The right to use adblockers(fsfe.org)
fsfe.org
The right to use adblockers
https://fsfe.org/news/2023/news-20231220-01.sl.html
290 comments
> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine.
Exactly. I've got a right to block ads if I can figure out how to achieve that technologically. But they've got a right to not give me content if they can figure out, technologically, that I'm blocking their ads.
This all seems very fair to me.
Exactly. I've got a right to block ads if I can figure out how to achieve that technologically. But they've got a right to not give me content if they can figure out, technologically, that I'm blocking their ads.
This all seems very fair to me.
I mostly agree, but it seems wrong to me that the side serving up content even has the ability to tell how you choose to display it. It's like a magazine with embedded cameras that self-immolates if it sees you take out scissors to cut it up for scrapbooking. Feels like a gross violation already.
But that's not what's happening: what's happening is the server is asking for the properties of the client and making a decision to serve based on response. Similar to presenting credentials to be served. Surely the server is allow to set whatever conditions they are able to express technologically. You can't force a server to serve, or can you?
The server should not be able to ask beyond the protocols of the request. The client says this is what I need, the server responds in that form if it can. The server is not supposed to send a script inspecting the client for more details.
If the server can run a script to analyze what plugins you're running, what else can it take? Exfiltration of arbitrary data is not something that is OK.
You can't force a server to serve, nor should you force a client to give more information than is necessary to serve the request. Anything else is no longer technology, it's adversarial and now we're in a Prisoner's Dilemma.
If the server can run a script to analyze what plugins you're running, what else can it take? Exfiltration of arbitrary data is not something that is OK.
You can't force a server to serve, nor should you force a client to give more information than is necessary to serve the request. Anything else is no longer technology, it's adversarial and now we're in a Prisoner's Dilemma.
Obviously the criterion cannot be "is is technologically expressible". With modern tracking/spying you can know with plenty of confidence someone's personal characteristics such as ethnicity.
They can ask for the properties of the client, and the user can then make a informed decision to consent to that collection of personal information. In EU it is similar to asking for identification credentials.
Naturally this may make the process a bit cumbersome and websites that does not behave like this will gain a bit competitive advantage.
Naturally this may make the process a bit cumbersome and websites that does not behave like this will gain a bit competitive advantage.
Well presumably you paid for the magazine, since it has a significantly higher production cost.
What do you think about advertisements played by broadcast radio stations? How about billboards?
I turn off broadcasts so I don’t have to listen. And if I record them I fast forward them.
I hate billboards. I feel like they’re too intrusive and wouldn’t mind seeing a ban.
Especially the ones that are back lit. Can’t believe advertisers are given the right to attempt to distract drivers the most.
I hate billboards. I feel like they’re too intrusive and wouldn’t mind seeing a ban.
Especially the ones that are back lit. Can’t believe advertisers are given the right to attempt to distract drivers the most.
Agreed. Vermont, Maine, Alaska and Hawaii all ban billboards, and they're all nicer to drive in as a result.
https://idlewords.com/talks/what_happens_next_will_amaze_you...
Broadcast static-media advertisements generally aren't engaged in a cat-and-mouse game where they increase surveillance to combat fraud.
Broadcast static-media advertisements generally aren't engaged in a cat-and-mouse game where they increase surveillance to combat fraud.
Imagine if your radio wouldn't let you turn the volume back up for the next song set if you happened to turn the volume down during an ad break.
Agreed. As someone who could not use the web without an ad blocker, I wouldn't even be opposed to a `X-Blocks-Ads: true` request header or something, to just shut down the hue and cry between the two parties. Let's all be honest, then see where it gets us.
If we could trust adtech to be honest we wouldn't have to vigorously block them. You and I both know X-Block-Ads would be nothing more than an extra wrinkle for your browser fingerprint.
Right, because the Do-Not-Track flag was respected oh so well. The only people that seem to care about flags are an invading colonizing system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTduy7Qkvk8
It would be another bit for the fingerprinting, that's an important caveat.
The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls, and let the market decide whether users are OK with that. The current situation is that ad blocking is a luxury, afforded by people like us with a decent Internet connection for the constant updates, and understanding of technology, to enable ad blocking in the first place.
The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls, and let the market decide whether users are OK with that. The current situation is that ad blocking is a luxury, afforded by people like us with a decent Internet connection for the constant updates, and understanding of technology, to enable ad blocking in the first place.
