Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

bearbin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 633 posts

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#281

Post by shukantpal »

paxys wrote: post #134
ciphol wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's going to pay for your Google search, maps, and Gmail if there are no ads?

Paid online services have been a thing long before internet advertising took over. People used to have search, email, GPS navigation, business directories, news, weather and lots more before Google was even an idea. Why do people suddenly think giving up your privacy to look at obnoxious ads all day is the only way technology will progress further?

They don't wanna pay. If you don't like ads, stay in your home or in sandboxed areas you control or approve. You don't get to control other peoples' property.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#283

Post by zephyrthenoble »

cs702 wrote: post #270

Like almost everyone else on HN, I believe everyone should have the right to block ads in any city, and it should be possible with VR technology in the not-too-distant future. That said, I would always want to live in a city in which advertisers are constantly fighting each other to get everyone's attention with ads, in every possible way, to the extent permitted by reasonable zone/cosmetic regulations [a], because t…

This is an example of correlation without causation, even if your assertion that these cities are "dead cities without growth".

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#284

Post by _dain_ »

blackhaz wrote: post #234
DarylZero wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? That's what Banksy does and says "yes" to. > No, that would be vandalism. So what? That's just a word. > As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in a free market, and we must respect that. LOL, but why "must we"? You have no reasoning, no justification.

It's not just a word, it's a law, from UK's Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence." But whether we should change that law is probably an off-topic here. All I am saying is that we mus…

nobody goes to jail for scribbling over an ad

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#285

Post by shukantpal »

Nextgrid wrote: post #123
cblconfederate wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

almost nobody pays for 'ad free' experience

The problem is that the ad-free experience often costs orders of magnitude above what the ad view would earn them. Let's take newspapers for example, ad view on a single page load would maybe earn them 10c, but if I wanted to pay I'd need to subscribe to a monthly commitment of ~15£/month (for the WSJ) and still have no guarantee my data won't be used maliciously (there is no way to pay anonymously) nor whether cance…

The subscription doesn't have a limit on how many times you use the app, however. If you read 150 pages a month (~5 a day), then the math is equal.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#286

Post by shukantpal »

timbit42 wrote: post #231
armendhammer wrote: post #175

Be ready for websites that make you pay to read them. They gotta make money to keep up somehow, and if they can't do it through ads, they will do it through subscription.

This is what the world needs. "Free" products and services mean you are the product or service.

The world is fully capable of building what it needs, in this case. And if the world needs it, it'll get subscription products.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#287

Post by EvRev »

323 wrote: post #152
JulianMorrison wrote: post #49

Ads should simply be illegal anywhere, anywhen. Perhaps if we did that for, say, 80 years, then after the last advertiser has dropped dead of advanced age, we could cautiously re-enable the legality of purely informational, manipulation-free adverts.

So it should be illegal for me to wear a t-shirt with Adidas written on it? Or shoes with the Nike swoosh on it?

Yes. Find another avenue for virtue signaling that contributes on a local level. Paying for the right to be a roaming advert is what has been advertised to you, hence you are repeating the cycle.

I do wear these brands, but try to subdue any labeling. i.e. black sharpie on the nike logo.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#288

Post by Aerroon »

shakow wrote: post #61
qybaz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank the Lord reality (still) does not have cookie banners.

I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. It's like if the citizens of a surveillance state complained if civilian-dressed informants had to carry a big ugly sign. Sure, the sign is ugly and everywhere; but maybe the actual problem is that there are so many informants that you have to see so many signs, rather than their signs being ugly. Shoot the actual problem (i.e. the dark patterns and malicious complia…

>I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners.

Because they fundamentally don't work. The EU politicians had to have known that they didn't work from previous experience, but decided to inflict us with these pop ups anyway. Their own damn website has this pop up.[0]

Reasons why cookie banners don't work:

1. They need to be implemented by the website. This means that if a website decides to ignore the cookie law they can set all the cookies they want and you won't be notified. If they are outside of the EU's jurisdiction they won't even care.

2. Targeted advertising is how a lot of websites pay the bills. This means that websites will use every trick in the book to get you to not click on the "refuse" button. Why wouldn't they? You're using their server time, but generating no revenue if you refuse. Websites will fight this process. They'll eventually lose, but the internet will either turn into a splinternet or cable TV. Ads are what make free websites work and cookies is how it happens right now.

3. Websites are made by people who aren't always well-versed in legalese and can't just hire a lawyer for everything. They don't always know whether they need a pop up or not. The safer option is to put it up there. If the EU's own website has one then probably so does yours.

4. Popups are annoying.

Cookies should be handled by the browser. Not some harebrained JavaScript.

[0] https://www.europa.eu

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#289

Post by runarberg »

jrm4 wrote: post #188
323 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of times people who loudly yell "fuck the system" are also quietly using the system when it suits them, that's my point. Bansky is no "dismantle the capitalism" hero or whatever pedestal people have him on.

This argument, most of the time, is just bad and not smart. "If you hate capitalism, why do you use iPads? etc." It's dreck and it should stop because it's rarely constructive. Sometimes it's a necessary tool. Sometimes people are experimenting. Sometimes people do actually sell out. The problem with this argument is that it tries to shut down the above questions. Details matter, and bad arguments like the above rare…

A few counterpoints I’ve heard over the years include:

* The prevailing system will never be toppled by the conscious choice of the individual consumer.

* No one person has the power to overturn capitalism, no matter how persistent.

* There is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#290

Post by blackboxlogic »

snarfy wrote: post #88
stareatgoats wrote: post #84

Advertising as it is done presently has at least three faults, which is just as much a fault with the ethics of society for allowing this to go on: - adverts seeks to hijack your attention away from whatever you were doing, which is a mental burden resulting diminished performance (in the case of a work environment), is downright dangerous in the case of traffic environments and lessens the enjoyment in the case of l…

If my attention has value, then hijacking it is a form of theft.

If my attention has value, then the exchange should be taxed.
Post reply on HN