6 ms·

It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every w

by rebel 12y ago

It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. And if it actually were to take off, it would then be bad for the anarchists who no longer get that free access to the information they wanted. Who wins? Edit: Seriously, how is this a good idea? You disproportionately harm the sites you actually visit, and ultimately the result is A) Big ad networks shut them off .. or B) Independent ads think their ads aren't converting and pull them. This is how you kill the sites you actually visit. They don't magically find a new business model before hosting/payroll/whatever catch up to the fact that their ad revenue has been shut off. I can't fathom what you stand to gain from getting their ads shut off instead of just hiding them for yourself with a standard ad block that is much more acceptable.

nacho_weekend 12y ago
I agree; this will do nothing but drive your favorite sites out of business.
greyman 12y ago
I wouldn't use this extension, and I also don't use ad blocker, but I kind of understand it. People using this extension considers those ad networks as evil, so they want to fight against them. In my personal opinion, WWW was invented for free spreading of information. The company beyond ad network, or any company for that matter, shouldn't have a guaranteed right, that WWW have to provide a platform for commercially exploit it. Also, those ad network does that by tracing users and selling that information, and that is not ethical to do without visitors content. So I believe such an extension has the right to exist.
GhostCursor 12y ago
We don't agree with ads as a means for 'paying for your hosting and content'. Charge people for your content and hosting, but this ad business doesn't work because of one reason: the user has control now. Can't be as shady anymore.
- rebel 12y ago
  Then don't visit those websites. If you haven't paid money to access the content, immediately turn away from websites that are free and ad supported. If you don't agree with it, why do you have the right to not only "steal" the content on the website, but also needlessly shut down their revenue source just because you not only want the data for free, but you actively want to harm this person supplying the data for free. Edit: I can't reply further down. However, I included in my original statement that using adblock is an acceptable measure. Why do you actually have to shut down the publishers revenue stream and ultimately their website to show off your dislike for ads? If you want to go with your street musician example, the way I see it is that you are free to not pay him money, however to punch him in the face after listening to his music (and presumably enjoying it) is completely pointless.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    An imperfect analogy would be street musicians, they play in the hope that some people give them money for it. You are hosting content and each person accessing it is perfectly free to display only parts of it, you have no right to enforce that the content has to be viewed in a specific way. If I click on a link to a website, I have no way of knowing whether it would display ads or not. Since I have blocked ads for years, now I am not even aware of how awful some of the sites look with ads (piratebay / facebook come to mind).
ancap 12y ago
>This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
- rebel 12y ago
  a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
I think it's a great idea for people who hate the ad networks. It's totally legal and if enough people use it, maybe the ad networks will stop being so nosy and stop serving malware. > This is how you kill the sites you actually visit. Good. Kill your darlings. Maybe they'll come back with a way of making money that doesn't involve infecting people's computers with malware.

by rebel 12y ago

nacho_weekend 12y ago

I agree; this will do nothing but drive your favorite sites out of business.

greyman 12y ago

I wouldn't use this extension, and I also don't use ad blocker, but I kind of understand it. People using this extension considers those ad networks as evil, so they want to fight against them. In my personal opinion, WWW was invented for free spreading of information. The company beyond ad network, or any company for that matter, shouldn't have a guaranteed right, that WWW have to provide a platform for commercially exploit it. Also, those ad network does that by tracing users and selling that information, and that is not ethical to do without visitors content. So I believe such an extension has the right to exist.

GhostCursor 12y ago

We don't agree with ads as a means for 'paying for your hosting and content'. Charge people for your content and hosting, but this ad business doesn't work because of one reason: the user has control now. Can't be as shady anymore.

rebel 12y ago
Then don't visit those websites. If you haven't paid money to access the content, immediately turn away from websites that are free and ad supported. If you don't agree with it, why do you have the right to not only "steal" the content on the website, but also needlessly shut down their revenue source just because you not only want the data for free, but you actively want to harm this person supplying the data for free. Edit: I can't reply further down. However, I included in my original statement that using adblock is an acceptable measure. Why do you actually have to shut down the publishers revenue stream and ultimately their website to show off your dislike for ads? If you want to go with your street musician example, the way I see it is that you are free to not pay him money, however to punch him in the face after listening to his music (and presumably enjoying it) is completely pointless.
- orbifold 12y ago
  An imperfect analogy would be street musicians, they play in the hope that some people give them money for it. You are hosting content and each person accessing it is perfectly free to display only parts of it, you have no right to enforce that the content has to be viewed in a specific way. If I click on a link to a website, I have no way of knowing whether it would display ads or not. Since I have blocked ads for years, now I am not even aware of how awful some of the sites look with ads (piratebay / facebook come to mind).

ancap 12y ago

>This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

rebel 12y ago
a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

I think it's a great idea for people who hate the ad networks. It's totally legal and if enough people use it, maybe the ad networks will stop being so nosy and stop serving malware. > This is how you kill the sites you actually visit. Good. Kill your darlings. Maybe they'll come back with a way of making money that doesn't involve infecting people's computers with malware.