181–190 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree to the point that I can't imagine using the internet without uBlock installed.
I don’t install anything on my work computer that I can’t say 100% is used for work so I could never justify uBlock. It does make a HUGE difference. The web without it is a giant mess.
There is nothing wrong with being rewarded for your work. There could be uBlock Origin Pro for people who want to support it. It can offer no other feature other than a Pro icon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption is that most are not ripping the ads out of the magazine without seeing them at all. The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it. You can make all sorts of loose statements like this then draw the line where you feel it’s wrong. It will still be arbitrary. To continue stretching examples. Developers chose to release software as is. Through some comb…
Print ads don't have any security risks, they don't track you, they're less distracting, and they don't cost you anything extra like bandwidth. I think your analogy might hold up if ads on the web weren't so intrusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption is that most are not ripping the ads out of the magazine without seeing them at all. The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it. You can make all sorts of loose statements like this then draw the line where you feel it’s wrong. It will still be arbitrary. To continue stretching examples. Developers chose to release software as is. Through some comb…
>> The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it This is the antithesis of what I want the internet to be, so opt me out of that, please, because I'm going to come hither and taketh in that which I care to taketh in, that and nothing else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it This is the antithesis of what I want the internet to be, so opt me out of that, please, because I'm going to come hither and taketh in that which I care to taketh in, that and nothing else.
People forget that browsers are called user agents because they are supposed to operate on behalf of the user. That includes displaying the content how the user wants it and not how the server operator wants it.
Then there should be no problem for HNers who block all ads if hypothetically some situation comes out where all paid software and SaaS is able to be used freely on a person’s computing device. Since they should operate on the person’s behalf.
I doubt most HNers who directly or indirectly work on software/SaaS/apps, and live off that income, would be cool with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People forget that browsers are called user agents because they are supposed to operate on behalf of the user. That includes displaying the content how the user wants it and not how the server operator wants it.
Exactly! The browser exists to serve us, not to enable some company's abusive business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption is that most are not ripping the ads out of the magazine without seeing them at all. The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it. You can make all sorts of loose statements like this then draw the line where you feel it’s wrong. It will still be arbitrary. To continue stretching examples. Developers chose to release software as is. Through some comb…
> The assumption and social contract was the page is sent to you with ads and you take in all of it. Nobody ever signed any social contract. You can't even navigate to the page's actual terms of service without being subjected to ads and surveillance capitalism. As if anyone even reads those terms to begin with. Their invalid assumptions are their problem. Nobody else needs to worry about this. It's their business mo…
So take out copyright. Any charging of any digital service, subscription, et al, can have similar morally backed reasons to get around paying + getting everyone to get around paying. Off top of head. World is inherently unfair. Being poor is unfair. Charging money for digital subscriptions keeps the rich, rich. Keeps poor people out. We should be for figuring out how to get around all digital payments for digital services + subscriptions.
> nobody ever signed a social contract
That’s not how social contracts work. Social contracts aren’t meant to be signed. There’s no signed contract for person A to do any of the following in public: not to purposefully smell bad enough to have peoples gag reflexes kick in, for Person A not to repeatedly throw up in their hands and very dramatically repeatedly consume it all again, or for person A to laugh to themselves and loudly comment to themselves about how ugly or silly or { insert any other negativity } people near them are.
I can give other examples that are digitally focused too.
in general nearly all people adhere to a number of social contracts and expect the same of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's one of those life-changing projects. It's so important and trusted that it should actually be integrated into the browsers themselves so that it can do its job even more effectively. Sadly, conflicts of interest prevent that. It should probably come pre-installed with every browser instead. I wish iOS Firefox had support for it. Seems Apple doesn't allow extensions. I told all my friends about uBlock Origi…
I wish there was a uBlock app for iOS, similar to other ad-blockers that are available on iOS. I'd be willing to pay for such an app and be able to use any browser on iOS (including FF) w/o worrying about ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody thinks that people wants to watch ads. The premise is that people hates opening their wallet more than what they hate watching an ad.
That premise is false. There's always money to be made by selling people's attention. They'd put ads under people's eyelids if they could. People who open up their wallets and spend money are worth even more money to advertisers. The more you pay, the more ads they want to subject you to. The only way to get rid of them is to deny them any attention at all. They are not entitled to it under any circumstances. Drive t…
Ads are still a net negative, but it's worth considering that requiring payment will price some people out, because the poor aren't usually subsidized with paid services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People forget that browsers are called user agents because they are supposed to operate on behalf of the user. That includes displaying the content how the user wants it and not how the server operator wants it.
Exactly! The browser exists to serve us, not to enable some company's abusive business model.
Whenever this stuff comes up on HN. there’s the initial bits of anti ad self righteousness but never a continuation to see if the general ethos continues outside ads.
My purpose of all this is to point out the inherent hypocrisy. Not every ad has spyware or adware. Are those ads unblocked? No. I understand it would take far too much time to unblock specific ads. Which doesn’t help the point of being morally in the right.
Same with disagreeing with being able to crack/pirate all paywalls and SaaS subscriptions, et al. If the browser is to serve you.