5 ms·

Didn't do it for me, must be a specific ad in the rotation or whatever. I bet if you told sfgate what happened, they'd get the ad removed. So maybe instead of

Didn't do it for me, must be a specific ad in the rotation or whatever. I bet if you told sfgate what happened, they'd get the ad removed. So maybe instead of stealing content from a website, you could just not visit that website until the problem is resolved.

brewdad 13y ago
Seriously? Choosing to not load ads is now "stealing".
- diminoten 13y ago
  I believe it is. You're consuming content while blocking the content creator's revenue stream. It's not stealing in the sense of deprivation, but in a world of bits, it's as close to digital theft as anything. Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned, so maybe it's not in my best interest to voice dissent around here.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned I'm not anybody special around here. Whatever happened, it didn't have anything to do with me.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      I said Snowden wasn't a good guy and got hellbanned. It was an upsetting experience. I'll survive, sorry for saying it was your fault.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        I remember that thread. I disagreed with you, but I don't think the particular comments I read were worthy of a ban.
  - CodeMage 13y ago
    I've said it before and I'll say it again: posting your stuff on the Web and putting ads on your page does not automagically entitle you to any revenue. [1] You can call it "stealing" as much as you want, but it doesn't make it so. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345
    - diminoten 13y ago
      You're absolutely right. Hosting content on the web does not automagically entitle a person to revenue. What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website, viewing the ads is a requirement of viewing the content, a consumer is not entitled to the content without viewing the ads as well. Stealing, theft, banana-hammocking - it doesn't matter what we call it. It's detrimental to the website and detrimental to the health of the web. People need to be able to make money off of content on websites, or else they won't be able to specialize in the making of that content. If people can't specialize, society suffers from its inability to support the growth of skill. People can't get very good at things, and growth is limited. Frankly, you're not murdering any kittens, but you're not exactly petting them either.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website I like how terms of service are not only equivalent to laws now, but genuine entitlements.
      - eevilspock 13y ago
        advertising is detrimental to society.
- dmm 13y ago
  "Anything that interferes with my business model" == stealing
  - diminoten 13y ago
    How can you not see the unsustainability of consuming content without compensating the creator of that content?
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      Ad supported content is compensated by the advertiser. I can read a free paper without browsing the adverts, but the bet by the advertiser is that they will get enough views that it doesn't matter. Also, adverts that drive people away are bad for the advertiser and if ads are universally blocked then the advertiser will go elsewhere, though if we are in a situation where 100% of people are blocking ads then something else is already afoot and other business models will emerge.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Ad supported content won't be compensated by the advertiser if you block the ads. Web advertising is not analogous to any other kind of advertisement, because every user is counted.
jahewson 13y ago
If you were never going to click on the ad, what's the difference?
- diminoten 13y ago
  Many ads pay per pageview, so if you never load the image in the page, the website doesn't get credit for that person's pageview.
nitrogen 13y ago
...you could just not visit that website until the problem is resolved. That's my plan. But, ads can be more than just annoying. Adblock with FlashBlock/click-to-play make the web quite a bit safer from 0-days on the desktop; I should probably have installed an ad blocker on my phone a long time ago for the same reason.
- xenophonf 13y ago
  This is the primary reason I use ad blocking. Privacy is another (e.g., http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2013/10/mozilla-lightbeam-add-on-shows-risk-of.html http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2013/10/mozilla-lightbeam-ad...). I don't mind ads so much as I mind surveillance.
anoncow 13y ago
I used to be a freedom advocate. But making money from ads is making me think of ways to protect that income source. I should start looking at alternative sources of income or draw up some business plans. But I am not sure I will be able to. Eventually, you will find me at an association of adsense publishers pushing for laws to make adblocking illegal. With charges equivalent to piracy or stealing. I am not joking. I seriously believe I am becoming that person.
- angersock 13y ago
  Well, at least you're honest about it. :\
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Do better. I'm serious. Do better so that you don't have to make money from ads.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    If I'm a writer, I measure how well I do by the number of people who read my work, or more specifically, by the number of people who draw meaning from my work. If I can't be compensated for giving people new insight, then I can't do it exclusively, which means I'll do it less. If I do it less, I'll be less skilled at it, which means I won't contribute to the collective knowledge as much as I potentially could if I didn't have to, for example, grow my own food. By putting ads in my writings, I'm able to write more, and get better. I can do better only if I get paid to do it. So when you say, "Do better", you're saying, "make money from what you write", which on the web means, "put advertisements on your writings".
    - ronaldx 13y ago
      No, you're very badly mistaken. Are you a shill for an advertising company, by the way? Deciding to put ads on your work means you are primarily making money by serving people ads, not from what you create. You are now probably writing stories like "1 Weird Trick To Get People To Read This Blog..." - populist work that fulfils your essential need for pageviews. This is not content of the type you claim, whereby people think or draw meaning from the work. That aspirational type of work normally has a small audience - at first - that wouldn't satisfy your need for advertising revenue: you can't make ends meet by depending just on that during your lifetime. The beast of advertising only takes talent and creativity away from human society.

