221–230 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, no, you can't burn my CPU cycles and drain my battery for money. Full stop, end of story, thanks for playing, etc, etc. I still own my computer, and I couldn't care less about your innovative new business model. Just, no.
Why do you care if your CPU goes 100% because of some shitty ad or some coin mining operation? Both is there because of profit generation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you can guarantee that someone subscribes.
You simply need to provide a product that has value . If nobody is subscribing, that might be a message that your product isn't actually worth anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Solution" wow, just step back a second here, I never signed up for advertisements AT ALL, much less background CPU miners for shady schemes. Solution is the last word to use, there is no problem first off and malware is not how you would solve this fantasy of a "problem".
You have to remember that you're not entitled to their server resources. If you are not okay with a CPU miner, then don't use their site. I'm okay with this as long as they are 100% transparent about their monetization scheme.
I am, to the extent their server responds to open protocols on the public Internet. It's up to them, not me, to configure what their server sends when. This is literally how the Internet works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If HTML5's battery API ever became a thing, this issue could be solved without any user interaction.
I would not expect miners to voluntarily stop mining just because the user agent reports low battery. Any miners that care about mobile users could check the user agent string and throttle mining.
The reason is simple: whatever cruft the site decides to only serve to high-end users is the cruft I'm very much not interested in seeing.
And because I'm definitely not alone in this thinking, those APIs will be failures for anything other than getting additional bits for tracking and profiling people.
Today I read that The Pirate Bay tested this new form of monetization (running a miner in you browser). I thought that might solve website monetization finally. We still have to figure out stuff like battery draining on mobile but it is the first step and I can buy some Monero which is well suited for JS/CPU mining (or in other words, it doesn't have a huge upside when mined on GPUs). And what do I see here? That bef…
One use case that they have in their demo is micro payments to access web sites: https://demo.taler.net/en/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but you're not entitled to use their server's resources for free. If you're not okay with them running a miner while you use their site, don't use their site. I'm okay with this approach as long as they are transparent about it.
I am. That's literally how HTTP, and broadly the Internet , works. If you want to put restrictions on how your site is meant to be used, use appropriate protocol means. Like, respond with 402, or simply don't serve content until I pay you / agree to display ads / agree to run your cryptocoin miners / whatever. Ads, and sneaky cryptocoin mining scripts, are underhand attempts at having a cake and eating it too. Becaus…
I mean... I get where you're coming from, and I agree that I don't like it either - but I'm curious what the "right" solution is.
I think it's clear that people, on average, hate to pay. They hate to let go of money, and will put up with a surprising amount of bullshit as long as they aren't giving someone else a cent. So what's the winning solution here? Your 402 example is wishful thinking at best, imo.
So far, the only thing I can imagine is some type of system that's built into internet providers. A monetary sharing scheme, based on traffic or viewing receipts, etc. Something to pass revenue via meaningful metrics, and not 402s (which i think are wishful) or crypto mining.
With that said, that seems difficult. Though I do wonder what will happen to these crypto models once they become popular. Suddenly farms will up the hash rate and lower income for site providers. A view will steadily decrease in revenue as hash rate goes up, which will seem to promote longer crypto times. They'll want you to read longer, or wait ~60s before turning to page 2, or etc. All to inch out some extra seconds of crypto time.
Weird world we live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you can guarantee that someone subscribes.
You simply need to provide a product that has value . If nobody is subscribing, that might be a message that your product isn't actually worth anything.
Wouldn't justify wasting energy and compromising user privacy, as the current model does, but that's why capitalism has to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am. That's literally how HTTP, and broadly the Internet , works. If you want to put restrictions on how your site is meant to be used, use appropriate protocol means. Like, respond with 402, or simply don't serve content until I pay you / agree to display ads / agree to run your cryptocoin miners / whatever. Ads, and sneaky cryptocoin mining scripts, are underhand attempts at having a cake and eating it too. Becaus…
> Because they know people don't like to pay, they choose to pretend they're free, while at the same time bleeding the visitors for small amounts of indirect money (in attention => time, or computing resources => electricity). I mean... I get where you're coming from, and I agree that I don't like it either - but I'm curious what the "right" solution is. I think it's clear that people, on average, hate to pay. They h…
My proposed solution is bit unpopular, but it goes like this: just have people pay actual money. Now, this would cause a lot of the present Internet to disappear, and I say good riddance. Here is why.
The Internet is mostly made of two kinds of people: 1) those who publish stuff pro bono, as a hobby or a service to their fellow Internet citizens, and 2) those who publish stuff in order to earn money. If we switched to ad-free, direct-payment-required Internet, here's what I believe would happen:
- People posting stuff pro bono will still post stuff pro bono, still paying the costs out of their own wallets. That content will mostly remain, and will remain free.
- Businesses that also publish something will start treating publishing as a marketing expense, and that content will also remain free.
- The rest of money-earners will try to switch to a subscription model. Those providing actual value will succeed, and people will pay for their publishing directly. As for the rest, there will be carnage, and they'll disappear from the Internet, no longer profitable. Because this literally affects the most worthless (from consumer's POV) kind of publishing, we'll all be better off without it, and the people involved will have an opportunity to find a more socially useful way of earning a living.
- The adtech industry will collapse, which would be a huge win for freedom and privacy on-line.
Now there's one bad side of this solution that comes to my mind: this privileges people with money to spare. Currently, even though we are drowning in sewage that masquerades as content, people without any spending money (like e.g. teenagers) can access disproportionately big amount of quality information (after they sift through the refuse, of course). I know I personally benefited from that when I was younger. I don't know how to handle this particular case; but overall, I still feel the tradeoff is worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah right..
If you have some criticism, please share with the class. As it is, I can't even tell what you're being dismissive of.