6 ms·

So you're basically against ad blockers.

dannyr 7y ago
If a business chooses how they make money to survive, can you just say "I don't like how you make money so I'll just get everything for free"? If you don't like how a company uses ads (regular, spammy, deceptive), no better way than tell them than by not giving them any traffic at all.
- baroffoos 7y ago
  Users are allowed to control how they view content on their own computer. Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free and users may choose to render the content however they wish. Facebook is free to charge for the service.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    "Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free". No, it's not free. Facebook makes money off data from its users.
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      The "free" in this case is the fact that they have not charged any fee to obtain the data.
    - dannyr 7y ago
      Let me paraphrase your statement then ""Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free BY SERVING ADS".
      - baroffoos 7y ago
        And the user is in no way obligated to look at the ads. If I start a business giving away things for free expecting the users to pay me back later but in no way requiring them to and it doesn't work out then thats just a bad business model.
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  The internet/web is USED by businesses. The internet/web is not FOR businesses. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in perspective about who's responsibility it is to make allowances for who serves/receives content...
- rdiddly 7y ago
  In this case, yes, yes you can. Although note that the value flows in the other direction. We're getting Facebook content (worthless), they're getting our attention (valuable).
squeaky-clean 7y ago
You can be in favor of both sides of this argument, I would say I am. I believe in my right to modify what's running on my computer and network, including things like installing adblocker extensions and pi-hole and so on. But I also believe that no organization is obligated to serve their data to me in a way that makes it easy to block those ads. They are wasting CPU hours and man hours on obfuscation features rather than real value to the end user. But nothing is really wrong with that, it's just a bit silly. If they think it makes them more profit overall than actually enhancing Facebook, they can take that bet. (I think it's the wrong bet, but they can still take it)
- ACow_Adonis 7y ago
  That's basically my attitude too, and I'd consider myself one of the more pro-adblocker advocates. I see the internet as a bunch of servers talking to each other. Some make requests to others, some respond to those requests by sending content. You can block me, you can choose to not send or respond data to my requests, and you can send your website/content in some form that's better suited to Perl golf or the obfuscated C contest. That's your prerogative. On my end, I get to decide who I send my requests to, how I spend my time and attention, and what I do on my machine with incoming requests and data. Make your site bad enough, and I (and others) will stop going, and eventually you'll likely sow the seeds of your own destruction (as people move away and create competition), but fundamentally that's your call to make. Just like its mine to ignore you or your requests that I talk to your affiliated servers, edit and filter the content once it's on my machine/infrastructure, and not pay attention to the nonsense you send.
derekp7 7y ago
Personally I would like an ad blocker that only blocks annoying ads, or ads that contain malware. I would also be willing to pay a monthly subscription for an adblock service, where the subscription gets divvied out to the sites I visit. In fact, I can think of how this could work on a large scale. A site can sign up to the adblock service to receive a prorated portion of revenues that individual subscribers pay in, and subscribers have a browser button where they can rate the site (thumbs up, neutral, or thumbs down) for usefulness. That rating can then be fed into a trainer for a search engine so that search results are tuned to that user's preferences (along with a user profile that gets automatically built up, or that a user can adjust themselves). For extra bonus points, the user can get a 10% discount on the service for agreeing to allow the adblock service to monetize that data (and agreeing to their data sharing policy) -- otherwise that data is used only to influence search results. BTW, for years I didn't bother with an ad blocker until I started getting repeatedly hit with malware served up by the ad networks. For that same reason I don't bother with an ad blocker on my phone, because so far I haven't gotten hit with ad-delivered malware on my phone or tablet yet.
- amphibian87 7y ago
  ad nauseum Firefox clicks ads already, to pay the person advertising. and you never see them. it's great in mobile too

If a business chooses how they make money to survive, can you just say "I don't like how you make money so I'll just get everything for free"? If you don't like how a company uses ads (regular, spammy, deceptive), no better way than tell them than by not giving them any traffic at all.

baroffoos 7y ago
Users are allowed to control how they view content on their own computer. Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free and users may choose to render the content however they wish. Facebook is free to charge for the service.
- dannyr 7y ago
  "Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free". No, it's not free. Facebook makes money off data from its users.
  - baroffoos 7y ago
    The "free" in this case is the fact that they have not charged any fee to obtain the data.
  - dannyr 7y ago
    Let me paraphrase your statement then ""Facebook has chosen to give the content out for free BY SERVING ADS".
    - baroffoos 7y ago
      And the user is in no way obligated to look at the ads. If I start a business giving away things for free expecting the users to pay me back later but in no way requiring them to and it doesn't work out then thats just a bad business model.
ACow_Adonis 7y ago
The internet/web is USED by businesses. The internet/web is not FOR businesses. Perhaps that's the fundamental difference in perspective about who's responsibility it is to make allowances for who serves/receives content...
rdiddly 7y ago
In this case, yes, yes you can. Although note that the value flows in the other direction. We're getting Facebook content (worthless), they're getting our attention (valuable).

squeaky-clean 7y ago

You can be in favor of both sides of this argument, I would say I am. I believe in my right to modify what's running on my computer and network, including things like installing adblocker extensions and pi-hole and so on. But I also believe that no organization is obligated to serve their data to me in a way that makes it easy to block those ads. They are wasting CPU hours and man hours on obfuscation features rather than real value to the end user. But nothing is really wrong with that, it's just a bit silly. If they think it makes them more profit overall than actually enhancing Facebook, they can take that bet. (I think it's the wrong bet, but they can still take it)

ACow_Adonis 7y ago
That's basically my attitude too, and I'd consider myself one of the more pro-adblocker advocates. I see the internet as a bunch of servers talking to each other. Some make requests to others, some respond to those requests by sending content. You can block me, you can choose to not send or respond data to my requests, and you can send your website/content in some form that's better suited to Perl golf or the obfuscated C contest. That's your prerogative. On my end, I get to decide who I send my requests to, how I spend my time and attention, and what I do on my machine with incoming requests and data. Make your site bad enough, and I (and others) will stop going, and eventually you'll likely sow the seeds of your own destruction (as people move away and create competition), but fundamentally that's your call to make. Just like its mine to ignore you or your requests that I talk to your affiliated servers, edit and filter the content once it's on my machine/infrastructure, and not pay attention to the nonsense you send.

derekp7 7y ago

Personally I would like an ad blocker that only blocks annoying ads, or ads that contain malware. I would also be willing to pay a monthly subscription for an adblock service, where the subscription gets divvied out to the sites I visit. In fact, I can think of how this could work on a large scale. A site can sign up to the adblock service to receive a prorated portion of revenues that individual subscribers pay in, and subscribers have a browser button where they can rate the site (thumbs up, neutral, or thumbs down) for usefulness. That rating can then be fed into a trainer for a search engine so that search results are tuned to that user's preferences (along with a user profile that gets automatically built up, or that a user can adjust themselves). For extra bonus points, the user can get a 10% discount on the service for agreeing to allow the adblock service to monetize that data (and agreeing to their data sharing policy) -- otherwise that data is used only to influence search results. BTW, for years I didn't bother with an ad blocker until I started getting repeatedly hit with malware served up by the ad networks. For that same reason I don't bother with an ad blocker on my phone, because so far I haven't gotten hit with ad-delivered malware on my phone or tablet yet.

amphibian87 7y ago
ad nauseum Firefox clicks ads already, to pay the person advertising. and you never see them. it's great in mobile too