brewdad 13y ago

Seriously? Choosing to not load ads is now "stealing".

diminoten 13y ago
I believe it is. You're consuming content while blocking the content creator's revenue stream. It's not stealing in the sense of deprivation, but in a world of bits, it's as close to digital theft as anything. Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned, so maybe it's not in my best interest to voice dissent around here.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Last time I disagreed with nitrogen however I was hellbanned I'm not anybody special around here. Whatever happened, it didn't have anything to do with me.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    I said Snowden wasn't a good guy and got hellbanned. It was an upsetting experience. I'll survive, sorry for saying it was your fault.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      I remember that thread. I disagreed with you, but I don't think the particular comments I read were worthy of a ban.
- CodeMage 13y ago
  I've said it before and I'll say it again: posting your stuff on the Web and putting ads on your page does not automagically entitle you to any revenue. [1] You can call it "stealing" as much as you want, but it doesn't make it so. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6638345
  - diminoten 13y ago
    You're absolutely right. Hosting content on the web does not automagically entitle a person to revenue. What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website, viewing the ads is a requirement of viewing the content, a consumer is not entitled to the content without viewing the ads as well. Stealing, theft, banana-hammocking - it doesn't matter what we call it. It's detrimental to the website and detrimental to the health of the web. People need to be able to make money off of content on websites, or else they won't be able to specialize in the making of that content. If people can't specialize, society suffers from its inability to support the growth of skill. People can't get very good at things, and growth is limited. Frankly, you're not murdering any kittens, but you're not exactly petting them either.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      What it does entitle a person to, however, is the ability to dictate the rules of the continued use of that website, and if, as part of the rules of the continued use of that website I like how terms of service are not only equivalent to laws now, but genuine entitlements.
    - eevilspock 13y ago
      advertising is detrimental to society.
dmm 13y ago
"Anything that interferes with my business model" == stealing
- diminoten 13y ago
  How can you not see the unsustainability of consuming content without compensating the creator of that content?
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Ad supported content is compensated by the advertiser. I can read a free paper without browsing the adverts, but the bet by the advertiser is that they will get enough views that it doesn't matter. Also, adverts that drive people away are bad for the advertiser and if ads are universally blocked then the advertiser will go elsewhere, though if we are in a situation where 100% of people are blocking ads then something else is already afoot and other business models will emerge.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Ad supported content won't be compensated by the advertiser if you block the ads. Web advertising is not analogous to any other kind of advertisement, because every user is counted.

jahewson 13y ago

If you were never going to click on the ad, what's the difference?

diminoten 13y ago
Many ads pay per pageview, so if you never load the image in the page, the website doesn't get credit for that person's pageview.

nitrogen 13y ago

...you could just not visit that website until the problem is resolved. That's my plan. But, ads can be more than just annoying. Adblock with FlashBlock/click-to-play make the web quite a bit safer from 0-days on the desktop; I should probably have installed an ad blocker on my phone a long time ago for the same reason.

xenophonf 13y ago
This is the primary reason I use ad blocking. Privacy is another (e.g., http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2013/10/mozilla-lightbeam-add-on-shows-risk-of.html http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2013/10/mozilla-lightbeam-ad...). I don't mind ads so much as I mind surveillance.

anoncow 13y ago

I used to be a freedom advocate. But making money from ads is making me think of ways to protect that income source. I should start looking at alternative sources of income or draw up some business plans. But I am not sure I will be able to. Eventually, you will find me at an association of adsense publishers pushing for laws to make adblocking illegal. With charges equivalent to piracy or stealing. I am not joking. I seriously believe I am becoming that person.

angersock 13y ago
Well, at least you're honest about it. :\
ronaldx 13y ago
Do better. I'm serious. Do better so that you don't have to make money from ads.
- diminoten 13y ago
  If I'm a writer, I measure how well I do by the number of people who read my work, or more specifically, by the number of people who draw meaning from my work. If I can't be compensated for giving people new insight, then I can't do it exclusively, which means I'll do it less. If I do it less, I'll be less skilled at it, which means I won't contribute to the collective knowledge as much as I potentially could if I didn't have to, for example, grow my own food. By putting ads in my writings, I'm able to write more, and get better. I can do better only if I get paid to do it. So when you say, "Do better", you're saying, "make money from what you write", which on the web means, "put advertisements on your writings".
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    No, you're very badly mistaken. Are you a shill for an advertising company, by the way? Deciding to put ads on your work means you are primarily making money by serving people ads, not from what you create. You are now probably writing stories like "1 Weird Trick To Get People To Read This Blog..." - populist work that fulfils your essential need for pageviews. This is not content of the type you claim, whereby people think or draw meaning from the work. That aspirational type of work normally has a small audience - at first - that wouldn't satisfy your need for advertising revenue: you can't make ends meet by depending just on that during your lifetime. The beast of advertising only takes talent and creativity away from human society.