5 ms·

The only way a services can be non-intrusive is if you, the user, pay for it. If you paid for the full cost of developing and supporting a solution that did no

The only way a services can be non-intrusive is if you, the user, pay for it. If you paid for the full cost of developing and supporting a solution that did not require such things as advertising and social graph mining in order to build, grow and support a company you'd get a much better product. You'd probably get a product that is far more sensitive to the needs and wants of it's paying client user-base. That's one of the problems with this culture of everything being free on the 'net. Free isn't really free. Businesses don't run on air. They run on money. The user always pays. If it isn't in real currency it will be in ways the company can convert into currency. That's just the way it is. Aspects of your post bother me to some extent because you are complaining about services you are not paying for. I think that is a very important distinction. Don't get me wrong, I have lots of problems with some of the services you mention in your post. I simply choose not to use them. I also happen to think that people who use ad blockers are just short of thieves. It's hypocritical to navigate to a site and make use of its free services and, at the same time, go out of your way to deny them revenue. It's like someone figuring out a way to make you work and legally not pay you for it.

hnha 13y ago
i use free xmpp servers to talk with people who I "met" on free websites. Many people provide services for free because they believe in a shared good. It's not all money money.
- robomartin 13y ago
  OK, sure. You go and try to run a real web-based business with employees, offices and the required infrastructure without "money money". The point stands: If you as a user don't explicitly pay for it with cash, using an ad blocker means you have chosen to deny the service some revenue. OK, don't call it theft. That's fine. Here's a simple mental exercise: Assume that 100% of the entire world-wide Internet audience used ad blockers. How much of the internet would cease to exist as free services? The answer: A huge chunk.
  - bittercynic 13y ago
    That might not be so good for Silicon Valley, but I believe mankind would be richer overall if a huge chunk of the internet ceased to exist.
    - qu4z-2 13y ago
      I agree. That does actually sound like quite an appealing internet, to be honest.
    - robomartin 13y ago
      Sadly enough, it is hard to argue with that.
moheeb 13y ago
So what would folks using an ad blocker be then, if they're "just short of thieves"? I was hoping you had a website in your profile so I could surf all over it.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Thankfully I don't do anything on the web that relies on advertising for revenue. Here's a website you can surf: mcmaster.com Have fun.
boomlinde 13y ago
The real thieves are the people not visiting your website.
boomlinde 13y ago
Not to leave a perfectly valid point to argue to a joke, here's my stance on ad blocking: You don't get to decide what content recipients will fetch. Content is commonly split into multiple separate requests for data which some users and clients won't even have the means to turn into useful information. The interactivity and selectivity in receiving said content is inherent to the protocol, and by all means what makes it different from other mass media. You can't deny users the ability to "receive" whatever part of the content you want unless you are willing to deliver it in another, more intrusive way. What you are really saying is that people are "just short of thieves" for not requesting content that an HTML document merely presents to them as an available resource. What's your stance on turning down the volume and preparing a sandwich during a TV commercial break? Would you be just short of a thief, or would you simply be doing what's reasonable when having the ability to opt out of information you are not interested in? Don't try and turn a flawed business model built on an infrastructure not meant to support it into a question of ethics. Also, as some pointed out, to the user, free can really be free. Ever maintained a personal website? How did (or would) your visitors pay for it? Everyone with an internet connection has the option to deliver free services and content at no additional cost.
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>You are complaining about products that you are not paying for Facebook's revenue model is built upon your participation (labor) and your information. Sure you're paying for it. >It's hypocritical to navigate to a site and make use of its free services and, at the same time, go out of your way to deny them revenue. But it's OK for FB to welcome you to their site, encourage you to supply information using your own "labor", then sell that information to third parties (even if in aggregate form)? And, it is OK for them to constantly look for ways to further track and glean data about you for its own profit? How is people using ad blockers any different from Facebook burying their monetization schemes in fine print? Perhaps FB should simply ban ad blockers or make users prove they've viewed x ads per page view. Ah, but that would open too much dialogue about how much FB utilizes information that it harvests from users and how it monetizes it. Wouldn't want those items foremost on members' minds.

hnha 13y ago

i use free xmpp servers to talk with people who I "met" on free websites. Many people provide services for free because they believe in a shared good. It's not all money money.

robomartin 13y ago
OK, sure. You go and try to run a real web-based business with employees, offices and the required infrastructure without "money money". The point stands: If you as a user don't explicitly pay for it with cash, using an ad blocker means you have chosen to deny the service some revenue. OK, don't call it theft. That's fine. Here's a simple mental exercise: Assume that 100% of the entire world-wide Internet audience used ad blockers. How much of the internet would cease to exist as free services? The answer: A huge chunk.
- bittercynic 13y ago
  That might not be so good for Silicon Valley, but I believe mankind would be richer overall if a huge chunk of the internet ceased to exist.
  - qu4z-2 13y ago
    I agree. That does actually sound like quite an appealing internet, to be honest.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Sadly enough, it is hard to argue with that.

moheeb 13y ago

So what would folks using an ad blocker be then, if they're "just short of thieves"? I was hoping you had a website in your profile so I could surf all over it.

robomartin 13y ago
Thankfully I don't do anything on the web that relies on advertising for revenue. Here's a website you can surf: mcmaster.com Have fun.

boomlinde 13y ago

The real thieves are the people not visiting your website.

boomlinde 13y ago

Not to leave a perfectly valid point to argue to a joke, here's my stance on ad blocking: You don't get to decide what content recipients will fetch. Content is commonly split into multiple separate requests for data which some users and clients won't even have the means to turn into useful information. The interactivity and selectivity in receiving said content is inherent to the protocol, and by all means what makes it different from other mass media. You can't deny users the ability to "receive" whatever part of the content you want unless you are willing to deliver it in another, more intrusive way. What you are really saying is that people are "just short of thieves" for not requesting content that an HTML document merely presents to them as an available resource. What's your stance on turning down the volume and preparing a sandwich during a TV commercial break? Would you be just short of a thief, or would you simply be doing what's reasonable when having the ability to opt out of information you are not interested in? Don't try and turn a flawed business model built on an infrastructure not meant to support it into a question of ethics. Also, as some pointed out, to the user, free can really be free. Ever maintained a personal website? How did (or would) your visitors pay for it? Everyone with an internet connection has the option to deliver free services and content at no additional cost.

unclebucknasty 13y ago

>You are complaining about products that you are not paying for Facebook's revenue model is built upon your participation (labor) and your information. Sure you're paying for it. >It's hypocritical to navigate to a site and make use of its free services and, at the same time, go out of your way to deny them revenue. But it's OK for FB to welcome you to their site, encourage you to supply information using your own "labor", then sell that information to third parties (even if in aggregate form)? And, it is OK for them to constantly look for ways to further track and glean data about you for its own profit? How is people using ad blockers any different from Facebook burying their monetization schemes in fine print? Perhaps FB should simply ban ad blockers or make users prove they've viewed x ads per page view. Ah, but that would open too much dialogue about how much FB utilizes information that it harvests from users and how it monetizes it. Wouldn't want those items foremost on members' minds.