> The point is that web site owners should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls
They should be easily able to make the attempt, they should not easily be effective because to do so is to allow authoritarianism.
I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. The threat of having that ability is too high.
They should be easily able to make the attempt, they should not easily be effective because to do so is to allow authoritarianism.
I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do. The threat of having that ability is too high.
You're choosing to run their javascript. If you turn off JS, they don't get any control, and you'll likely not get any content or ads.
Let's not forget that people are (1) choosing to visit the site, and (2) choosing to run the server's code locally. This isn't authoritarianism.
If you want to watch YouTube, or Netflix, or whatever, you have to seek it out, and run their code. And of course, you should mutually agree to terms to see be distributed their content.
Let's not forget that people are (1) choosing to visit the site, and (2) choosing to run the server's code locally. This isn't authoritarianism.
If you want to watch YouTube, or Netflix, or whatever, you have to seek it out, and run their code. And of course, you should mutually agree to terms to see be distributed their content.
>I paid for my device, they should have no control over it, yet they do.
no they don't. Even with this theoretical header, they wouldn't have control unless it was an OS-level setting (even then, it'd be trivial to spoof).
they have data you desire, you send a request to connect, they use info in that request to give you a response. malicious services aside, the worst they can do is send nothing, or only undesirable data (a page full of nothing but ads, that you'd block. resulting in nothing). It doesn't control your ability to tab out, close the tab, switch the browser, nor change your OS.
no they don't. Even with this theoretical header, they wouldn't have control unless it was an OS-level setting (even then, it'd be trivial to spoof).
they have data you desire, you send a request to connect, they use info in that request to give you a response. malicious services aside, the worst they can do is send nothing, or only undesirable data (a page full of nothing but ads, that you'd block. resulting in nothing). It doesn't control your ability to tab out, close the tab, switch the browser, nor change your OS.
I don't think you've read much on what's coming.
And this isn't just about the browser, but about things such as certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
And this isn't just about the browser, but about things such as certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
I've read about the chromium stuff. This is why 1) alternatives are important and why I switched to Firefox this year and 2) why being open source is important for competitors to fork and avoid this BS.
>certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
HDCP was indeed a mistake. A very flimsy one at that. There's so many ways to display content that trying to block it on some specific kind of cable protocol is silly. It just makes people think the device is broken.
>certain cables being unable to display movies, etc.
HDCP was indeed a mistake. A very flimsy one at that. There's so many ways to display content that trying to block it on some specific kind of cable protocol is silly. It just makes people think the device is broken.
They paid to create the content, they decide whether you get to see it. Simple as that. No DRM or other shenanigans needed.
> should be able to easily implement ad/pay walls
Isn't paywalls (not ad walls) just bog standard subscription membership?
If so, the technical implementation part of that has been pretty well solved many times over.
Ad-walls though are a different kettle of fish.
Isn't paywalls (not ad walls) just bog standard subscription membership?
If so, the technical implementation part of that has been pretty well solved many times over.
Ad-walls though are a different kettle of fish.
Yes. The adtech industry is a hive of scum and villainy. They'll use every bit of data they have access to in order to screw you.
I think it doesn’t even need to be a “try to achieve” type thing. I’ll happily leave if a site doesn’t want to serve me without ads. I’m not interested in a technical back and forth.
I wish sites would stop with the nag pop-ups and all that junk.
Ideally, sites’ link generators would have a means of labeling their links as “ad-required” and our browsers could just be programmed to not render them. Link aggregation sites like Hackernews could just not show those sites to users that don’t want them. If a site requires a GDPR tracking pop-up, I just don’t want it to show up in my duck-duck-go searches.
It is annoying that it is a battle. We have two parties that just don’t want to do business with each other. I get that many sites are ad-supported and I wish they could be hidden so that I could more easily find the other ones.
I wish sites would stop with the nag pop-ups and all that junk.
Ideally, sites’ link generators would have a means of labeling their links as “ad-required” and our browsers could just be programmed to not render them. Link aggregation sites like Hackernews could just not show those sites to users that don’t want them. If a site requires a GDPR tracking pop-up, I just don’t want it to show up in my duck-duck-go searches.
It is annoying that it is a battle. We have two parties that just don’t want to do business with each other. I get that many sites are ad-supported and I wish they could be hidden so that I could more easily find the other ones.
