131–140 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmmm. My browser complained that you’re running three trackers on that site (google, cloudflare and digital ocean).
Yes cloudflare for speed and protection. Digitalocean for file storage. I may remove google analytics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you have a different understanding of what "advertising" is than the general understanding.
advertising or ad·ver·tiz·ing [ ad-ver-tahy-zing ] - noun - the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc.
We use Cloudflare Workers as a very simple URL shortener [1]. It has very generous free tier (100k requests per day) so it's more than enough for a lot of use cases. [1] https://lucjan.medium.com/free-url-shortener-with-cloudflare...
1. https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/learning/getting-s...
Everything that sits between you and your destination is a middleman tracking you, unless proven otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
advertising or ad·ver·tiz·ing [ ad-ver-tahy-zing ] - noun - the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc.
I believe it's possible for a website to exist without calling attention to anything. Or perhaps you believe the mere existence of information is a call for attention.
I think there would be exceptions, like test sites, personal experiments etc. that could make it on to the internet without seeking attention, but any content designed for consumption is attention-seeking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting..How many sites work without javascript these days? Does google?
More than you'd think, not as many as I'd hope. Easily 2/3rds of the ones I visit work, FWIW. Google works fine without javascript. Stunningly fast.
I started blocking JS a few weeks ago, and this has been my experience as well - a pleasant surprise.
For a long time I thought that would be a step too far, that browsing would become so annoying and unpredictable because of it. Any annoyance from having to turn on JS for individual sites is easily outweighed by the number of annoyances I avoid - news websites are actually readable, blogs open with their content rather than with an in-your-face pop-up, and as a bonus, I pay attention to things like: how many 3rd party domains is it trying to connect to? does it require 3rd party JS to be enabled to function at all? did they even consider the possibility of disabled JS and bother to write a noscript message? Things like this translate to a measure of trustworthiness to me now, and I've been both horrified (by simple blogs trying to connect to 80+ domains) and pleasantly surprised (by complex-seeming websites that don't use 3rd party JS at all).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it's possible for a website to exist without calling attention to anything. Or perhaps you believe the mere existence of information is a call for attention.
Doesn’t all content exist to receive attention? I think there would be exceptions, like test sites, personal experiments etc. that could make it on to the internet without seeking attention, but any content designed for consumption is attention-seeking.
Maybe. Attention can also be granted without it have been called there. There are also websites not designed for consumption.
If every website is advertising, then surely most of human discourse and activity would also be considered advertising. What's even the purpose of the word?
You're not going to convince me that everything is an ad, and I probably won't convince you either. I'm not interested in playing any further semantic word games. I'll read any replies you make if you choose to, but I have nothing more to offer in this thread.
I am not surprised. URL shorteners will try to monetize eventually. One way is to support ad networks, other is to show ads and videos before navigating to the target URL. I am 100% sure TOS allow it since the beginning. As far it seems to be a grim future, it is almost only way they can monetize. Otherwise they will close their businesses rendering millions of URLs broken, what I think is the future that is too easy…
Bitly charges $30/month (basic) which seems like an outrageous amount of money to me for what it does. How much more monetization do they need?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company uses them in its print assets like billboards, posters, and transit ads. I see them all the time in commercial text messages, like from things I've subscribed to, or delivery alerts so I can track the pizza guy.
Do they use QR codes in addition to the shortened URLs? I’ve always wondered why QR code’s haven’t caught on more. Especially for things where the objective to access information more convenient than fat-fingering.