18 ms·

> It’s crazy to think that some software engineers might actually intentionally degrade user experience on non-Google browsers or for people using adblockers.

by tapoxi 2y ago

> It’s crazy to think that some software engineers might actually intentionally degrade user experience on non-Google browsers or for people using adblockers. Why would I, as a developer whose income stream is based on advertising, intentionally cater to users who are costing me money? There is a web based on hobbyist platforms like PeerTube and Mastodon, and you can clearly see why they haven't captured the masses.

Workaccount2 2y ago
[flagged]
bee_rider 2y ago
This is basically true. The ad supported web sucks, but the solution is to not use it.
- wruza 2y ago
  The solution is how we solve it. There’s a technical end to every demand, and at the end of the day regulation only can do so much for both sides. The reality sorts everything else. The solution you mentioned is valid too. But you cannot ignore the fact that internet is for everyone and not for google. Google minus all the shit it does to the internet can definitely exist in some form. Claiming it’s either this or nothing is just defeatist. If google and youtube disappeared tomorrow, I’d be the first among those guys who buy hdds and torrent videos from these. For no money, like I did with all torrents in my life. There would be less professional videos obviously, but almost everyone agrees it’s a good thing (quit SM, anxiety, kids social issues, etc talks).
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Sorry, I was ambiguous. I just meant not to use the ad-supported part of the web. Yes, the rest of it is fine. Even a large chunk of the ad supported internet is happy to continue sending you bits if you don’t render their ads. This is fine, the convention has always been I’ll send whatever (non-malicious) bits I want, you send whatever you want, and we’ll render it however we want. YouTube specifically doesn’t send bits to people who don’t render their ads, on purpose, which is also fine, they just don’t want those of us who don’t render ads around. Entitled ad guys don’t get to change the social convention to add some obligation to render their ads. If they don’t want to serve bits to users that block their ads, that’s fine, but if they send bits I’ll render them however I want on my system.
    - wruza 2y ago
      Exactly. It’s amazing that ads-ers send bits regardless and expect them to be consumed as is, as if it was some fundamental law of nature to do so. Simply don’t send, wink. That wink makes them feel uneasy because it breaks that wonderful narrative of theirs. “If you don’t want to watch ads, just don’t visit”. Yeah, just paywall us then, come on, we’re all yours, signed in, vendor locked. I’m so ready to leave and delete the bookmark, what are you waiting for?
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        People are playing this cat-and-mouse game with YouTube specifically, where they’ll circumvent the desire to block them for not rendering ads. I think this is a bad thing for users to do. But I mostly think it should make the ad providers uncomfortable. Because they know that most people won’t play cat and mouse for their content. In any case other than YouTube, people would just move on. They know it. We know they know it, because if they really didn’t want to send bits to ad-blockers, they’d copy the first step of the back-and-forth that Google did with YouTube, and those users would no longer be a problem.
eipi10_hn 2y ago
Because you cannot even control your ads to users? No one of you devs gets punishment for tracking users' personal information, pushing scam, phishing and malware to users, and now users are not even allowed to protect themselves? Users don't drop trackers and malwares to your servers, why do you drop trackers and malwares to users' machines? Because you are working for a corporation that joins in World Wide Web Consortium, who literally says this in the Ethical Web Principles? > People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts. We will build features and write specifications that respect people's agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf. https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render If you cannot maintain your service, paywall your features, not forcing malwares and trackers to users. No one forced you to serve 1080p, 1440p or 4K videos to everyone for free. You were the one literally "advertised" yourself as a "free" service at beginning, in order to hoard how many users you could. And now when you cannot control your own costs, you push malwares and trackers to users? The mentality of hoarding users with "baits" like "free" are the real poisons for the internet, for both of you and your users, NOT users who are doing exactly what World Wide Web Consortium tells them. Where are all your MBAs in your corporations? The ones bragging about themselves on LinkedIn and now the only resolutions you can think of is pushing malwares and trackers to users? All of the finance classes in your college should be simplified to advertisement classes I guess? That would save a lot of resources for everyone.
- p3rls 2y ago
  Those corporations with MBAs will find another way-- you're only hurting the independents and destroying the open web with your hipster nonsense
  - eipi10_hn 2y ago
    > Those corporations with MBAs will find another way Not YouTube. Those "nonsense" are from World Wide Web Consortium, users are just doing what they say. The "hipster" are the ones not respecting those Ethical Web Principles. Users are not injecting trackers and malwares to those independents' servers. Why do those independents inject trackers and malwares to users' machines? The ones who destroyed the open web are the business, including independents and corporations, with the mentality of luring more users to use their "free" services, without any plans of controlling the cost, ETHICALLY and MORALLY. Scale, scale, scale, more users, more beautiful number; until their pocket is burnt and now their resolution is pushing those trackers and malwares to compensate the cost. Ads, malvertisements and trackers are not the open web.
p3rls 2y ago
You can tell who has never been in control of a budget and had to fire people because more than half their audience is using adblockers.
- wruza 2y ago
  Why you even start a business so risky and bad mannered?
- pif 2y ago
  I get your points, but have you tried with less invasive advertising? Like, you know, static pictures downloaded from your domain with a HREF on them?
notanastronaut 2y ago
There is no reason I, a user, will intentionally use your product when you fill it with ads that are, at best annoying, and at worst malware vectors. You have your right to develop things your way, I have a right to say no thank you. Google, though, is so big it is basically saying "you don't have a choice." That's the problem and one that Google spends billions to enforce. They use the weight of the uninformed to apply pressure to the rest of us. It was no better when Microsoft did it with IE, nor is it any way proper, now.
lentil_soup 2y ago
Because it's not catering, it's actively making it worse for the rest of us? Because not everything is about money? Because of ethics? Why would I, as a doctor whose income stream is based on people getting sick, intentionally support policies that make people healthier
apricot 2y ago
> Why would I, as a developer whose income stream is based on advertising, intentionally cater to users who are costing me money? Thank goodness you're not a doctor.

