761–770 of 844 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes sense in isolated situations, like Netflix recommending content based on previous content you liked on their platform. I think it becomes creepy once that data leaves the domain where I originally generated it.
Is that really an ad though? A recommendation on the platform itself isn't an ad IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No thanks for me. Advertisements if nothing else consume too much of my local compute resources for zero benefit to me. Why should I give them this free compute?
Why should I give them this free compute? Why should they give you free content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the parent, but I've been doing the same thing. For maybe a slightly different reason. 1. Since the 90s. 2. Needs to be solved by user agents. Ad blockers generally work by host name or css selector. This doesn't filter out any of the bad guys that are really trying. 3. Continue with ads I guess. This doesn't actually happen in real life as far as I can tell. The reason I don't use an ad blocker is that I like be…
"Prevalence of ad blockers creates an incentive to do canvas rendering based on a DRM-obfuscated data blob. That's worse for everyone." Next gen ad blocker will be a headless web browser in a data center to capture the canvas, plus automated video editing to remove the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
It is not the responsibility of Internet users to ensure the jobs of people in the advertising industry. Compelling users to view ads (when they view other content) to protect those jobs would be an infringement on individual rights for a very poor reason. That's why ad blockers and DVRs are legal in every country that I'm aware of.
I have news for you. Those jobs are not affected at all. Advertising isn't going away, ever. The channels change, but advertising survives. There's plenty pre-internet history on that.
The jobs that are affected are those from the sites that rely on ad income to pay for salaries and their costs. If 100% of internet users used ad-blocking millions of jobs would evaporate almost overnight.
I'll give you a simple example of this. A good friend of mine runs a nice little site where he and his wife provide valuable and well-researched nutritional information for pet owners. They work very hard to create their content. This site is their sole income. This is what they do to house and feed their kids, to have a life. Nearly 100% of their income is form advertising on their site. If they did not generate this income they would go bankrupt and likely lose everything.
Why do people like you think it is OK to steal their work product? I don't get it. How can anyone rationalize that. Once you get down to ground reality, it's theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have obviously convinced yourself it is OK to steal because you think it is OK to steal, because you think it is OK to steal. Good for you. What you never see are the jobs you might affect through your actions. You have actually convinced yourself that you are entitled to use someone else's work product without paying for it in any way. All I can say is that I hope one day someone does the same to you. Maybe then…
I think we fundamentally disagree on what "stealing" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very anti-advertising but I think from a production standpoint this is yes and no. Without advertising, it doesn't make sense to put in the capital expenditure to create new products that require a high upfront cost because there's no demand for it. Advertising is used to create demand. Under a different economic model, this feature of the production environment would not be as necessary.
Perhaps the capital expenditure shouldn't have been made in the first place. Our earth is careening towards an environmental cliff. We don't need people finding more ways emit CO2 into the atmosphere. If people really need the thing they'll find it and word will get around.
If Google priced Premium to replace the very small revenue they must receive for adverts (at least for the small amount I use YouTube), that would be one thing. But they're asking for a lot more. Two parents w 6 Google logins between them (2 personal, 4 work entities) and 4 kids, each w a personal and school account. This would require 14 YouTube Premium accounts. Um...no.
Youtube premium family plan covers 6 accounts iirc. So if you could make that work you'd be looking at the cost of one and a half premium accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You know, like how it used to be with RSS. That, my friend, would be because it is RSS!
IIRC, think NewPipe actually requests the channel pages and parses the html.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> You think you are entitled to free pizza. When companies SEO-shove it in my face and almost literally beg me to take it.. oh I don't feel entitled but it's hard to avoid. Stop shoving it in my face and I won't take it. > And then reality hits: There was never any free pizza. And the pizza is gone. Along with the jobs and everything else it created. So clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash that s…
I must ask: Do you mean to say that you only visit "clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash" sites with your ad blockers?
Likely not. What is a far more likely scenario is that you frequent sites that deliver you enough value that you choose to visit them. This is that context I am referring to when I speak of theft. Not the useless content-farm junk you seem to want to use as a means of justification for blocking ads on the sites you visit.
If you don't like their use of advertising, don't visit the sites.
Note that what we are discussing here isn't a requirement for you to CLICK on ads and make money for them. Not at all. All this boils down to is not interfering with these sites displaying their ads and engaging in marketing to you that might result in revenue. That's what you are objecting to.
You want the people who create and manage the valuable content you provide to work for you for free. That is a remarkably shitty position to take, and I am being kind. Give me your valuable content or service --which I enjoy and want to consume, repeatedly-- and do it for nothing, while actively interfere with your ability to earn any money and promote others to do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> And, yes, I use various advertising channels to find customers. Money well spent, I'm sure. https://gizmodo.com/facebook-announces-its-fake-ad-numbers-a... > It is nothing less than delusional to convince yourself that you are entitled to the entire web without paying for any of it. I never said I'm entitled to the entire web for free. Don't try to make it seem like I'm brazenly pirating my way across the internet.…
Great. Then, if you are a principled person and do not agree with the way advertising is being used on the 'net, don't use anything other than what you pay for. That's the morally and ethically correct stance to take.
What ad-blocker users are saying is: I don't like advertising. I am still going to use your work product and I am not going to pay you a dime for any of it.
Well, that's wrong.
> If it all burned down tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.
I don't think you have a good sense of the scale and breath of what online marketing supports.
Simple example: https://www.webmd.com/
They have ads. Blocking them would mean the service would suffer and maybe even shutdown.
There are millions of sites like that, where valuable content or services are offered. I belong to several manufacturing related forums that would not exist were it not for their ability to monetize the hard work required to keep them going. I personally know a couple of people running these sites. They work 16 hour days, seven days a week, to keep their communities going. It's very hard work and it is very, very far from "nothing of value".