51–60 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't work once more and more sites join the adwall band.
Cartel members always have incentives to cheat - if one site can become popular by not ad-walling like 90% of them do and regurgitate the content of 90% they will do it and disregard "the big picture" especially considering the low barriers to entry. They have no enforcement mechanism to keep everyone honest - the only way this sort of thing works is if you "outlaw" non-ad-walled sites - something like google not lis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stopped using at least 4 websites which I followed for years just because they tried to enforce on me turning off PrivacyBadger and uBlock. It will hurt only you in long term. It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices.
> It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices. Likewise I have the right to reject you if you can't comply with my terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever end is reached, there's no intuitive or trending reason why it won't be any better or worse than not using ad + tracking blockers. The end result of any side winning is simply that they get what they want; it's not going to lead to some tragedy of the commons. Either advertisers get to track people or they don't. Either people get to block things or they don't. Once upon a time there was little attention to…
Well clearly the experience for people not using ad blockers is substantially worse than it was 10 years ago. If the usage of ad blockers increases, you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone.
You're assuming that 'good behavior' of users should somehow stay the hand of marketing companies. It ought not. A good marketing company will do everything to extract full value insofar as it is harmonious to business goals -- ad blocker or not, the search for the perfect recipe of ad delivery will march on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cartel members always have incentives to cheat - if one site can become popular by not ad-walling like 90% of them do and regurgitate the content of 90% they will do it and disregard "the big picture" especially considering the low barriers to entry. They have no enforcement mechanism to keep everyone honest - the only way this sort of thing works is if you "outlaw" non-ad-walled sites - something like google not lis…
A restaurant cannot beat other restaurants by making its meal free to all.
Why would I want to deprive sites of their ad revenue? If you use ad blocking, just be sure that you and no-one you are close to depends on advertising - directly or indirectly - to get their bills paid. So damn childish to have such a sense of self righteous indignation that people turn off ads but expect the Internet to be free.
A business model is only viable if the culture in which it is operated finds value in that model. If the culture no longer values an Internet advertising based business model, then they'll have to find a new approach to get their bills paid.
This is neither good nor bad. It's just business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stopped using at least 4 websites which I followed for years just because they tried to enforce on me turning off PrivacyBadger and uBlock. It will hurt only you in long term. It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices.
> It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices. Likewise I have the right to reject you if you can't comply with my terms.
In this case, I see internet content divided in half -- content for those who can pay for it, and content for those who can't. Not all websites should survive. Not all users should be able to experience everything on the internet. "You get what you pay for" is not wrong. Exclusivity can lead to quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's more important for me to use my browser then you website that doesn't respect my choices. Likewise I have the right to reject you if you can't comply with my terms.
Of course, and I believe that the sum of actors exercising fair play in a generally free space will result in interesting market and social configurations. In this case, I see internet content divided in half -- content for those who can pay for it, and content for those who can't. Not all websites should survive. Not all users should be able to experience everything on the internet. "You get what you pay for" is not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, and I believe that the sum of actors exercising fair play in a generally free space will result in interesting market and social configurations. In this case, I see internet content divided in half -- content for those who can pay for it, and content for those who can't. Not all websites should survive. Not all users should be able to experience everything on the internet. "You get what you pay for" is not…
Something new will appear, like pirated news aggregators. Maybe hosted in tor.