Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome, 10 Years Later

neugierig.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#101

Post by LunaSea »

traverseda wrote: post #97
LunaSea wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the article wouldn't have been written without the ads.

I'm okay with that. I can't help but think the internet was better when it was mostly unpaid hobbyists and personal blogs without commercial interests. The problem is that people are using their ad budget to compete with free content, but the free content is still going to be there it will just appear higher up in the search results if various bad actors aren't paying for a bunch of SEO.

> but the free content is still going to be there

Debatable.

For tech content this might be true but for general news, investigative journalism, reporters, etc. that probably won't be the case as the activity itself implies fixed costs.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#102

Post by erfgh »

rakoo wrote: post #85
xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

The quote also perpetuates the free market myth: every actor is on an equal foot, has infinite amounts of time and energy to consider options, the alternatives exist and/or are essentially free to build, and money is not a problem. That's never been true. Somehow, there is no environment, no society at large, no inequality. I understand how someone living in the richest country working for the richest company could f…

That's not what a free market is. A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state. Stop perpetuating this strawman please.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#103

Post by kaba0 »

erfgh wrote: post #102
rakoo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote also perpetuates the free market myth: every actor is on an equal foot, has infinite amounts of time and energy to consider options, the alternatives exist and/or are essentially free to build, and money is not a problem. That's never been true. Somehow, there is no environment, no society at large, no inequality. I understand how someone living in the richest country working for the richest company could f…

That's not what a free market is. A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state. Stop perpetuating this strawman please.

> A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state

No, a free market explicitly applies only to well-regulated markets, as per the very creator of the word. It doesn’t matter what regulates the market, but for all practical purposes it will be the government(s). And this is the reason why European markets are often “more free” per several metrics.

A good analogy to this topic would be sport competitions. A free market is a fair, say running, race. But an anticompetitive/too large company exerting its power in different segments would be akin to someone tying the other racer’s shoes together (but I wouldn’t put past the analogy even shooting the others)

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#104

Post by dsabanin »

roenxi wrote: post #50
tppiotrowski wrote: post #14

> History will surely uncover a Machiavellian plot about usurping control over the web, but at the time the story was pretty simple, at least as it was explained to naive pawns like me. Google wanted the web to succeed and even had a team of people contributing to Firefox. Google wanted more influence over the product, Mozilla was (reasonably) uncomfortable with that, so we went our own way. This resonates with me. O…

People are trying to anthropomorphise companies and that isn't a sensible way to understand them. The list of people who have your interests at heart: * You (some caveats). * Maybe your family (lots of caveats). As Stallman has been pointing out since the early 1990s, if you give up your freedom you won't be free any more, and other people can do stuff you don't like to you. People still refuse to use that logic desp…

I think company can care about certain interests of yours, if you are aligned. That’s why you want to work for a good one. Companies are made out of people and at least some people there care.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#105

Post by concordDance »

SalimoS wrote: post #60
tgvaughan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)

The way i see it (an example) you as a user want to read a story that i wrote in my website but when you request it i'm embedding an ad with the story, it's my right to embed the ad and not showing what i wrote without it and it's your right to not open the website it's not perfect, im using an ad blocker and i can't understand how people can surf the internet without one but hopefully we can find a solution the chan…

You include ads in the hope people will look at them, but there is no obligation to do so. Their eyes can just flick down and ignore the ad or they can configure their browser to do this automatically.

If you want money reliably you need to explicitly ask for it.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#106

Post by concordDance »

LunaSea wrote: post #100
bmn__ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's false. Perhaps the author would not have bothered to write the article without securing economic compensation of some form, but advertisement is not the only possibility.

That is incorrect. Most people don't pay for content. You can see how well donation links work on content sites and open source projects for proof.

Most people do pay. E.g. Netflix or whatever.

I personally pay $50/month on Patreon to various makers.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#107

Post by [deleted] »

jbirer wrote: post #98

I will always support Chrome over Firefox because they are not politicizing their project, they just serve you and leave the politics to politicians. They earned their market dominance for being great and supporting things that Firefox did not at the time. I am OK with monopolies of good products, I don't really care about using an inferior product for the sake of lack of monopolies.

[deleted]

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#108

Post by makeitdouble »

erfgh wrote: post #102
rakoo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote also perpetuates the free market myth: every actor is on an equal foot, has infinite amounts of time and energy to consider options, the alternatives exist and/or are essentially free to build, and money is not a problem. That's never been true. Somehow, there is no environment, no society at large, no inequality. I understand how someone living in the richest country working for the richest company could f…

That's not what a free market is. A free market is merely one that is not regulated by the state. Stop perpetuating this strawman please.

But that doesn't exist either, as the state sets the rules for businesses (what tarrifs apply on which goods, what property is protected, what barrier are set for entry, etc.) and is also potentially a major client of the market, deciding which services is chosen based on state's own criteria.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#109

Post by encryptluks2 »

sanxiyn wrote: post #54
encryptluks2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that they've made questionable decisions, but if an extension is clicking on ads in the background wouldn't that be considered a violation of their ToS for related products that they control.. essentially, a way to game ad revenue? If someone released an extension to silently DDoS ad organizations in the background, even if the user was aware of the purpose, then I'd imagine it would still be against their To…

As far as I know, AdNauseam is not against relevant Google ToS and no ToS term was ever cited.

If it does as you say then at least in the United States it may actually be considered a form of fraud. By clicking an ad that you've hidden, you're essentially telling the advertiser to pay for something you didn't even see.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#110

Post by LightHugger »

jbirer wrote: post #98

I will always support Chrome over Firefox because they are not politicizing their project, they just serve you and leave the politics to politicians. They earned their market dominance for being great and supporting things that Firefox did not at the time. I am OK with monopolies of good products, I don't really care about using an inferior product for the sake of lack of monopolies.

by default, chrome is scanning your whole computer and uploading that information to google under the guise of chrome now being an antivirus too (hilarious excuse). enjoy!
Post reply on HN