4 ms·

Wait, are you actually defending that only rich people should have access to content?

stinkytaco 9y ago
> That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take. > Wait, are you actually defending that only rich people should have access to content? I'm not sure how you got that out of the parent comment. It says "this is not a new problem, but it is a problem". A system that relentlessly tracks users and their habits is not the solution. If for no other reason than it sequesters poor people to parts of the web that track them, while rich people can afford to pay for content.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Or just people with money should be allowed to have access to content? >>That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take. Please explain to me how "just people with money should be allowed to have access to content" being "an entirely reasonable position to take" doesn't fit into that?
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    He explicitly said your position is "a reasonable position to take". You appear to be so set on being against people, you are seeing things they did not say. I am arguing that though the position is reasonable, the ad industry as we know it is a piss poor answer. Poor people paying with their privacy is bad.
pfranz 9y ago
> only rich people should have access to content I feel like you're overstating. Yes, only the richest of people, those who can afford to purchase a newspaper, should be able to read the news. For those poor people, maybe there's some organization, like a public library that could invest in things that are seen as a public good? Or organizations wishing to facilitate people passing time, like barber shops, coffee shops, or waiting rooms, would buy them and leave them strewn about as bait for those poorer customers. Personally, I really wish microtransactions were more of a thing starting in the late-90s. I feel like Patreon and others have tried to fill that void. I think it's a false choice between every byte of data behind a paywall and advertisers clawing for more information about every bowel movement in order to cover your screen with promotions.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Yes, only the richest of people, those who can afford to purchase a newspaper, should be able to read the news. Wait, what am I reading? Only people with money should have the right to access news and information?
  - blub 9y ago
    With the incessant lobbying you've done in this thread I think it's fair to ask the advertising industry for some donations which you could then use for your other big passion, offering poor people access to information. Yes, it's true that they already have that through national television, cheap newspapers, book exchanges and donations, but if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > With the incessant lobbying you've done in this thread I think it's fair to ask the advertising industry for some donations which you could then use for your other big passion, offering poor people access to information. Nice ad hominem. I hate ads, but I know that ads fund a lot of the services and content I consume online. I always have the option to now use those services or consume that content and avoid the ads. Heck, half of HN's commenters would be unemployed if not for ads. Which might actually be a net win for society.
      - pfranz 9y ago
        You're calling out other's logical fallacies but you're not adding anything to the conversation, either. You're pulling basically the same narrow quote, ignoring the rest what others are contributing. IRL microtransactions (nickels and quarters), fueled the vending machine and newspaper economy for the last century. It's a shame there's no digital equivalent because it's very difficult to make credit card transactions under $5 profitable. Also, getting rid of user-tracking wouldn't get rid of Internet ads.
_khau 9y ago
Numerous times in this thread you have argued against something nobody said. You do not argue in good faith.

> That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take. > Wait, are you actually defending that only rich people should have access to content? I'm not sure how you got that out of the parent comment. It says "this is not a new problem, but it is a problem". A system that relentlessly tracks users and their habits is not the solution. If for no other reason than it sequesters poor people to parts of the web that track them, while rich people can afford to pay for content.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Or just people with money should be allowed to have access to content? >>That is the case for pretty much everything non-digital and schools and education as well and thus an entirely reasonable position to take. Please explain to me how "just people with money should be allowed to have access to content" being "an entirely reasonable position to take" doesn't fit into that?
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  He explicitly said your position is "a reasonable position to take". You appear to be so set on being against people, you are seeing things they did not say. I am arguing that though the position is reasonable, the ad industry as we know it is a piss poor answer. Poor people paying with their privacy is bad.

pfranz 9y ago

> only rich people should have access to content I feel like you're overstating. Yes, only the richest of people, those who can afford to purchase a newspaper, should be able to read the news. For those poor people, maybe there's some organization, like a public library that could invest in things that are seen as a public good? Or organizations wishing to facilitate people passing time, like barber shops, coffee shops, or waiting rooms, would buy them and leave them strewn about as bait for those poorer customers. Personally, I really wish microtransactions were more of a thing starting in the late-90s. I feel like Patreon and others have tried to fill that void. I think it's a false choice between every byte of data behind a paywall and advertisers clawing for more information about every bowel movement in order to cover your screen with promotions.

ucaetano 9y ago
> Yes, only the richest of people, those who can afford to purchase a newspaper, should be able to read the news. Wait, what am I reading? Only people with money should have the right to access news and information?
- blub 9y ago
  With the incessant lobbying you've done in this thread I think it's fair to ask the advertising industry for some donations which you could then use for your other big passion, offering poor people access to information. Yes, it's true that they already have that through national television, cheap newspapers, book exchanges and donations, but if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > With the incessant lobbying you've done in this thread I think it's fair to ask the advertising industry for some donations which you could then use for your other big passion, offering poor people access to information. Nice ad hominem. I hate ads, but I know that ads fund a lot of the services and content I consume online. I always have the option to now use those services or consume that content and avoid the ads. Heck, half of HN's commenters would be unemployed if not for ads. Which might actually be a net win for society.
    - pfranz 9y ago
      You're calling out other's logical fallacies but you're not adding anything to the conversation, either. You're pulling basically the same narrow quote, ignoring the rest what others are contributing. IRL microtransactions (nickels and quarters), fueled the vending machine and newspaper economy for the last century. It's a shame there's no digital equivalent because it's very difficult to make credit card transactions under $5 profitable. Also, getting rid of user-tracking wouldn't get rid of Internet ads.

_khau 9y ago

Numerous times in this thread you have argued against something nobody said. You do not argue in good faith.