> I wish sites would stop with the nag pop-ups and all that junk.
Just go to the Filter Lists tab in your uBlock Origin settings and check these groups:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters - Annoyances
If you still see nags anywhere after enabling these lists, please click on the extension button and use the report option (the speech bubble icon).
Just go to the Filter Lists tab in your uBlock Origin settings and check these groups:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters - Annoyances
If you still see nags anywhere after enabling these lists, please click on the extension button and use the report option (the speech bubble icon).
It isn’t that I don’t like the nags. I don’t want the part of the internet that needs the nags to get in the way of my view of the good part.
> If a site requires a GDPR tracking pop-up
Not sure I understand that particular hill for dying on. If they aren't legally required to give you a choice, they're just going to be tracking you unconditionally.
Not sure I understand that particular hill for dying on. If they aren't legally required to give you a choice, they're just going to be tracking you unconditionally.
I believe their point is that only sites that are tracking you are legally required to give you a choice.
Plenty of sites ignore GDPR, some sites will GDPR just to CYA, some sites have cookie popups just to be polite, "Site with GDPR popup" in reality is a very poor analog for "site that wants to track me." Most sites that want to, especially for those not in the EU, just will, no questions asked.
> Most sites that want to, especially for those not in the EU, just will, no questions asked.
Maybe for most sites, but not for most site visits, since people mostly visit just a few large sites that are too big to ignore the law.
Maybe for most sites, but not for most site visits, since people mostly visit just a few large sites that are too big to ignore the law.
Who’s dying on a hill? They can have that hill if they want to die for it!
GDPR is great, sites should be required to ask to track. But if they start asking, most sites, I’d rather just leave.
GDPR is great, sites should be required to ask to track. But if they start asking, most sites, I’d rather just leave.
I'm asking why because I don't understand and I would like to understand your perspective. With my current understanding, that seems like a strict downgrade.
What's so hard to understand?
They'd rather filter sites that track in the first place.
Sure today, in a world that developed without that, that would remove most of the internet, but so what?
That just means their principle vs practical set point lands on a different part of the scale than you, but so does everyone's vs everyone else's.
It's a great idea to imagine, if that were somehow possible and the norm, would it still be most of the internet? Would good old unprincipled pragmatic market forces not result in most sites somehow finding a way to be in front of everyone's eyes?
They'd rather filter sites that track in the first place.
Sure today, in a world that developed without that, that would remove most of the internet, but so what?
That just means their principle vs practical set point lands on a different part of the scale than you, but so does everyone's vs everyone else's.
It's a great idea to imagine, if that were somehow possible and the norm, would it still be most of the internet? Would good old unprincipled pragmatic market forces not result in most sites somehow finding a way to be in front of everyone's eyes?
>But they've got a right to not give me content if they can figure out, technologically, that I'm blocking their ads.
If they can figure out how to do that technologically, it's their right (IMO). However, I believe they're fooling themselves if they think they can maintain this: the hackers are constantly figuring out how to defeat such protection measures, and it only takes one hacker to figure out how to bypass their ad-blocker-blocker and add it to the ad-blocker apps (or filter lists) for it to work for everyone who uses that ad-blocker.
If they can figure out how to do that technologically, it's their right (IMO). However, I believe they're fooling themselves if they think they can maintain this: the hackers are constantly figuring out how to defeat such protection measures, and it only takes one hacker to figure out how to bypass their ad-blocker-blocker and add it to the ad-blocker apps (or filter lists) for it to work for everyone who uses that ad-blocker.
> But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. It's your right to do that. Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick.
To me, I think this is the more salient set of points. I accept that a company wants to show me ads to pay for the content they're serving. I accept that they may refuse to let me access content if I don't first view/consume the ads. And I also accept that if I am not happy with that specific arrangement, I am free to go elsewhere.
What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.
To me, I think this is the more salient set of points. I accept that a company wants to show me ads to pay for the content they're serving. I accept that they may refuse to let me access content if I don't first view/consume the ads. And I also accept that if I am not happy with that specific arrangement, I am free to go elsewhere.
What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.
> What I do refuse to accept is that once they have sent me the data that they have any right to control how I consume it. If you want to prevent me from accessing your site unless I view ads, you have a very simple way to do that -- have your webserver return an error code unless I have viewed the ads. But once you have sent me the bytes, in my eyes, you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.
