3 ms·

> Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative, it's trying to guilt-trip people into abandoning their self interest for free. Your attestation usage

by mythz 8y ago

> Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative, it's trying to guilt-trip people into abandoning their self interest for free. Your attestation usage of "manipulative" is attempting to manipulate in itself. Like I said everyone is technically free to do what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source. > The implicit social contract of the Web, the way HTTP protocol and Web browsers were designed, is precisely what allows for ad-blocking. No the web is not a social contract, it's a combination of technologies. The social contract exists between Content Producers and Consumers and the Web is the platform to enable delivery of that content. The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. A "blocker" by definition blocks supporting resources that producers wanted their content served with - which in most cases is their primary revenue source for producing that content. > it's called a paywall. I pay, then I get content. Great, then use it when that option is available, as a benefit you wont see ads and producers get compensated. But I hope you're not naive enough to think that a paywall works for all content and all audiences? It's great when it does, content producers get a reliable and predictable source of revenue but there's a reason why ad-supported free content is used, it's not because it's easier, it's because it's viable.

blub 8y ago
Content creators have unilaterally decided that it's ok to sometimes infect their "customers" with malware and give their information to hundreds of third parties. Content creators have been acting like assholes and now they're seeing the consequences. Crying crocodile tears of unfairness won't change that, it's just wasting people's time. If those content creators can't get people to pay for their content, it means their content is worthless.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source Choice of revenue source is, well, a choice. It's not like we're talking about some poor third-world kids, for whom the only choice is between starvation and building ad-powered content farms. It's all just people who asked themselves, "how can I make me some money?", and out of countless of possible business models, chose this particular one, which is giving stuff away for free, attaching a malicious secondary payload to it, and hoping that this secondary payload will generate some money. > No the web is not a social contract, it's a combination of technologies. It's that combination of technologies that create this contract. Those technologies create a particular platform, with particular set of rules. It provides ways of giving things away, as well as asking for compensation. It provides ways of saying "strings attached". Unfortunately, many people choose to use the "give things away, no strings attached" path and then, after giving a thing away, demand to be paid. And it's even fine, as long as they realize many people will just brush their latter demand away, as it's silly and improper. > The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. Oh, no no no. Not the last part. Why on Earth I, as a consumer, would agree to a producer dictating how I consume the content after I get it? I have the right to consume it the way I want, and the Web tech stack is built around preserving this right. The producer's right is to structure the content for particular consumption. A paywall, or showing ads before content, or dumping it all in a PDF, is a way of doing that. The consumer's right is to destructure what they get and consume it the way they like. (As an analogy - if a restaurant wants me to not eat tomatoes, it's free to offers only meals without them. But it would be ridiculous for them to serve me tomatoes and then have a waiter hovering over me, ensuring I don't eat them. Or a waiter dictating I have to eat all of the things on my plate, and in a particular sequence.) > Great, then use it when that option is available, as a benefit you wont see ads and producers get compensated. Offer it to me, and I shall use it if I want your content badly enough, or not use it and go elsewhere. That's fair. > I hope you're not naive enough to think that a paywall works for all content and all audiences? I'm not. Fortunately, there are alternatives, including donations/patronage, or writing your content off as marketing expense for something else (e.g. articles published for free in hope you'll buy the author's book on the same topic, or just publishing in order to gather trust and goodwill). (EDIT: and also, there's the elephant in the room - a lot of content can exists solely because of ads. Or, in other words, it couldn't be monetized in any other way. Why? Because it's crap. If that content dies off completely, I say good riddance.) > there's a reason why ad-supported free content is used, it's not because it's easier, it's because it's viable It's viable for now (and becoming less so, hence all the whining about ad-blockers). But so is polluting rivers when you're running a factory. Just because something is viable, doesn't mean it's good.
- jamespo 8y ago
  Took a while but we got to "work for free for visibility"
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Well, sure. If you want to do something but can't find anyone who wants to pay you for it, then you need to accept that this work has infinitesimal value, and either don't perform it, or leverage it into something people will pay for.
    - zbentley 8y ago
      Or don’t try to make money off of it and make it because you like making it. I agree with your statements above. Just pointing out that revenue is not the automatic goal of every human endeavor.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Yes, that too. In fact this is my favourite subset of the Internet. It's usually of the highest quality, and most trustworthy.
  - saint_fiasco 8y ago
    Isn't that what the ad supported model is? You give something away for free in the hopes of getting visibility and exposure. Then you sell that exposure to an ad company.
feanaro 8y ago
I hope you're not naive enough to think that a user is obligated to have his computer render the exact thing a server sends, no questions asked.
ska 8y ago
The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. This is just very misguided, by using a completely producer-centric view. The web is merely not a network to connect businesses with customers. When your users are applying a technology to avoid rendering adds, it is a market signal. But the signal isn't simply "I don't want to pay for this content", it is far more likely "stop tracking me across sites and logins". I certainly agree with you that content producers should have a mechanism for the possibility of revenue, but this is a two way street. Advertising networks have worked for some things , but are becoming more and more invasive, and hence more and more problematic. If enough people reject the model, content producers need to be either looking for a new model or looking for ways to improve this one. This stuff isn't rocket science.

