5 ms·

They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think y

They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think you both lost that battle.

smsm42 10y ago
I think the company insisting they know better than myself what I need to see and how I need to see it is not going to be good to do business with. If you know your tech doesn't work well with adblockers, you have two choices: a) accept that some part of the audience doesn't want ads and work so that your tech supports them and b) tell them "screw you" and refuse to take them as the clients. The company chose the latter. Why anybody would insist on being a client of somebody that doesn't want you as a client, given the choice?
- coderdude 10y ago
  The bit about them insisting they know better than you what you need to see and how you need to see it, coupled with the bit about ads, is a non sequitur. We're talking about tracking usage stats. Some people simply can't be bothered to disable an ad blocker for non-ad related things. Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Everyone loses. Producers don't know what works or doesn't and consumers don't get the content they desire. One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. Also from people that feel entitled just to get services for free.
    - coderdude 10y ago
      I'm positive I've said exactly the same thing in the past. Over time, I realized that the issue is more nuanced. I don't think most people actually feel entitled to free content, but rather that the non-monetary "fee" is not acceptable. There is no known simple solution to this issue that I'm aware of.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        I am with you on that, but those services have to be paid in some form, as those people also have bills to pay. So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users.
        coderdude 10y ago
        Indeed. I think you and I both are left with many others wondering what the ultimate solution will be.
        type0 10y ago
        > So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users. So let's imagine someone serves supper on the street (i.e. street food), with the setup that it's take it yourself service. The incentive is that people would line up and pay, but some people don't - so would such company owners have the right to collect saliva and extract DNA to sell such personal information to some other companies thereby extracting value?
        pjmlp 10y ago
        Not sure, but if tomorrow the street supper van is no longer there, because the paying customers cannot any more pay for those that take it for free, people should not complain that no one gets food.
      - luca_ing 10y ago
        So would you find it acceptable that I reject to be tracked and treated to ads on paid services? (NB: honest question. No aggressivity intended). I'm asking because paid services are treating me this way, and honestly I resent it.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > We're talking about tracking usage stats. We're talking about refusing clients who use adblockers. There are many ways to track usage that doesn't require that. I've implemented some myself. If the reason for refusal is because their tracking can't work with it it's doing it wrong. > tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume Produce what? And why does it matter? Imagine coming to a grocery store and being asked to change into store uniform, before you are allowed in, because it's easier for them to do business that way, marketing and stuff, and when you ask "WTF?" - they'd say "well, you don't know how it is to farm, do you? Did you ever milk a cow or harvested rye? You only consume, not produce, you lazy slacker, right? So either strip and wear the uniform or shut the heck up!". No thanks. I wouldn't visit such store. Would you? > It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. I am not obliged to serve everybody's perspective. I have no obligation to make life easy for somebody's marketing department or support somebody's business model. It's their business to convince me to support it with my money, and, frankly, telling me I'm too ignorant to appreciate how wonderful they are is not going to work well. Telling me "we're too lazy/cheap to do it any other way, so please disable all security features in your browser, disregard your privacy and risk your safety because our marketing needs some nice graphs in their next monthly presentation" won't work either.
    - coderdude 10y ago
      Your point of view is beyond what I accounted for. I guess there is an extreme-extreme that literally wants something for nothing. I was charitable. I told my sibling poster such a desire was too extreme and statistically nonexistent. Maybe I was wrong? Your stance is hostile only to things not connected to the Internet. In my opinion, get over yourself and shell up for what you enjoy.
      - Terretta 10y ago
        Worry you're blinded by capitalism's propaganda that everything nice must be paid for, in this case through attention to corporate messaging (ads), ceding control of personal info (social sign ups), and personal tracking (trackers). That's a terrible price. The web I grew up on was more akin to non-profit pamphleteering. If you wanted to say something, you hosted it on your home page and paid for it. You did this out of support for spread of knowledge like the .edus, or out of just wanting to have a voice. And it was fine! I hear the same "pay up if you want music" nonsense from record labels. I'm sorry, but if they all went out of business and nobody ever spent a dime on music again, you think kids with guitars would stop songwriting? No, they'd all still self-publish. Even when the 80's equivalent of uploading was copying tapes, good bands still 'went viral'. As long as you were hosting text, pamphleteering cost essentially nothing no matter what volume. Even in late 90's, a billion hits of pure text cost less than $100. It's how Wikipedia still works today. Just a small donation from a tiny fraction of visitors, and the whole thing is covered. No rights were lost or PII given up in the sharing of those ideas. None were lost in the conversation on this page, either.
  - luca_ing 10y ago
    > consumers don't get the content they desire. But I do get the content I desire. I'm quite capable of choosing by myself. And what's worse is that the opposite also happens -- I may get content that I actively resent. You see, I bought an Amazon Fire TV stick the other day. I was dismayed to realise that it plays a (short) ad before showing me the content I asked for. I pay for Amazon Prime. I resent them still forcing me to watch ads. I'm seriously considering whether the downside of enduring a 5s ad outweighs he convenience of the device (which is quite nice TBH). Because you're right, I do consider it an affront. > Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Indeed. Süddeutsche Zeitung, a newspaper which my family has been subscribed to since about the 1960s, now rejects me if I use an adblocker, and am not logged in. I've actually left their site because I resent being tracked and subjected to ads, after paying them a good chunk of money already.

