4 ms·

On a side note, I'd like to lament the dystopia of reading articles online, where every 4 paragraphs your attention is hijacked by a video ad. Fuck that. Fuck f

by dqpb 8y ago

On a side note, I'd like to lament the dystopia of reading articles online, where every 4 paragraphs your attention is hijacked by a video ad. Fuck that. Fuck futurism.com.

kencausey 8y ago
I use the uMatrix plugin and have it configured to block everything, except of course for the base HTML. For more and more sites this means I get no content without adding in exceptions, but for this and many sites I get the part of the content I want, the text. Then I hit the Reader mode button and I get text which is even in the format that is most comfortable for reading for me.
lquist 8y ago
Blame the fact that people will pay for very few media sites. Realistically, Futurism’s choice is have ad supported content or don’t exist
- daveguy 8y ago
  They do have a third option: unobtrusive ads.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Those are worth very little when untargeted.
    - seslaire 8y ago
      Quite the contrary: https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exchanges-europe-ad-revenue/ https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exc.... Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        The NYT is a different story. There's a critical mass after which it becomes worthwhile to just target your audience. I doubt these guys are at it. Don't believe me, though. Talk to ad execs (spending money on this) or ad ops (using the money on this) and see what they think. In fact, since you won't have the GDPR hassles if you go untargeted, you should consider following this thesis to its logical untargeted exchange conclusion because with CCPA and GDPR you could push the targeted guys out of business and that's a many billion dollar market. If you're convinced of your thesis, then you're on the cusp of mega money. Good luck.
- Groxx 8y ago
  or less blogspam. the explosion of mostly-blind news-regurgitation isn't a good thing, and it's largely chasing ad dollars because nobody would voluntarily pay for it.
- dqpb 8y ago
  But is that even an option? I used to pay for NYT and WSJ (not cheap) and was still bombarded with ads.
buboard 8y ago
this kind of dystopia existed in the printing press for centuries.

by dqpb 8y ago

On a side note, I'd like to lament the dystopia of reading articles online, where every 4 paragraphs your attention is hijacked by a video ad. Fuck that. Fuck futurism.com.

kencausey 8y ago

I use the uMatrix plugin and have it configured to block everything, except of course for the base HTML. For more and more sites this means I get no content without adding in exceptions, but for this and many sites I get the part of the content I want, the text. Then I hit the Reader mode button and I get text which is even in the format that is most comfortable for reading for me.

lquist 8y ago

Blame the fact that people will pay for very few media sites. Realistically, Futurism’s choice is have ad supported content or don’t exist

daveguy 8y ago
They do have a third option: unobtrusive ads.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Those are worth very little when untargeted.
  - seslaire 8y ago
    Quite the contrary: https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exchanges-europe-ad-revenue/ https://digiday.com/media/new-york-times-gdpr-cut-off-ad-exc.... Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18920079
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      The NYT is a different story. There's a critical mass after which it becomes worthwhile to just target your audience. I doubt these guys are at it. Don't believe me, though. Talk to ad execs (spending money on this) or ad ops (using the money on this) and see what they think. In fact, since you won't have the GDPR hassles if you go untargeted, you should consider following this thesis to its logical untargeted exchange conclusion because with CCPA and GDPR you could push the targeted guys out of business and that's a many billion dollar market. If you're convinced of your thesis, then you're on the cusp of mega money. Good luck.
Groxx 8y ago
or less blogspam. the explosion of mostly-blind news-regurgitation isn't a good thing, and it's largely chasing ad dollars because nobody would voluntarily pay for it.
dqpb 8y ago
But is that even an option? I used to pay for NYT and WSJ (not cheap) and was still bombarded with ads.

buboard 8y ago

this kind of dystopia existed in the printing press for centuries.