3 ms·
You don't, technically speaking, pay for it, which is why it's making news lately. They give you a free TV crammed with ads and trackers. (It's a little amusin
by _zzaw 3y ago
You don't, technically speaking, pay for it, which is why it's making news lately. They give you a free TV crammed with ads and trackers.
(It's a little amusing to me to see this discussed on Ars Technica, a site that is also crammed with ads and trackers. This is really just the physical real-world model of every crummy ad-supported site out there.)
- ahefner 3y agoIt's a funny thing that you remind me of just now - I seem to recall, quite some time ago - 10+ years ago, probably - an exasperated article on Ars Technica arguing against ad blockers, when literally within the past few weeks I'd only just installed one for the first time, because I was fed up with the gigantic banner ads plastered all over... Ars Technica. Of all sites, at probably the peak of "Around the web..." scumlinks even, they pushed me over the threshold.
- _zzaw 3y agoYeah, I'm conflicted about Ars. They present themselves as firmly on the side of user-friendliness and privacy, but they're not above scummy ad/tracker practices, autoplaying videos, and obnoxious popups. They also charge you to delete your account. I've pretty much stopped reading them because I was losing respect for the people who ran the site.