Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#51

Post by mverwijs »

clydethefrog wrote: post #21
mverwijs wrote: post #3

A lot of them do. Per article. It's called https://blendle.com . Only an email address is required. And money. And it's not libre.

Blendle also tracks which articles you read. They also are working on an algorithm that picks the news for you, creating a filter bubble.

The filter will be opt-in, obviously.

And, again obviously, they need to keep track of which account is allowed access to which article. If only to allow you to read the article across multiple devices.

(Former employee here. Not in the exact loop these past 12 months)

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#52

Post by mverwijs »

jstanley wrote: post #7
mverwijs wrote: post #3

A lot of them do. Per article. It's called https://blendle.com . Only an email address is required. And money. And it's not libre.

If it takes fiat currency it's probably not anonymous.

We accepted bitcoins from day one. Not sure if they still do as it was used I think 8 times over the course of 2 years. But given the people working there I wouldn't be surprised if they still accept them.

(Disclaimer: Former employee. Left in sept 2015.)

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#53

Post by gorhill »

rolfvandekrol wrote: post #10

I find it interesting that this article is published on a platform that makes uBlock block 27 requests and most certainly does contain non-free javascript. Richard Stallman talks a lot about how these thing inhibit freedom and that we should not support those companies. But when he publishes an article on ad blocking he does this on a platform that absolutely does not meet his standard on freedom.

> and most certainly does contain non-free javascript

You do not have to execute any javascript for the article to be read properly -- maybe it's what matter from his point of view.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#54

Post by acdha »

mirimir wrote: post #23
lumberjack wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's plugging GNU Taler which was specifically designed to be government friendly (allows collection of taxes and AML compliance and not easy to implement black markets). He's not talking about other kind cryptocurrencies. Stallman isn't a "down with the government" type of person despite being sceptical of surveillance.

So the title of his article is a lie, then. > Publishers must let online readers pay for news anonymously It's not anonymous if GNU Taler knows user identity.

Lying is a strong, loaded term to toss around for a difference in opinion.

From the context, it's immediately clear that Stallman was referring to the relationship between the reader and the publisher. That still counts as anonymous from their perspective even if the reader also has other relationships with different parties (ISP, bank, government, etc.) on different terms.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#55

Post by protomyth »

blfr wrote: post #14

Is this really the reason people block ads? I don't actually mind tracking as part of a useful service (like Google Maps). I block ads because they're 1) annoying 2) funding mass media. Depriving Bezos' WaPo or Slim's NYT of revenue is definitely a feature. If billionaires want to push propaganda, the least they can do is foot the bill. Tracking is a distant third. If an outlet I cared about ran ads, I'd white-list t…

> Is this really the reason people block ads?

I block ads mostly because they take up a lot of bandwidth and I don't have an unlimited amount on my cell. Plus, many ad networks don't seem to protect the users from malevolent javascript. I also block Flash for the same reason.

I'm not opposed to ads, I'm opposed to auto-play video script fests that try to sell me the thing I just browsed on Amazon.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#56

Post by protomyth »

mrfusion wrote: post #47

I'm still appalled when an ebook accepts Bitcoin but still asks for your "billing address".

Welcome to the fun and inflexible world of enterprise software. I attribute that to legacy code more than actual malevolence.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#57

Post by AdmiralAsshat »

I've thought before about online commerce, and wish we could find some way to adopt a Vending Machine model.

A vending machine is autonomous. It neither tracks nor engages the customer. It takes your money, and dispenses product. Since cash is untraceable, it keeps no record of what was bought and by whom. I feel at peace knowing I will give a vending machine a dollar, and I will receive a Coke, without fearing that I will start seeing targeted ads on my browser or in my inbox showing me more Coke products.

The problem, of course, is that the amount of money lost to a vending machine is negligible. And so if the soda machine eats my dollar, I will probably swear for a bit, but I'm not going to do much to seek recourse. That model would be difficult to extend to, say, Amazon, where I might buy an $800 laptop and need Amazon to have a record that I bought it in case they ship me a lemon.

Nonetheless, I still feel that the Vending Machine Model is something we should aspire to in the e-commerce age, even if we haven't reached it yet.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#58

Post by blakeyrat »

jtrip wrote: post #31
blfr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find private collection of information a bigger threat than I do government tracking Why?

Because the inherent idea is control of power. One would trust a small company over the government because the small company can't do much damage with only that much data, whereas the government can, combined with all the other data. The small company can earn more money, what we can rely on given that they are in it for the money, with helping us with the data than they can by selling the data. How ever, as the comp…

Hurtful how?

I admit I've really never understood that part of the argument.

To go with your example, ok, you have tracking data with a dozen smaller companies you've done transactions with online. Now they all merge and become one huge company, all that data is combined. How were you hurt by this action?

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#59

Post by dhimes »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #57

I've thought before about online commerce, and wish we could find some way to adopt a Vending Machine model. A vending machine is autonomous. It neither tracks nor engages the customer. It takes your money, and dispenses product. Since cash is untraceable, it keeps no record of what was bought and by whom. I feel at peace knowing I will give a vending machine a dollar, and I will receive a Coke, without fearing that…

Maybe for the Amazon model they could issue a (public- that you keep private) key that allows you to challenge a request for proof of purchase. In other words, if you want a refund you show that you have this digital receipt.

Re: Richard Stallman: Online Publishers Should Let Readers Pay Anonymously

#60

Post by dhimes »

blakeyrat wrote: post #58
jtrip wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the inherent idea is control of power. One would trust a small company over the government because the small company can't do much damage with only that much data, whereas the government can, combined with all the other data. The small company can earn more money, what we can rely on given that they are in it for the money, with helping us with the data than they can by selling the data. How ever, as the comp…

Hurtful how? I admit I've really never understood that part of the argument. To go with your example, ok, you have tracking data with a dozen smaller companies you've done transactions with online. Now they all merge and become one huge company, all that data is combined. How were you hurt by this action?

It gives the company power over you, either to raise your insurance rates because you like pork rinds, or to embarrass you or your underage sister because you've been linked and she just had an abortion. And like we're learning from facebook, there's a herd immunity component to it. If I vaccinate myself against tracking but you don't, you can infect me anyway.

It's a really shitty thing to do, and the problem we as a society face are people who are unable to abstract the idea into the dangers we can all face and protect ourselves against dangers we can't foresee.

That's what principles are for. We stand on basic principles of privacy and freedom because if we don't we get into a nonlinear mess of unintended and unforseen consequences- and we don't even know it.

Just like the deer that doesn't even know it's being hunted, we are in this game and don't even know what's eventually at stake. So we should stop it now.

I'm ok with banner ads. I'm not ok with tracking.

Post reply on HN