4 ms·

> I think blocking mining scripts is a step backwards, hindering the adoption of something that could finally be an unobtrusive and ethical replacement for the

> I think blocking mining scripts is a step backwards, hindering the adoption of something that could finally be an unobtrusive and ethical replacement for the failing advertisement model. If the content on a website is just a vehicle for delivering advertisements, I would consider such a business model to be fundamentally flawed. Swapping "delivering advertisements" with "hijacking my processor cycles to mine cryptocurrencies" doesn't exactly offer anything that would convince me to change my mind. I'm more than happy to pay for quality content, but I'd prefer companies to be forthcoming about the cost involved in providing it, rather than turning me or my data into a product that can be sold to the highest bidder.

Smithalicious 8y ago
That's a fair position to hold but it doesn't scale. It's extremely hard to actually convince people to buy something regardless of how much they like it, doubly so if it's something nonphysical like online content. I would also love to live in a world where I could just deposit some reasonable amount of money every month and have it fairly distributed to pay for all the things I love, but I can see that that's not viable in the real world. Having websites silently use my unused computer resources is a perfectly viable alternative to me in a way that forcing me to stare at things I don't care about is not.
- Rychard 8y ago
  Sure, but tapping the unused power of my high-end desktop PC seems to be far more valuable than doing the same thing to a mobile device with a constrained power profile. How can I be sure I'm not being taken advantage of?
  - Smithalicious 8y ago
    You can't really be sure that you're not being taken advantage of, but neither can you with ads. I still run into ads that hijack my back button on my phone all the time.
    - Rychard 8y ago
      It sounds like there's no advantage then; if we allow this, companies would be incentivized to harvest our data and run our CPUs at 100%. We'd just be giving them another revenue model.
      - Smithalicious 8y ago
        This shouldn't need to be said but companies do need some revenue model. In the end they need to make that money some way, be it your data, your CPU cycles, your attention, or your actual money (or some combination of the aforementioned). Out of those I think "your CPU cycles" is the least intrusive out of the ones that can actually be feasibly implemented in all cases. Of course companies will always be incentivized to squeeze as much value out of you as possible, but they'll be simultaneously incentivized not to screw people over too much. Just like how abuse ads have led to widespride use of adblock, abusive use of mining scripts will just lead to people blocking them (be it on a case-by-case basis or universlaly). But while I think ads are always going to bother me no matter what they are or how many of them there are, there's a level of CPU utilization that I wouldn't mind or even notice at all.
        Rychard 8y ago
        I see your point, but there would be nothing stopping them from double-dipping under the guise of "we need both revenue streams to pay the bills". They'll still show us advertisements, though they'll probably optimize them to use fewer CPU cycles since those would directly affect their bottom line. I sincerely doubt the vast majority of the general population are using ad-blocking software today; at least, not to the extent that companies would dial back their advertisements in an attempt to prevent the size of this demographic from increasing further.

Smithalicious 8y ago

That's a fair position to hold but it doesn't scale. It's extremely hard to actually convince people to buy something regardless of how much they like it, doubly so if it's something nonphysical like online content. I would also love to live in a world where I could just deposit some reasonable amount of money every month and have it fairly distributed to pay for all the things I love, but I can see that that's not viable in the real world. Having websites silently use my unused computer resources is a perfectly viable alternative to me in a way that forcing me to stare at things I don't care about is not.

Rychard 8y ago
Sure, but tapping the unused power of my high-end desktop PC seems to be far more valuable than doing the same thing to a mobile device with a constrained power profile. How can I be sure I'm not being taken advantage of?
- Smithalicious 8y ago
  You can't really be sure that you're not being taken advantage of, but neither can you with ads. I still run into ads that hijack my back button on my phone all the time.
  - Rychard 8y ago
    It sounds like there's no advantage then; if we allow this, companies would be incentivized to harvest our data and run our CPUs at 100%. We'd just be giving them another revenue model.
    - Smithalicious 8y ago
      This shouldn't need to be said but companies do need some revenue model. In the end they need to make that money some way, be it your data, your CPU cycles, your attention, or your actual money (or some combination of the aforementioned). Out of those I think "your CPU cycles" is the least intrusive out of the ones that can actually be feasibly implemented in all cases. Of course companies will always be incentivized to squeeze as much value out of you as possible, but they'll be simultaneously incentivized not to screw people over too much. Just like how abuse ads have led to widespride use of adblock, abusive use of mining scripts will just lead to people blocking them (be it on a case-by-case basis or universlaly). But while I think ads are always going to bother me no matter what they are or how many of them there are, there's a level of CPU utilization that I wouldn't mind or even notice at all.
      - Rychard 8y ago
        I see your point, but there would be nothing stopping them from double-dipping under the guise of "we need both revenue streams to pay the bills". They'll still show us advertisements, though they'll probably optimize them to use fewer CPU cycles since those would directly affect their bottom line. I sincerely doubt the vast majority of the general population are using ad-blocking software today; at least, not to the extent that companies would dial back their advertisements in an attempt to prevent the size of this demographic from increasing further.