21–30 of 74 posts
Content creators can choose some high limit. But users can set a global value, or install an "ad diet" plugin to pick and choose.
Content creator can post a div to complain, "Aw c'mon, give my ad buddies more than 100 measly cycles. I gotta eat!"
Better than being blocked outright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.
The point is that the reason you feel the need to immediately block ads is because of how they have been abused and pushed to further and further absurdity over the years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.
Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? I'd be okay with increasing taxes to cover it, or using a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) and requiring people seek "Internet commissioners" like we have for Television[1], [2]. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning Another option is micropayments…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? I'd be okay with increasing taxes to cover it, or using a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) and requiring people seek "Internet commissioners" like we have for Television[1], [2]. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning Another option is micropayments…
> Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? Direct support from the public would make sense, this is already at work, to some extent. The problem with this is that people are already so used to free that it may be difficult to implement. A license system would be a good idea. It is still far off, but authors associations are working on this in some countries.
Re the reference to Vectuary. Here's the decision:[1] They sell an add-on for apps which snoops on the user's location and sends it to them for advertising purposes. The French data privacy regulator said that required Vecturary to get explicit user consent. But Vectuary has no customer interaction of their own. They claimed to rely on some chain of consent from some other party, but couldn't prove they actually had…
I wonder where the line is. My helper Android library that obtains an IP? What determines proof of consent by your downstream customers? I'd say there is loss when a company that is legitimately using data, with user's consent, has to in-house all the work because the middleman software industry was chilled (not saying that is the case here). Can't the same effect be gained by enforcing the laws on the ones breaking them against their direct users?
Some may cheer this specific ruling because they don't like that company, and again this is a knee-jerk comment before I've studied, but shouldn't we in general be cautious of this type of upstream liability? I didn't give Android explicit informed consent to send this data, can Samsung be liable? Obviously a stretched analogy, but it's important to review general b2b implications of such approaches. I know, I know, don't break the law (however defined) and you don't have anything to worry about is the micro-level view. At a macro level, stifling kinds of business and funding you never intended to does happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.
Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? I'd be okay with increasing taxes to cover it, or using a UK-style TV license (Internet Publishing License anyone?) and requiring people seek "Internet commissioners" like we have for Television[1], [2]. [1]: http://www.pbs.org/about/producing-pbs/proposal-process/ [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning Another option is micropayments…
Those people like creating and delivering content to others for free. They are happy to lose their own money in exchange for the product they like (an audience consuming their content). Just like I am happy to lose money to reserve a spot in my recreational basketball league. I don’t also let tennis shoe brands bid on the logo of the t-shirt I’ll wear.
I think the problem is that we have this idea that someone should be paid for content. But I don’t agree.
If they want to be paid for it, that’s totally fine too and they can charge a paywall, ask for donations, or attach ads, etc. However, plenty of other people write better stories, give away better paintings, generate better games or videos, share better poems or summaries of world news or published research or opinion articles — all without expecting any type of payment or earnings to come from their efforts or costs to make and distribute it.
The lone aspect of this I think might not be fully sustained just as people’s voluntary recreational pursuits is the upfront capital required to fund some types of investigative journalism and provide legal protection to journalists. That part makes sense to me as a subscription cost for consuming from centralized news organizations, and if those orgs run out of money, it’s a reflection that society doesn’t value the journalism compared with recreational journalists happy to generate the content without compensation.
I personally want to pay so that journalism can be thoroughly investigative and not captured by bad state actors or bad corporate actors. But that’s just my opinion... one that most humans in my country don’t seem to share, resulting in market conditions where for-pay journalism can only be sustained by a very small number of groups.
Ad companies got caught putting their hand in the cookie jar and people have had enough. There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web, but it got abused, with tracking going too far and ad companies constantly trying to defeat privacy-protecting features. They have no one to blame but themselves.
> There's nothing wrong with an ad supported web I very much disagree with this statement. I simply can't stand ads in my internet and uBlock Origin is the first thing I install in a fresh browser. I can't fathom browsing the web without it anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who do you think should sponsor the creation of arts and the publication of news? Direct support from the public would make sense, this is already at work, to some extent. The problem with this is that people are already so used to free that it may be difficult to implement. A license system would be a good idea. It is still far off, but authors associations are working on this in some countries.
Maybe we need arts and journalism to step up the game again, so good content is missed from the mainstream needing to be supported directly. Maybe most current art and journalism online won't be missed at all.
Likely they wouldn't be missed. Perhaps we would also realize that enabling everyone to become a publisher was a mistake.