UBlock Origin • Hacker News Board

Re: UBlock Origin

#281

Post by click170 » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 2:50 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #181

marrs wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has choosing what you download got to do with making a principled stand? It's like some people think that blocking ads is bad manners. I don't get it.

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…

> It's the same as taking the free newspapers in your area, cutting out all the advertisements, and giving those out to people.

What you've just described is me, taking the content from your site, stripping out the ads, and re-posting it on the Internet for others to consume sans advertisements. This is very clearly different from a single person using ad blockers on their own computers, and you know it.

However, this is equivalent to everyone who reads you newspaper cutting out the ads from their own newspaper before reading it. Which, perhaps, should tell you something about the ads in your paper.

Re: UBlock Origin

#282

Post by kbenson » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 2:51 AM UTC

baddox wrote: post #279

kbenson wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. Javascript provides for some of the more onerous types of advertising, but it is by no means necessary to the process. We've all seen plenty of ways CSS could be leverages as an alternate solution.

Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of the mediums available to the client or take steps to attempt to block that access. There are plenty of legitimate cases for text only internet (such as access for the blind).

Re: cURL, now we are getting more into scraping, and I think it's event more clear cut that it's not the intent of the provider for their content to be used that way, and there are much more often AUPs that specifically cover this in a non-ambiguous way.

This is something I've thought quite a bit about, as at times some of my major work projects have been based around web scraping. I've come to terms that some of the things I have done, and do, for work, are morally ambiguous (or even immoral) to a degree (although others may not see it that way at all).

Similarly, I myself run an ad-blocker, as I find the web untenable without one. I'm aware of how hypocritical this is. My argument has never been "do not run ad-blockers", it's always been just to point out what I see as a set of troubling behavior that I see, which I also contribute to. I would prefer not to block ads, but I don't see that as a strategy that's currently useful. That may make me worse than those that I view as ignorant of their actions. I'm prepared to live with this, at least in the short term.

Really,I'm just pushing what I see as introspection.

Re: UBlock Origin

#283

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:25 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #260

effie wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr. kbenson, you and many of your kind are trying to foist on the idea that people filtering the information companies give to them are doing something immoral. I do not think even you believe that, but perhaps there is a profit-seeking based incentive to seed a feeling of guilt in the people who avoid ads, or perhaps to make yourself feel good by verbalizing your frustration with decreasing profits from online ads.…

> Mr. kbenson, you and many of your kind are trying to foist on the idea that people filtering the information companies give to them are doing something immoral. That's a simplification of my argument as to be meaningless. The information was not given , it was traded . The consumer's portion of the trade is paid in viewing the advertising. > I do not think even you believe that, but perhaps there is a profit-seekin…

We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.

The practical side of it is this: You want as much attention as possible. If I give you my attention but block your ads, it could still mean that if your content is good, I promote it to others and the net effect is a win for you.

I try to pay attention only to people who respect my attention and don't sell it to the highest bidder. However, I don't wish to be excluded from the common discourse of society around me, so if my attention is brought to a site that wishes to sell it, I may give my attention but retain as much control as I can. I did not agree to the sale of my attention. There are better and more respectful ways to build our economic support for creative work.

Re: UBlock Origin

#284

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:28 AM UTC

gpvos wrote: post #142

piyush_soni wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ads remain the major e-business model till date (and will probably remain for a long time to come). I guess one of the problems is, everyone needs money to maintain a website and to make a profit, but not everyone has content (or products) that could sell. It's a difficult problem to solve in theory. I think simple text based (or even small images based) ads should be fine .. it's the flashy ones or the ones tha…

Micropayments should be a solution, but it's hard to get the cooperation needed for that going.

An attempt being developed for that, not ready yet: https://snowdrift.coop/

Re: UBlock Origin

#285

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:33 AM UTC

fridek wrote: post #49

beagle3 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you think you'll make from ads? Chances are, much, much less than you expect. There are exceptions (e.g. plentyoffish.com), but people I know who run popular niche sites (in the low millions of page views per month, a few tens-of-thousands unique) are happy when they manage to make $1,000/month from ads.

Actually I have no idea. Never made any money from ads, but $1k/month sounds like the kind of money I could use to improve/market the game I'm working on. There is also another question with the same roots - how much money do the sites I read need to make in order to work and maintain the same quality. I'd be glad to pay something like an equivalent of what I'm worth as an advertisement target. There was Google Contr…

The incentives set up by Google Contributor are to increase ads. It's about getting a micro-donation system that excludes sites that don't use Google Ads, so the idea is to force sites to show more ads in order to participate with Google Contributor and to punish sites for not showing ads.

