5 ms·

It would be another bit for the fingerprinting, that's an important caveat. The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls,

by l0b0 3y ago

It would be another bit for the fingerprinting, that's an important caveat. The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls, and let the market decide whether users are OK with that. The current situation is that ad blocking is a luxury, afforded by people like us with a decent Internet connection for the constant updates, and understanding of technology, to enable ad blocking in the first place.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls They should be easily able to make the attempt, they should not easily be effective because to do so is to allow authoritarianism. I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. The threat of having that ability is too high.
- l0b0 3y ago
  They paid to create the content, they decide whether you get to see it. Simple as that. No DRM or other shenanigans needed.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  You're choosing to run their javascript. If you turn off JS, they don't get any control, and you'll likely not get any content or ads. Let's not forget that people are (1) choosing to visit the site, and (2) choosing to run the server's code locally. This isn't authoritarianism. If you want to watch YouTube, or Netflix, or whatever, you have to seek it out, and run their code. And of course, you should mutually agree to terms to see be distributed their content.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. no they don't. Even with this theoretical header, they wouldn't have control unless it was an OS-level setting (even then, it'd be trivial to spoof). they have data you desire, you send a request to connect, they use info in that request to give you a response. malicious services aside, the worst they can do is send nothing, or only undesirable data (a page full of nothing but ads, that you'd block. resulting in nothing). It doesn't control your ability to tab out, close the tab, switch the browser, nor change your OS.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    I don't think you've read much on what's coming. And this isn't just about the browser, but about things such as certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      I've read about the chromium stuff. This is why 1) alternatives are important and why I switched to Firefox this year and 2) why being open source is important for competitors to fork and avoid this BS. >certain cables being unable to display movies, etc. HDCP was indeed a mistake. A very flimsy one at that. There's so many ways to display content that trying to block it on some specific kind of cable protocol is silly. It just makes people think the device is broken.
justinclift 3y ago
> should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls Isn't paywalls (not ad walls) just bog standard subscription membership? If so, the technical implementation part of that has been pretty well solved many times over. Ad-walls though are a different kettle of fish.

by l0b0 3y ago

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

> The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls They should be easily able to make the attempt, they should not easily be effective because to do so is to allow authoritarianism. I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. The threat of having that ability is too high.

l0b0 3y ago
They paid to create the content, they decide whether you get to see it. Simple as that. No DRM or other shenanigans needed.
vineyardmike 3y ago
You're choosing to run their javascript. If you turn off JS, they don't get any control, and you'll likely not get any content or ads. Let's not forget that people are (1) choosing to visit the site, and (2) choosing to run the server's code locally. This isn't authoritarianism. If you want to watch YouTube, or Netflix, or whatever, you have to seek it out, and run their code. And of course, you should mutually agree to terms to see be distributed their content.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. no they don't. Even with this theoretical header, they wouldn't have control unless it was an OS-level setting (even then, it'd be trivial to spoof). they have data you desire, you send a request to connect, they use info in that request to give you a response. malicious services aside, the worst they can do is send nothing, or only undesirable data (a page full of nothing but ads, that you'd block. resulting in nothing). It doesn't control your ability to tab out, close the tab, switch the browser, nor change your OS.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I don't think you've read much on what's coming. And this isn't just about the browser, but about things such as certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    I've read about the chromium stuff. This is why 1) alternatives are important and why I switched to Firefox this year and 2) why being open source is important for competitors to fork and avoid this BS. >certain cables being unable to display movies, etc. HDCP was indeed a mistake. A very flimsy one at that. There's so many ways to display content that trying to block it on some specific kind of cable protocol is silly. It just makes people think the device is broken.

justinclift 3y ago

> should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls Isn't paywalls (not ad walls) just bog standard subscription membership? If so, the technical implementation part of that has been pretty well solved many times over. Ad-walls though are a different kettle of fish.