4 ms·

I agree, the "with no ads" really paints consumers as only being cheap and ignorant. It is almost victim blaming. "Intrusive" doesn't being to describe the mod

I agree, the "with no ads" really paints consumers as only being cheap and ignorant. It is almost victim blaming. "Intrusive" doesn't being to describe the modern ad tracking infrastructure, data collection (and attendant leak vulnerabilities), and exploitation. The pop up ad, autoplay video/audio, and epilepsy-triggering flash ads are just the beginning of the predatory nature of this that has been deeply entrenched as the biggest companies that effectively make up the modern consumer web rely on this for their massive revenues. It is orwellian in every sense of the word, not just dangerous for individuals in a data privacy and identity theft perspective, and dangerous at the civilization/society level in that it is a direct threat to a free, liberal, and democratic world. Advertising was already a dangerous psychological influence back in the era of print ads. Now that we are essentially entering the first cybernetic era with our online personas and screen time, it is directly manipulating personality, mental stability, opinion, and belief.

CubsFan1060 5y ago
I think calling yourself the victim here is ridiculous. It's a product. You can accept their deal, or not. There's no victims here. You know how you avoid all those ads? You avoid their site.
- pixl97 5y ago
  Well, there is the 3rd option... Steal their content and publish it elsewhere, such as in posts on Reddit or HN. Trying to paint anything black or white will just lead to a model that doesn't represent reality and what people are going to do.
  - CubsFan1060 5y ago
    Agreed, and sorry, I wasn't trying to do that. However, in that scenario, I'd claim the news site is the actual victim.
chucksmash 5y ago
Good lord. It's nonsensical to equate being shown an ad (even in this third party tracking day and age) with victimhood. Histrionics aren't the answer.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I'm saying accusing consumers of complaining about being "shown" ads as cheap and unreasonable is blaming the victim. It's not "showing" an ad. It's a popup ad, with a tracking cookie, with a stored identity and list of urls tracked over years, tied and shared to a dozen databases, probably shared with governments (willingly or otherwise). I get a huge percentage of people on HN work for FAANG and are a part of this meat grinder, so go ahead and downvote. But blaming a consumer for not wanting to be tracked and characterizing it as them being cheap is shifting blame to the consumer. Which is victim blaming.

CubsFan1060 5y ago

I think calling yourself the victim here is ridiculous. It's a product. You can accept their deal, or not. There's no victims here. You know how you avoid all those ads? You avoid their site.

pixl97 5y ago
Well, there is the 3rd option... Steal their content and publish it elsewhere, such as in posts on Reddit or HN. Trying to paint anything black or white will just lead to a model that doesn't represent reality and what people are going to do.
- CubsFan1060 5y ago
  Agreed, and sorry, I wasn't trying to do that. However, in that scenario, I'd claim the news site is the actual victim.

chucksmash 5y ago

Good lord. It's nonsensical to equate being shown an ad (even in this third party tracking day and age) with victimhood. Histrionics aren't the answer.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I'm saying accusing consumers of complaining about being "shown" ads as cheap and unreasonable is blaming the victim. It's not "showing" an ad. It's a popup ad, with a tracking cookie, with a stored identity and list of urls tracked over years, tied and shared to a dozen databases, probably shared with governments (willingly or otherwise). I get a huge percentage of people on HN work for FAANG and are a part of this meat grinder, so go ahead and downvote. But blaming a consumer for not wanting to be tracked and characterizing it as them being cheap is shifting blame to the consumer. Which is victim blaming.