231–240 of 269 posts
In simple terms , is this a moral way rather than using ad blocker ? Rather than using ad blocker I get this pass , where I won't be seeing ads and at same time feel I am letting publisher earn some money ?
Who is winning? (Google) Who is losing? ( everybody else, especially you)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brave isn't fully launched yet. They are still working on making extensions work via API compatibility. Once they nail extensions, I and a ton of others will switch from Chrome.
More accurately a subset of super-nerds who care about extensions and privacy will switch from Chrome. For regular people, if Brave somehow started eating meaningful chunks of Google's market share they'd just integrate contributor into Chrome and get roughly the same effect.
I already have an ad removal pass, it's called uBlock origin.
I use uBlock too - it's great. Sometimes a site will have an obnoxious popover or something that's usually relatively easy to create a rule for, but generally it works, and in combination with Ghostery I'm confident it's protecting me from most tracking, which is what I really want to avoid. However it is an ethical dilemma, especially in a World where Contributor exists. Content is not free, hosting is not free, dev…
Start by respecting my ears, my eyes, my laptop, and my time, then we can have an "ethical" discussion.
Then naturally, as soon as I try to sign up for it, I get told "Contributor is not yet available in your country" as it seems to be US-only at the moment. That's okay, uBlock Origin with its whitelist I compiled with sites I know won't violate my browser with ads is still available in my country.
But that's one of the problems. You know they haven't violated your browser yet but that's no indication that they won't in the future. A lot of people trust/trusted Imgur and whitelisted their ads, and they were rewarded with an ad network that was redirecting them to malware sites. It's cleaned up now, but what's to say it won't happen again? Ars Technica suffered a similar situation a while back. Reddit has had it happen too. All seemingly trustworthy sites.
It's not safe to turn off your ad blocker, there are no third-party ad networks you can trust. The only acceptable ads IMO are native sponsored content, which sites don't like because it's extra work. But guess what: you can't (easily) block native sponsored content.
Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful. In this form, I highly doubt it.
This is terrible. This is where Google is trying to control the web even more than they do already. If this sticks around, if this actually happens, then this will destroy what so many have worked to achieve. Let's actually sit down and think about this. If this happened, there would be some big changes to the web. (Note- this is a quick response. I should write a real paper about this) First of all, now that people…
This is also a quick response, on my part. Basically: you seem to believe people have a right to view the web cheaply. I would argue otherwise. For most of history, humans have had no opportunity to obtain content for free - in fact, for the most part, books and literature have been expensive novelties for all but the most hyper-privileged. The idea people should pay for content does not seem to me a violation of som…
Obviously my comment was the "cynical" view, and looked at a future that may not even come to fruition. There are some benefits too. However, I think that I would prefer that the web be supported in different ways. I haven't thought long and hard about the "best way", but it makes me think of websites that limit how many times you can view their content. Take the New York Times for example. If I remember correctly, they let you view ~10 articles or something, and then from there, you have to pay to see more. That could be a potential way to keep content supported? Let the websites choose themselves how they want to monetize content. Maybe that's better than Google holding accounts for anyone who wants to access the ad free web? I'm not sure what the best solution is.
In the fantasy future I mentioned in the first comment, I could see there being a pay-to-entry model for the web, if the ad free and ad versions of the web started separating and they just "killed" off ads. Then, to access the web in the first place, payment would be required, and would have to be refilled.
This is one reason I love HN - discussions get me thinking. I appreciate your comment, and you're right. All content just can't be free. I guess I just don't like the possibility of the web turning into a pay-to-view model. I'd rather let the sites choose individually, that way, no one has control over it all. But yeah.
I've been participating in Google Contributor since it's inception, this is like the 3rd relaunch of the service. I have no doubt it will fail just like the past iterations because the fundamental flaw is that Google is the heart of the system and they're unwilling to extricate themselves from it. I don't think this type of service is the way forward and the solution will not come from Google or any other ad provider…
uBlock is gonna be just as easy to install as hassling with setting up a contributor account.
I've been participating in Google Contributor since it's inception, this is like the 3rd relaunch of the service. I have no doubt it will fail just like the past iterations because the fundamental flaw is that Google is the heart of the system and they're unwilling to extricate themselves from it. I don't think this type of service is the way forward and the solution will not come from Google or any other ad provider…
Yes to everything and: uBlock is gonna be just as easy to install as hassling with setting up a contributor account.
I've been participating in Google Contributor since it's inception, this is like the 3rd relaunch of the service. I have no doubt it will fail just like the past iterations because the fundamental flaw is that Google is the heart of the system and they're unwilling to extricate themselves from it. I don't think this type of service is the way forward and the solution will not come from Google or any other ad provider…
Yes to everything and: uBlock is gonna be just as easy to install as hassling with setting up a contributor account.
Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful. In this form, I highly doubt it.
This is exactly what the first version of contributor was, clearly it was not popular enough to keep around.