This is my view as well and I argue the danger of any other policy is authoritarian abuse of humans. Mandating that these companies have rights on devices _we_ paid for is a stepping stone to more egregious things.
This is my view as well and I argue the danger of any other policy is authoritarian abuse of humans. Mandating that these companies have rights on devices _we_ paid for is a stepping stone to more egregious things.
But isn't this the case? Who's going after people to do whatever they want to data they already have?
In my view, this falls under fair use.
If you have a private copy of a printed newspaper, you're free to tear out a page, draw pen-mustaches, wrap a fish in it, make a paper airplane, solve the crossword puzzle incorrectly, wipe yourself, basically anything you like - for your own amusement.
I don't see how your private copy of the webpage bytes should be any different.
In both cases there are very clear boundaries: you can't redistribute derivative works without permission & attribution (copyright), you can't publicly broadcast, etc. Everything else should be fair game.
If you have a private copy of a printed newspaper, you're free to tear out a page, draw pen-mustaches, wrap a fish in it, make a paper airplane, solve the crossword puzzle incorrectly, wipe yourself, basically anything you like - for your own amusement.
I don't see how your private copy of the webpage bytes should be any different.
In both cases there are very clear boundaries: you can't redistribute derivative works without permission & attribution (copyright), you can't publicly broadcast, etc. Everything else should be fair game.
One generally pays for the newspaper.
Not at all. There are many legal ways to receive free copies of newspapers. No one is going to come beat me up just because I didn’t read all the ads.
Denying access to a site is hardly like beating one up for not reading newspaper ads. It's more like they'd refuse to give you another edition of the paper on your next visit, or insisted you pay for the paper instead.
As genocidicbunny points out all the way up in the thread, if the server responds with 402 Payment Required, I'll honor it and either pay or go elsewhere. If it responds 200 OK and sends me the content - I'll use the content however I want, end of story.
Not even close.
I get one dumped on my yard twice a week that I don't even want, and can't stop even after calling their office. I am not the customer.
A newsstand may not give me a paper in the first place without me paying first, but if one is in my possession, then it's mine to use incorrectly.
The web site has the option to not put it's content out where the public can see it anonymously.
A newsstand may not give me a paper in the first place without me paying first, but if one is in my possession, then it's mine to use incorrectly.
The web site has the option to not put it's content out where the public can see it anonymously.
What the sibling said, plus: There are plenty of free newspapers, and even magazines. All of this applies to them as well.
And websites are free to put up a paywall in front of the content to get me to pay for it.
> you lose any right to dictate how those bytes are processed or blackholed.
Stop running their code locally if you don't like what it's doing! You're choosing to let them dictate, and if it's not running on your machine, they didnt' "take back" the bytes.
Also, realistically, most places send javascript to check for ad-blocking, and if it's positive, they skip sending you the content. I can't imagine why anyone would send you the content so it's local THEN try to keep you from seeing it.
Stop running their code locally if you don't like what it's doing! You're choosing to let them dictate, and if it's not running on your machine, they didnt' "take back" the bytes.
Also, realistically, most places send javascript to check for ad-blocking, and if it's positive, they skip sending you the content. I can't imagine why anyone would send you the content so it's local THEN try to keep you from seeing it.
If something is not sustainable without ads that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model.
Regardless of the consequences I'd rather see an ad free internet. If that means Youtube can't exist and Facebook can't exist and Google can't exist then so be it.
Regardless of the consequences I'd rather see an ad free internet. If that means Youtube can't exist and Facebook can't exist and Google can't exist then so be it.
Yeah like I hate to say this, but do we need _that many_ sites about cameras, gadgets, games, cars, or <insert topic>?
Do all those sites need to be commercial enterprises with sales teams and large editorial teams? Or could they go back to being hobby passion projects?
Or maybe there's just a handful of them and they are subscription-based for people who _really_ want that kind of news, and the best writers and creators gravitate to those sites and they build a sustainable business that way?
The ad-supported business model has allowed perhaps _too many_ people per topic area to try their hand at garnering eyeball in exchange for what is ultimately the same repackaged content, because they don't need their users to pay for the content, they just need to draw them in to support the sales of ads or tracking data.
This incentivizes all kinds of user-hostile behaviours in the quest for profit (or even just sustainability).
Do all those sites need to be commercial enterprises with sales teams and large editorial teams? Or could they go back to being hobby passion projects?
