4 ms·

The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry. It's like how most mobile distros don't allow you to control relative app volume -

by munk-a 8mo ago

The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry. It's like how most mobile distros don't allow you to control relative app volume - if it might hurt ad bucks it can't be allowed.

advisedwang 8mo ago
Good point. I originally thought this would just be content categories. Maybe that's all that's plausible.
- drakythe 8mo ago
  All the people with money would lobby against content categories because then large mixed category sites like Reddit or Twitter would have to either separate their app, or have the ability to send additional content headers based on content tags per piece of content. Legally, since pornography still doesn't have a true definition in the US, someone would have to define the categories as well, and then the hundred million free speech fights would begin. Your vision is the correct one, in my opinion, "adult content" headers would be an easy lift for web technology. But the ad agencies and information agencies (often the same) are spending all of the money to make sure nothing like that happens.
  - advisedwang 8mo ago
    I've seen numerous apps that do already provide content categories without separating apps. NSFW/SFW is the most common, but I've also seen ones that allow you to opt-out of gambling or alcohol ads.
handedness 8mo ago
You say that like it's a bad thing.
- LoganDark 8mo ago
  Remember: Advertisers cry with money.
  - jonhohle 8mo ago
    They’ve proven themselves to be bad actors with no moral compass. No different than street drug dealers, casinos, traffickers, or any other predatory industry. They should’ve regulated as such. I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.
    - LoganDark 8mo ago
      > I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated. I think the only advertising I've knowingly listened to was a Privacy.com sponsorship on The Modern Rogue. Now been a paying customer for years and they have been mostly great. I think that sponsorship was back in, like, 2015 or 2016. Oh how times have changed. (I'm sure there are thousands of subconscious influences that I have no idea about, though. Maybe a few radio ads put a brand in my mind for something so I didn't search for alternatives. I don't listen to broadcast radio anymore though.)
- munk-a 8mo ago
  Heck no - I own a Samsung purely to continue to have access to Sound Assistant (to enable individual app volume control without rooting my device). I just want everyone to be clear on why it isn't happening. This is also the same reason why early versions of Android had incredibly fine-grained permission controls that was stripped out... can't have users blocking inter-app marketing key coordination after all.
  - handedness 8mo ago
    Sorry, I was responding to this part of your comment: > The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry.
b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
The ad industry underwrites the consumer tech market. That's why you can buy a SmartTV for like 100 bucks (or whatever, I haven't bought a tv in like 10 years knock-on-wood).
- dietr1ch 8mo ago
  My plan to buy a TV is to get one that can be kept offline, or one that can be made able to stay offline through flashing or dismantling into its very core elements. Dismantling it would probably ensure it's ugly af, but maybe if you try to go for one of those TV-in-a-frame things it might not look hideous.
  - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
    Every smart TV I own can be kept offline; I just don't put it online ever. The issue is the software bloat makes turning them on unnecessarily slower.
    - stvltvs 8mo ago
      I don't trust that smart TVs won't use my neighbor's open Wifi or a mobile network to phone home.
      - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
        Time to make a wiki... How to open up your TV and yank out the wifi antenna out of it...
  - deltoidmaximus 8mo ago
    Not sure how common it is now, but based on repair manuals my TV's wifi is provided by a standard m.2 wifi module and can be trivially removed. That wouldn't stop them from changing the TV's OS to nag or otherwise disable itself afterwards but the hardware change is about as trivial as it could be. Now why the disable wifi option isn't available on the TV when it appears in the user manual is another matter...
_aavaa_ 8mo ago
This isn’t even a hypothetical. On most phone there’s no toggle to completely block an app’s internet access (only its data usage).

by munk-a 8mo ago

advisedwang 8mo ago

Good point. I originally thought this would just be content categories. Maybe that's all that's plausible.

drakythe 8mo ago
All the people with money would lobby against content categories because then large mixed category sites like Reddit or Twitter would have to either separate their app, or have the ability to send additional content headers based on content tags per piece of content. Legally, since pornography still doesn't have a true definition in the US, someone would have to define the categories as well, and then the hundred million free speech fights would begin. Your vision is the correct one, in my opinion, "adult content" headers would be an easy lift for web technology. But the ad agencies and information agencies (often the same) are spending all of the money to make sure nothing like that happens.
- advisedwang 8mo ago
  I've seen numerous apps that do already provide content categories without separating apps. NSFW/SFW is the most common, but I've also seen ones that allow you to opt-out of gambling or alcohol ads.

handedness 8mo ago

You say that like it's a bad thing.

LoganDark 8mo ago
Remember: Advertisers cry with money.
- jonhohle 8mo ago
  They’ve proven themselves to be bad actors with no moral compass. No different than street drug dealers, casinos, traffickers, or any other predatory industry. They should’ve regulated as such. I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated.
  - LoganDark 8mo ago
    > I don’t have any problem with old-timey “Dishsoap Brand Dishsoap sponsored this content. They want you to know that a dish isn’t clean unless it’s Dishsoap clean!” Type ads. Much beyond that should no longer be tolerated. I think the only advertising I've knowingly listened to was a Privacy.com sponsorship on The Modern Rogue. Now been a paying customer for years and they have been mostly great. I think that sponsorship was back in, like, 2015 or 2016. Oh how times have changed. (I'm sure there are thousands of subconscious influences that I have no idea about, though. Maybe a few radio ads put a brand in my mind for something so I didn't search for alternatives. I don't listen to broadcast radio anymore though.)
munk-a 8mo ago
Heck no - I own a Samsung purely to continue to have access to Sound Assistant (to enable individual app volume control without rooting my device). I just want everyone to be clear on why it isn't happening. This is also the same reason why early versions of Android had incredibly fine-grained permission controls that was stripped out... can't have users blocking inter-app marketing key coordination after all.
- handedness 8mo ago
  Sorry, I was responding to this part of your comment: > The problem is that we'd all blocklist advertisers and then they'd all cry.

b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago

The ad industry underwrites the consumer tech market. That's why you can buy a SmartTV for like 100 bucks (or whatever, I haven't bought a tv in like 10 years knock-on-wood).

dietr1ch 8mo ago
My plan to buy a TV is to get one that can be kept offline, or one that can be made able to stay offline through flashing or dismantling into its very core elements. Dismantling it would probably ensure it's ugly af, but maybe if you try to go for one of those TV-in-a-frame things it might not look hideous.
- giancarlostoro 8mo ago
  Every smart TV I own can be kept offline; I just don't put it online ever. The issue is the software bloat makes turning them on unnecessarily slower.
  - stvltvs 8mo ago
    I don't trust that smart TVs won't use my neighbor's open Wifi or a mobile network to phone home.
    - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
      Time to make a wiki... How to open up your TV and yank out the wifi antenna out of it...
- deltoidmaximus 8mo ago
  Not sure how common it is now, but based on repair manuals my TV's wifi is provided by a standard m.2 wifi module and can be trivially removed. That wouldn't stop them from changing the TV's OS to nag or otherwise disable itself afterwards but the hardware change is about as trivial as it could be. Now why the disable wifi option isn't available on the TV when it appears in the user manual is another matter...

_aavaa_ 8mo ago

This isn’t even a hypothetical. On most phone there’s no toggle to completely block an app’s internet access (only its data usage).