91–100 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sustainable? Tell that to PBS!
Sustainable is the wrong word. Is it scalable? Meaning can a large number of creators live off of this model?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We tell our customers that ad blockers are their first line of defense against malware on the web, and it's true. Web ads have been bad for years and continue to get worse, and content providers aren't doing enough yet to police the advertising on their site. Did you happen to see the recent link about the AdSense redirects? e.g. http://blog.sucuri.net/2015/01/adsense-abused-with-malvertis...
If your customers have machines that can be hijacked by drive-by malware, then blocking ads is not going to help them much in the long run.
I hate dealing with client-side malware. It's a time-consuming headache for my techs, it's frustrating and sometimes dangerous for the customers, and it's a loss leader for my business. I've put a fair amount of effort into never doing a malware removal or system restoration for the same customer more than once, and ad blocking software has probably been the single most effective and reliable piece of prevention.
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
> Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. Another viable option is letting a lot of the content die. I'm sure we can all live without knowing that one neat trick that you won't believe. In your proposal: > ... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living. Well perhaps if that's the cas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. Another viable option is letting a lot of the content die. I'm sure we can all live without knowing that one neat trick that you won't believe. In your proposal: > ... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living. Well perhaps if that's the cas…
... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living. Well perhaps if that's the case what you do is not valuable to anyone. People have trouble coming to terms with the fact that they don't necessarily deserve to earn a living because they're doing something they like. It's like people are incapable of growing up anymore.
You are not that person. No one is.
If you ask me, you are the parasite here, not the musician who wants to make a living.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sustainable? Tell that to PBS!
Sustainable is the wrong word. Is it scalable? Meaning can a large number of creators live off of this model?
I, for one, and excited to see crowd-patronage grow. It's a model that rewards artists with cult appeal (versus the consumer model, which values mass appeal). The arts will be a little less bland.
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
> Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. Another viable option is letting a lot of the content die. I'm sure we can all live without knowing that one neat trick that you won't believe. In your proposal: > ... constant challenge for any creative type is making a living. Well perhaps if that's the cas…
I thought HN was had smart people. These are the kind of juvenile arguments I've seen snotty 13 year olds make on Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not completely true. While it's true that some artists just feel entitled to a paycheck, there are other reasons to support paying for content. After all, good music (or good anything) takes a lifetime of practice to make. You have less time to perfect your craft if you're working a full time job doing something else. If some artists are allowed to make a living off their work, or even half a living off their…
While it's true that some artists just feel entitled to a paycheck, there are other reasons to support paying for content. I have no problems with anyone willing to part with their money for content. I do it myself from time to time. My issue is the sense of entitlement whereby people think they should be getting money because they are performing an activity the feel should earn them money.
Which means that most of the time, you don't pay for content.
Which means that you basically pirate music.
Which means that you are the parasite, not the musician.
99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name. Not only is this why online advertising is ultimately doomed, but it's why we hugely and desperately and badly need to find another way of paying for content. The alternatives for the moment are gratis, patronage, "native advertising", and subscriptions. Few of these strike me as ultimately scalable. I've been a fan of Phil Hunt, of Pirate Party UK, and his broadban…
>99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name >My own sketched proposal: http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest... See, the intense irony in your comment is that you are effectively advertising your own content using exaggerated, overhyped claim. If you consider such actions to be a net negative for the society, you are a part of the problem. I do not disagree with you on principle and you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it's true that some artists just feel entitled to a paycheck, there are other reasons to support paying for content. I have no problems with anyone willing to part with their money for content. I do it myself from time to time. My issue is the sense of entitlement whereby people think they should be getting money because they are performing an activity the feel should earn them money.
> I do it myself from time to time Which means that most of the time, you don't pay for content. Which means that you basically pirate music. Which means that you are the parasite, not the musician.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part made me scratch my head a bit, because they shouldn't have access to Yahoo cookies. I think the article meant the http referrer needed to be yahoo?
Possibly. Can you set cookies over JavaScript? Ad networks allow ad providers to inject arbitrary JavaScript into their clients' websites.
There might be some exception that I'm not aware of, but that would seem like a pretty serious browser security issue.