Or maybe there's just a handful of them and they are subscription-based for people who _really_ want that kind of news, and the best writers and creators gravitate to those sites and they build a sustainable business that way?
The ad-supported business model has allowed perhaps _too many_ people per topic area to try their hand at garnering eyeball in exchange for what is ultimately the same repackaged content, because they don't need their users to pay for the content, they just need to draw them in to support the sales of ads or tracking data.
This incentivizes all kinds of user-hostile behaviours in the quest for profit (or even just sustainability).
You shouldn't hate to say it--it's absolutely true. We don't need yet another listicle site choked with ads competing in a zero sum slugfest for some top organic search result spot. Nobody needs it. The only thing these sites serve is the greed of whoever is producing them. The Internet is worse off the more of these that exist. This shouldn't be a controversial opinion.
I guess I have a slightly more charitable take on this, in the sense that the Internet has an amazingly low barrier to entry for putting your content online and reaching an audience, and I think overall that's actually a great thing.
So I don't begrudge people trying to build an audience by publishing online about things they know or love, but one of the downsides is that the Internet's "content is free" tradition - that comes from hobbyists working out of passion - has led to a whole industry of "how do we make money off people without taking money from them" and that's ads and tracking.
And then the game becomes "how many people can I draw in to my site by any means necessary" instead of "how can I create engaging content".
So I don't begrudge people trying to build an audience by publishing online about things they know or love, but one of the downsides is that the Internet's "content is free" tradition - that comes from hobbyists working out of passion - has led to a whole industry of "how do we make money off people without taking money from them" and that's ads and tracking.
And then the game becomes "how many people can I draw in to my site by any means necessary" instead of "how can I create engaging content".
I think you're about 5ish years out of date.
Most of the sites on cameras, gadgets, games, cars e.t.c. are dead or dying and have been replaced by youtube channels, many of them run by hobbyists.
Most of the sites on cameras, gadgets, games, cars e.t.c. are dead or dying and have been replaced by youtube channels, many of them run by hobbyists.
This is an interesting point in the SEO conversation.
SEO, content farms and content marketing are killing the open web and Google is enabling it, perhaps because they're ok with the web being replaced by 4 or 5 websites, Youtube being the biggest of them.
SEO, content farms and content marketing are killing the open web and Google is enabling it, perhaps because they're ok with the web being replaced by 4 or 5 websites, Youtube being the biggest of them.
Ehh sure, that's a take.
There's still plenty (too many?) commercial websites - most that include their own YouTube channel - trying to compete for eyeballs by repackaging the same preview/review/press materials that companies send out..
They're no longer the only game in town though, that's for sure. I don't disagree that many hobbyists (definition up for debate) can compete on merit for the audience, which is awesome of course.
There's still plenty (too many?) commercial websites - most that include their own YouTube channel - trying to compete for eyeballs by repackaging the same preview/review/press materials that companies send out..
They're no longer the only game in town though, that's for sure. I don't disagree that many hobbyists (definition up for debate) can compete on merit for the audience, which is awesome of course.
The same rhetorical question still applies for hobbyist YT channels, IMO. Especially since many of them lock the more useful content behind subscription walls.
>Especially since many of them lock the more useful content behind subscription walls.
useful content? which ones? average youtuber incentives (be it through YT or Patreon) tend to just be a community private server on Discord to talk to the creator with. Or cut content that they couldn't air on youtube anyway (e.g. extended commentary on a video that would be de-monitized otherwise. There's way too much competition to lock out signifigant part of a Youtube's channel's content.
useful content? which ones? average youtuber incentives (be it through YT or Patreon) tend to just be a community private server on Discord to talk to the creator with. Or cut content that they couldn't air on youtube anyway (e.g. extended commentary on a video that would be de-monitized otherwise. There's way too much competition to lock out signifigant part of a Youtube's channel's content.
do we "need" 50 brands of soda, or 300 varieties of cheese?
> The ad-supported business model has allowed perhaps _too many_ people per topic area
"Too many" according to whom? You?
If no one "needs" them, then they won't get viewers and thus eventually won't get ads, either.
> The ad-supported business model has allowed perhaps _too many_ people per topic area
"Too many" according to whom? You?
If no one "needs" them, then they won't get viewers and thus eventually won't get ads, either.
> If no one "needs" them, then they won't get viewers and thus eventually won't get ads, either.
