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

UBlock Origin

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#271

Post by manigandham »

bobajeff wrote: post #48
fridek wrote: post #35

Honest question - what business model for free content do you see other than ads? I understand all the privacy and distraction issues related, but increasingly many news sites I read feature only paid content. I suppose it's connected to the rise of ad blocking. At the moment I'm not hosting any content of such kind myself, but I wanted to publish a game and I'm facing the same question. Should I sell my soul to the…

If you only see a choice between "Free to Play" or hosting Ads then you have a problem greater than choosing your business model. You don't value your work enough to consider it valuable enough to pay for outright. First, ponder why that is, then address that issue.

I dont think OP's question was serious, there really isnt any other business model. And how is saying there are more important things to be worried about giving an answer to his question? Obviously not everything is worth an upfront payment and sometimes freemium is the best way to gain users and sales. Why is that somehow an "issue"?

Re: UBlock Origin

#273

Post by jedberg »

tho9Ohx1eo wrote: post #212
jedberg wrote: post #151

If people who made ad blockers were ethical, they would make their software easily detectable by the websites, so those websites could choose not to service those users.

If people who run ads were ethical users wouldn't resort to ad blockers. See how easy that was? It's called bullshit logic.

Except that the people who are running the ads aren't hiding that fact. The people blocking them and stealing service are trying to hide behind their ad blocker.

Re: UBlock Origin

#274

Post by jedberg »

baddox wrote: post #203
jedberg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you run a website, you have two choices: spend a bunch of time implementing log analysis and paying for all the storage necessary, or using GA, which already exists and is free. If log analytics isn't my core business, why should I spend time implementing it?

If those are your only two choices, then you'll presumably choose the better of the two, right? So what exactly is the problem?

Depends on what variable you're optimizing for. If you're optimizing for cost, then you're right, the choice is clear.

Re: UBlock Origin

#275

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #268
kbenson wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only follows if you believe that viewing an advertisement is a discrete event with a discrete outcome, and has no outcome on future actions. Considering how much advertisement happens when you aren't in a position to immediately buy something, and how much research has gone into advertising and human perception, I don't believe that. Brand recognition works, at least in a lot of cases. But that doesn't even matt…

> I believe you agreed to a trade It sounds like this is our fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that requesting an HTML resource is an agreement to load all external resources and execute all JavaScript referenced in that HTML. I submit the request, and the remote server returns some HTML. In my view, that is a complete interaction with no unfulfilled obligations. According to your argument, I am not within m…

So how does it affect your argument if the page was returned in it's entirety with all content inlined? If the ad-blocker could detect ads through some heuristic that was accurate enough, would that then change your view on its use? At that point you would be presented a singular resource. Is that enough to change your thoughts on what is acceptable? I suspect we are getting closer to the specific place where our beliefs and assumptions mismatch, but I'm not sure we've found it quite yet.

Re: UBlock Origin

#276

Post by Menerve »

tzs wrote: post #173

Is there a good ad blocker that can be set to NOT block by default, and that provides an easy, one button or so, interface to turn blocking on for the site currently being viewed? I want to operate under a policy of giving new sites I visit a chance to show me that they can advertise responsibly and blacklist them if they show that the cannot. All the ones I've tried so far (AB, ABP, uBlock) are strongly oriented tow…

I just found out how to do this exact thing with uBlock today, take a look at: https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filterin...

It's not as easy as AdBlock but that's not too complicated when you understand how it works.

It seems that they changed the ordering of columns in the last versions (the global column is the second, not the first).

Re: UBlock Origin

#277

Post by chc »

manigandham wrote: post #270
chc wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paywalls don't specifically block people who block ads. They're a completely different revenue strategy.

That was my point, there's no way to perfectly stop adblockers since they are part of the client. The only way to stop them is to paywall, which will start to become more common.

