3 ms·

Those workarounds only work because of a lot of work by the app/extension developers to bypass the ads. I know for a fact that google has teams working to fight

Those workarounds only work because of a lot of work by the app/extension developers to bypass the ads. I know for a fact that google has teams working to fight adblockers and regularly see my Safari adblocker work on YouTube one day, and not work the next.

pbasista 5y ago
> because of a lot of work That is possible. And irrelevant. What matters is that it is simple for the end user. === Consider, for instance, a "payment screen" which would require the user to enter the exact value of a product of two huge numbers. It is difficult for any human to calculate it on their own. And the merchant is willing to provide it to them for a fee. However, the user can also simply use e.g. a calculator in their mobile phone and get the correct number themselves in seconds. There indeed was a lot of work put into the design of calculators and mobile phones etc. or into whatever other device the user chooses to use to get this number. But that is irrelevant. The important part is that a regular user can easily do it. Now, consider another example where a "payment screen" would require the user to enter a unique number that only the merchant is able to issue and they will only provide it to the user in exchange for a fee. In such case, the user can have any readily available resource at hand and they still would not be able to circumvent this kind of "payment screen" in any way. The only way through for them would be to obtain the required unique number from the merchant and pay for it in the process. The later example can be considered a payment screen precisely because it requires the user to pay. That should, after all, probably be the definition of a "payment screen". However, in the earlier example, the "payment screen" is only asking the user to pay. It does not enforce it. So, the users have an option to pay, if they like, or to not pay and calculate the correct number themselves by any of the trivial means that are readily available to them. It is in my opinion disingenuous to suggest that there is any obligation to pay for a service that is offered in exchange for an optional fee. Similarly, I believe that judging those who choose not to pay for such a service or labeling their behavior as unethical is absurd. It is the merchant's choice to have the payment optional. And therefore, they need to accept the consequences of this decision. In reality it would probably mean that some users will indeed choose not to pay.

pbasista 5y ago

> because of a lot of work That is possible. And irrelevant. What matters is that it is simple for the end user. === Consider, for instance, a "payment screen" which would require the user to enter the exact value of a product of two huge numbers. It is difficult for any human to calculate it on their own. And the merchant is willing to provide it to them for a fee. However, the user can also simply use e.g. a calculator in their mobile phone and get the correct number themselves in seconds. There indeed was a lot of work put into the design of calculators and mobile phones etc. or into whatever other device the user chooses to use to get this number. But that is irrelevant. The important part is that a regular user can easily do it. Now, consider another example where a "payment screen" would require the user to enter a unique number that only the merchant is able to issue and they will only provide it to the user in exchange for a fee. In such case, the user can have any readily available resource at hand and they still would not be able to circumvent this kind of "payment screen" in any way. The only way through for them would be to obtain the required unique number from the merchant and pay for it in the process. The later example can be considered a payment screen precisely because it requires the user to pay. That should, after all, probably be the definition of a "payment screen". However, in the earlier example, the "payment screen" is only asking the user to pay. It does not enforce it. So, the users have an option to pay, if they like, or to not pay and calculate the correct number themselves by any of the trivial means that are readily available to them. It is in my opinion disingenuous to suggest that there is any obligation to pay for a service that is offered in exchange for an optional fee. Similarly, I believe that judging those who choose not to pay for such a service or labeling their behavior as unethical is absurd. It is the merchant's choice to have the payment optional. And therefore, they need to accept the consequences of this decision. In reality it would probably mean that some users will indeed choose not to pay.