| |
| ▲ | npteljes 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's force, even if we are technically able to not consume ads by for example not using the internet. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Just like what... you're forced to pay for the gas, electricity, or food you buy from someone else? | | |
| ▲ | npteljes 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Like plastering the roads with billboards. We don't want that in the online space. Or, not in the meatspace either, if you ask me. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I think your analogy is entirely wrong. Plastering roads with billboards isn't paying for the roads. Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website. | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | force companies to provide ad free options with realistic pricing It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry but I just don't buy that (and I pay/have paid for many subscriptions for product that have ads-based versions). A business choosing to be ad-based is the business's problem. A person choosing to not experience ads is that person's problem. They just don't want to do business with each other and either party should have the freedom to make that decision. I do think a lot should change around advertising, tracking, etc. For example: I think you should be able to set an option on your browser that says "no ads" that sites legally have to respect (even if the result is the site replies: "no content without ads"). At the same time, I think people should have to "declare" their ad blocker use. |
| |
| ▲ | npteljes 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ah, OK, I see what you mean. | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website. The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website. They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself. By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property. If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do). Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. > By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content." And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right? My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course). I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities. Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want. Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]: That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do
elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes
place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will
be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be
displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their
"expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright
holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
That said, your argument is addressing the issue of "private property."I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes? >> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct? >I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting). What implicit contract? Take the link (https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-... ) associated with the discussion we're both commenting upon. Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money? That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is. As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money. Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what. Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time? But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model. I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#B... | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn a day ago | parent [-] | | > Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time?
> You do you ... Good luck with that. You're gonna need it. Frankly, I find this kind of tone unpleasant. Direct it at someone else. I'm pretty sure I've made no similar statements at you. > Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? No, absolutely not. I think protecting yourself from malware is fine (though I do not think all ad tracking is "malware" even if it sucks). > That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes? Nope, I think those sites are primarily (if not solely) stealing content produced elsewhere and provide zero actual added value, and I think they should be illegal and sued to oblivion. And I think that's still in line with "people should get paid for their work" because the actual work was the original content creation. > I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. I don't disagree with having a defensive posture. I'd say I disagree with having a defensive posture and still wanting to get the content (which is not your stance since you've stated you're fine with a website detecting ad blocker and not showing you content). Mostly, though, I just don't think we're "forced" to do any of this. We just don't like that the actual solution is to not get content we don't want to pay for in some way. In fact, maybe where we disagree the most is that I don't think you should get the option to decide "midway" through loading a page whether or not you want the content, because what actually happens in reality is: you get what you want, the website doesn't. I don't think that's being an "honest, decent human being" as a user. On the flip side of all of this, and maybe repeating myself from an earlier comment, I think a website should be liable for all the content (ads, JS, etc) that ends up on your screen when loading a page, even if it's served by a third party, because the website is the one to introduced that third party. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 a day ago | parent [-] | | My apologies. I misunderstood your position. I was under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that you believe folks should either watch ads, pay for the content with cash money or stay away from any site that one is unwilling to do so. Further, I got the sense (incorrectly) you were in support of not using defensive tools, as that would deprive the website owner of revenue -- especially upon first arriving at the site -- even if the content of the site was unknown prior to visiting. If I seemed less than positive in my reply to you, it was due to the (apparent) misconceptions I listed above. My mistake. Again, apologies and thank you for clarifying and setting me straight. Unless I continue to misunderstand (and I hope not), I think we're pretty much in violent agreement here: 1. Content creators deserve to be paid for their work; 2. in support of (1), website owners have property rights which empowers them to require (or not) viewing of ads, paying of fees (whether those be subscriptions or single item sales) and/or other business models; 3. Sadly, ad networks (and many shady websites as well) aren't very good at blocking and/or want to distribute malware and abusive content to be run client side, requiring (or at least strongly incentivizing) end users to use ad/script blockers to protect themselves against those malicious actors; 4. End users also have property rights which empowers them to decide for themselves what code is permitted to execute on their (client-side) systems, and to restrict the access of downloaded code to limit data exfiltration. Edit: I'd add that unless and until both the website owner and the client accessing the website can come to a "meeting of minds" there can be no contract, implicit or otherwise -- especially if there has been no previous interaction between those parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xigoi 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You pay for food only with money. Nobody is forcing you to eat a rotten apple for every fresh apple you buy. | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You're not paying for ad-supported content with money. You're paying for it with your eyeballs. It is literally what you have to pay for what you want to consume. |
|
|
|
|