by tapoxi 2y ago

Workaccount2 2y ago

[flagged]

bee_rider 2y ago

This is basically true. The ad supported web sucks, but the solution is to not use it.

wruza 2y ago
The solution is how we solve it. There’s a technical end to every demand, and at the end of the day regulation only can do so much for both sides. The reality sorts everything else. The solution you mentioned is valid too. But you cannot ignore the fact that internet is for everyone and not for google. Google minus all the shit it does to the internet can definitely exist in some form. Claiming it’s either this or nothing is just defeatist. If google and youtube disappeared tomorrow, I’d be the first among those guys who buy hdds and torrent videos from these. For no money, like I did with all torrents in my life. There would be less professional videos obviously, but almost everyone agrees it’s a good thing (quit SM, anxiety, kids social issues, etc talks).
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Sorry, I was ambiguous. I just meant not to use the ad-supported part of the web. Yes, the rest of it is fine. Even a large chunk of the ad supported internet is happy to continue sending you bits if you don’t render their ads. This is fine, the convention has always been I’ll send whatever (non-malicious) bits I want, you send whatever you want, and we’ll render it however we want. YouTube specifically doesn’t send bits to people who don’t render their ads, on purpose, which is also fine, they just don’t want those of us who don’t render ads around. Entitled ad guys don’t get to change the social convention to add some obligation to render their ads. If they don’t want to serve bits to users that block their ads, that’s fine, but if they send bits I’ll render them however I want on my system.
  - wruza 2y ago
    Exactly. It’s amazing that ads-ers send bits regardless and expect them to be consumed as is, as if it was some fundamental law of nature to do so. Simply don’t send, wink. That wink makes them feel uneasy because it breaks that wonderful narrative of theirs. “If you don’t want to watch ads, just don’t visit”. Yeah, just paywall us then, come on, we’re all yours, signed in, vendor locked. I’m so ready to leave and delete the bookmark, what are you waiting for?
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      People are playing this cat-and-mouse game with YouTube specifically, where they’ll circumvent the desire to block them for not rendering ads. I think this is a bad thing for users to do. But I mostly think it should make the ad providers uncomfortable. Because they know that most people won’t play cat and mouse for their content. In any case other than YouTube, people would just move on. They know it. We know they know it, because if they really didn’t want to send bits to ad-blockers, they’d copy the first step of the back-and-forth that Google did with YouTube, and those users would no longer be a problem.

eipi10_hn 2y ago

Because you cannot even control your ads to users? No one of you devs gets punishment for tracking users' personal information, pushing scam, phishing and malware to users, and now users are not even allowed to protect themselves? Users don't drop trackers and malwares to your servers, why do you drop trackers and malwares to users' machines? Because you are working for a corporation that joins in World Wide Web Consortium, who literally says this in the Ethical Web Principles? > People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts. We will build features and write specifications that respect people's agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf. https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render If you cannot maintain your service, paywall your features, not forcing malwares and trackers to users. No one forced you to serve 1080p, 1440p or 4K videos to everyone for free. You were the one literally "advertised" yourself as a "free" service at beginning, in order to hoard how many users you could. And now when you cannot control your own costs, you push malwares and trackers to users? The mentality of hoarding users with "baits" like "free" are the real poisons for the internet, for both of you and your users, NOT users who are doing exactly what World Wide Web Consortium tells them. Where are all your MBAs in your corporations? The ones bragging about themselves on LinkedIn and now the only resolutions you can think of is pushing malwares and trackers to users? All of the finance classes in your college should be simplified to advertisement classes I guess? That would save a lot of resources for everyone.

p3rls 2y ago
Those corporations with MBAs will find another way-- you're only hurting the independents and destroying the open web with your hipster nonsense
- eipi10_hn 2y ago
  > Those corporations with MBAs will find another way Not YouTube. Those "nonsense" are from World Wide Web Consortium, users are just doing what they say. The "hipster" are the ones not respecting those Ethical Web Principles. Users are not injecting trackers and malwares to those independents' servers. Why do those independents inject trackers and malwares to users' machines? The ones who destroyed the open web are the business, including independents and corporations, with the mentality of luring more users to use their "free" services, without any plans of controlling the cost, ETHICALLY and MORALLY. Scale, scale, scale, more users, more beautiful number; until their pocket is burnt and now their resolution is pushing those trackers and malwares to compensate the cost. Ads, malvertisements and trackers are not the open web.

p3rls 2y ago

You can tell who has never been in control of a budget and had to fire people because more than half their audience is using adblockers.

wruza 2y ago
Why you even start a business so risky and bad mannered?
pif 2y ago
I get your points, but have you tried with less invasive advertising? Like, you know, static pictures downloaded from your domain with a HREF on them?

notanastronaut 2y ago

There is no reason I, a user, will intentionally use your product when you fill it with ads that are, at best annoying, and at worst malware vectors. You have your right to develop things your way, I have a right to say no thank you. Google, though, is so big it is basically saying "you don't have a choice." That's the problem and one that Google spends billions to enforce. They use the weight of the uninformed to apply pressure to the rest of us. It was no better when Microsoft did it with IE, nor is it any way proper, now.

lentil_soup 2y ago

Because it's not catering, it's actively making it worse for the rest of us? Because not everything is about money? Because of ethics? Why would I, as a doctor whose income stream is based on people getting sick, intentionally support policies that make people healthier

apricot 2y ago

> Why would I, as a developer whose income stream is based on advertising, intentionally cater to users who are costing me money? Thank goodness you're not a doctor.