4 ms·

The edits are likely why you’re getting downvoted so much tbh.

WarmWash 5mo ago
Trust me, the downvotes were instant. People really hate it when you hold up a mirror to illustrate a problem. They tend to reflexively punch the mirror
- kylemaxwell 5mo ago
  The downvotes are for the unnecessarily aggressive approach, even from people without a major dog in the fight.
- akersten 5mo ago
  Man, I wish folks calibrated their E(I am actually wrong|downvotes). Have you considered what that value could be in this case?
  - WarmWash 5mo ago
    Creators don't get compensation when people ad-block. Creators don't get compensation when LLMs scrape. It's totally, and completely, unambiguous. The internet just has collective brain damage from the grassroots morals of it being formed 30 years ago by teenagers. How surprising that a bunch of kids decided that the way to save the internet was to make it better for themselves, and worse for the people who make the internet the thing they love. Some of us have grown up now, and realize the correct answer to save the internet was to not engage with ad supported content period.
    - Forgeties79 5mo ago
      There are ways to get paid without ads and you can do on-air reads like I said. adblockers don’t impact them. You also don’t have to play Google and YouTube’s games. I’m sorry folks are caught in that arm’s race between users and Google but Google has made browsing so miserable it’s just reality. Adblocking is basic security now. I am not compromising on it. I say this as a “content creator”
      - WarmWash 5mo ago
        Please ping me when you figure out how to do on-air reads on a website.
        Forgeties79 5mo ago
        You don’t need to get sarcastic with me over this. Content creation comes in many forms. You can also promote things in your copy. People do it all the time. Adblockers aren’t going to somehow remove your words. People disclose their sponsorships at the top/bottom of their written content all the time and frequently use affiliate links.
    - akersten 5mo ago
      > It's totally, and completely, unambiguous. The internet just has collective brain damage The point that continues to be missed is that instead of taking downvotes as validation that people simply failed to comprehend the argument you're making (they didn't), you should take them as a check to reevaluate whether your conclusion is as unambiguous as you believe.
      - WarmWash 5mo ago
        It is rock solid. There is no way to reconcile an internet where the suckers who cannot figure out ad-block carry the overhead costs for those who do. It costs money to create the content you consume, it costs money to serve the content you consume. The internet is not some magical exemption from standard financial practice going back millennia. The cost is your burden, take it or leave it. But don't take it then do mental gymnastics about why it's not actually something you value while walking away with free, shifting the cost onto the next guy.
        akersten 5mo ago
        You are very convinced of your position and I don't think I'll un-convince you, but you have to realize that people with opinions different from yours are not "brain damaged so that's why I must be getting downvoted, and the more I'm downvoted the more correct I must be." I'll leave a variant of your argument here for you to mull over, and consider whether the bathroom-breaker here is just as morally bankrupt as the online ad-blocker: > There is no way to reconcile [over the air TV] where the suckers who cannot figure out [how to leave the room during ad breaks] carry the overhead costs for those who do. It costs money to create the content you consume, it costs money to serve the content you consume. [Broadcast television] is not some magical exemption from standard financial practice going back millennia. The cost is your burden, take it or leave it. But don't take it then do mental gymnastics about why it's not actually something you value while walking away with free,
- aleqs 5mo ago
  Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. And whether having content being monetized through and relying on ads is even a good thing overall (it's not). Advertising and marketing is fundamentally a negative for society in most cases.
  - WarmWash 5mo ago
    >Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. So they can get content without compensating for it. I've been on this train since the beginning. I was there when ad-block-plus read the writing on the wall 15 years ago and decided to make a truce with advertisers. It was clearly unsustainable for 50% of web users to be effectively parasites, so maybe we can negotiate on acceptable ad practices. But to the users, a truce with advertisers!?!? Ublock Origin was born days later.
    - aleqs 5mo ago
      Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Your argument just doesn't make any sense. Also - negotiating 'a truce with advertisers'? What does that even mean? Granting the ads industry even more power and control over the internet? Can you come up with an idea that isn't a dystopian hellhole on its face?
      - WarmWash 5mo ago
        >Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Are you confused or being sarcastic? I'll admit the system is one step larger than a typical transaction, which could be hard to understand for some, but the views -> ads -> dollars pipeline is the still straightforward to understand. Maybe not. I don't know when things get too complicated here.
        Forgeties79 5mo ago
        I think a lot of us object to the opacity and scale of it all. These aren’t simply commercials running like OTA tv in the days of old. They are basically fracking our data and then selling it to other people without any oversight or ability to stop it. You are basically under assault from the moment you walk through the metaphorical door. Why does a host need my device info, my demographics, every app I’m on, my router info, all this incredibly personal and granular data just so I can watch a damn video? They just start probing and sucking up every bit of information they can get their hands on and they put a lot of effort into making sure I don’t know it’s happening or where it’s going. I will never forget the first time I fired up little snitch mini on my Mac years ago and watched all those little lines light up like the Fourth of July. They are the parasites when you get down to it. If the transaction was clearer and we had the ability to get out of it ultimately I think people would be a lot more willing to deal with ads. But again, it’s not simply ads. This is sophisticated network data mining and reselling that vastly outstrips the value we are getting out of visiting a friggin news site or whatever, and it happens basically every single time you travel to a URL. It’s absolutely relentless, and it certainly doesn’t benefit creators 99.99% of the time. TL;DR: framing this as people simply not wanting to watch ads is not fair at all.

