461–470 of 549 posts
If I buy the paper version of the New York Times the ads are on every page but I don’t mind them. They are not watching me. Nor would I mind ads on a page, if they are rendered as plain HTML. Just no Javascript
I'm not interested in logging in to the paper's website so that it can 1. feed me yet more ads and 2. track in minute detail exactly what I'm reading and for how long.
I've been blocking ads ever since I learned that I could stop seeing DoubleClick ads by blocking their domain in /etc/hosts. I won't ever apologize for doing so. As far as I'm concerned, any advertisement that depends on JavaScript is malware, and I think that my right to protect myself online outweighs the need of publishers to turn a profit. IMO, profits are like respect. They must be earned, and if the only way yo…
Best way to block ads in 2019?
Why Dnscloak: doesn't route your traffic through a third party with dubious motivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you feel like advertisers know that now? I feel like I hear about clickspam/ad fraud operations getting closed down (and nigh-instantly popping up elsewhere) on a constant basis. Is this like intrusive DRM in PC games, where all the studies show that it increases producer costs and complexity, annoys consumers, and doesn’t actually improve sales revenue, but some companies do it anyway because “what about piracy?”
Are their studies that show that? I have heard the opposite. Every day you can stop a game from being pirated is quite a lot of sales earned back. Dunovo has been quite effective at this in the past. If you can stop your game from being pirated for a week a lot of people who want the game right now will switch to buying instead. After it’s been cracked a lot of publishers will then patch out the DRM since it doesn’t…
This does not happen nearly as much as you think.
I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…
> I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. Why do you feel like your attention should be for sale? There should be no advertising on the web. Content should be free or cost money, and the cost should be transparent. Advertisements are just socially accepted psychological manipulation. We can do better.
Anything that remembers anything about me or my behavior is distinctly off limits. I don’t care if your site or business depends on it. If you use a an ad network that uses tracking cookies to show ads, you’d business model is flawed and your business should die.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of his comment is nonsense?
I'd say the part where it is ignored that I don't want websites to drain my laptop battery? :)
The reality of humanity is that people operate via incentive. The internet is no different - publishers are incentivised by money. There must be a mechanism to provide that - today's interpretation is increasingly aggressive advertising, which makes noone but the advertisers happy.
Crypto-mining provides an incentive for publishers to invest in their content, knowing they will be duly rewarded, without a middle-man. Users know that they are providing revenue to publishers simply by the act of viewing content.
It has the potential to be empowering for everyone involved.
However, to riposte as glibly as you did: If you don't feel like compensating a publisher for their content, they may not feel like serving it to you. It's lose-lose for everyone. What do you propose, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> targeted psychological manipulation to you This seems exceedingly hyperbolic. With advertising, we can enjoy many services free of charge. Using google as an example, google maps, search, android, etc all provide tremendous value to their users while being ostensibly free. Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist.
> Without revenue, they simply wouldn't be able to exist. Nonsense. OSM exists, HN exists, Linux exists. And just because some services need revenue to pay bills, it doesn't mean advertising or users paying is the only way to get it. Google Maps gets revenue from businesses using it on their websites, for example.
I still firmly believe that in-browser crypto mining could solve internet advertising problems fairly for both parties. 1. As a user, you set your preference: no mining - ads will show instead. No ads, there will be some mining. 2. The longer a user stays on a page, ie the more engaging the content is, the more money the publisher earns. In theory, this would trigger a natural correction for dark publishing patterns:…
Gigantic waste of energy. Why drain my battery to not see ads when I can just use an adblocker? Ignoring these, why reward longer content, content I happen to keep in the background, or content I happen to leave in the foreground while away over more valuable content? Donating directly is a much nicer solution for me, and there’s so much room for improvement there too in the areas of privacy, fees, and convenience. (…
Obviously, there need to be intelligent structures in place - and these can be enforced by the browser (as they already are today) - CPU limits for inactive tabs, CPU limits based off the computer's power-mode. The ability to disable mining at the cost of seeing advertisements.
How about we just don't let the advertising industry develop or fund our browsers and web standards? Users need to be able to control what kind of content their device will load and display, so it's probably time to develop technology that supports it (and scrap the current web, which is now basically billboard ads for the internet).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the point of the article is that the wars is over. money won by enlisting the corrupt law makers. from now on, content will have DRM (e.g. netflix) and if any adblocker even tries to touch it, the creators can be jailed. now if you want to create/contribute an adblock, besides time, you must have impeccable opSec or also be willing to do time in jail.
Why hasn't google used this on youtube?