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

321–330 of 333 posts

Re: UBlock Origin

#321

Post by kbenson »

quadrangle wrote: post #317
kbenson wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yo…

I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract. My attention is constantly being asked for. It's a sellers market here, sorry. I choose to most readily give attention as a gift to those I like most and who respect my attention most. Wikipedia has no ads. There are cases where the business model of ads has near monopoly. I use Pump.io but most people and connections are on Facebook / Twitter etc. —…

> I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract.

I think there's an implied contract from not your acceptance of the content, which happens before you necessarily know the terms, but from when you can see it and the ads[1].

Regardless of how you feel about specific cases that may be a monopoly, that doesn't work as an argument for running an ad blocker for general viewing, as it's obvious every site you visit is not a monopoly.

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

Re: UBlock Origin

#322

Post by kbenson »

baddox wrote: post #318
kbenson wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, the order of events matters. Only inasmuch as when you decide to continue or bail on the deal. > But in your analogy, I bought the fruit at the time. The store teller told me the price, I paid it, and the teller sent me on my way. Then I got home, opened the bag of fruit, and found a note that says "the purchaser of this fruit hereby agrees to not bake this fruit into a pie." That's not my analogy at all. I…

> When in the store holding the fruit prior to paying, is equivalent to the point you've retrieved content but have not yet viewed it. That's not correct. Retrieving content over the Internet consists of explicitly requesting a resource and the server explicitly returning the resource. This isn't some technicality. It's how computer networks are deliberately designed. There are plenty of ways to control access to a r…

But the store owner is telling you how you are supposed to take the friut if you want it free, you've just decided to listen selectively (with an ad blocker).

Re: UBlock Origin

#323

Post by quadrangle »

kbenson wrote: post #321
quadrangle wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract. My attention is constantly being asked for. It's a sellers market here, sorry. I choose to most readily give attention as a gift to those I like most and who respect my attention most. Wikipedia has no ads. There are cases where the business model of ads has near monopoly. I use Pump.io but most people and connections are on Facebook / Twitter etc. —…

> I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract. I think there's an implied contract from not your acceptance of the content, which happens before you necessarily know the terms, but from when you can see it and the ads[1]. Regardless of how you feel about specific cases that may be a monopoly, that doesn't work as an argument for running an ad blocker for general viewing, as it's obvious every si…

If a site could be certain to show only ads that do not track me, that the site operators actually are comfortable endorsing (i.e. not some targeted ad system where the site owners have no control over what ads I see), then I would consider not blocking their ads.

This is effectively a matter of social breakdown. I wouldn't bother blocking ads if they were few, privacy-respecting, responsible, etc. But, tragedy of the commons and all, shitty ad-pushers and privacy-invaders ruined the game. Now, sorry to say, this hurts others who try to be more respectful. Not their fault, but that's how the world goes sometimes.

Re: UBlock Origin

#324

Post by kbenson »

quadrangle wrote: post #323
kbenson wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't sell my attention so readily. I didn't sign any contract. I think there's an implied contract from not your acceptance of the content, which happens before you necessarily know the terms, but from when you can see it and the ads[1]. Regardless of how you feel about specific cases that may be a monopoly, that doesn't work as an argument for running an ad blocker for general viewing, as it's obvious every si…

If a site could be certain to show only ads that do not track me, that the site operators actually are comfortable endorsing (i.e. not some targeted ad system where the site owners have no control over what ads I see), then I would consider not blocking their ads. This is effectively a matter of social breakdown. I wouldn't bother blocking ads if they were few, privacy-respecting, responsible, etc. But, tragedy of th…

I agree with that sentiment, and indeed maybe I would browse without an ad-blocker as well if the costs could be lowered, but that's not really what my argument is about. I'm making no claims as to how feasible it is to browser without an ad-blocker, but on the moral and ethical implications of browsing with an ad-blocker. I don't think it's right to pre-judge all sites based on prior experiences with some sites, and to then resort to an unfair exchange for goods and services. I do it, you do it, but I still don't think it's right. That said, the (small) amount that it's wrong and the level of inconvenience (or worse) that ads cause leaves be unwilling to change my behavior and stop using an ad-blocker. That said, I still recognize the unfairness, I try not to justify my actions post-facto.

Re: UBlock Origin

#325

Post by Nadya »

manigandham wrote: post #312
chc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sta…

Those drawbacks to paywalls are only when compared to the ease and free approach of the ad model. When the ad model stops working, there wont be anything left but paywalls and they wont be "inconvenient" because there is no other way that is convenient. The simple truth is that publishers need to make money to produce content. Ads were a way to allow free access while making revenue. If users keep using this blunt ap…

So ignoring the transparent featured-posts/content model (ie: used by CSS Tricks) which AdBlockers don't have a way to block, there's also the donation model (doesn't scale well, usually).

