161–170 of 259 posts
I definitely am not interested in subscribing separately to (e.g.) Wired, the NY Times, the Economist, WSJ, the New Yorker, etc. But I think I'd be totally down for a single rate that gave me ad-free access to some or all of those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is within their (the website) responsibility to ensure that ads and/or content should not cause harm to a visitor. I don't think that's been established. With the current state of advertising on the internet, it's not even possible to do this. In general, websites use advertising networks which do not allow them to proactively vet the content. Even if they did, no amount of vetting can guarantee the content is b…
>exploits in image parsers, font parsers, video parsers, audio parsers, etc. come out fairly often. Exploits in jpg/png are very rare. At worst, all you have to do is make the ad network [re]compress the image.
A major security issue with probably the most popular automated image processing toolkit in existence came to light just the other day. That particular one would be used for attacking servers, but there have been client-side vulnerabilities in other common resources such as fonts before too. Assuming that just because a format is common the software processing it won't introduce any vulnerabilities is not a great idea.
In any case, the relative rarity isn't really the point. Either it's ethically and/or legally correct to assign blame for malicious advertising to the final host site that the user actually visits, or it isn't. That's the principle we're really debating, and the rest is just a degree of risk.
Have media companies ever considered something like the cable TV model? I'm thinking something like ten different sites form a network, and readers pay once (on a subscription basis) for access to the whole network instead of paying each site separately. I definitely am not interested in subscribing separately to (e.g.) Wired, the NY Times, the Economist, WSJ, the New Yorker, etc. But I think I'd be totally down for…
It costs ~4.5 USD a month, so ~2-3 hours of an entry level supermarket position pay. I don't know anyone who subscribes.
The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…
"In any case since the sites are still able to use curated self hosted ads (ie not JavaScript redirects to externally hosted providers) they are able to sell static ad space to make money even with adblockers enabled." Ad blockers don't just block external ads, they use CSS rules to block internal ads as well. So the only way to avoid ad blockers is to make advertisement completely indistinguishable from content. Ima…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>exploits in image parsers, font parsers, video parsers, audio parsers, etc. come out fairly often. Exploits in jpg/png are very rare. At worst, all you have to do is make the ad network [re]compress the image.
Exploits in jpg/png are very rare. A major security issue with probably the most popular automated image processing toolkit in existence came to light just the other day. That particular one would be used for attacking servers, but there have been client-side vulnerabilities in other common resources such as fonts before too. Assuming that just because a format is common the software processing it won't introduce any…
Because of all the weird formats it supports. That's why I said jpg/png, not 'images'. Any software that supports 200 formats probably has severe bugs on the rare ones. Doesn't matter for making a secure image server where you can dictate the format.
>In any case, the relative rarity isn't really the point. Either it's ethically and/or legally correct to assign blame for malicious advertising to the final host site that the user actually visits, or it isn't. That's the principle we're really debating, and the rest is just a degree of risk.
Whether they are being negligent is relevant. Allowing known-risky formats that keep failing over and over is negligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…
> At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM prices. So, don't d…
I think calling this an ethical issue is quite a stretch. In many cases, we're talking about visitors who are not only enjoying the content from someone else's site completely for free, but also employing tools that actively modify the intended presentation of that content to the detriment of the host site's operators. And now you're saying that not only should the site operators make their content freely available and accept that some visitors will circumvent possibly the only way they have of generating revenue, those operators should also be actively responsible for vetting any third party content they incorporate within their site in case the third party is hostile and those visitors know enough to run ad-blockers but not enough to run anti-virus software? That seems a very short-sighted and one-sided position, entirely in favour of the party who isn't actually contributing anything in this scenario, and I see no ethical basis for that.
Edit: For those who are downvoting, please consider that I did not disagree with the original premise I quoted. Obviously unethical business models are still unethical even if the ethical ones are inconvenient.
What I'm asking is why we should consider it an ethical requirement for someone who is already generously offering their content for free and accepting that a significant fraction of visitors will circumvent their intended ad-funded model to also go to unrealistic lengths to vet any third party content they include for safety against arbitrary unknown threats that could change at any time without notice, all for the benefit of a visitor who is offering them nothing. I'm not sure whether someone operating a web site really owes their visitors anything in this scenario, other than perhaps a basic "good citizen" principle of not negligently serving up malicious content, and I don't see how operating within the same infrastructure as a huge number of other web sites could reasonably be considered negligent in this respect.
Unless you think we should also close down all third party CDNs, image hosting services, caching services, web font services, and so on, the web is fundamentally a linked medium where sites can usefully be built by combining resources from other services, and naturally those other services will retain control of what they are hosting themselves. Making Joe Blogger responsible if some massive service's CDN version of jQuery got hacked doesn't seem like a good way to encourage Joe Blogger to spend their time sharing their writing with the rest of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.
The first response should have been people install link removers to sites with invasive ads and paywalls. Ill-behaved sites would change a lot quicker if they knew lots of people weren't even seeing/posting links to them. Something like that would effectively remove junk from a users entire internet experience. A natural search result to wsj.com wouldn't appear, a link in a web based email reader wouldn't appear, a l…
It's already at a point where I have to add Anti-Adblock Killer to prevent them from turning off ad blockers. Please don't ask to make it worse.
Same should go for HN, really. Paywalls and adwalls are a great way to make me not even read the article and thread. Yet, they make frontpage due to buzz.
How do you propose content producers earn their income, if you think neither ads nor paywalls are acceptable?
Paywalls are also fine. Content producers choice. It's (un-annotated) links to paywalled content that is annoying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you use YouTube while logged in? In my experience, the content recommendation on YouTube is the best. I've been learning about electronics and watching a few videos about it. Now YouTube recommends me new content and channels that are extremely relevant. My brother is into guitars, and his frontpage is all about that.
They're not great. About 40% of the recommendations are things I'd never watch, 40% are things I've already watched. YT has trouble figuring me out because I watch a lot of gamers that also appeal to a younger audience (eg Yogscast). I get recommended a lot of terrible stuff targeted at that audience that I have no interest in (eg PewDiePie and Markiplier). I have no idea why they recommend stuff I've already watched…
I learned about the deck from daringfireball.