351–360 of 580 posts
So why do I have to "sign up" for this supposedly privacy-enhanced browser? They don't have a need to know who I am. "Then we put clean ads back". This is open source, right? It's on Github. Can someone fork this and remove all the ads? Thank you.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but ... if ad blocking is such an issue for publishers, why don't they do the ad-serving logic on the server and display locally saved creative assets (from the same host)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't want to see ads at all why not just refrain from visiting the offending sites?
the apparent answer is because I need the content. admittedly, ad is a legit monetization method. browsing a site with ads blocked is like pirating a software. but some sites are doing it too much, for example, I often see ad blocker blocks 40 more ads on a single page. that's insane! some commercials are super retarded, like those Geico ones! there was a Geico commercial with a single line: "you can't unwatch this c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Paywall every newspaper website. Nearly every newspaper website is already paywalled, and every time someone posts a story from those sites to HN all the comments are people complaining about the paywalls. HN even added a special little link to let people skip around them, because why would we want to encourage people to pay for quality work they appreciate?
No, do it for real. Paywall completely. Keep the Googlebot out too. If people want to read a newspaper, they'll have to hear from their friends how great it is.
Imagine an online paper where, instead of just mimicking a real newspaper with story after story, a site that collects facts, history as it happens, and weaves them together to form a cohesive stream that a reader can explore in all kinds of innovative ways.
You can still have he said / she said news. Still make it dramatic, but allow the user to follow the protagonist, step back in time to see what else they have said, what brought them to this point in time. Or folly the ripples outwards, how did what was said affect others, how did it interact with other stories.
I want to do an online news startup one day. It will be one where everybody thinks I'm crazy when I start it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm rewriting nothing. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not in California. I'm not gay. I'm not currently married. I am reminding people of a recently unpopular truth. Prop 8 only happened because of judicial activism on the issue. Notice that in states where the voters legalized same sex "marriage", there was no similar backlash.
> judicial activism That's disingenuous bullshit. The spirit of the constitution protects individual rights, and there is no constitutional reason why an arbitrary religious definition of marriage should be respected over the rights of individuals. It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, trad…
Do you support polygamous marriage?
It's not activism to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional.
It's not bigotry to say that marriage is a societal institution and society can define it.
Any feelings you have about the definition of marriage based on culture, tradition, or god's divine law are irreverent to the legal institution of marriage established by our secular government.
You're projecting. I have no feelings about what the definition of marriage should be.
I have feelings about who should decide such definitions.
Furthermore, if you would like to take a few minutes to review my comment history to see if I have ever used "God" or religion as the basis for any argument, I'll wait. You're attempting to setup strawmen against which you can argue.
Like I pointed out earlier. In states where marriage was redefined legislatively, there was nothing like Proposition 8. Haven't you wondered why that is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are freeloading. You're taking advantage of content that was paid for with the attention of people besides yourself. This is no different than grazing on a green you don't maintain. If you're so opposed to ads, don't read content. Don't pretend that anybody is forcing you to visit ad supported content.
This directive would be just if it were possible for me to know, in advance of clicking on a given link, if the destination I'm clicking on embraces advertising revenue. Instead, I'm just supposed to Figure It Out, wasting bandwith and processing power for ads I don't want to see? Your business model sucks. Sorry.
At the very least, you should know by now that most major websites depend on advertising revenue. So I assume you won't click on any of them. I also assume you never use Google or Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it interesting the level of monetary value we put on most written content on the web (nothing) vs the time we spend reading said valueless content? Is it truly so valueless, or is it only valueless because similar content isn't worth anything? I click on the links I click on because I think they'll have more value to me than the rest of them, but I'm still not to the threshold of reaching any monetary value, on…
What you are describing is called Flattr. It was launched in 2010 and never went anywhere, like every other micropayment service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media got worse as the revenue streams dried up; if you pay for writing, you can expect much better writing. I generally find that I'm better off spending an hour researching books to purchase on a non-programming subject than I am spending that hour Googling for free content on that subject.
I have payed nothing for PGs essays or slate star codex epically detailed tear-downs of published studies. They are among the best writing I have read. I have payed nothing to the people on youtube who shown me how to fold a shirt, do my hair, make pasta easily, chop food like a chef or whatever else I needed help with; granted those aren't writing per-say, but a decade ago I would have found that information in a bl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't emphasize this enough. Every time someone rattles out a list of "annoyances" regarding ads, I wish that I could plead with them to consider that there's even bigger reasons. Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in retur…
There are certainly disgusting and slimy ads out there, but, to cite a recent example, if I am sent a 10% off coupon and I happen to want to buy a major appliance, am I wrong for choosing that store to buy it at over the others? Did they wrong me by giving out a discount? You can say that they 'manipulated' me into going to their store, but that's only because it was in my own interest to do so in the first place. If…
Any rare cases of honest discounts are statistically below threshold and can be safely dismissed - just threat all sales as a lie and you'll be almost safe, that's what marketers taught me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is getting paid to browse a positive thing or just a sign that something major is going wrong?
We've always been paid to watch advertising. By free websites, free browsers, free content... This just makes it more explicit, which may have appeal.