Demonstrably untrue; there are plenty of spam sites that hide themselves and play the SEO game well enough to (temporarily) get my eyeballs. These sites only satisfy a "need" insofar as my grandparents have a "need" to respond to emails from Nigerian scammers.
Demonstrably untrue; there are plenty of spam sites that hide themselves and play the SEO game well enough to (temporarily) get my eyeballs. These sites only satisfy a "need" insofar as my grandparents have a "need" to respond to emails from Nigerian scammers.
> (temporarily) get my eyeballs
train your eyeballs better, then. Or theirs.
train your eyeballs better, then. Or theirs.
Why do the villagers keep complaining about the widespread bandit problem when they could simply improve their swordfighting or hire bodyguards?
I'm sure villagers wish they could adblock or PiHole the bandits. would be a win-win situation.
Someone's been watching The Seven Samurai.
Ok.. This feels needlessly confrontational?
Sure, yes, according to me. That was implied when I posted my opinion on here, a discussion forum where we share opinions.
My opinion is that the ad-supported model itself, which doesn't rely on having paying readers/users, but rather on attracting said users to then be paid for showing them ads or collecting their data, has perhaps unintentionally created too low of a bar for entry (in hindsight) and as a result, the fierce competition for profit has led to user-hostile incentives in order to stay alive in such a crowded landscape.
I think the low barrier to entry for putting up websites or creating content online are a net positive, for the record. I love that anyone can just put their content online and compete for an audience on merit (more or less), rather than needing some large monetary investment up front.
But I also think the ad-supported monetize-the-shit-out-of-users model is a bad thing, and benefits from the same low barrier to entry.
But you take the good with the bad I suppose.
Sure, yes, according to me. That was implied when I posted my opinion on here, a discussion forum where we share opinions.
My opinion is that the ad-supported model itself, which doesn't rely on having paying readers/users, but rather on attracting said users to then be paid for showing them ads or collecting their data, has perhaps unintentionally created too low of a bar for entry (in hindsight) and as a result, the fierce competition for profit has led to user-hostile incentives in order to stay alive in such a crowded landscape.
I think the low barrier to entry for putting up websites or creating content online are a net positive, for the record. I love that anyone can just put their content online and compete for an audience on merit (more or less), rather than needing some large monetary investment up front.
But I also think the ad-supported monetize-the-shit-out-of-users model is a bad thing, and benefits from the same low barrier to entry.
But you take the good with the bad I suppose.
> This feels needlessly confrontational
if you make an assertion about there being "too many" of something, it begs for someone to ask how you know this. Almost anyone on HN might ask that. However, you've now added some nuance to it.
I think in general a low barrier to entry is a good thing: most of the music on Bandcamp wouldn't have even been available to the public 50 years ago.
Most of the self-published books out there now also would never make it past the Mean Girl "agents" who populate literary agencies. Most of those books are crap, but then so are the books from major publishers in airport bookstores.
if you make an assertion about there being "too many" of something, it begs for someone to ask how you know this. Almost anyone on HN might ask that. However, you've now added some nuance to it.
I think in general a low barrier to entry is a good thing: most of the music on Bandcamp wouldn't have even been available to the public 50 years ago.
Most of the self-published books out there now also would never make it past the Mean Girl "agents" who populate literary agencies. Most of those books are crap, but then so are the books from major publishers in airport bookstores.
> if you make an assertion about there being "too many" of something, it begs for someone to ask how you know this.
Ah yes, the old "must challenge every statement" gambit. You must be fun at parties.
Ah yes, the old "must challenge every statement" gambit. You must be fun at parties.
What's stopping people from creating these hobbyists sites now? Or you from using them?
Discoverability is a problem. The average hobbyist website has no chance of making it to the top of the pile of search-engine-optimized trash websites that are returned by search engines. For example: Quora often takes up half of my results these days.
…and if the hobbyists know that their sites aren’t going to get any visitors, there’s little reason to make them in the first place.
…and if the hobbyists know that their sites aren’t going to get any visitors, there’s little reason to make them in the first place.
If we just ban all advertising then there are no more SEO optimized sites trying to get that ad-revenue. So hobbyists should have no trouble with popularity if the ad-supported internet goes away.
hobbyists who may one day want to have a lifestyle out of this wouldn't benefit. And those would be the sites that have a reliable stream of content instead of maybe a burst of content for 2 months before getting bored or burned out and maybe making a piece of content every 5 months afterwards.
