Live data from Hacker News

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

bearbin.net

561–570 of 633 posts

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

#561
post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How accurate did you get? Are frame-to-frame probabilities pretty independent? I wonder if you can hit some arbitrary threshold by implementing something like "n frames in a row."

The time series of frame probabilities is of course highly autocorrelated, but I never bothered to model that due to lack of interest. From memory, a simple single-frame classifier was >95% accurate (this was quite a few years ago, mind you). In my small-sample and not very rigorous testing, this was higher than human rates. Turns out that on average it's pretty hard to tell an ad from content just by looking at the…

I don't know much about TV broadcasting, so sorry if this is dumb, but what's a segment length? I assume it is either: lengths of a particular shot, or (probably more likely) it is some extra information that is broadcast with the TV signal about how long a chunk of broadcast is?

I like the idea of looking at pixels, just because that's the sort of info that gets sent down the HDMI cable and will always be available.

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

#562
post #383

Ad based services have empowered the poor at the expense of the rich who would gladly pay more to hide ads where the poor gladly trade ads for free or reduced price services. If getting rid of ads means the poor will be worse off why do so many well intentioned people support this position?

Have any examples of ads benefiting poor people? This is the first time ive ever heard anyone make an statement like this and its really blowing my mind that people think this.

I like to take a look at the entire picture.

If google, facebook, instagram, youtube required a 7 dollar a month subscription you would cut access to the poor. A netflix subscription in india is a dollar but even at that price it shuts out people and most don't use it.

You are being targeted and identified because people will pay more to show ads to you compared to a poor person. You will get ads poor people won't. The fact that you are willing to allow ads means you end up paying for that poor person's usage. If all rich users decide to adblock the company will be forced to go to a pay model that will shut out the poor.

For the richer users it may be in your best interest to pay. For poor users who cannot afford to pay, don't have a credit card, etc ads are in their best interest.

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

#563
post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the same about anything on the road that isn't specifically for safety/traffic shaping. > They're not planted to catch your attention in ANNOYING ways. Even some of traffic shaping signage are specifically designed to be that way. More importantly, this is about a freedom of expression. If I want to yell about my fruit farm or hold a sign for your product; is that different? How does the freedom to expres…

Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. And, on top of that, a driver doesn't have the freedom to completely ignore the expression (not yet). I can ignore some yelling fellow on a market (never liked that annoying, noisy shit either btw) with noisecancelling earplugs. One can't drive with a blindfold. I'm sure there is go…

If you can be materially distracted from driving by a banner on the side of the road, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

If you are annoyed by a passive banner on the side of a road, then I wonder if you must be annoyed by someone saying Hi passing by. Noisy shit, eh?

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

#564
post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the same about anything on the road that isn't specifically for safety/traffic shaping. > They're not planted to catch your attention in ANNOYING ways. Even some of traffic shaping signage are specifically designed to be that way. More importantly, this is about a freedom of expression. If I want to yell about my fruit farm or hold a sign for your product; is that different? How does the freedom to expres…

Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers. Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road. And, on top of that, a driver doesn't have the freedom to completely ignore the expression (not yet). I can ignore some yelling fellow on a market (never liked that annoying, noisy shit either btw) with noisecancelling earplugs. One can't drive with a blindfold. I'm sure there is go…

> Safety on the road is more important that the freedom to annoy drivers.

That wasn't the point, although you are tacitly advancing the idea that annoying signage is acceptable whenever you think it's fine AND what you "watch" is voluntary. You're halfway there. There's not much to be gained from logically stepping you through it.

> Also, you can express yourself elsewhere instead of on the road.

Given the kind of answers you are providing, I don't think you've thought any of these things through. GL with whatever.

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

#565
post #468
post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a consequence your website makes no money. At that point why run the website at all? Many European websites are now proposing users to either accept cookies or buy a subscription to the website. This looks like a very sane way to address the problem to me. > You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear.

>Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear. This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed.

> This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed.

