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

291–300 of 633 posts

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

#291

Post by Hizonner »

blackhaz wrote: post #187
Miner49er wrote: post #116

Reminds me of this Banksy quote: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most…

Fuck that indeed. Very strong message here, and I love it. I wish I could take all those ads and shove them into their asses. But what is being suggested here? What's mine to take? If I see an ad, can I reuse the artwork? No. If I see a car, I can't just copy it's design. Can I just paint over it, or rip it apart? No, that would be vandalism. As much as I hate ads, THEY have re-arranged the world by paying for it in…

Why, exactly, would anybody "respect that"?

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

#292

Post by shukantpal »

sokoloff wrote: post #97
Flankk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people writing articles at Forbes are on payroll. Ad blockers take food off their plate just to avoid a minor inconvenience. All you're doing is pushing these companies to either go subscription only or go bankrupt. Watch the level of entitlement of the people who will inevitably try defending their content theft. They can't win the argument and they always appeal to false moral virtues. They act like targeted ad…

I’m responsible for my computer’s configuration; site operators are responsible for theirs. If I configure my computer to not show me ads, that’s my choice. If they configure their computer to not show me content, that’s also their choice. If they decide to show me content even if I’m not displaying ads, that’s also on them, same as if I configured mine to show ads and was then dissatisfied with my choice.

Then if they decide to fingerprint you, you should have no recourse either (other than to block it by yourself).

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

#294

Post by rolph »

323 wrote: post #169
Retric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see nothing hypocritical about either of those. The vandal wasn’t sued by the artist who may have approved. In the second case I find greeting cars as objectionable as street billboards.

So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that?

advertizers vandalize the sensory experience across the board, they pollute our cognition with conditioned and conditional thinking, they remove our choices in a clandestine style, they reduce the world to a penny mill so the lunch is free while the consumers back is the table for a feast by candlelight

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

#296

Post by rolph »

greggman3 wrote: post #245
jjulius wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm not trying to defend Banksy specifically here... >So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? He can be both, "vandal" and "artist" aren't mutually exclusive. >Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that? I'm not answering for the person you're responding to, but for me, I'd say I feel fine about that. There are people who find nudity in art o…

Objecting to unapproved grafitti is not about "is it art". it's about property destruction. If you disagree then I'll be happy to come over to your house and paint whatever "I want" on your house, your car, and TV, your computer, your sofa. If you'd be upset that I painted your stuff then you agree with the people who see it as property destruction. If you'd be upset for your own stuff but not when that stuff belongs…

there is a difference between public banksyification, and home invasion.

advertizers invade our homes, our bodies and our souls, the most sinister social engineering campaign yet.

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

#297

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#298

Post by DitheringIdiot »

IvanK_net wrote: post #244
detaro wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ad Lightning, Setupad, UniConsent, Adagio, ID5, Criteo, Magnite, RTB House, Casale Media, EMX Digital, Adform, Pubmatic, Between Digital, Lijit Networks, AppNexus, 33Across, Adx Premium, Sharethrough, Smart Adserver, OpenX, BRealTime, bumlam.com (couldn't find information about owner of this domain), BidSwitch, Getintent, Which one of those do you need to know usual screen resolutions of u…

I do not know a lot about the ad mechanism, which my partners use. But it usually works by contacting several servers and asking them "hey, there is someone visiting www.Photopea.com, probably from Canada, with a screen resolution of 1920x1080 pixels, how much would you pay for showing them your ad?" ... there is an auction, and the ad from the highest bidder is shown to you. The more servers take part in the auction…

The trackers in your site use cookies, and browser fingerprinting to create a profile of the visitors to your site, which combined with other data on the visitors is used to identify them personally.

That on its own should give you pause. But that data is then used by companies like Facebook or Google to allow the highest bidder to alter that users behaviour - by getting them to believe some propaganda, to vote for a political party, or to spend money on something they don’t need.

That’s the business model. That is how you make money on your site.

There are other ways of making money – I’m sure that had ad revenue not been available you would have found a different way.

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

#299

Post by PopAlongKid »

blackboxlogic wrote: post #290
snarfy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If my attention has value, then the exchange should be taxed.

This is true if it is a barter exchange (under U.S. tax law at least). However I have a hard time seeing this as a barter - what are you getting in exchange for your attention that has a positive fair market value?

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

#300

Post by squarefoot »

_dain_ wrote: post #284
blackhaz wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or painting flowers, which could indeed be treated as vandalism, but that way would also attract too much public attention to the cause, which is something the higher powers would avoid as much as possible.
Post reply on HN