Hm... The element picker doesn't seem to work, and the default color-scheme is horrible. I don't see any way to change that. I like the premise though. Hopefully it will improve with time.
This is literally a link to the code :-)
AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
131–140 of 282 posts
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So at the end of the day there is still no viable alternative to advertising supported content. Yes there is. Many creators successfully support themselves entirely based on Patreon.
Patreon is not going to replace all of the advertising supported websites...
Good!
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding #3, I'm personally 100% against any online advertising in any form. So this punishes those who support it. Ditto for #2. As for #1, I'm not gaining anything, and no one is being deprived for their rights. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there? If anything prosecutors should start with the rampant fraud being committed by companies in the online advertising space before they even think about lo…
Micropayments have never worked well on the internet, not for technical problems, but likely more that the market isn't really there. I know I just want free stuff and I'm not going to pay to read a news article or blog post no matter how well written or researched. So at the end of the day there is still no viable alternative to advertising supported content. Kill advertising and you'll take the content with it, bec…
>imagine a world with no Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc
I would love that world. Of the things you listed the only one I have an account with is Twitter, and who knows how long that'll last.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#134I dislike ads as much as the next person (and indeed run uBlock on nearly every site), but I'd feel wrong using this because of the cost to the advertisers. It would be further lining the pockets of ad networks while increasing expenses for, at least in some cases, legitimate businesses. Sure, it's a bit of fighting fire with fire, but I'd rather not be an unnecessary expense for someone in my fight against intrusive…
I'm using it now precisely because of the cost to advertisers. They can all get fucked.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facts are these. If I connect to, say, port 80 on www.cnn.com and send some particular ASCII, then the machine on the other end will likely respond with some text. The owners of that machine invite these connections. I can then: pipe that to /dev/null; read it in a text editor; read it with a web browser; print it out; file it away somewhere. (There are of course other options.) So pray-tell, if my browser is `wg…
I didn't say I consider ad blockers morally wrong.
Ok.
"In breach of implied contract?"
"Failing to respect social mores?"
"Doin' the wrong thing?"
I'm vastly less interested in quibbling about word choice than the underlying concepts being discussed.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you are saying is that, simply by clicking a link, I become obliged to execute whatever piece of code is served to me on my machine or render any media on my display without knowing in advance what it contains? That is not how the web works, and that is not the social contract that it was built on. Sorry if it doesn't fit advertisers' needs, but that is really not my problem. Maybe advertisers and payed conte…
No, that isn't what I said at all.
What you said is not meaningfully different. You imply there is some implicit relationship between the person who clicks on a link and the person who made the content behind the link.
No such relationship exists.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say I consider ad blockers morally wrong.
Ok. "In breach of implied contract?" "Failing to respect social mores?" "Doin' the wrong thing?" I'm vastly less interested in quibbling about word choice than the underlying concepts being discussed.
I didn't imply any of that at all. I disputed their claim that they received no compensation for their attention.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're calling for a minimum income for them or suggesting they just do it as a side project(supplemented with a regular income). The fact is a lot of great content is expensive to produce.
Ah, I see the problem. Because I have suggested that content can be created as side projects or could be encouraged by a basic minimum income, you have made an inference that I do not understand the costs involved in making good content. I'm afraid to inform you that the facts you have stated do not contain sufficient information to make such an inference. You cannot know with any certainty based on these facts alone…
Saying they should do it for free or an unsustainable price(they need side jobs) does actually say that you don't understand the cost of good content.
You complain about the cost of your attention while suggesting people spend their time building free stuff for you.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that isn't what I said at all.
What you said is not meaningfully different. You imply there is some implicit relationship between the person who clicks on a link and the person who made the content behind the link. No such relationship exists.
There is a relationship though or else there would be no communication.
You want something, they have something. You communicate your desire and they provide you with something. That is a relationship.
Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data. What I do with that data isn't up to you . That includes viewing all, parts, or none of the information I received from your server. That especially includes deciding a…
>The foundation of the Web - the Hypertext Transfer Protocol - is that I request a piece of data from a given address, while also providing relevant information about my capabilities and media I'm willing to accept, and then you send me back that data. So Facebook says that the foundation of the web is sending data to the server (such as cookies) and receiving information back. Nowhere in the protocol does it say the…
> Ergo, tracking is perfectly legal and moral.
It is currently legal, but that doesn't imply that it's moral. Legality does not define morality.
> Nowhere in the HTTP protocol does it say not to send viruses.
Correct.
> Totally ethical and legal.
Sending a virus is patently unethical regardless of the transport mechanism. as for legality, see a lawyer about 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5).