41–50 of 259 posts
I share the sentiment of the proposal, but what I really don't understand is why user moderation fails to suppress those sites despite their tactics angering so many people.
Often the demographic that votes on stories can be quite different from the demographic that comments on stories and forms the "community", especially for default subreddits. The majority of people voting on the story may only be reading the headline.
The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…
"In any case since the sites are still able to use curated self hosted ads (ie not JavaScript redirects to externally hosted providers) they are able to sell static ad space to make money even with adblockers enabled." Ad blockers don't just block external ads, they use CSS rules to block internal ads as well. So the only way to avoid ad blockers is to make advertisement completely indistinguishable from content. Ima…
I would suggest a emoji based labeling system. Not too intrusive (grey scale) that somehow could signal if article is paywalled / blocking visitors with ad-blockers. For a subset of users (either detected or by user preference), there might be another useful symbol as well for indicating if a website is not tor friendly.
Anything that expedites the process of moving from ads to paying "somehow else" for good content is good. But it falls on the technologists side to come up with something that replaces ads. Redditors are only curing a symptom.
No-one has a responsibility to keep Wired or Forbes in business. Either they'll figure out a business model that works, or they won't; either way it's not the redditors' problem.
As noted other comments, this would only apply to the /r/technology subreddit. The general feedback is in favor of blocking these types of sites. I'm pretty amazed at the current state of ads. With multiple ad exchanges, private sellers, and static brand deals, the entire serving process is a mess and users are paying for it. I don't think publishing websites are being malicious; they're incentived to make money and…
Of course they are malicious. They're serving the high-profit ads, which obviously includes malware, where they could be serving low-profit, safe (but boring) ads. That's equivalent to pharmacists selling illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine) simply because they obviously make them more profits.
The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…
In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.
I think in a war between ad's trying to assert a user has seen an ad, and clients trying to view content, so long as the client owns the computer, the client will win. That's why I hate walled gardens so much. I'm convinced it was a preemptive shot in this war.
I wonder if you could sue a website for serving you malware. Here's my idea for an ad company: * People who want to post ads have to provide their name, address, verified email, and a security deposit(say $500). Larger volumes of ad purchases require either a long history, insurance, or a bank letter to vouch for you. If you load malware anywhere into the system, you get fined and your information gets turned over to…
Sounds great, here's my deposit paid via bitcoin. My business is at 123 fakenschaft, Zurch. My email is a newly created Gmail account.
I wonder if you could sue a website for serving you malware. Here's my idea for an ad company: * People who want to post ads have to provide their name, address, verified email, and a security deposit(say $500). Larger volumes of ad purchases require either a long history, insurance, or a bank letter to vouch for you. If you load malware anywhere into the system, you get fined and your information gets turned over to…
Sounds great, here's my deposit paid via bitcoin. My business is at 123 fakenschaft, Zurch. My email is a newly created Gmail account.
* Require security deposits to be paid with a bank transfer, cashier's check, or money order from a country with strong anti-money-laundering laws.
* For countries like the US where business information is public, verify the provided business address against public records.
* Allow larger sites like the NYT to require higher standards of verification(maybe 6 months active history on your account), so even if you went ahead with your malware attacking(say, using a homeless person to shield you from the cops) it at least wouldn't hit the NYT.
Honestly, I think at least taking their security deposit would deter a lot of attackers. You're probably right that it wouldn't help much against targeted attacks at smaller sites.
As noted other comments, this would only apply to the /r/technology subreddit. The general feedback is in favor of blocking these types of sites. I'm pretty amazed at the current state of ads. With multiple ad exchanges, private sellers, and static brand deals, the entire serving process is a mess and users are paying for it. I don't think publishing websites are being malicious; they're incentived to make money and…
If it expanded to the rest of Reddit then it might be the impetuous for the news industry to clean up their act. And no, that's not a mistake. It's not advertisers I direct my ire but those who should know better and who apparently are meant to exist for the greater public good: The Press.
