4 ms·

> harmful to the public. How do you measure this? Does the public include content creators who rely on ads for their livelihood?

ohithereyou 8y ago
Won't someone think of the buggy-whip makers!
darkpuma 8y ago
Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago in which you compared adblocking to theft. If I'm remembering that correctly, you and I have no common ground upon which to have a civil discussion.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. So you disagree with google deplatforming alex jones?
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    His primary website is still online. Me might not be allowed on YouTube anymore, but his primary platform still exists. Additionally, I thought his removal from YouTube was as a result of pressure from the Government on hate speech and fake news etc. All the stuff Facebook is also attempting to crack down on.
    - dominotw 8y ago
      His website being up is not relevant to the point. Govt didn't ask YouTube to remove it.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been. The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector. This is, directly, what has caused the popularity of ad blockers to skyrocket. Tech-savvy folks protecting their family from these dangers by installing ad-blocking software so they don't get regular family-tech-support calls about the various issues potentially arising from "bad" advertising. Follow-up questions: How many user ad clicks / views does it take for the revenue to be critical to one's livelihood? Could you consider donations through any of the various options like Patreon?
- kllrnohj 8y ago
  Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry. Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft? Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source of real money. Alternatives could, and should!, be considered. But simply cutting off a revenue stream while arguing that the ability to cut off that revenue stream should be protected by regulators is weak at best.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.
    - WkndTriathlete 8y ago
      It's impossible to aim regulators at every single country on the planet.

ohithereyou 8y ago

Won't someone think of the buggy-whip makers!

darkpuma 8y ago

Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I vaguely recall a discussion some time ago in which you compared adblocking to theft. If I'm remembering that correctly, you and I have no common ground upon which to have a civil discussion.

dominotw 8y ago
> Any abuse of a monopoly is harmful to the public. So you disagree with google deplatforming alex jones?
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  His primary website is still online. Me might not be allowed on YouTube anymore, but his primary platform still exists. Additionally, I thought his removal from YouTube was as a result of pressure from the Government on hate speech and fake news etc. All the stuff Facebook is also attempting to crack down on.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    His website being up is not relevant to the point. Govt didn't ask YouTube to remove it.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago

Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been. The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector. This is, directly, what has caused the popularity of ad blockers to skyrocket. Tech-savvy folks protecting their family from these dangers by installing ad-blocking software so they don't get regular family-tech-support calls about the various issues potentially arising from "bad" advertising. Follow-up questions: How many user ad clicks / views does it take for the revenue to be critical to one's livelihood? Could you consider donations through any of the various options like Patreon?

kllrnohj 8y ago
Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry. Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft? Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source of real money. Alternatives could, and should!, be considered. But simply cutting off a revenue stream while arguing that the ability to cut off that revenue stream should be protected by regulators is weak at best.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.
  - WkndTriathlete 8y ago
    It's impossible to aim regulators at every single country on the planet.