I think you might have lost track of the conversation. Paywalls were already suggested, and this subthread was talking about the problems of paywalls — e.g. they segment the Internet into inaccessible walled gardens, they're inconvenient, they exclude a large chunk of the world's population, they kill your readership. Somebody suggested that he thought the best approach was to just do ads, and if you really can't stand having your ads blocked, just block users who are running ad blockers. Then it was pointed out that this is a Sisyphean task, and you replied talking about paywalls as the solution. So bringing up paywalls doesn't really seem to have a point here, unless you have a new insight into how to get around their many and numerous drawbacks.

Re: UBlock Origin

#278

Post by kbenson »

BFay wrote: post #240
kbenson wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is bad manners. It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people. Every person that gets the paper without the advertisements affects the newspaper bottom line. It affects it in a small way, but all together they add up. The newspaper functions because advertisers pay them, and if there's no reason for advertisers to expect their ads are s…

If web ads were more like newspaper ads, I think I would find them more agreeable. Newspaper ads don't animate and distract me from what I'm reading. When I flip to a different page in the paper I don't have to "wait ten seconds" to start reading. I've never had an ad spontaneously appear in front of the newspaper article I'm reading. Newspaper ads don't track me, and no matter how sketchy the ad is, it doesn't put m…

I agree that ads are annoying and unpalatable, but I don't think that absolves consumers from behavior that I see as a clear responsibility of consumers to uphold their side of the bargain. We have content providers, that choose a business model that allows them to provide content without requiring payment as long as there is advertising. We then have consumers taking this content and automatically removing said advertisements. When the terms of a deal are seen as disadvantageous, it's the right of either party to not enter into that transaction. It is not their right to renege on their side of the transaction while receiving the benefit from the other party.

I understand many people do not see this as a contract between the consumer and the content provider. I just haven't heard a justification for why it's not that I can agree with. To me, it clearly is.

Re: UBlock Origin

#279

Post by baddox »

kbenson wrote: post #275
baddox wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe you agreed to a trade It sounds like this is our fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that requesting an HTML resource is an agreement to load all external resources and execute all JavaScript referenced in that HTML. I submit the request, and the remote server returns some HTML. In my view, that is a complete interaction with no unfulfilled obligations. According to your argument, I am not within m…

So how does it affect your argument if the page was returned in it's entirety with all content inlined? If the ad-blocker could detect ads through some heuristic that was accurate enough, would that then change your view on its use? At that point you would be presented a singular resource. Is that enough to change your thoughts on what is acceptable? I suspect we are getting closer to the specific place where our bel…

> So how does it affect your argument if the page was returned in it's entirety with all content inlined?

No, that doesn't change anything. I already mentioned executing JavaScript.

What are your thoughts on my mention of cURL? Do you think it's acceptable to run `curl www.cnn.com` from the command line? How about browsing the web with JavaScript turned off, or using a text-only browser?

Re: UBlock Origin

#280

Post by click170 »

kbenson wrote: post #278
BFay wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If web ads were more like newspaper ads, I think I would find them more agreeable. Newspaper ads don't animate and distract me from what I'm reading. When I flip to a different page in the paper I don't have to "wait ten seconds" to start reading. I've never had an ad spontaneously appear in front of the newspaper article I'm reading. Newspaper ads don't track me, and no matter how sketchy the ad is, it doesn't put m…

I agree that ads are annoying and unpalatable, but I don't think that absolves consumers from behavior that I see as a clear responsibility of consumers to uphold their side of the bargain. We have content providers, that choose a business model that allows them to provide content without requiring payment as long as there is advertising. We then have consumers taking this content and automatically removing said adve…

I'm sorry but I just can't sympathize.

Imagine a newspaper trying to go after someone for not reading the ads in the news paper, or for cutting the ads out before reading the paper.

That's what you sound like to the rest of us.

When my browser asks for a page from your webserver, I'm under no obligation to render or even receive the packets that you send back to me. If you seek further guarantees or protections I encourage you to find a different medium.

Post reply on HN