231–240 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is Safari. Or whatever is based on WebKit on Linux (there must be some...) GNOME Web/Epiphany (same thing) seems to use WebKit and is officially supported https://webkit.org/downloads/ https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/ It seems there is no WebKit browser for Windows.
No good adblocking for safari like in firefox though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High sales != quality. Maybe high sales ~= lowest common denominator?
High sales doesn't mean quality but it does reflect the choice of the majority. So if we were to move to a world where high quality productions were not feasible anymore for some reason or another then by definition most people would find this to be a problem.
Most "content" is "consumed" just to have something to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Y Combinator will continue to exist in a post-attention-economy world. They have proven themselves to be quite adaptable. That's not the question. Hacker News was used as an example of an old-school site that worked without monetisation. Which is clearly not the case.
Surely HN doesn't require the existence of YC as a startup accelerator to exist, right? HN has to me survived because of its community and shared values wrt discussion. The moderation probably plays a role in it, but that's also easily decoupled from big money.
Do you believe that users are going to pay to get access to HN?
Ditch Mozilla. Full stop. They are hand-in-hand with Google - Bought and paid for.
Where do you propose we go instead?
The first two are still fairly dependent on the upstream companies - but at least they're ripping out the junk - They are pragmatic solutions in the short term.
Ladybird is nicely independent in the sense that's truly one of the few offerings that isn't a derivative of Firefox/Chromium, but it's not "ready" yet for most daily uses.
But seriously - please don't fall for the Mozilla marketing that Firefox is some privacy beacon as an alternative to Chrome. It's marketing not reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Y Combinator will continue to exist in a post-attention-economy world. They have proven themselves to be quite adaptable. That's not the question. Hacker News was used as an example of an old-school site that worked without monetisation. Which is clearly not the case.
Surely HN doesn't require the existence of YC as a startup accelerator to exist, right? HN has to me survived because of its community and shared values wrt discussion. The moderation probably plays a role in it, but that's also easily decoupled from big money.
The only reason HN still persists at the scale that it does is precisely because of its association with YC and "tech bros," because the billion dollar venture capital firm running it has made it a part of their identity.
I recently switched to LibreWolf[0] and, after tweaking a few settings that were more zealous that I'd like, it has been just as good as vanilla FF. 0: https://librewolf.net/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely HN doesn't require the existence of YC as a startup accelerator to exist, right? HN has to me survived because of its community and shared values wrt discussion. The moderation probably plays a role in it, but that's also easily decoupled from big money.
> The moderation probably plays a role in it, but that's also easily decoupled from big money. Do you believe that users are going to pay to get access to HN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most importantly, advertisement is a business. It's not charity and it's not a publicly owned resource. It doesn't keep the Internet free, because it makes a boat load of money doing what it does. It doesn't take an expert understanding of economics to see that any belief that advertisement allows for a free Internet is smoke and mirrors. The money comes from somewhere, notably from you. Either advertisement works, a…
> It doesn't keep the Internet free There are two different definitions of free. Advertising keeps the internet free as in your don't have to pay for it. However there is also freedom and advertising doesn't help there at all.
Ads and the spying they depend on only trick you into thinking that you aren't paying for it when in reality, not only are you paying (often resulting with money coming out of your pocket) but you also never get to stop paying for it.
Once your data is out there, it will be used against you for the rest of your life. It never goes away.
It'll be passed around to advertisers, data brokers, law enforcement, lawyers, employers, insurance companies, scammers, retailers, and activists and year after year, decade after decade, every single person who gets their hands on your data will try to use it against you in any and every way that they feel will be to their benefit, and it will almost always be at your expense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't keep the Internet free There are two different definitions of free. Advertising keeps the internet free as in your don't have to pay for it. However there is also freedom and advertising doesn't help there at all.
That's the rub. You do pay for it. By the intention and definition of the business, advertisement eventually extracts money from you. It wouldn't be profitable otherwise. The fact that it happens more subtly and enables them to extract money from you in ways that you don't notice doesn't change the fact that it's still paid for. An advertisement funded Internet is still you paying for your content, it's just built so…