7 ms·

Security but also readability is why I use addblocker. Sites I like that does not interfererar too much with adds, then I turn addblocker off for that site. Ho

by kempe 10y ago

Security but also readability is why I use addblocker. Sites I like that does not interfererar too much with adds, then I turn addblocker off for that site. However, way too many sties gets unreadable and are annoying to go to because of how adds are used and thus addblocker is very nice.

Klathmon 10y ago
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but what makes you different from someone that walks out of cabs without paying because "cab drivers are dangerous and it's inconvenient to have to pay after i'm at my location"?
- tremon 10y ago
  Because you are hogging the cabbie's time and car. The potential income lost by having a cab drive you around for free is several orders of magnitude above the digital version. Now, comparing it to free-riding a subway/bus service on the other hand...
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    Well, let's compare it, because that is a much better comparison! Every time i bring it up i get downvoted, but why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? I'm genuinely curious. To me it really feels like stealing. Like sneaking into a movie theater/concert/amusement park without paying, or like you said free-riding a subway/bus. And when looked at through that lens, many of the excuses people make seem comical. (Ads make pages slow, they are ugly to look at, I don't agree with the business model). To me those excuses sound like saying "I don't think the movie is worth it, so i'm just not going to pay" while walking into the theater, or walking into a concert without paying because "waiting in line to get a ticket takes too long, so i just won't". I'm hoping to have an actual conversation here and figure out why I feel so differently about this than many of the people on here do. What am I missing?
    - marcusarmstrong 10y ago
      It's a stream of bytes sent to my computer. I have the right to look at as many or as few of them as I wish.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        I understand that you have the capability of doing that, but why do you have the right to do that? Why is it that you morally think it's okay to just consume content others have created without paying?
        coldpie 10y ago
        I think publishers broke the moral contract first by making the distribution of malware and supporting Internet scams their primary business model. Once they broke the moral contract, we responded by developing ad blockers to protect ourselves from their maliciousness. I think if publishers stopped distributing malware, misleading ads, and Internet scams, then there would be far less demand for ad blockers. They created the problem, it's up to them to fix it. Unlike a subway ride, it's impossible to tell whether a website has ads or not before you visit it. So I can't know whether I've violated the morals you're talking about until I already have done it. I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. I suspect it's not a feasible business model, but that's their problem, not mine.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        > I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. And i'm fine with that as well. If you want to block ads that's cool with me, but don't expect to get the content as well.
        type0 10y ago
        You see, there is a problem calling website pages "content", unless I know what that articles contains there is no way for me to know if it is of any value or not. Serving malicious ads and slowing down my internet speed just adds insult to the injury. I don't think it's okay to block adblockers, this is equivalent to discrimination IRL (e.g not letting someone into the restaurant because of their religion or skin color etc). If they want to get payed by the readers, there's always subscription model (lock it behind the paywall), don't discriminate me because of the software I'm using.
- elros 10y ago
  I own the car.
- lmm 10y ago
  The custom and practice of the web has always been that publicly accessible pages are served without payment, and the user agent (maybe a browser, maybe a script, maybe a screenreader, maybe something else) is entitled to render a page in any way or none - users might have custom stylesheets, might or might not have support for certain elements or formats. When you put content on the web that's what you sign up for.
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    > entitled I don't think this is the correct word (and it definitely enforces publishers negative preconceived notions), but they can't be relying on an untrusted party (browsers) to enforce their business model. As you put it, the nature of the internet is that user agents are able to render it however they wish.
- ManlyBread 10y ago
  Because in this case you're the cab driver and you get to decide who or what will you transport.
- type0 10y ago
  What makes you different from someone that walks on the street and looks on all the advertisements and neon lights from shops, casinos and restaurants without paying? Without paying, you say!?

by kempe 10y ago

Klathmon 10y ago

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but what makes you different from someone that walks out of cabs without paying because "cab drivers are dangerous and it's inconvenient to have to pay after i'm at my location"?

tremon 10y ago
Because you are hogging the cabbie's time and car. The potential income lost by having a cab drive you around for free is several orders of magnitude above the digital version. Now, comparing it to free-riding a subway/bus service on the other hand...
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Well, let's compare it, because that is a much better comparison! Every time i bring it up i get downvoted, but why is blocking ads but still consuming the content okay? I'm genuinely curious. To me it really feels like stealing. Like sneaking into a movie theater/concert/amusement park without paying, or like you said free-riding a subway/bus. And when looked at through that lens, many of the excuses people make seem comical. (Ads make pages slow, they are ugly to look at, I don't agree with the business model). To me those excuses sound like saying "I don't think the movie is worth it, so i'm just not going to pay" while walking into the theater, or walking into a concert without paying because "waiting in line to get a ticket takes too long, so i just won't". I'm hoping to have an actual conversation here and figure out why I feel so differently about this than many of the people on here do. What am I missing?
  - marcusarmstrong 10y ago
    It's a stream of bytes sent to my computer. I have the right to look at as many or as few of them as I wish.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I understand that you have the capability of doing that, but why do you have the right to do that? Why is it that you morally think it's okay to just consume content others have created without paying?
      - coldpie 10y ago
        I think publishers broke the moral contract first by making the distribution of malware and supporting Internet scams their primary business model. Once they broke the moral contract, we responded by developing ad blockers to protect ourselves from their maliciousness. I think if publishers stopped distributing malware, misleading ads, and Internet scams, then there would be far less demand for ad blockers. They created the problem, it's up to them to fix it. Unlike a subway ride, it's impossible to tell whether a website has ads or not before you visit it. So I can't know whether I've violated the morals you're talking about until I already have done it. I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. I suspect it's not a feasible business model, but that's their problem, not mine.
        Klathmon 10y ago
        > I think publishers are welcome to create adblock-blockers, and I don't have any interest in working around them. And i'm fine with that as well. If you want to block ads that's cool with me, but don't expect to get the content as well.
        type0 10y ago
        You see, there is a problem calling website pages "content", unless I know what that articles contains there is no way for me to know if it is of any value or not. Serving malicious ads and slowing down my internet speed just adds insult to the injury. I don't think it's okay to block adblockers, this is equivalent to discrimination IRL (e.g not letting someone into the restaurant because of their religion or skin color etc). If they want to get payed by the readers, there's always subscription model (lock it behind the paywall), don't discriminate me because of the software I'm using.
elros 10y ago
I own the car.
lmm 10y ago
The custom and practice of the web has always been that publicly accessible pages are served without payment, and the user agent (maybe a browser, maybe a script, maybe a screenreader, maybe something else) is entitled to render a page in any way or none - users might have custom stylesheets, might or might not have support for certain elements or formats. When you put content on the web that's what you sign up for.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  > entitled I don't think this is the correct word (and it definitely enforces publishers negative preconceived notions), but they can't be relying on an untrusted party (browsers) to enforce their business model. As you put it, the nature of the internet is that user agents are able to render it however they wish.
ManlyBread 10y ago
Because in this case you're the cab driver and you get to decide who or what will you transport.
type0 10y ago
What makes you different from someone that walks on the street and looks on all the advertisements and neon lights from shops, casinos and restaurants without paying? Without paying, you say!?