4 ms·
Yes, who cares about the ad-dollars that TechCrunch relies on to survive, right? What a great innovation. Do you also have a workaround to use UPS without any c
by jmsflknr 3y ago
Yes, who cares about the ad-dollars that TechCrunch relies on to survive, right? What a great innovation. Do you also have a workaround to use UPS without any charges? How about avoiding a way to pay utility bills?
- hackernewds 3y agoarchive.org links are upvoted here all the time. including VPN solutions to skirt copyright laws. this is par for the course?
- croisillon 3y agoyeah, who gonna pay for the horse carriages with all those automobile inventions?
- kervantas 3y agoI can totally understand the OP's frustration with TechCrunch's website, and with cluttered, bloated, obfuscated websites in general which only aim to maximize the time the user spends there by confusing the fuck out of them. This is why I read sites like The Economist (finite number of articles, released weekly) and RSS feeds. So tired of the attention economy.
- rchaud 3y agoEvery website has a finite # of articles, provided you visit them a finite number of times.
- hmontazeri 3y agoI have no problems with news sites using ads to make bucks, but the overloaded design makes it hard for me to get what the site is actually about, news!
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIn what Bizarro-world morality am I obligated to care about supporting their business model? When I think about such things at all, my train of thought tends towards pursuing only two ideas: 1. That advertising in general is either the worst outcome in some prisoners' dilemma game theory game, in that it never seems to inform potential customers and business spend inordinately trying to outspend everyone else. 2. That advertising may not actually meet the criteria to be considered speech/expression either in general, or when performed by corporations instead of individuals.
- kixiQu 3y ago> In what Bizarro-world morality am I obligated to care about supporting their business model? I think this is pointing out that the content theft has a harm here. Harming other people is the typical reason we are meant to not steal things. You aren't "obligated" to care about supporting their business model, but the comparison clarifies that it's in the same way that you're not "obligated" to care about the impact of shoplifting.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoWhere is the theft? If that website allows him to download the pages without a 401 or a 403, then how is it any of their business how be prefers to consume that content? No theft has occurred. Not even in the half-assed "copyright infringement is theft" meaning that some slack-jawed quarterwits have started to use the last decade or two. It is not harming you to decline to buy something from you, not even if you really really want me to buy it from you, or even if you need me to do that. But if that is true, then it must be especially so that I am not harming you when I turn down your Amway or timeshare sales pitch. The only moral obligation, the only actual contract that is relevant here is the peering arrangement. Don't put things on the public www unless you're willing to serve them up to everyone. Definitely don't serve them up and then whine that they weren't allow to make the http request. No shoplifting occurred. Just better software.
- kixiQu 3y agoDo you see no distinction between * downloading and transforming a document for one's own consumption (as with e.g. ad blockers) and * rehosting it with no permission from the writer?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoNot sure what you mean by "rehosting". Just looks like client software to me. The absence of 401s and 403s indicates tacit permission to me.