461–470 of 649 posts
> there's never been a good ad in the history of advertising. 120 years and there's never been an ad that has stood the test of time and was fondly remembered like literature or a song. It is a profoundly anti lindy medium that exists in the now, forever
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do pay several patreon, have automatic transfer set up for two projects, and a long standing subscription to a website I'm a fan of. But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. Being able to make people look in your direction long enough to show them something else they might spend money on is no…
> But people don't need to realize anything for ads to die. All they need to realize is that they should all be using ad blockers and never ever turning it off again. That isn't true at all. What about when I play a youtube video on my chromecast and it shows an ad on my TV? What happens when websites draw all their content using the canvas instead of the DOM, and adblockers don't work anymore, or websites like Hulu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google basically decides what to implement, what not to implement, what to deprecate. For example the current controversial change: Google says "slow web is bad" and deprecates an API that allowed extensions to do almost unlimited work for any web page. Oops. Adblockers depended on that and did want to do almost unlimited work for any web page, and that wasn't a bug, but the API gets dropped, AIUI because Google want…
I'm not sure if that's what the person I was asking meant by "general agenda", considering the change you're talking about (Manifest v3) doesn't even affect Brave[0], or any other Chromium based browser that simply doesn't wish to implement that specific change. Chromium based browsers change their code all the time, and decide whether or not incoming changes will be fully adopted by their browser themselves. [0] htt…
a) ongoing cost of merging
b) security updates delayed because of merging.
It's possible the limit is high enough that it wont be a problem in practice though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why they chose to use (yet another) crypto currency for this.
Anonymity. You can use the system without ever having to type your mail address or credit card.
I've been using Brave rewards, both as a user and a content maker. It's really great, and I feel this may be a reasonable alternative to the invasive trackers+ads we have today. For the uninitiated, Brave lets users opt-in to Brave rewards: - You set your browser to reward content creators with Basic Attention Token (BAT). You set a budget (e.g. 10 BAT/month), and Brave distributes it the sites you use most, e.g. if…
Meh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. If the internet is to stay as alive and as open/accessible as it currently is for the public at large (despite increases in censorship), there needs to be more effort put into high availability and accessibility by more people than the enthusiasts who run revenue free sites/businesses that have…
> Like it or not, revenue is required to keep sites online. > Hosting costs money. Design costs money. Maintenance costs money. Then maybe we'll get less blogspam and have a higher signal-to-noise ratio of sites run by people who are passionate about things and know what they're doing, instead of crap trying just get clicks to get paid. Maybe videos would be 1 minute of quality content rather than 10 minutes of "be s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can just as easily block ads and not replace that revenue with anything, which is actually the default behavior. This is important. I’m already blocking ads. Brave at least let’s me give something back. There is no world where I don’t run the strictest ad blocker available.
Just curious, what is your opinion on Ethical Ads (no tracking, cookies, selling data)?
I’m not against ads that aren’t intrusive and don’t mine my data and try to target me.
I’m not against targeted ads because I think the ads are bad. I’m against the data necessary to target ads because it can be misused (law enforcement, politics, mental health, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that your eyeballs are something like $200/month. You are just not likely to pay that money. When you factor in money thrown away at bot/fraud, advertisers spend a shit load of money just to reach you (and indirectly pays for a whole lot of entertainment tv-shows/web-content)
That sounds crazy if true. The idea that companies are managing to change my behaviour enough with advertising to drive enough revenue and extra profit, for purchases that I wouldn’t otherwise have made, to justify $200 in advertising spend seems absurd. That would mean a significant portion of my monthly spending (much more than $200) would have to be directly driven by advertising. Is advertising really that effect…
That's why I believe a lot of value all these trackers provide to various companies is not so much the typical 'buy this product now' pop-up that you're thinking, but instead more nefarious value-adds.
Maybe that mortgage or car loan rate you applied for came back a little higher than others would have received on the same day. Perhaps that collection agency decided they wouldn't discount the medical bills because they know 'you can afford it'. I've seen several sites give me one price when I was logged in without an ad blocker, and then a lower price after clearing my cookies.
There is no way insurance companies aren't paying huge amounts of data to calculate rates offered to individuals based on thousands of data points. I imagine the government itself would be able to take advantage of user data in all sorts of clever ways - everything from solving crimes to catching tax cheats to provide better and cheaper background investigations for the millions who require it.
Companies interviewing candidates could save thousands on each potential hire if they could quickly have an algorithm avoid the 75% of candidates they wouldn't consider hiring anyway.
There are just so many ways companies can statistically make a few extra percent here or avoid an expensive loss there, it will be used until the government disallows it, which apparently isn't going to happen anytime soon in most countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So don't opt-in. There are other ways to acquire BAT and support the sites you visit in Brave besides watching ads.
No. You don't understand. It's not enough for me not to see ads anymore. I want the advertising industry to die. The entire thing. Its existence is harmful to society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience the most valuable websites have few ads and the most trashy websites have the most.
So why are you frequenting these 'trashy' sites? If you are, it must be because they offer some value, right? If you're not... then you don't see any ads from them. Someone else will, because they find value in the site.
A whole lot of news articles are just regurgitated Reuters or AP. There's nothing wrong with that and it is a valuable service. But I am completely indifferent to these sites existence.
The sites that I would really care about if they went under, like HN, Wikipedia, NYT, etc, either use subscriptions or are donation funded. HN has job ads but they are super low key.