Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#301

Post by luckylion » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:01 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #130

kylegordon wrote: post #93

And this is why, even with the best intentions of site operators, my browser will continue to use the best ad-block tools I can get, and my networks will be protected by tools like PiHole.

This seems melodramatic for something as trivial as an audio request.

It's not just audio requests btw. Google regularly serves ads that automatically redirect users to scam sites. A client I work with gets hit with that about every six months. The ads are targeting only mobile users which makes it even harder to debug. There's nothing a publisher can do to prevent this but disabling Google Adsense completely. There is no support from Google. After a few days, a week maybe, Google disables the malicious ad (or they see that the credit card didn't work) and it stops.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#302

Post by haasted » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:02 AM UTC

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #293

keyle wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know, we wouldn't stop serving ads until we work it out... no no imagine the loss in revenues.

Or you could just not use Stack Overflow.

Right. And he could ditch his keyboard as well.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#303

Post by butteroverflow » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:05 AM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #230

andrenotgiant wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Market solutions for market problems. I'd love to see the Raspberry PI foundation develop and sell a home router with PIHole for regular consumer use. Considering the alternatives, that sounds really appealing for me. I'd also buy it for my less tech-literate parents.

You can't profit your way out of a problem you profited yourself into. There will never be enough people setting up PiHoles to offset the value of spying, and it's publishing platforms like StackOverflow that suffer.

Wouldn't it be cool if it was solved on the provider level? They already have to set up DNS servers, might as well make it a Pi-hole instance.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#304

Post by enriquto » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #39

superasn wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I thought about it that's why "unless the user turns it off" comment in parens. I think out of 100 sites I visit everyday no website needs to access the audio api without my consent maybe except one or two which i can whitelist. Same for user agent, I don't think it should break if the container says I'm running firefox v65 or v67, etc.

Changing the resolution sounds like it would break a lot of websites, though.

and these websites certainly deserve to be broken!

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#305

Post by butteroverflow » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:07 AM UTC

jes wrote: post #98

gdw2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is firefox less fingerprintable?

I'm not an expert, but I'm running Firefox Nightly for exactly that reason. https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/04/09/protectio...

What's your user agent like? I would imagine there are not many Nightly users out there.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#306

Post by luckylion » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:08 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #261

pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm only mildly bothered by the tracking, since it seems so inaccurate, but the ads themselves always drive me to adblockers. Taboola were running pictures of rotten teeth for a while which was intolerable; Youtube ads are often louder than the videos.

See, I'm the opposite way. I don't care about seeing ads—it seems only fair, if I'm reading a site without paying for it. Unfortunately the water hole has been poisoned, so now I have to block it all.

It really depends on the ads, I believe. You can't actually read that page when the ad people go all out. There will be a video playing in the background of the page, there will be animations in content and they will throw in a pop over saying if you really, really, really don't want to save $10.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#307

Post by blub » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #195

muckrakerz wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. We got content without this in the past, and we can do this in the future. And I will note THEY admit this is bad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

You didn't get Stackoverflow, and barely any of the content today. You may be fine with the internet of the early 90s but most people are not.

The last remaining excuse of advertisers: you wouldn't want something to happen to your favorite content? That would be a shame.

Yes, most people would not be "fine" if they lost their googles and youtubes and stack overflows. But then in a few weeks or maaaybe months they'd get over it, because none of these "free" services are in any way essential. Paid alternatives will pop up where needed.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#308

Post by brokenmachine » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

gowld wrote: post #255

Benjammer wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in the dyke holding back user outrage, but the dyke of serving arbitrary JavaScript was never built in the first place.

It's spelled "dike".

Not in England, which incidentally is where English originates from.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#309

Post by DJHenk » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:17 AM UTC

craftinator wrote: post #160

keyle wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you know, we wouldn't stop serving ads until we work it out... no no imagine the loss in revenues.

Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page, and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue.

> Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page

If we're adults, lets also acknowledge that this relationship between me and SO is not really symmetrical and that forcing me as a user to accept privacy invading ads has a hint of blackmail in it. This is not about supporting the site's content. If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. Hell, my employer would likely want to foot the bill, so they wouldn't even have to be modest with their pricing.

Why is this not an option, I ask you. Why keep sites like this insisting on their surveillance model?

> and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue.

It's very hard not to be cynical about this. They care about their image. I'm not convinced that they care about my feelings. They is absolutely no evidence for that.

Re: Why is Stack Overflow trying to start audio?

#310

Post by luckylion » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #285

Programmers make these tools. When challenging said programmers who work for companies that promote this kind of behavior (G) they suggest that they work for these evil companies because their job is interesting and it pays well. This practice could stop tomorrow if the best and brightest of us decided so.

I doubt that. If "the best and the brightest" wouldn't do it, the second best and second brightest would be asked. At some point, somebody will do it. Also, isn't Google already selecting for moral flexibility? I find it hard to believe that a principled developer would start at Google, much like a pacifist engineer wouldn't work at a Pentagon contractor. So they are getting the best and the brightest whose limits of what they won't do because of personal ethics don't include ad tech, surveillance etc.

I'm not so sure that education would help either, it's my impression that ethics is just individually set. Of the people that understand Kant's categorical imperative, some will act accordingly and others will ignore their knowledge because doing so gets them more money.