3 ms·

Right, I just realised this debate is basically the same debate towards ad-blocking and paywall jumping (e.g. via archive.is). Of course opinions vary on HN bu

Right, I just realised this debate is basically the same debate towards ad-blocking and paywall jumping (e.g. via archive.is). Of course opinions vary on HN but generally it feels like a "ad-blocking is cool, paywall hopping is cool, but the server also has the right to not give us the information". Given this, this is pretty sensational reporting by The Verge -- calling it theft, comparing it to crypto, breaking the "foundations of the internet" (... the Internet is about sharing) etc. This is a non-story, we already have these tools, this just adds an AI summary layer on top.

falcor84 2y ago
>This is a non-story, we already have these tools, this just adds an AI summary layer on top. This is a story. With ad blockers, the assumption was that the original page as a whole is valuable, but users just don't want to pay the cost of the ads and other obtrusive elements. But now we're opening up the question of what exactly is it on that page that's of actual value - is it just the text, or only some of the text, or only the "facts" expressed on the page, or maybe something even more abstract, such as how the page corroborates a fact on another page. I find this to be a really interesting question, both on a practical level and on an epistemological level - what is it that we as readers actually (want to) get from a resource?
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  Fair enough, it is a very interesting question indeed. Though I think precedence might be found in newspapers copying each other's stories and "facts can't be copyrighted" kind of stuff.
mattigames 2y ago
Life is a shade of grays, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to want to block big giant ugly ads (those infested with js for tracking purposes) but still believe that the site should always be allowed to display a lot less intrusive advertisement, like mentioning a restaurant in the article body, or some links at the side bar for their social media or partner sites, summarization of this kind just nukes all possibilities of clean simple advertising so no, I don't think it's that close as you believe to be to ad-blocker extensions.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  I disagree slightly. Ad blockers do block non-intrusive advertisements too, for example Ethical Ads, or sponsorblock on YouTube. To me it's less about intrusiveness/privacy and more about "I control what I see". And in-text ads can already be removed by summarisation tools (even from before the AI era!) or by apps like Boring Report.
  - mattigames 2y ago
    Just to be clear, sponsorblock has less than 3% the number of users of Ublock origin alone, so while an interesting utility and a interesting subject for the ad-blocking debate ethics-wise it has nowhere near enough prevalence to be significant when talking about ad-blockers used by the masses. And "the boring report" it's not even optimized for mobile viewing (Android), at least in my experience a few minutes ago: https://i.imgur.com/q6e3DzM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/q6e3DzM.jpg

falcor84 2y ago

>This is a non-story, we already have these tools, this just adds an AI summary layer on top. This is a story. With ad blockers, the assumption was that the original page as a whole is valuable, but users just don't want to pay the cost of the ads and other obtrusive elements. But now we're opening up the question of what exactly is it on that page that's of actual value - is it just the text, or only some of the text, or only the "facts" expressed on the page, or maybe something even more abstract, such as how the page corroborates a fact on another page. I find this to be a really interesting question, both on a practical level and on an epistemological level - what is it that we as readers actually (want to) get from a resource?

CaptainFever 2y ago
Fair enough, it is a very interesting question indeed. Though I think precedence might be found in newspapers copying each other's stories and "facts can't be copyrighted" kind of stuff.

mattigames 2y ago

Life is a shade of grays, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to want to block big giant ugly ads (those infested with js for tracking purposes) but still believe that the site should always be allowed to display a lot less intrusive advertisement, like mentioning a restaurant in the article body, or some links at the side bar for their social media or partner sites, summarization of this kind just nukes all possibilities of clean simple advertising so no, I don't think it's that close as you believe to be to ad-blocker extensions.

CaptainFever 2y ago
I disagree slightly. Ad blockers do block non-intrusive advertisements too, for example Ethical Ads, or sponsorblock on YouTube. To me it's less about intrusiveness/privacy and more about "I control what I see". And in-text ads can already be removed by summarisation tools (even from before the AI era!) or by apps like Boring Report.
- mattigames 2y ago
  Just to be clear, sponsorblock has less than 3% the number of users of Ublock origin alone, so while an interesting utility and a interesting subject for the ad-blocking debate ethics-wise it has nowhere near enough prevalence to be significant when talking about ad-blockers used by the masses. And "the boring report" it's not even optimized for mobile viewing (Android), at least in my experience a few minutes ago: https://i.imgur.com/q6e3DzM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/q6e3DzM.jpg