4 ms·

Like plastering the roads with billboards. We don't want that in the online space. Or, not in the meatspace either, if you ask me.

rkomorn 1y ago
I think your analogy is entirely wrong. Plastering roads with billboards isn't paying for the roads. Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.
- npteljes 1y ago
  Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website. The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website. They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself. By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property. If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do). Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. > By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content." And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right? My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course). I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities. Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]: That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes place moments before that ad is displayed. Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their "expression" being thwarted? Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here." That said, your argument is addressing the issue of "private property." I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes? >> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? >I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). What implicit contract? Take the link (https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-overturned-by-top-german-court-250819/ https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-... ) associated with the discussion we're both commenting upon. Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money? That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is. As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money. Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what. Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time? But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model. I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#BOHICA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#B...
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  force companies to provide ad free options with realistic pricing It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising.
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I'm sorry but I just don't buy that (and I pay/have paid for many subscriptions for product that have ads-based versions). A business choosing to be ad-based is the business's problem. A person choosing to not experience ads is that person's problem. They just don't want to do business with each other and either party should have the freedom to make that decision. I do think a lot should change around advertising, tracking, etc. For example: I think you should be able to set an option on your browser that says "no ads" that sites legally have to respect (even if the result is the site replies: "no content without ads"). At the same time, I think people should have to "declare" their ad blocker use.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      It's everyone's problem, because monopolies and oligopolies are rampant on the web and give wildly disproportionate market power to platform owners. That's why none of the domestic alternatives to Youtube are able to serve anything other than niche markets. If you as a consumer try to boycott Youtube you are simply cut off most user-generated video content. You can't not know this.

rkomorn 1y ago

I think your analogy is entirely wrong. Plastering roads with billboards isn't paying for the roads. Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.

npteljes 1y ago
Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
nobody9999 1y ago
>Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website. The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website. They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself. By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property. If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do). Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. > By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content." And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right? My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course). I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities. Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]: That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes place moments before that ad is displayed. Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their "expression" being thwarted? Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here." That said, your argument is addressing the issue of "private property." I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes? >> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? >I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). What implicit contract? Take the link (https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-overturned-by-top-german-court-250819/ https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-... ) associated with the discussion we're both commenting upon. Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money? That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is. As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money. Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what. Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time? But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model. I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#BOHICA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#B...
anigbrowl 1y ago
force companies to provide ad free options with realistic pricing It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I'm sorry but I just don't buy that (and I pay/have paid for many subscriptions for product that have ads-based versions). A business choosing to be ad-based is the business's problem. A person choosing to not experience ads is that person's problem. They just don't want to do business with each other and either party should have the freedom to make that decision. I do think a lot should change around advertising, tracking, etc. For example: I think you should be able to set an option on your browser that says "no ads" that sites legally have to respect (even if the result is the site replies: "no content without ads"). At the same time, I think people should have to "declare" their ad blocker use.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    It's everyone's problem, because monopolies and oligopolies are rampant on the web and give wildly disproportionate market power to platform owners. That's why none of the domestic alternatives to Youtube are able to serve anything other than niche markets. If you as a consumer try to boycott Youtube you are simply cut off most user-generated video content. You can't not know this.