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

Kenneth Anger has died

dangerousminds.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#21

Post by johnchristopher »

dihdif wrote: post #19
TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

> What entitles you to run one?

Trauma from GIF and tags from the 90s. Resulted in low tolerance to ads and a strong aversion to taking the risk to disable adblockers.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#22

Post by rjbwork »

dihdif wrote: post #19
TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

>What entitles you to run one?

Operating a client which can choose how to display the content it receives. That's the entire point of a distributed network operated on standards and heterogeneous clients and servers, rather than a monolithic purpose-built application.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#23

Post by prvc »

Simple past in the headline might be more appropriate ("died" instead of "has died"), since the event took place on May 11, 2023 (the better part of a month ago).

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#24

Post by hoistbypetard »

dihdif wrote: post #19
TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

Their blackout caught me, and I don't run any ad blockers. I only block things that attempt to track me. They can show me all the ads they want as long as my browser doesn't find an attempt to track me.

Quite apart from that, connecting to their site does not obligate me to display everything they try to send in exactly the way they want me to see it. My web client can display things however I want it to. Because it's mine. And I tell it what to do. They're entitled to control what they send me.

They're not entitled to control how my client displays that.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#25

Post by masfuerte »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

The website works fine with javascript disabled. And there are no ads.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#26

Post by jemmyw »

dihdif wrote: post #19
TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

> What entitles you to run one?

That's the wrong question. If you have a webserver openly transmitting html to anyone that connects then what entities YOU to dictate how that is interpreted? The answer is nothing. I have the content and I'm not required lawfully, or even imo morally, to also execute any accompanying JavaScript, regardless of what it does.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#28

Post by yosamino »

dihdif wrote: post #19
TheRealPomax wrote: post #18

Can't say I'm a fan of the whole "blacking out the website because someone's running adblock" though. Adblock is how modern browsers work because it turns out the internet couldn't be trusted to responsibly run them. Blacking out a site until someone turns them off is a literal dark pattern.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific.

Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it.

Me looking at an ad does not help sell any products.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#29

Post by mrtranscendence »

yosamino wrote: post #28
dihdif wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a site is ad-supported, they should be free to apply any policy they want to control potential revenue loss due to adblockers. Running an adblocker is literally a "free rider" strategy. I've been online since the 90s and have never felt the need to do it. I probably have a high tolerance for unwanted ads, but that's the luck of the draw. What entitles you to run one?

I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific. Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it. Me looking at an ad does not help sell any produ…

On the other hand, if the probability that you'll purchase something from an ad really is precisely zero, then the site would be better off blocking you entirely than serving you any traffic.

Re: Kenneth Anger has died

#30

Post by dbalatero »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #29
yosamino wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never by anything from an ad - by running an adblocker I am *helping* the site I am visiting by making their targeting more specific. Someone paying $20 for an ad trying to sell me a product, will be happy that their ad is not served to me -I am not going to buy their product in the first place, their money is better spent advertizing to people who might buy it. Me looking at an ad does not help sell any produ…

On the other hand, if the probability that you'll purchase something from an ad really is precisely zero, then the site would be better off blocking you entirely than serving you any traffic.

What if they share the same link with friends that do buy something off the ad?
Post reply on HN