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

301–310 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#301

Post by marrs »

kbenson wrote: post #206
marrs wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about the newspaper like it somehow has a right to exist. It doesn't. It is a business and whether it succeeds or fails depends on the value it adds to its customers. In this case its customers aren't the consumers, they are the advertisers, and from what you're saying, it sounds like the consumers are prepared to go to great lengths to rid themselves of the adverts, which suggests that the customers a…

I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't se…

    I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract...
Well, there isn't.

    ...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed.
If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.

    In all cases, it should be obvious that if you desire something (in this case, content), but are unwilling to pay the cost (in this case, viewing advertising), then the correct response is to not take the content.
Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others; maybe something important to them. They often work hard to produce the content in their spare time. They put ads on there as an afterthought to help cover the maintenance costs, but they would never do that if they thought it would turn visitors away.

I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets, especially when - in the case of advertising - they're assets I have no control over and may be advertising products I don't even support.

    How are you helping this issue by making it harder to tell which users are viewing advertising and which are not?
I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.

    Forgive me if that sounds a bit like a rationalization of your current behavior after the fact.
I don't even know what to make of this.

Re: UBlock Origin

#302

Post by Lawtonfogle »

chc wrote: post #265
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should I sell my soul to the devil and work on freemium, coins, exploit OCD and rich-parents kids, You can do freemium without selling your soul. Look at LoL or Path of Exile for the best examples. Others would be Bloons TD 5 or Bloons City, where coins allow you to skip ahead, but slow downs are not purposefully added. Only when you add something that basically drains the fun out of the game unless money is spent a…

League of Legends is not a great example IMO. That game has a huge grindwall. Gaining access to just the gameplay-affecting elements of the game — not even looking at the cosmetic items — would cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars and take huge amounts of play time on top of that.

Unless it has drastically changed, I was able to boot it up and play for fun right off the bat. There were no slowdowns in any matches. While some abilities were off limit to me, these were off limit to the people I was paired with as well. The only issue I've ever noticed is that heroes aren't perfectly balanced and as such it may be possible for someone to buy access to a stronger one that the rest have, but that has not ever been a noticeable problem.

That it takes 1000 hours to unlock X does not count against it when the game is quite fun without X and where X has minimal impact on the game even when someone else has X but I do not.

Think of single player RPGs where unlocking the ultimate weapons/secret characters take dozens of hours of grinding outside of the main gameplay. That does not make the RPG a grindfest. Compare this to an RPG where 2 hours have to be spent grinding for every 45 minutes of progress through the main game. That is a grindfest.

Re: UBlock Origin

#303

Post by piyush_soni »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #155
gpvos wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about leasing visitors' processing power to run scientific computation? Maybe MapReduce jobs? Would that be more intrusive or less intrusive than advertisement?

Personally, if this processing infrastructure is managed by a big/trustworthy company (MS/Google/Amazon etc.) I should be OK with it, as long as its sandboxed. But if every individual website wants to implement its own way of using my processor power, I will prefer ads to it any day.

Re: UBlock Origin

#304

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #298
kbenson wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I do not. Do you feel that cURLing a URL violates this implicit contract? Depending on the site, yes. > It depends on what this "preamble" is. If it's just text at the top of the page saying "the reader hereby agrees to also view the ads on this page," then no, I don't consider that an explicit contract. How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet bef…

> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physica…

> If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract.

I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.

> I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an actual agreement between parties. If only one party is aware of and consenting to the terms, it is not a contract.

I think this is relevant[1]. I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Why is this content being provided? To assume it's freely available without any cost is a very self-serving view.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

Re: UBlock Origin

#305

Post by kbenson »

marrs wrote: post #301
kbenson wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm making no argument that they have to survive on their current business model, or that the current business model deserves to survive. I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract, and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. I don't se…

I am simply stating that if you choose a content resource that does not require upfront payment but mingles their content with advertisements, there's an implicit social contract... Well, there isn't. ...and in some cases an explicit use policy, that defines how that transaction should proceed. If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's…

> Well, there isn't.

Are you sure? Why do you think the content is being provided then? Presumably there's a reason they've put the effort forth to make it available?

> If these terms are expressed clearly at the top of every page then I agree that there is an understanding of the publisher's wishes. That doesn't mean I should feel obliged to honour them though.

You shouldn't feel compelled to honor a site's acceptable use policy? In some cases violating the AUP can result in legal action, so in at least some cases you are legally compelled.

> Look, a lot of people run websites because they have something they want to share with others...