They wanted to see information about how you use something they offer. You wanted something they offer. You declined, which is your choice, of course. I think you both lost that battle.

smsm42 10y ago

I think the company insisting they know better than myself what I need to see and how I need to see it is not going to be good to do business with. If you know your tech doesn't work well with adblockers, you have two choices: a) accept that some part of the audience doesn't want ads and work so that your tech supports them and b) tell them "screw you" and refuse to take them as the clients. The company chose the latter. Why anybody would insist on being a client of somebody that doesn't want you as a client, given the choice?

coderdude 10y ago
The bit about them insisting they know better than you what you need to see and how you need to see it, coupled with the bit about ads, is a non sequitur. We're talking about tracking usage stats. Some people simply can't be bothered to disable an ad blocker for non-ad related things. Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Everyone loses. Producers don't know what works or doesn't and consumers don't get the content they desire. One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > One thing I've noticed is that these comments tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume. It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. Also from people that feel entitled just to get services for free.
  - coderdude 10y ago
    I'm positive I've said exactly the same thing in the past. Over time, I realized that the issue is more nuanced. I don't think most people actually feel entitled to free content, but rather that the non-monetary "fee" is not acceptable. There is no known simple solution to this issue that I'm aware of.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      I am with you on that, but those services have to be paid in some form, as those people also have bills to pay. So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users.
      - coderdude 10y ago
        Indeed. I think you and I both are left with many others wondering what the ultimate solution will be.
      - type0 10y ago
        > So if it isn't with money or advertising, it has to be whatever else they can extract from the users. So let's imagine someone serves supper on the street (i.e. street food), with the setup that it's take it yourself service. The incentive is that people would line up and pay, but some people don't - so would such company owners have the right to collect saliva and extract DNA to sell such personal information to some other companies thereby extracting value?
        pjmlp 10y ago
        Not sure, but if tomorrow the street supper van is no longer there, because the paying customers cannot any more pay for those that take it for free, people should not complain that no one gets food.
    - luca_ing 10y ago
      So would you find it acceptable that I reject to be tracked and treated to ads on paid services? (NB: honest question. No aggressivity intended). I'm asking because paid services are treating me this way, and honestly I resent it.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > We're talking about tracking usage stats. We're talking about refusing clients who use adblockers. There are many ways to track usage that doesn't require that. I've implemented some myself. If the reason for refusal is because their tracking can't work with it it's doing it wrong. > tend to come from pure consumers but rarely from those who both produce and consume Produce what? And why does it matter? Imagine coming to a grocery store and being asked to change into store uniform, before you are allowed in, because it's easier for them to do business that way, marketing and stuff, and when you ask "WTF?" - they'd say "well, you don't know how it is to farm, do you? Did you ever milk a cow or harvested rye? You only consume, not produce, you lazy slacker, right? So either strip and wear the uniform or shut the heck up!". No thanks. I wouldn't visit such store. Would you? > It's partially an issue of having a lack of perspective of the other part of the equation. I am not obliged to serve everybody's perspective. I have no obligation to make life easy for somebody's marketing department or support somebody's business model. It's their business to convince me to support it with my money, and, frankly, telling me I'm too ignorant to appreciate how wonderful they are is not going to work well. Telling me "we're too lazy/cheap to do it any other way, so please disable all security features in your browser, disregard your privacy and risk your safety because our marketing needs some nice graphs in their next monthly presentation" won't work either.
  - coderdude 10y ago
    Your point of view is beyond what I accounted for. I guess there is an extreme-extreme that literally wants something for nothing. I was charitable. I told my sibling poster such a desire was too extreme and statistically nonexistent. Maybe I was wrong? Your stance is hostile only to things not connected to the Internet. In my opinion, get over yourself and shell up for what you enjoy.
    - Terretta 10y ago
      Worry you're blinded by capitalism's propaganda that everything nice must be paid for, in this case through attention to corporate messaging (ads), ceding control of personal info (social sign ups), and personal tracking (trackers). That's a terrible price. The web I grew up on was more akin to non-profit pamphleteering. If you wanted to say something, you hosted it on your home page and paid for it. You did this out of support for spread of knowledge like the .edus, or out of just wanting to have a voice. And it was fine! I hear the same "pay up if you want music" nonsense from record labels. I'm sorry, but if they all went out of business and nobody ever spent a dime on music again, you think kids with guitars would stop songwriting? No, they'd all still self-publish. Even when the 80's equivalent of uploading was copying tapes, good bands still 'went viral'. As long as you were hosting text, pamphleteering cost essentially nothing no matter what volume. Even in late 90's, a billion hits of pure text cost less than $100. It's how Wikipedia still works today. Just a small donation from a tiny fraction of visitors, and the whole thing is covered. No rights were lost or PII given up in the sharing of those ideas. None were lost in the conversation on this page, either.
- luca_ing 10y ago
  > consumers don't get the content they desire. But I do get the content I desire. I'm quite capable of choosing by myself. And what's worse is that the opposite also happens -- I may get content that I actively resent. You see, I bought an Amazon Fire TV stick the other day. I was dismayed to realise that it plays a (short) ad before showing me the content I asked for. I pay for Amazon Prime. I resent them still forcing me to watch ads. I'm seriously considering whether the downside of enduring a 5s ad outweighs he convenience of the device (which is quite nice TBH). Because you're right, I do consider it an affront. > Others take a more extreme stance and consider analysis itself to be an affront. Indeed. Süddeutsche Zeitung, a newspaper which my family has been subscribed to since about the 1960s, now rejects me if I use an adblocker, and am not logged in. I've actually left their site because I resent being tracked and subjected to ads, after paying them a good chunk of money already.