81–90 of 119 posts
Where is the proof that this random IP has anything to do with The Pirate Bay?
There is a skull and cross-bones on the flag. I thought they used a cassette tape and cross-bones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads are part of a social contract you have with the publisher of the site.
Ads are a form of manipulation that somehow we have been convinced is acceptable for the mere act of reading.
As attempts at manipulation go, though, advertising is at least up front and overt about its intentions. Can anyone say the same about politics, the media, even Hacker News?
Where is the proof that this random IP has anything to do with The Pirate Bay?
In your console, enter: $ traceroute thepiratebay.se Wait until it's done, then compare the last IP with one given here.
What is actually "JyO7wNzc8xht47QKWohfDVj6Sc2qH+X5tBCT+uetocIJcjQnp/2f1ViEBR+tyOCz"? In the html source the file it is named aes.png Is it an aes key for something? Does anybody know?
It's the key to add in BitTorrent Sync. In this software, click settings, "enter a key" and then you will have some torrents that people share, but to my experience it was sh*t and not organized in folders etc. Maybe now it's better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think adblockers are immoral? Genuine question, not trying to stand on some moral high ground, just curious of your opinion, is all.
Kant's categorical imperative: > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. If everyone blocked ads the websites that rely on ad revenue would lose money and have to shut down. Sure, if only some of the users block ads they can probably survive, but someone had to see the ads. How do I justify that I get to block ads while others don't? That said, w…
> > Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
For what it's worth (and perhaps you intended it this way), this is a somewhat shallow application of the categorical imperative. There are other ways to justify using AdBlock (and in fact, condemn not using AdBlock) by means of the categorical imperative. For example: "If everyone uses AdBlock to prevent sleazy ads that can contain malware, then those ads will no longer have value, and they will cease to exist." If you think of AdBlock as a vaccine, then by the categorical imperative, it's necessary to vaccinate everyone[0].
Or, "If everyone uses AdBlock, then websites will have to invent monetization tactics that don't involve auctioning off its user's eyeballs and privacy". If you consider ads to be an intrusion and invasion of privacy, then killing the ad-supported model could actually be a good thing.
I don't really want to get into a debate on adblockers in general, because the topic has been beaten to death on HN before, but I just felt compelled[1] to make this note about the categorical imperative for the sake of others reading this.
[0] This is also a somewhat simplistic reduction, but you get the idea.
[1] (Yes, that's a Kant pun)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think adblockers are immoral? Genuine question, not trying to stand on some moral high ground, just curious of your opinion, is all.
Ads are part of a social contract you have with the publisher of the site.
But, in my opinion of course, I don't think it's 'immoral' to block ads and stop their revenue if you don't care about it, we should have the ability to block domains right? The question is whether or not it's right to do so, if I'm thinking correctly. But believe it or not, I'm actually quite new to this 'debate'(?), just my first raw thoughts on this. I guess it's probably not as simple as what I just said..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think adblockers are immoral? Genuine question, not trying to stand on some moral high ground, just curious of your opinion, is all.
This debate has been done to death on HN but the short version is that people who use ad blockers are essentially freeloading on people who don't block them. For many websites, no ads = no revenue = no content/service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ads are a form of manipulation that somehow we have been convinced is acceptable for the mere act of reading.
Almost every form of communication between people is an attempt at manipulation. For instance, your comment is attempting to manipulate people into seeing advertising is a form of brainwashing. As attempts at manipulation go, though, advertising is at least up front and overt about its intentions. Can anyone say the same about politics, the media, even Hacker News?
I am not, I hope, spreading falsehoods. I'm certainly not preying on your innate desires for food or sex. I'm not installing malware on your computer. I'm not building a profile of your interests. I'm not autoplaying a video if you mouseover this comment!
For the record, I am perfectly happy with ads that are just the name of the product and a static picture (a la the Deck).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think adblockers are immoral? Genuine question, not trying to stand on some moral high ground, just curious of your opinion, is all.
This debate has been done to death on HN but the short version is that people who use ad blockers are essentially freeloading on people who don't block them. For many websites, no ads = no revenue = no content/service.