141–150 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why aren't there rightwing outlets you can recommend that aren't overtly racist?
Because the best way to tell if someone is being true to their stance, is to see if they apply it to those they hate as they do to those they love.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> often includes malware. Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people. The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a lin…
> Can you define often? It doesn't matter. It could be 1 out of every million hits, but it's still a source of malware. Most of us don't upgrade to the latest browser version the minute it's released, which makes us vulnerable. > ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News Uhh... what are you talking about? HN has minimal JS, and they wrote it . Some ad networks are injecting JavaScript into your browser that…
It does matter, you used the word often, that word has a meaning.
> Uhh... what are you talking about? HN has minimal JS, and they wrote it. Some ad networks are injecting JavaScript into your browser that they have never seen before and didn't write themselves.
You never click on the article link? That page can be anything, thus include any JS.
> I get to choose where I'm going.
Thus you check every link before clicking on it? I feel like that's not the case, but I would applaud you to be consistent if you do.
> And with an ad blocker, you don't have to be as afraid to visit a malicious site.
Ad blockers only block ads, not malicious JS. If you visit a website which include malicious JS, it's just as bad as an ad that contains malicious JS.
> I have JS and ad blocking on by default
Blocking JS that's a good way to stop malicious JS. Blocking ads then is redundant, what does it give you more?
It's about time somebody tried this. $5/mo. is fair; I don't need a million sites to be in the catalog, but I would like a bit more variety eventually. People who complain about "modern journalism", take note. If this takes off, publications will be less incentivized to post those godawful clickbait articles that have soured the Internet reading experience. I'll read the Atlantic and Vox, but Buzzfeed is a no-no, unl…
> It's about time somebody tried this. I mean , isn't this essentially the idea behind patreon? You batch the micropayments payments into single transactions on the credit card network to reduce the marginal cost of the fixed fees? Didn't Google already do something similar with new subscriptions? Didn't flattr do this a decade ago? It's not a new idea, and as I ranted elsewhere, is only even required because of the…
I'd expect Mozilla to be more invested in the "pay with $, not ads" approach compared to Google. Mozilla owns Pocket, which has been relatively good at finding longreads type material on the net and rendering it in a reader-mode view, so I think they're a better cultural/philosophical fit.
I don't use Patreon. IIUC, you need to sign up to support different content providers individually. That's not what I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> often includes malware. Can you define often? It seems quite rare actually for a malware to be distributed online without user intervention, with the recent Firefox 0-day being one of theses cases and only touched a small proportion of people. The web is quite secure already and sure ads network is a good vector but so is Hacker News, Reddit and Facebook, which nobody cares about (have you ever not clicked on a lin…
When you visit a serious web site, like t-online.de or spiegel.de, with an up-to-date iPad and you're getting popups with porn or gambling offers that cannot be closed (they can, but reopen instantly), when you cannot use the back button anymore, and the only way to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... then you've caught malware f…
That's seems more like a browser issue, but none the less, any links on Hacker News could do the same.
I don't consider that malware to have to close an application, just like I don't consider a malware a link that rick roll me (which still force me to close a tab ;) unless I want to stay on Youtube).
> That's not what happens.
Aren't we talking about running malicious JS? Any link you click can contains malicious JS, yet you click on that link without thinking about it, but when it's an ad that may contains malicious JS, you block it altogether.
I don't understands really what you means by not what happens.
> Maybe you should contemplate the possibility that you're wrong.
I contemplate each time I'm discussing with someone about it. I still haven't got any evidence about it.
Each time I ask someone that does it for "security purpose", when they don't answer by "do your own research" (which I always try when they say that even if it's absurd to have nothing to defends yourself), the best example they always have is either link to some report with stats that doesn't define malware, or the Forbes case of when one of their ad was a fake Java update. If that's malware, then here we go, HN now serve malware too: Click on that URL to update Java: https://forbes.com
If we were arguing blocking Javascript for security purpose, now that does make sense (still pretty unlikely, but based on news, it seems to happen much more).
In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported. Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like: - Vox - The Atlantic - Buzzfeed - Gizmodo - Slate
There's just a button to get it. Well, I want to learn more before I commit to something, and I think others would too.
It's about time somebody tried this. $5/mo. is fair; I don't need a million sites to be in the catalog, but I would like a bit more variety eventually. People who complain about "modern journalism", take note. If this takes off, publications will be less incentivized to post those godawful clickbait articles that have soured the Internet reading experience. I'll read the Atlantic and Vox, but Buzzfeed is a no-no, unl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I want to pay as I go, at the rates ads pay. 50¢ per thousand pages sounds ok to me. You often get a ecpm of 50 cents? That seems quite awful, even more so from the US. It should be closer to 10x that.
In my experience, US$5/CPM is about right for general content focused on an industrialized market, but: 1) it’s based on page views where ads are rendered. So ad-blocked users aren’t in the denominator. 2) most of that revenue is driven by clicks, not ad views. So users like me, that rarely click on ads, ever, probably earn publishers about 50cents/cpm.
At the end of the day, if it cost them more than an ecpm of 0.50$ to produce that content (and I'm pretty sure it does, because most ad-based website never made ton of profit and that was the case even before adblocking became popular), than that just doesn't make sense either to have a price that low.
I have no interest in Firefox's initial selection, but I'd gladly pay a monthly subscription to a collection of my local news sites.
How do we go from 5 american "online magazines" to a global network? I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you visit a serious web site, like t-online.de or spiegel.de, with an up-to-date iPad and you're getting popups with porn or gambling offers that cannot be closed (they can, but reopen instantly), when you cannot use the back button anymore, and the only way to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... then you've caught malware f…
> to regain control of your browser is to either reboot the iPad (that's what many normal people do) or you force-close Safari... That's seems more like a browser issue, but none the less, any links on Hacker News could do the same. I don't consider that malware to have to close an application, just like I don't consider a malware a link that rick roll me (which still force me to close a tab ;) unless I want to stay…
That's not theoretical (like your "but HN could deliver malware, too), that's reality.