounds like there are too many options.
  - _eht 9y ago
    Ajit? Is that you?

iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago

Regardless of promotion, ad blocking is inevitable on the web. Imagine if your TV could distinguish a sporting event from the ads and logos displayed on the field, and automatically hide (in real time) everything but the game you want to watch? Advertisers would lose their minds... but this is exactly how the web works and always has. The site delivers instructions for drawing its parts, and my browser can choose how/if to render that content. The business model has always been tenuous, and that's not my problem, because it's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter.

geekamongus 9y ago
Yes. The Internet wasn't created to support someone's ad network.
Arcsech 9y ago
There have been lawsuits over exactly that, I think - specifically about ad-skipping DVRs.
- vanadium 9y ago
  ReplayTV back in the day. Man, was that an awesome, if underappreciated, product for its time. Seriously loved the upgrade capability and user-centric features (like commercial-skipping, until litigation came along).
syphilis2 9y ago
The example of automatically removing logos from video seems like a great computer vision project.
groby_b 9y ago
"When I shoot you, you might be dead. It's not even a problem, it's just the fact of the matter" Calling that line of reasoning tenuous would give it too much credit. I'm not surprised to hear it - it's a fairly common approach in the tech world. We only stop to think if we can do it, not if we should do it. Which has landed us where we are, in an arms race around ads, where everybody mostly only cares about their personal interests and technological feasibility. It's time we started talking about ethics. And if you open up that dialog, what you're doing is deeply problematic - you deliberately violate an unspoken assumption, that content creators deserve some kind of remuneration for their work. It is, in the limit, giving up on the social compact in favor of pure individualism. It's never worked out in human history, and it won't work out this time, either. We can either all return to the table and try to find solutions that respect everybody, or we can devolve into individual greed followed by social chaos. It's just the fact of the matter.
- brucelidl 9y ago

ouid 9y ago

What service exactly are these web developers even providing in the first place? The site is built. The servers are running. Any technical upgrades are almost certainly to the advertising machinery, and if you want to make back your server costs, you probably already manage that with donations. The internet is cheap as dirt. If you are trying to make more than that, beyond of course the actual work that you put in, the reason you want to do so is because of the massive capital investment that you have to justify. Capital investment that was attracted because of the promise of advertising revenue.

yostrovs 9y ago
You obviously have no clue, nor respect, of what efforts go into substantive websites that create original content. Just because you found a technical way to avoid advertising doesn't mean that you morally deserve to receive free content. All you're doing is killing the Internet so that all you'll end up with is Facebook where you can't get rid of the ads and small, irrelevant websites that resemble what existed in the 1990's. Enjoy.
- ouid 9y ago
  A webservice is not "content".
  - yostrovs 9y ago
    Do you even know what you're arguing about?
  - _eht 9y ago
    Ajit? Is that you?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 6d6b73 9y ago
  Advertisers and their morality.. It's not less moral for me to get you're content for free as it is for you to create content to get my attention, and potentially my money. Just as you have right to do everything in your power to make money on your content, I have a right to do with that content whatever I want, and that includes stripping it from any and all ads.. If you don't like it you can hide it behind a paywall, DRM it, or get out of business.

6d6b73 9y ago

Capitalism works in both ways.. I don't buy stuff I can't afford, and businesses don't have to produce content that is not profitable for them.

tomjen3 9y ago

I remember back when hosting a website was orders of magnitudes more expensive than today, and how many hosted their own website, about something they had a passion about. If all those who make websites to peddle ads were forced of the net, maybe there would be a space for those who have a passion and love to create.

ogdoad 9y ago
If we cut down all these pesky trees we'll be able to enjoy the beautiful flowers of the forest. Where does that leave the forest though? The net has a problem with noise, not space.
- tomjen3 9y ago
  You are right - harddrives are so cheap today that we can trivially host all the text anybody cares to write. On the other hand, for any given query there is only 10 spots on the first page of google, and I really rather not have any of them taken over by spammers.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

Affiliate links via standard anchor tags. Self hosted images if an image is needed. The targeting thing is such a waste of effort, everyone needs light bulbs, batteries, etc. Put a link up that says "If you need AAA batteries and you'd like to support our site click here". Batteries alone would probably work on me once a month "Thanks for the reminder, I will click that link with a smile."

imgabe 9y ago

Put up a paywall and charge for your service. If your service is not one that people will pay you actual money for, reconsider whether it's actually all that valuable. How does a lack of advertising revenue kill off independent publishers? Anyone can get a VPS for $5 / month and host whatever they want. 99.9% of them will never achieve a level of traffic that would either require additional investment or produce any significant advertising revenue anyway.

craigsmansion 9y ago

A noble thought, but > Do consider what killing off most of the independent professional info websites will do to the Internet. Where do I sign up for that? The web was never a platform for publishers, it was a platform for users (some of them publishers). Big publishers never wanted it and hated it but were forced to use it or face irrelevance. Now they act like they own the place and are entitled to their business model. If you don't want your readers to be able to triage content and data once they receive it, go build your own network and publish on there. Using advertisement blockers is not only not an unethical thing to do, it is the right to do to force back those who seek to usurp and abuse a popular commons that was build to serve all equally.

seorphates 9y ago
Well, I couldn't agree more. The concept that ad-blocking is bad is right up there with the content industry thinking, believing that the Internet couldn't, wouldn't exist without them. Rubbish.
yostrovs 9y ago
The Internet was not a platform for users. It was a platform for nuclear weapons, therefore by your logic anything that's been done to it since the 1960s must simply be wrong. Why don't you go and start your own network where you can read and write, post videos, and exchange other information?

OnlyRepliesToBS 9y ago

The 'morality card' pulled for... ads? Sorry, the ad companies never gave a shit about those poor ole websites. Stop trying to pull on our 'oh those guys, they're just hosting little sites that NEED the revenue from the scumbag departments'. If you live with worms, you get eaten by them.