by mythz 8y ago

blub 8y ago

Content creators have unilaterally decided that it's ok to sometimes infect their "customers" with malware and give their information to hundreds of third parties. Content creators have been acting like assholes and now they're seeing the consequences. Crying crocodile tears of unfairness won't change that, it's just wasting people's time. If those content creators can't get people to pay for their content, it means their content is worthless.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source Choice of revenue source is, well, a choice. It's not like we're talking about some poor third-world kids, for whom the only choice is between starvation and building ad-powered content farms. It's all just people who asked themselves, "how can I make me some money?", and out of countless of possible business models, chose this particular one, which is giving stuff away for free, attaching a malicious secondary payload to it, and hoping that this secondary payload will generate some money. > No the web is not a social contract, it's a combination of technologies. It's that combination of technologies that create this contract. Those technologies create a particular platform, with particular set of rules. It provides ways of giving things away, as well as asking for compensation. It provides ways of saying "strings attached". Unfortunately, many people choose to use the "give things away, no strings attached" path and then, after giving a thing away, demand to be paid. And it's even fine, as long as they realize many people will just brush their latter demand away, as it's silly and improper. > The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. Oh, no no no. Not the last part. Why on Earth I, as a consumer, would agree to a producer dictating how I consume the content after I get it? I have the right to consume it the way I want, and the Web tech stack is built around preserving this right. The producer's right is to structure the content for particular consumption. A paywall, or showing ads before content, or dumping it all in a PDF, is a way of doing that. The consumer's right is to destructure what they get and consume it the way they like. (As an analogy - if a restaurant wants me to not eat tomatoes, it's free to offers only meals without them. But it would be ridiculous for them to serve me tomatoes and then have a waiter hovering over me, ensuring I don't eat them. Or a waiter dictating I have to eat all of the things on my plate, and in a particular sequence.) > Great, then use it when that option is available, as a benefit you wont see ads and producers get compensated. Offer it to me, and I shall use it if I want your content badly enough, or not use it and go elsewhere. That's fair. > I hope you're not naive enough to think that a paywall works for all content and all audiences? I'm not. Fortunately, there are alternatives, including donations/patronage, or writing your content off as marketing expense for something else (e.g. articles published for free in hope you'll buy the author's book on the same topic, or just publishing in order to gather trust and goodwill). (EDIT: and also, there's the elephant in the room - a lot of content can exists solely because of ads. Or, in other words, it couldn't be monetized in any other way. Why? Because it's crap. If that content dies off completely, I say good riddance.) > there's a reason why ad-supported free content is used, it's not because it's easier, it's because it's viable It's viable for now (and becoming less so, hence all the whining about ad-blockers). But so is polluting rivers when you're running a factory. Just because something is viable, doesn't mean it's good.

jamespo 8y ago
Took a while but we got to "work for free for visibility"
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Well, sure. If you want to do something but can't find anyone who wants to pay you for it, then you need to accept that this work has infinitesimal value, and either don't perform it, or leverage it into something people will pay for.
  - zbentley 8y ago
    Or don’t try to make money off of it and make it because you like making it. I agree with your statements above. Just pointing out that revenue is not the automatic goal of every human endeavor.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Yes, that too. In fact this is my favourite subset of the Internet. It's usually of the highest quality, and most trustworthy.
- saint_fiasco 8y ago
  Isn't that what the ad supported model is? You give something away for free in the hopes of getting visibility and exposure. Then you sell that exposure to an ad company.

feanaro 8y ago

I hope you're not naive enough to think that a user is obligated to have his computer render the exact thing a server sends, no questions asked.

ska 8y ago

The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. This is just very misguided, by using a completely producer-centric view. The web is merely not a network to connect businesses with customers. When your users are applying a technology to avoid rendering adds, it is a market signal. But the signal isn't simply "I don't want to pay for this content", it is far more likely "stop tracking me across sites and logins". I certainly agree with you that content producers should have a mechanism for the possibility of revenue, but this is a two way street. Advertising networks have worked for some things , but are becoming more and more invasive, and hence more and more problematic. If enough people reject the model, content producers need to be either looking for a new model or looking for ways to improve this one. This stuff isn't rocket science.