8 ms·

I just loaded this article on my mobile device. An ad on the website triggered with auto playing audio that stopped background media playback of my device. I cl

by da_n 9y ago

I just loaded this article on my mobile device. An ad on the website triggered with auto playing audio that stopped background media playback of my device. I class these type of ads as a type of vermin, and generally avoid any website that contains them. Why should I trust an organisation that chooses to run user hostile ads on their site line this to make a better internet?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vorotato 9y ago
This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. Whether someone is honest or good doesn't have any bearing on any individual statement's veracity. A statement is true or false regardless of who says it. Additionally the article was written by an author who is not responsible for the advertisements, or really any actions of this establishment which are entirely outside of their control. All being said, yeah that sounds horrible, and you probably shouldn't trust them as they are a for profit, but that's not an argument as to whether they are wrong or not.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. This is rather a problem with the author who is benefiting from the ad-driven Internet while preaching for something else. It's like a weapons reseller advocating for peace.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    Is there some non-ad-driven web ecosystem that I somehow missed? Just because the web currently depends on ads to pay for things does not mean that it is an OK situation or that we should tolerate every intrusion by advertisers.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > non-ad-driven web ecosystem that I somehow missed? Yes there is. Patreon and similar systems.
  - oliwarner 9y ago
    Not really. This author is paid by advertisers. That's their business model but there are plenty of other publishers out there available to you that would probably carry a version of this story under another business model. ISPs are paid by end users directly. And now also competing content companies who don't want their content throttled. And a top-up from the end users again to access those services. And whatever scummy deal they can get from selling every last detail about you and your browsing habits. And unlike this publisher, if you don't like it, you can't just shop around for a well behaving one. Most ISPs in the US appear to operate as local monopolies. There's no separation between hardware and service and that causes issues.
- da_n 9y ago
  To be clear I am not saying they’re wrong. It’s like being told to recycle everything in a magazine that is full of adverts funded by the toxic waste industry. Yes, I agree with recycling (and do so myself) but it’s hard to trust the source. I guess this is more of an idea than an organisation though, so I hope they will do some good and wish them luck.
  - pilsetnieks 9y ago
    It would be, if it were ads for ISP peering, or bundled network access, or promoting anti-network neutrality stance. As it is now, you're just trying to derail a conversation into irrelevant nitpicking. If anything, your motives should be suspect.
    - da_n 9y ago
      I am pro net neutrality, and would like to see a completely decentralised internet. It is not nitpicking to question the integrity and veracity of the messenger.

by da_n 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vorotato 9y ago

This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. Whether someone is honest or good doesn't have any bearing on any individual statement's veracity. A statement is true or false regardless of who says it. Additionally the article was written by an author who is not responsible for the advertisements, or really any actions of this establishment which are entirely outside of their control. All being said, yeah that sounds horrible, and you probably shouldn't trust them as they are a for profit, but that's not an argument as to whether they are wrong or not.

ekianjo 9y ago
> This is a literal ad hominem fallacy. This is rather a problem with the author who is benefiting from the ad-driven Internet while preaching for something else. It's like a weapons reseller advocating for peace.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  Is there some non-ad-driven web ecosystem that I somehow missed? Just because the web currently depends on ads to pay for things does not mean that it is an OK situation or that we should tolerate every intrusion by advertisers.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > non-ad-driven web ecosystem that I somehow missed? Yes there is. Patreon and similar systems.
- oliwarner 9y ago
  Not really. This author is paid by advertisers. That's their business model but there are plenty of other publishers out there available to you that would probably carry a version of this story under another business model. ISPs are paid by end users directly. And now also competing content companies who don't want their content throttled. And a top-up from the end users again to access those services. And whatever scummy deal they can get from selling every last detail about you and your browsing habits. And unlike this publisher, if you don't like it, you can't just shop around for a well behaving one. Most ISPs in the US appear to operate as local monopolies. There's no separation between hardware and service and that causes issues.
da_n 9y ago
To be clear I am not saying they’re wrong. It’s like being told to recycle everything in a magazine that is full of adverts funded by the toxic waste industry. Yes, I agree with recycling (and do so myself) but it’s hard to trust the source. I guess this is more of an idea than an organisation though, so I hope they will do some good and wish them luck.
- pilsetnieks 9y ago
  It would be, if it were ads for ISP peering, or bundled network access, or promoting anti-network neutrality stance. As it is now, you're just trying to derail a conversation into irrelevant nitpicking. If anything, your motives should be suspect.
  - da_n 9y ago
    I am pro net neutrality, and would like to see a completely decentralised internet. It is not nitpicking to question the integrity and veracity of the messenger.