3 ms·

To quote an old saying, "Nothing in life is free." Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the re

by baldfat 11y ago

To quote an old saying, "Nothing in life is free." Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue. Just because it doesn't go into my pocket doesn't mean it isn't stealing in my own personal view. For example if you take a sapphire from the Museum of Natural History and than throw away or lose the golf ball size 563 carat Star of India. You gained nothing from taking it but you still are guilty of stealing a diamond. PS I am extremely conservative in my person morals. I am also fairly liberal in my view of society (At least that is what my Tea Party Inlaws and Libertarian friends say)

d_theorist 11y ago
>Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue. And I'm perfectly happy with that. It is not my responsibility to download webpages in such a way as to maximise the revenue of the site owner. It is the business' responsibility to make money. Not mine. If they are employing ineffective methods then it is up to them to alter them. It is not up to me to change my behaviour to suit their business plan. I am perfectly within my rights to download web pages using whatever software I like, whether that be lynx, wget, curl, a screen-reader, or Firefox with add-ons or Firefox with javascript or images or widgets or cookies blocked. I use the software that suits me. I am under no obligation - legal or moral - to use the software that suits companies serving websites.
- baldfat 11y ago
  It is up to you but if 100% of people did exactly what you did where would we be? Pay walls?
  - d_theorist 11y ago
    If the advertising is so appallingly bad that 100% of people are blocking it, then it doesn't deserve to exist, does it? The idea of advertising is to get people interested in some product or service; not to provide an income stream for websites that can't persuade users to pay for their content.

by baldfat 11y ago

d_theorist 11y ago

>Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue. And I'm perfectly happy with that. It is not my responsibility to download webpages in such a way as to maximise the revenue of the site owner. It is the business' responsibility to make money. Not mine. If they are employing ineffective methods then it is up to them to alter them. It is not up to me to change my behaviour to suit their business plan. I am perfectly within my rights to download web pages using whatever software I like, whether that be lynx, wget, curl, a screen-reader, or Firefox with add-ons or Firefox with javascript or images or widgets or cookies blocked. I use the software that suits me. I am under no obligation - legal or moral - to use the software that suits companies serving websites.

baldfat 11y ago
It is up to you but if 100% of people did exactly what you did where would we be? Pay walls?
- d_theorist 11y ago
  If the advertising is so appallingly bad that 100% of people are blocking it, then it doesn't deserve to exist, does it? The idea of advertising is to get people interested in some product or service; not to provide an income stream for websites that can't persuade users to pay for their content.