I've donated to many sites that use donations as their primary means of staying afloat and many of these sites have lasted years with this as their model of revenue. The users of the site understand that the site might live on a month-to-month basis (although surplus from one month is generally put into savings in case a month falls short) and if they wish for the site to stick up, someone's gotta be forking over some money. My favorite local FM radio station also runs off of donations/sponsorships and does not play ads between songs. They've been in the radio business for well over 40 years. It can work if enough value is provided that people are willing to donate money.

Quite frankly - there isn't a strong business in presenting information, because on the internet, everyone has the means to present information with many being specialists in their field and doing it for free because they enjoy educating others about what they do.

Sure, I can pay for some write up on the recent CERN study from a journalist from some well-known publisher with at least some level of professional journalism. Or I can get it from one of the CERN scientists who wrote about the impacts of their findings for the "general layman" in one of their personal blogs for free.

I have a pretty high level of respect for (truly) professional journalists. The kind that risk their lives to get news that otherwise wouldn't be reported on. But many of those journalists aren't exactly in it for the well-paid job, but because they believe this information is important for people to know about. For example, the ones who report for War is Boring (especialy David Axe, who I enjoy reading)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/about

Re: UBlock Origin

#326

Post by tim333 »

tobylane wrote: post #314
tim333 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try right clicking on the thing, click uBlock link, paste: ## .post-sharing-button[href="javascript: void 0;"] into the box (or delete the other text till you get that) and click create

When I refresh the page none of them are hidden, even the one I used to get to the box. Chrome 44, all other extensions disabled.

Odd. Works for me using Chrome 43.

Re: UBlock Origin

#327

Post by quadrangle »

kbenson wrote: post #324
quadrangle wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a site could be certain to show only ads that do not track me, that the site operators actually are comfortable endorsing (i.e. not some targeted ad system where the site owners have no control over what ads I see), then I would consider not blocking their ads. This is effectively a matter of social breakdown. I wouldn't bother blocking ads if they were few, privacy-respecting, responsible, etc. But, tragedy of th…

I agree with that sentiment, and indeed maybe I would browse without an ad-blocker as well if the costs could be lowered, but that's not really what my argument is about. I'm making no claims as to how feasible it is to browser without an ad-blocker, but on the moral and ethical implications of browsing with an ad-blocker. I don't think it's right to pre-judge all sites based on prior experiences with some sites, and…

Yeah, I used to think it was wrong to drive past the speed limit even if everyone else was. I hate when functional rules and norms break down. But you know, we live in the real world. It's not wrong to drive the speed of traffic and be safe, and it's not wrong to try to find the best and most sensible way to support things you care about, have a positive impact on the world, and take measures for yourself to protect your privacy and sanity.

If everyone used an ad-blocker, it would change the way the market works. It would actually reduce overhead where advertisers are fighting for attention in a noisy world. It would restructure how the flow of money works. We'd figure out other and better ways to deal with funding things.

So, I don't think it is wrong to use an ad-blocker. I think it is socially responsible. Even when other people fail to use adblockers, it gives more power to the advertising industry, and thus hurts society. I say: Thank you for doing your part and using an adblocker!

Re: UBlock Origin

#328

Post by marrs »

kbenson wrote: post #305
marrs wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acceptab…

All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed.

To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve.

For example, let's suppose you expect a user to download your animated gif advert. How do you know that the user isn't on a network that filters out all images to save bandwidth?

Re: UBlock Origin

#329

Post by marrs »

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…

How can you possibly believe that there is a contract. If I send you a link to an article I think you might like, and you click on it, do you really believe that in doing so you have just agreed to whatever Terms & Conditions are waiting for you on the other side of that link?

Just to be clear, you haven't.

Re: UBlock Origin

#330

Post by kbenson »

marrs wrote: post #328
kbenson wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 acceptab…

All of this is implied by you. Neither of us knows what motivates the publishers of websites. But you are missing the point entirely, which is that they all chose to publish to the web - a platform that by definition gives publishers very little say over how their content is consumed. To complain that some users don't consume your content the way you expected is just really naïve. For example, let's suppose you expec…

This isn't about a producer complaining about users not consuming the content the right way. I'm not a producer, I'm a consumer, but that doesn't prevent me from noting when people are not acting in good faith. And that's how I see this, a lot of people not acting in good faith and rationalizing it through various excuses (myself included). Producers produce content and attach ads as a way to recoup the cost of producing and delivering that content. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of consumers understand their desire and motivations, even if they don't value those desires and motivations much. To take what they are offering while rejecting their conditions is not acting in good faith.
Post reply on HN