Re: UBlock Origin

#286

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

michaelaiello wrote: post #167

ajkjk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're ripe for some new business models becoming mainstream. As I see it, ads just suck. I don't just mean suck as in "I just don't like them"; they're also just terrible at accomplishing what they want to accomplish, and they're getting more terrible, and because of this there's getting to be more and more of them everywhere. I get the impression (just an impression) that society is sort of 'wising up to' ad…

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

is a way to promote more ads by excluding sites that respect their audience and don't show ads. You have to be already showing Google ads in order to have Contributor as a way to turn them off. So, the incentive pushes toward net increase in ads.

Re: UBlock Origin

#287

Post by kbenson » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:40 AM UTC

click170 wrote: post #280

kbenson wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enc…

> 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.

Of course, just as if you receive mail you are under no obligation to read it. But I'm not talking about that level. I'm talking about the contract the consumer and the content provider have. You either believe there is one or you don't. I believe there's a reason that the content provider is giving me content, and it's not out of the goodness of their heart. What reason is that, and what strings are attached?

Re: UBlock Origin

#288

Post by quadrangle » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:47 AM UTC

83a wrote: post #30

StavrosK wrote: post #25

I've tried uBlock a few times, but it's always been inferior to Ghostery. I want to choose what I block on each page, e.g. sometimes I want to load Disqus, sometimes I don't, etc. uBlock doesn't allow me to do any of that, does anyone know a lighter alternative to Ghostery that will still have sane lists and allow me to unblock elements on a per-page basis?

i'm using https://www.requestpolicy.com/ (ghostery seems to phone home, requestpolicy not (afaik))

uBlock has advanced features that function like request policy (effectively can replace it, though RP is still a good plugin)

Re: UBlock Origin

#289

Post by kbenson » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:51 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #283

kbenson wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mr. kbenson, you and many of your kind are trying to foist on the idea that people filtering the information companies give to them are doing something immoral. That's a simplification of my argument as to be meaningless. The information was not given , it was traded . The consumer's portion of the trade is paid in viewing the advertising. > I do not think even you believe that, but perhaps there is a profit-seekin…

We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention. The practical side of it is this: You want as much a…

> We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.

And yet, that's the deal which is on the table. You feel justified in selling your attention, and then not delivering? Keep in mind that the content provider is rarely making any statements as to the quality of the content )in the subjective sense. There are of course often guarantees as to measurable qualitative attributes, such as resolution and/or bitrate in some mediums).

> We have an attention economy. You try to get my attention so you can sell it to advertisers. My attention is scarce, and I don't want to sell it so readily. I don't know whether your content is great until I experience it, and I have little power in negotiating my side of the bargain of what you do with my attention aside from taking more control over my attention.

Since when is it the right of one party in a contract to withold their goods because they feel it's better for the other side? That's the right of the other party, you've already given up your claim on that resource.

> I try to pay attention only to people who respect my attention and don't sell it to the highest bidder. However, I don't wish to be excluded from the common discourse of society around me, so if my attention is brought to a site that wishes to sell it, I may give my attention but retain as much control as I can. I did not agree to the sale of my attention. There are better and more respectful ways to build our economic support for creative work.

Yes, there are. I'm not arguing in support of ad-based revenue systems. I'm arguing that there's a contract between the consumer and the content producer (which not everyone agrees with, but I believe), and that by entering into it with no intention of following through with their side, content consumers running ad-blockers aren't exhibiting the best behavior.

Indeed, I run an ad-blocker, so what I'm saying is that I'm not exhibiting the best behavior. I'm not willing to stop, but I am fully willing to admit it's not very fair to the content sites.

Re: UBlock Origin

#290

Post by baddox » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 3:57 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #282

baddox wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs. Javascript provides for some of the more onerous types of advertising, but it is by no means necessary to the process. We've all seen plenty of ways CSS could be leverages as an alternate solution. Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of t…

> What does javascript have to do with it? It's trivial to display images inline through data URLs.

My point applies to that too. Images, text, CSS, video, etc. I'm saying I don't have a problem with requesting an HTML file, receiving it, and then choosing to not render/execute/display certain parts of it.

> Re: text only browsing, that still allows for advertising, and it's up to the content provider to either take advantage of the mediums available to the client or take steps to attempt to block that access.

I agree, but that doesn't sound like your previous position.

> Re: cURL, now we are getting more into scraping, and I think it's event more clear cut that it's not the intent of the provider for their content to be used that way, and there are much more often AUPs that specifically cover this in a non-ambiguous way.

I'm not talking about programmatically requesting large amounts of content. I just meant a single individual running a single cURL command.

> My argument has never been "do not run ad-blockers", it's always been just to point out what I see as a set of troubling behavior that I see, which I also contribute to.

I guess I'm arguing that you don't need to be a hypocrite, because it's not troubling behavior.