> I for one would never want someone to think he wasn't welcome on my site because he chooses not to download certain assets

These aren't your sites. It's not your right to make choices for other people. You can accept what they want to bring to the table, or you can decline to trade.

> I'm not making it harder, I'm making it easier. I downloaded the content but not the ad, therefore I wanted the content but didn't want the ad.

You've made it easier on yourself. How have you helped anyone else out? The content provider wanted to trade you content for attention, and you took the content without providing the attention. In what way does that help anyone besides yourself?

> I don't even know what to make of this.

People are susceptible to rationalizing their current behavior, regardless of whether it's truly beneficial in the ways they think to the parties they think. Doubling down on behavior that a content provider may not like with the excuse you may feel morally obligated to save them money by doing so is ridiculous. What right do you have to dictate how they run their business, as long as it's within the law?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

Re: UBlock Origin

#306

Post by path411 »

bhouston wrote: post #32
izietto wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been discontinued too early; from an AdBlock Edge comment, titled "uBlock may be fast, but is rubbish": > I've been using uBlock now for a while and while it is light and fast, it's is rubbish to use. Exclusions are idiotic, context menu controls don't work, default filters selection is idiotic, it doesn't sync settings like Adblock Edge does, I'm just starting to hate it. > I'd too like to see AdBlock Edge co…

And don't forget that uBlock blocks Google Analytics, breaks most popular travel sites if you try to actually purchase, and also error reporters like NewRelix. Most of this is the fault of the default inclusion of EasyPrivacy I believe.

Any script blocker should by default block any third-party script.

Re: UBlock Origin

#307

Post by [deleted] »

ajkjk wrote: post #172
michaelaiello wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's neat. I think I'd seen that but forgotten about it since it has remained mostly irrelevant. I'm excited about the idea, but I'm also pretty skeptical of this infrastructure even being run by Google. I'd rather it be open source. The project could fund itself through the same donations it enables for others, which is more concrete of a fundamental than a lot of other projects.

[deleted]

Re: UBlock Origin

#308

Post by ajkjk »

ajkjk wrote: post #172
michaelaiello wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's neat. I think I'd seen that but forgotten about it since it has remained mostly irrelevant. I'm excited about the idea, but I'm also pretty skeptical of this infrastructure even being run by Google. I'd rather it be open source. The project could fund itself through the same donations it enables for others, which is more concrete of a fundamental than a lot of other projects.

s/fundamental/funding model

Re: UBlock Origin

#309

Post by baddox »

kbenson wrote: post #304
baddox wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it any different than someone on the street offering a free book if you read their short pamphlet beforehand? Because order is important. On the web, you ask a server for something and it gives it to you. If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. And, of course, physica…

> If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. > I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an…

> I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book.

Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.

> I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting.

Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.

Re: UBlock Origin

#310

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #309
kbenson wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you ask someone on the street if you can have their book, and they give it to you, then the first page has some terms on it, I don't think those terms constitute a valid contract. I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. > I just don't think that an expectation is the same thing as a contract. I use the word "contract" to refer to an…

> I think it outlines the contract, and you have the option of declining. By returning or otherwise disposing of the book. Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre. > I think it's a stretch to say only one party is aware and consenting. Well, I'm explicitly te…

> Do you genuinely believe that I would be obligated to return or dispose of the book in this scenario? If so, then I applaud you for consistency, and I can only say that I find that belief very bizarre.

I believe we should. I think we rarely do (including myself). The terms were clear. I'm not arguing my point in the hope that we all stop using ad-blockers, I'm arguing my point in the hope that we we can realize that there's a bit of bad behavior on our part as consumers as well (that there's bad behavior from purveyors of ads or that it started with them I believe and accept as fact, but I don't think that entirely alleviates our culpability).

> Well, I'm explicitly telling you that I don't consent, so unless I'm lying, it's pretty clear that I do not consent.

I have no problem with you withholding your consent. I have a problem with that consent being part of a deal and you withholding it while still accepting what it was being traded for.

I'm still not understanding your argument that you feel justified in taking something when you know you aren't supposed to have/use it. I can lay it out in myriad different ways, with different goods, difference services, but in the end, I think they are all the same thing. There's a trade going on, and if you aren't fulfilling your side, you have no right to the goods of the other side. That you've received the goods makes no difference to me. I may have fruit in my hands at the store while approaching the counter, but they aren't mine until I've paid. If I choose not to pay, it's my responsibility to return ownership to the store (or in the case of a non-tangible good, to not utilize it). Your consent matters only as to whether you want to complete the trade. You consent has no bearing on whether you have right to goods after you've chosen not to trade, at least not legally, or I would submit, morally.

Post reply on HN