11–20 of 288 posts
It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
Without a proper log payment disputes can't be resolved legally.
The hard truth is someone has to pay for content in the end. It's either ads or some kind of paywall or micropayment. It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.
My concern, however, is Mozilla putting themselves in the position of making that judgement for their users. Even if we agree that this isn't a good addon, does that mean it's fine for it to be censored by Mozilla?
The hard truth is someone has to pay for content in the end. It's either ads or some kind of paywall or micropayment. It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
I believe this is the idea behind the Brave browser and their Basic Attention Token https://basicattentiontoken.org
If you don't want to see ads then fine it's your computer.
But Brave is hijacking ads by force then strong-arming websites to sign up to their own shitty crypto currency if they want to be paid. It's basically an extortion scheme, or a mafia stye "protection scheme"
The hard truth is someone has to pay for content in the end. It's either ads or some kind of paywall or micropayment. It's okay to say no to ads, but then we shouldn't circumvent paywalls. Free content is free only as long as someone somehow still pays for it.
Publishers should take some basic control of the ads on their site, just like it used to be with newspapers and broadcast. Serve them from their own domain, restrict their format (no moving parts or sound, no Javascript at all), vet them for basic decency before publishing. My uBlock Origin setup wouldn't block that.
What you say may work for big news portals and stuff, but if this becomes the norm then it will kill the small publishers resulting in further concentration of net content in the hands of the big guys.
So this direction would hurt the little guys and help the big guys, because they have the resources to adapt.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
publishers don’t like micropayments because (a) they don’t work, and (b) what people read doesn’t correlate with what’s important. It becomes a lot harder for journalists to justify spending months on a subject when the business side has hard data showing it brings in barely more than reprinting the soccer scores. What’s potentially workable is a Spotify-style subscription model.
What people read does correlate with what's important for them, by definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
publishers don’t like micropayments because (a) they don’t work, and (b) what people read doesn’t correlate with what’s important. It becomes a lot harder for journalists to justify spending months on a subject when the business side has hard data showing it brings in barely more than reprinting the soccer scores. What’s potentially workable is a Spotify-style subscription model.
> what people read doesn’t correlate with what’s important What people read does correlate with what's important for them, by definition.
If doing my taxes were as exciting as my reading list I would get much more out of my paycheck.