391–400 of 619 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is doing that to keep Facebook from being able to access that tab's browsing history. You can disable this feature if you don't like it. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/facebookcontainer/
Facebook Container is not pre-installed on Firefox. This probably isn't the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those Windows 7 screenshots evoke a sense of nostalgia for the time before a Windows that broadcasts and monetizes my every action. I think an even bigger “fuck you” pattern is when an OS that I paid for tracks me and monetizes my private information. Maybe I’m just getting old.
Nope; Windows is getting old :-P Time to switch to another OS. Consider some newbie-friendly Linux, like Mint (linuxmint.com).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I second this, the only ads I’ve ever willingly clicked/tapped on with the intention of buying were from Instagram
And that is quite a feat given how little information I hace willingly given Facebook compared to how I - until a few years ago - more or less volunteeres my data to Google. Google knew everything about it and yet couldn't manage to serve anything but the sleaziest ads. Instagram got the table scraps and yet convinced me to buy at least one thing that I'm actually happy with.
In the early days of facebook, they sent me an email to join with 20 people I might know. I knew 19 of them. I have no illusions , facebook knows a ton about me. Even without a profile.
I found the ads on instagram quite intrusive and not relivant (they're the same size as a post), but that's just me ( I don't have a facebook so they can't correlate). I also find quite a few news sites almost unreadable with all the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is diverse, there still are some good corners here and there. You need to know where to look.
Appending "reddit" to google searches still produce better results than the alternative of 100% autogenerated listicles. For now, at least.
To make this more ergonomic, you can add the URL as a search engine with a keyword, e.g.
URL: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:reddit.com+%s
Keyword: red
In Firefox you most likely want to use a bookmark with a keyword instead of their new search engine crap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it. "The infrastructure" to share cat pictures cost peanuts. It's the addictive dark patterns and montezation/tracking that costs millions. That's the irony.
Go an and run a site that serves massive amounts of cat pictures for peanuts! Well, yes, serving static HTML is easy. Serving images is kind of not hard either, because you have free unlimited traffic, don't you? Some hosting plans offer it. They just limit the egress bandwidth. So maybe you need a few more servers to cope with it, just like $50 a pop. You're not gonna need any CDN, people further away from your DC w…
p2p cats for teh win
"Wow, fuck you. I just wanted to look at cats." "Well, fuck you, too. We're here to sell ads." It's not about dark patterns, that's just a second-order effect. It was never about dark patterns. This is the implied agreement. You understand it, or you don't. And if you don't, I guess you haven't been on the web in the past decade or something. What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical i…
Kinda offtopic but Instagram's ads changed my attitude towards ads, and my attitude towards Facebook's creepy level of insight into my life and personality. If they have that data anyway -- and hundreds of companies do -- I might as well benefit from it, and Instagram's ads were the first ones that I actually found interesting. First of all, it was obvious when something was an ad. Second, they weren't intrusive or o…
This is such a defeatist narrative, and it isn't even accurate. They in fact don't have your data, that is half why they run these services. Each service you don't use is another piece of you they don't have. It isn't an all or nothing proposition. Throwing up your hands and granting them powers they don't have short circuits the more meaningful deliberation of "is this service worth the cost?"
If I had to guess, I might say that these companies enjoy the strong men we have built them into, because people give in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? No, they have your attention and they're going to connect you to organizations who will pay for it. "The infrastructure" to share cat pictures cost peanuts. It's the addictive dark patterns and montezation/tracking that costs millions. That's the irony.
Go an and run a site that serves massive amounts of cat pictures for peanuts! Well, yes, serving static HTML is easy. Serving images is kind of not hard either, because you have free unlimited traffic, don't you? Some hosting plans offer it. They just limit the egress bandwidth. So maybe you need a few more servers to cope with it, just like $50 a pop. You're not gonna need any CDN, people further away from your DC w…
That does not seem to be the case.
https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217667468-B2-Se...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What? You thought it was fair that a company spends millions in technical infrastructure and staffing so you can sit at home and spend your time looking at cats for free? Is that really fair? Would there be nowhere to see pictures of cats without their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing? Or could it be that their millions of dollars in infrastructure and staffing for selling ads is the reason the go…
Aggregation and distribution are virtues of large communities, not small ones. The sophistication of Facebok's business is what allows the creation and distribution of content. I agree that if Facebook, Snap, Pinterest, Reddit, Nextdoor, Twitter etc, didn't exist, small communities would fill that void... But they would do through a fragmented and siloed user experience that is hardly discoverable for the majority of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn’t that copyright infringement?
Maybe? I'm not a lawyer and I would be surprised if they consulted one before implementing that feature. But unless the license for the file limits access it seems like they're just acting as an almost-proxy for these images, and not misrepresenting their ownership over them.