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

Chrome, 10 Years Later

neugierig.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#81

Post by izacus »

poszlem wrote: post #57
xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

Yeah, that part of the blog post is probably the best example of: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

This obviously goes both ways - some people also utterly refuse to understand just how many businesses exist because of the revenue driven from ads. Which then results in some comments here that are utterly detached from reality.

It's kinda tiring really - seeing people constantly bark past each other with no understanding of nuance. But that's the modern internet I guess.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#82

Post by busyant »

haspok wrote: post #55
xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads... Yes, it absolutely is. Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed. Just open any consumer-oriented webpage these days, and I can guarantee you will get 2-3 videos (!) or animations autoplay immediately, and a large part of your screen eaten by…

> Ads not only cost me my time and attention, but also consume resources (network bandwith, CPU time, screen real estate) that I might not want to be consumed.

Story time. In the 1970s, my grandfather wrote a letter to our local newspaper, asking them to omit the advertisements when they built his copy of the news. "I never read them" he said.

Then my mother had to explain to him a little bit about mass production.

He would have loved ad-blockers.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#83

Post by xg15 »

SalimoS wrote: post #79
xg15 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never requested the ad.

no you request a resource (webpage) the ad was sent to you by the owner of the resource (it's his right to put whatever he want the the webpage) as your right to not request it/block it PS:in another comment i tried to explain how i see it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33919824

> as your right to not request it/block it

But that's exactly what an adblocker does. It's something different than not requesting the entire website though.

I don't think anyone demanded that browsers block ads without the user's consent.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#84

Post by xg15 »

SalimoS wrote: post #60
tgvaughan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, although it's never "cheating" to block ads on our own devices, unless we accept that it's okay to force people from looking away Clockwork Orange-style. (Even the term "blocking" seems wrong: it's not like the ads are coming down a pipe and my "ad blocker" is bouncing them away.)

The way i see it (an example) you as a user want to read a story that i wrote in my website but when you request it i'm embedding an ad with the story, it's my right to embed the ad and not showing what i wrote without it and it's your right to not open the website it's not perfect, im using an ad blocker and i can't understand how people can surf the internet without one but hopefully we can find a solution the chan…

But the thing is that you're just sending me code. The thing that is executing the code (rendering the website) is software and hardware that I supposedly own. So I think it's reasonable to expect that those work in my interest and not in the interest of the website.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#85

Post by rakoo »

xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

The quote also perpetuates the free market myth: every actor is on an equal foot, has infinite amounts of time and energy to consider options, the alternatives exist and/or are essentially free to build, and money is not a problem. That's never been true. Somehow, there is no environment, no society at large, no inequality. I understand how someone living in the richest country working for the richest company could fool themselves into believing it, but it's incredibly shortsighted.

The society we live in demands that you earn money, if you don't want to die. The only thing that you have in a high enough amount is time, so if you use time to do anything, at some point it must earn money or you die. In the digital world there is no scarcity, so the old model of physical stuff you sell for $X a piece doesn't work. There are no systems to guarantee a life to everyone, everyone has to fight for themselves. If you want to produce content, content that is not necessary to live, you necessarily enter non a competition for attention, for money, against everyone else. If people justifiably can't give you money, you must resort to the only way that gives you a survival fee: shove crap in the eyes of the reader. Give them not what they want, but what others want. Influence their decisions.

It's a shitty system. The analogy is interesting because if there's a single vendor that holds what you need to survive, and they price it at an outrageously high price just for their profit, is it acceptable ? Is it OK, as a society, to say no to this practice ?

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#86

Post by LunaSea »

xg15 wrote: post #84
SalimoS wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way i see it (an example) you as a user want to read a story that i wrote in my website but when you request it i'm embedding an ad with the story, it's my right to embed the ad and not showing what i wrote without it and it's your right to not open the website it's not perfect, im using an ad blocker and i can't understand how people can surf the internet without one but hopefully we can find a solution the chan…

But the thing is that you're just sending me code. The thing that is executing the code (rendering the website) is software and hardware that I supposedly own. So I think it's reasonable to expect that those work in my interest and not in the interest of the website.

They are since you are able to read the article which wouldn't be possible without the ad.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#87

Post by xg15 »

LunaSea wrote: post #86
xg15 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing is that you're just sending me code. The thing that is executing the code (rendering the website) is software and hardware that I supposedly own. So I think it's reasonable to expect that those work in my interest and not in the interest of the website.

They are since you are able to read the article which wouldn't be possible without the ad.

It's perfectly possible to view the article without the ad if I use an adblocker.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#88

Post by josephg »

safety1st wrote: post #76
yakubin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the entire analogy dubious. When I see a link, I don’t know what sort of ads or JS is on the page it leads to. By blocking ads I am not renegotiating any transactions, because I never entered any transaction. If anything, it seems the author of the post thinks it’s okay for website owners to unilaterally dictate the terms of transaction and force visitors into them. When I buy a banana, I see the price beforeh…

Also, let's not forget what's really going on as a part of this "transaction," which is that a website is sending data to my computer, which I own. That data includes requests for my computer to perform certain operations, show me some ads, maybe hand over my online banking passwords, etc. etc. I am absolutely within my rights if I instruct my computer to honor some of these requests and not others. Any other perspec…

Yep. I adore the philosophy behind the browser as “user agent” - the browser acts on behalf of the user who runs it, as an agent of the user’s will in the world.

I wish more technology worked that way.

Re: Chrome, 10 Years Later

#90

Post by kgwxd »

xg15 wrote: post #34

> People seem to think it's the browser's job to block ads, but my perspective is that if a business owner wants to make their business repulsive, the only sensible response is to stop using the business. Somehow once technology is involved to abstract what's happening, people start talking about how it's their right to unilaterally renegotiate the transaction. Or for another analogy that will likely make you upset:…

It’s the browsers job to be an agent of the user, full stop.

All other forms of advertisement are a deal between 2 businesses. They work out all the details of when and where an ad will be shown, and what methods will be used to verify the deal is being upheld, none of which rely on the consumer. It would be insane to expect consumers to volunteer their time and effort to fetch the ad and show it to themselves, especially before they even know what they’re getting out it. Add to that expecting the consumer to answer a large list of personal questions, and it’s downright certifiable.

Post reply on HN