Trust me, the downvotes were instant. People really hate it when you hold up a mirror to illustrate a problem. They tend to reflexively punch the mirror

kylemaxwell 5mo ago
The downvotes are for the unnecessarily aggressive approach, even from people without a major dog in the fight.
akersten 5mo ago
Man, I wish folks calibrated their E(I am actually wrong|downvotes). Have you considered what that value could be in this case?
- WarmWash 5mo ago
  Creators don't get compensation when people ad-block. Creators don't get compensation when LLMs scrape. It's totally, and completely, unambiguous. The internet just has collective brain damage from the grassroots morals of it being formed 30 years ago by teenagers. How surprising that a bunch of kids decided that the way to save the internet was to make it better for themselves, and worse for the people who make the internet the thing they love. Some of us have grown up now, and realize the correct answer to save the internet was to not engage with ad supported content period.
  - Forgeties79 5mo ago
    There are ways to get paid without ads and you can do on-air reads like I said. adblockers don’t impact them. You also don’t have to play Google and YouTube’s games. I’m sorry folks are caught in that arm’s race between users and Google but Google has made browsing so miserable it’s just reality. Adblocking is basic security now. I am not compromising on it. I say this as a “content creator”
    - WarmWash 5mo ago
      Please ping me when you figure out how to do on-air reads on a website.
      - Forgeties79 5mo ago
        You don’t need to get sarcastic with me over this. Content creation comes in many forms. You can also promote things in your copy. People do it all the time. Adblockers aren’t going to somehow remove your words. People disclose their sponsorships at the top/bottom of their written content all the time and frequently use affiliate links.
  - akersten 5mo ago
    > It's totally, and completely, unambiguous. The internet just has collective brain damage The point that continues to be missed is that instead of taking downvotes as validation that people simply failed to comprehend the argument you're making (they didn't), you should take them as a check to reevaluate whether your conclusion is as unambiguous as you believe.
    - WarmWash 5mo ago
      It is rock solid. There is no way to reconcile an internet where the suckers who cannot figure out ad-block carry the overhead costs for those who do. It costs money to create the content you consume, it costs money to serve the content you consume. The internet is not some magical exemption from standard financial practice going back millennia. The cost is your burden, take it or leave it. But don't take it then do mental gymnastics about why it's not actually something you value while walking away with free, shifting the cost onto the next guy.
      - akersten 5mo ago
        You are very convinced of your position and I don't think I'll un-convince you, but you have to realize that people with opinions different from yours are not "brain damaged so that's why I must be getting downvoted, and the more I'm downvoted the more correct I must be." I'll leave a variant of your argument here for you to mull over, and consider whether the bathroom-breaker here is just as morally bankrupt as the online ad-blocker: > There is no way to reconcile [over the air TV] where the suckers who cannot figure out [how to leave the room during ad breaks] carry the overhead costs for those who do. It costs money to create the content you consume, it costs money to serve the content you consume. [Broadcast television] is not some magical exemption from standard financial practice going back millennia. The cost is your burden, take it or leave it. But don't take it then do mental gymnastics about why it's not actually something you value while walking away with free,
aleqs 5mo ago
Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. And whether having content being monetized through and relying on ads is even a good thing overall (it's not). Advertising and marketing is fundamentally a negative for society in most cases.
- WarmWash 5mo ago
  >Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. So they can get content without compensating for it. I've been on this train since the beginning. I was there when ad-block-plus read the writing on the wall 15 years ago and decided to make a truce with advertisers. It was clearly unsustainable for 50% of web users to be effectively parasites, so maybe we can negotiate on acceptable ad practices. But to the users, a truce with advertisers!?!? Ublock Origin was born days later.
  - aleqs 5mo ago
    Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Your argument just doesn't make any sense. Also - negotiating 'a truce with advertisers'? What does that even mean? Granting the ads industry even more power and control over the internet? Can you come up with an idea that isn't a dystopian hellhole on its face?
    - WarmWash 5mo ago
      >Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Are you confused or being sarcastic? I'll admit the system is one step larger than a typical transaction, which could be hard to understand for some, but the views -> ads -> dollars pipeline is the still straightforward to understand. Maybe not. I don't know when things get too complicated here.
      - Forgeties79 5mo ago
        I think a lot of us object to the opacity and scale of it all. These aren’t simply commercials running like OTA tv in the days of old. They are basically fracking our data and then selling it to other people without any oversight or ability to stop it. You are basically under assault from the moment you walk through the metaphorical door. Why does a host need my device info, my demographics, every app I’m on, my router info, all this incredibly personal and granular data just so I can watch a damn video? They just start probing and sucking up every bit of information they can get their hands on and they put a lot of effort into making sure I don’t know it’s happening or where it’s going. I will never forget the first time I fired up little snitch mini on my Mac years ago and watched all those little lines light up like the Fourth of July. They are the parasites when you get down to it. If the transaction was clearer and we had the ability to get out of it ultimately I think people would be a lot more willing to deal with ads. But again, it’s not simply ads. This is sophisticated network data mining and reselling that vastly outstrips the value we are getting out of visiting a friggin news site or whatever, and it happens basically every single time you travel to a URL. It’s absolutely relentless, and it certainly doesn’t benefit creators 99.99% of the time. TL;DR: framing this as people simply not wanting to watch ads is not fair at all.