451–460 of 462 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
John uses Deck[0] for Daring Fireball 0: http://decknetwork.net/
Didn't realise there were also adverts on the site. I was more talking about the feed sponsorship http://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't realise there were also adverts on the site. I was more talking about the feed sponsorship http://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
Deck is the only decent ad network I'm aware of, so I keep them unblocked. The fact that you haven't noticed he has ads on the site speaks enough.
Unfortunately however I didn't notice it as uBlock Origin had blocked it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-reading your comment, it strikes me as extremely anti-capitalistic. > Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. That is literally the goal of every merchant everywhere. They need to sell stuff for more than they paid, otherwise they don't make money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. They aren't forcing you to buy things, their buyers think that what th…
While they're welcome to improve their odds in our imperfect-information game, we should also be allowed to play in our interest by disallowing them information. This is not about the total gain of both sides: Almost every transaction is positive sum. However; why should I simply accept the 90/10 distribution of the excess in their favor when I can aim for a favorable distribution for myself too?
And I'm also confused by your talk about favorable distribution. Isn't seeing ads relevant to your interests better than seeing ads unrelated to your interests? The problem with targeted tracking isn't that it's targeted, it's that it relies on information whose collection is a privacy violation. But when we're talking about a company that you've already voluntarily given massive amounts of behavioral data to, then you've voluntarily given up your privacy so there's no violation going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-reading your comment, it strikes me as extremely anti-capitalistic. > Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. That is literally the goal of every merchant everywhere. They need to sell stuff for more than they paid, otherwise they don't make money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. They aren't forcing you to buy things, their buyers think that what th…
An ad that's relevant to your interests is fine, but that's the best case scenario. How many people's lives were improved by clicking on "one weird trick" ads? Those ads sucked money out of people's pockets for no reason. Running experiments to find out the most effective ways to get people to hand over their money is a valid business practice, but that strategy in no way depends on the product adding value to your l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deck is the only decent ad network I'm aware of, so I keep them unblocked. The fact that you haven't noticed he has ads on the site speaks enough.
I'm not a mac user so I only ever visit the site when I double check he's still doing the sponsored feed thing before using the site as an example of non-ad income. Unfortunately however I didn't notice it as uBlock Origin had blocked it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right. The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are…
I am against business trying to make me agree the price is fair. And the price of having ads displayed on my computer is too high. Ads are like a donation box, not like a price tag. Am I being forced to donate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got it exactly backwards. The service is free, ergo you are the product, ergo Facebook's problems are your problems. You have three choices: 1. Stop using Facebook 2. Pay Facebook to remove ads 3. Look at ads I've opted for option 1, though I'll happily revisit this choice if Facebook (A) finds a way to make money without serving ads and without requiring me to pay out-of-pocket (unlikely) or (B) Facebook star…
Facebook's problems, which are my problems, are solved by opting for choice #4: use an ad-blocker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If FB tries this, the awful performance of their site will start putting a drag on their business. But also, adblockers will keep up. If they have to use canned deep-learning neural nets to catch and crush advertising based on how it looks rendered, they will.
I love the human condition. Managers struggle to motivate for simple coding tasks, but ads? We'll be damned if they intrude our lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's more like those terrible flyers you get in the mail and shoved under your door, except you have to pay the postage on them. Don't suck up my bandwidth on your crappy ads.
Don't suck up my bandwidth on your crappy attitude. You know facebook is ad supported. If you don't want to look at ads, why do you keep going there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's sometimes hard to reconcile blocking ad-blocker-blockers ethically There is nothing unethical about it. If you want to be paid for your content, charge me for it and let me decide, voluntarily, to pay and receive it, or not. This argument comes up every time there's discussion about ad-blockers: if your writing, music, poetry, punditry or photography is good, people will pay you for it. You don't "deserve"…
So, if they offered a PayPal button, and I decided I didn't want to pay via PayPal, would it be okay to not pay in that case? By putting up the blocker blocker, the site has clearly indicated how you can compensate them for the content, and the only ethical way I can think of around it would be to not consume it.
In fact it's hilarious how “anti-blocking” people here think they're somehow philosophically and ethically upholding Facebook's part of the deal–by driving people away from Facebook. It's the exact opposite of what FB wants and needs!