4 ms·

>(And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.) Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-block

>(And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.) Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet.

usr1106 3y ago
And selecting the pages you visit. I have yet to see ads on HN, Wikipedia and similar :) Yes, I do visit pages with few ads. But tye worst offenders are on my mental black list. I just don't visit them. And I pay for ad-free versions of what I really find worth paying for (Unfortunately that's still not offered widely enough, and sometimes a yearly subscription seems overhead. I mean in the old days people bought a magazine or journal at the station just because the felt like reading it occasionally. But now in our great internet this is typically not possible.)
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet. You shouldn't be special-casing the ads that pay for the pages you visit. All of the tech behind the page is equally good or bad in this sense.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying with CPU time for a deficit is moronic. Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit That doesn't mean there isn't by the OP's logic a moral imperative to not look at that content, due to the environmental impact. My point is that same imperative should apply equally. > Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it. That's a bad analogy, unless someone holding a flyer out pays for a service you consumed.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Suppose you go to some kind of event, and it's paid for by an advertiser. At the event, the advertiser walks around and hands out booklets for whatever they're selling, and insists you spend some time reading the booklet. Are you obligated to actually read the booklet? Or is "no thanks" OK?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        You're not obliged to read the booklet or to read ads online. I don't know why you'd talk as though I said you were.
        midoridensha 3y ago
        You seem to be claiming that I shouldn't visit a web page without viewing the ads on it. But here you seem to be claiming it's ok to visit the event without reading their ad booklet. That's inconsistent.

usr1106 3y ago

And selecting the pages you visit. I have yet to see ads on HN, Wikipedia and similar :) Yes, I do visit pages with few ads. But tye worst offenders are on my mental black list. I just don't visit them. And I pay for ad-free versions of what I really find worth paying for (Unfortunately that's still not offered widely enough, and sometimes a yearly subscription seems overhead. I mean in the old days people bought a magazine or journal at the station just because the felt like reading it occasionally. But now in our great internet this is typically not possible.)

robertlagrant 3y ago

> Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet. You shouldn't be special-casing the ads that pay for the pages you visit. All of the tech behind the page is equally good or bad in this sense.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying with CPU time for a deficit is moronic. Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit That doesn't mean there isn't by the OP's logic a moral imperative to not look at that content, due to the environmental impact. My point is that same imperative should apply equally. > Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it. That's a bad analogy, unless someone holding a flyer out pays for a service you consumed.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Suppose you go to some kind of event, and it's paid for by an advertiser. At the event, the advertiser walks around and hands out booklets for whatever they're selling, and insists you spend some time reading the booklet. Are you obligated to actually read the booklet? Or is "no thanks" OK?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      You're not obliged to read the booklet or to read ads online. I don't know why you'd talk as though I said you were.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        You seem to be claiming that I shouldn't visit a web page without viewing the ads on it. But here you seem to be claiming it's ok to visit the event without reading their ad booklet. That's inconsistent.