The same could be said about outlawing slavery. Before you scream at me, let me take a step back: of course ad-tech is by far not as horribly bad as slavery. Still the practices they established in the last decades are a violation of human rights, in the european interpretation. They track and profile humans online to a level no private investigator could do offline. And we are at the beginning of what is possible: people place network active microphones and cameras in their homes or carry them around all day. Devices they no longer control, since "no root for consumers" became a security feature. Public spaces are increasingly surveilled by networked cameras, physical advertisements in public spaces and private businesses track wireless signals of nearby phones. Privatized mass surveillance became the norm in cyberspace and the same is happening in meatspace as well. And at the same time the algorithms that guess which content best manipulates individual people into buying, voting or believing something are getting better fast and are deployed at scale.

We are at a crossroads of how society will develop, and this mentality that corporations can collect and use personal data however they like (and they like to manipulate people) is no longer acceptable. And if these corporations weren't creepy enough with their systematic stalking, governments lean more and more towards also using that data. As long as the government promises it is "just for fighting crime" people are somewhat consenting, but on the territory of my country we had two totalitarian regimes in the last century that abused data gathering at scale to identify and oppress their political opposition, to terrorize and murder them. Horrors like the STASI must never happen again. Say no to surveillance capitalism while you still can, demand a constitutional right to the protection of personal data now! Because the freedom of governments and corporations must be limited, so the freedom of the people is preserved.

The market must change, it is necessary. What we want is that you can take your smartphone and tell it that it is ok if it connects to the supermarkets augmented reality and every ad-space you walk by becomes a personalized experience, if that is your choice. That is your freedom. Don't let the ad-provider of the supermarket make that choice for you. Don't let someone tell you that freedom means you could choose to not go to the supermarket and instead grow potatos in your one room flat. That is bullshit. Fuck that free market, give us free people.

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

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making an argument here, that the other person didn't make an argument; that means you were applying logic. Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). You can extend that logic to say that you "can" abuse humans. But your logic totally misses societa…

Sorry to say, you have failed to comprehend the thread. > Your logic is that there's nothing stopping you from breaking societal norms and doing whatever you have the physical capability to do. Therefore, you can destroy property you don't like (advertisements). Who said anything about "societal norms"? You are just inventing things. You invent an appeal to social norms, then you invent a reply to it. In fact, all I…

> Who said anything about "societal norms"?

The parent comment, by context, was inferring from societal norms. You yourself now say you pointed out how there is "no justification was even given for a claim." That means you are ignoring the parent comments context, which is societal norms. The justification is implied to be societally defined normal behavior. You can ask anyone why they shouldn't steal - it would be related to societal norms / morals. But then your answer, by analogy, would be to discard those arguments.

> I didn't make any logical response to the non-argument (which wouldn't make sense to even try), instead I made a meta-response ABOUT the fact of non-argument.

The assertion that it was a non-argument is based on the rejection of its context.

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

#568
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you sign up for a store loyalty card, there's usually a form you fill out and sign. That's your "cookie consent".

I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those.

>I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those.

I believe +1 (202) 456-1414 is the number[0] you want to use.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/

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

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An archive of the company behind that tech [1], has this to say: > Each car radio sends out a signal at a frequency higher than the one it is receiving from the radio station. When a car passes by one of the MobilTrak sensors, the sensor picks up on the signal to determine what the driver is listening to on the radio And US6813475B1 seems to be the patent behind the tech. If they ever really could find that sort of s…

> Each car radio sends out a signal at a frequency higher than the one it is receiving from the radio station. Why would it do that? I thought car radios were merely receivers, not transmitters. This is insane...

Check this out: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&ht...

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

#570
post #7

But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day. There is no analogy to interstitial pages with ads like in Forbes some time ago with the button Continue to your article: it would be infuriating if you had to view an ad before being able to use the subway ticketing system. You also don’t have ads on at the airport timetable screen. You don’t have pinkertons following you to learn your habits and sho…

But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day.

They do, in a suffuse, incremental but no less inexorable manner, in fact make "that place", "out there" -- meaning the city in which I live -- all the more uninviting and inhospitable.

Like I don't even own the backs of my own eyeballs.

Post reply on HN