71–80 of 259 posts
Power hungry censors from either the government or forums piss me off.
People who own forums have a right to regulate content, true.
But bullshit like this aint cool, I and the users are not babies, bugger off, we'll decide with votes.
Tangentially, I would like Google to put a warning on navigating to a site that has served malware any time in the past month. This will increase the penalty of serving malware so much that sites will suddenly push back on the ad networks and improve quality dramatically.
Are they not doing that already (via their fraud blacklist)? thepiratebay.se was just recently blocked (yesterday?) for serving malware via an ad. Safari and Chrome use this list AFAIK. I have first-hand experience with such a situation and you quickly loose faith in the ad network you're using. A month of blocking would be devastating to the site, considering it's not even their fault. Repeat offenders could be hand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…
Your description doesn't show why a pharmacist selling illegal drugs is dissimilar to a website selling ad space to illegal ad-space buyers. Any time where you've got multiple producers and multiple retailers, you get middle people like those you describe that must juggle demand and supply. Pharmacists have an equally complex path from producer to customer as ads have from ad-space buyer to website visitor. However,…
The word "legally" gives it away: because there are laws.
But we don't like dem laws here on teh intertubes, so far-west it is.
Hmm; how about a +5 point boost instead for sites doing paywall innovation? Free content isn't the end goal. Don't we want people to make a living off content? I can't imagine anybody here wouldn't pay 1 or 5 pennies for the second half of a useful article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this sufficient for HN but not for Reddit? If opinion is less divided on Reddit I'd also expect it to be less of a problem and thus less likely to require (auto) moderator input.
Scale. Reddit is bigger with hundreds, if not thousands, of subcultures and norms. While HN has a single stream of stories being voted on, the guidelines for story submissions limits the scope for what can be submitted. The people who read HN are pretty much all technically astute, so when they see an article behind a paywall they don't vote it up - heck, many probably just flag it on principle. If the article is cho…
But the link is about /r/technology only, not reddit as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your description doesn't show why a pharmacist selling illegal drugs is dissimilar to a website selling ad space to illegal ad-space buyers. Any time where you've got multiple producers and multiple retailers, you get middle people like those you describe that must juggle demand and supply. Pharmacists have an equally complex path from producer to customer as ads have from ad-space buyer to website visitor. However,…
> Why can the publisher get away [...] while a hospital is fully legally responsible The word "legally" gives it away: because there are laws. But we don't like dem laws here on teh intertubes, so far-west it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…
It absolutely is so black and white. If I buy a computer from you and you send me a parcel which explodes in my hands, no amount of hand-waving is going to get you out of this -- this even holds if you just distributed notes "Call this number to get your own personal computer free of charge!". And just as a computer reseller/free-computers-for-everyone-distributor has an obligation not to send bombs to people who ask…
You should really post np.reddit links to prevent non-users of said reddit community from voting. It's the standard practice -- https://www.reddit.com/r/NoParticipation/wiki/intro
Since non-users would have to create an account anyway in order to vote, I'm not sure that this is an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may surprise you, but there are people here who don't mind these sites. It's already possible to flag links that you think have no place on HN. Please use that instead of trying to setup preemptive censorship.
I don't think you understand what censorship is.
You should really post np.reddit links to prevent non-users of said reddit community from voting. It's the standard practice -- https://www.reddit.com/r/NoParticipation/wiki/intro