For all the negatives, a consistent stream is one of the biggest benefits from professional content creators, be it traditional news, Youtubers, streamers, or even bloggers.
For all the negatives, a consistent stream is one of the biggest benefits from professional content creators, be it traditional news, Youtubers, streamers, or even bloggers.
Nothing! And I do use a lot of them personally. I pay for several creators on Patreon and subscribe to a few creator-owned website publications to encourage work I care about most...
These are not mutually exclusive things, sorry if I implied that.
My point was more about the race to the bottom with commercial content sites/networks/publications in what seems like a borderless space, with increasingly bad incentives to draw in users.
These are not mutually exclusive things, sorry if I implied that.
My point was more about the race to the bottom with commercial content sites/networks/publications in what seems like a borderless space, with increasingly bad incentives to draw in users.
> If something is not sustainable without ads that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model.
This only holds if you agree that humans are perfectly rational economic agents. I disagree with that and think that there are lots of little interactions where just introducing a financial transaction impacts how people interact.
Maybe If I tallied all of my internet usage, figured out how much I value my internet usage, and then gave each page visit a value I could find out that I value my hackernews usage at $0.02 per link click. But if clicking links directly led to me paying more, my usage pattern would change.
This only holds if you agree that humans are perfectly rational economic agents. I disagree with that and think that there are lots of little interactions where just introducing a financial transaction impacts how people interact.
Maybe If I tallied all of my internet usage, figured out how much I value my internet usage, and then gave each page visit a value I could find out that I value my hackernews usage at $0.02 per link click. But if clicking links directly led to me paying more, my usage pattern would change.
Well, ads are the business model. Ads make it possible to sell things that people don't want to pay for. Newspapers and magazines wouldn't be possible without ads. It's been that way for literally centuries. But internet ads are definitely a new level of crazy.
I'm conflicted about Youtube in particular because when you filter out all the social viral crap, Youtube is one of the greatest educational resources ever created by human beings. I can go search youtube for any subject imaginable and get broad and deep video instruction on the subject from dozens of different perspectives. In grad school when a professor did a terrible job of explaining a niche technical subject, I could go on Youtube and watch lectures from a variety of other professors. I can go to Youtube to learn how to cook, how to dance, how to build a wooden canoe with hand tools, so many amazing things. It's a shame we can't find a better way to fund and maintain the educational portions of it. I don't know of a better way.
Some of us want an ad supported internet. And the ad / no ad Internets are not mutually exclusive. They can coexist.
You can chose to only frequent ad-free sites and services. You wouldn't even have a use for an ad blocker.
You can chose to only frequent ad-free sites and services. You wouldn't even have a use for an ad blocker.
There are too many low-effort ad supported sites currently. I don’t think we should make ads illegal, but it would be preferable if all ad-supported sites would identify themselves as such and then link aggregators, search engines, or even web browsers could have an easy “don’t show links to ad supported sites” button.
It really seems like a win-win.
It really seems like a win-win.
It would be very easy for link aggregators and search engines categorize sites as ad-supported or not: load the page in a browser (which these sites often already do) with an ad blocker extension and see if it identifies anything. But my guess is they're not interested in doing this, since it rules out a lot of valuable pages. For example, HN is ad-supported.
Or, some people are willing to pay for it, and some are willing to pay for it indirectly (via ads).
Hulu
I wouldn't characterize it as a "bad" business.
Hulu
I wouldn't characterize it as a "bad" business.
Ads are creeping in to paud-for Hulu. That's the nature of ads (or maybe advertisers): they corrupt the medium they support.
If past experience serves me right, usually it would rther be: Some people are willing to pay for it indirectly by ads and some are willing to pay and still get ads later.
> that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it.
No, it's just often that the logistics make it too inconvenient.
For various impossible-coordination reasons, micropayments and monthly-subscription-to-all-news just haven't taken off, despite consumers being willing to pay.
No, it's just often that the logistics make it too inconvenient.
For various impossible-coordination reasons, micropayments and monthly-subscription-to-all-news just haven't taken off, despite consumers being willing to pay.
sounds like enough people weren't willing to pay. It's very easy to espouse demand, but in reality not everyone will put their money where their mouth is.
Or in a worst case scenario, everyone who is willing to pay already is, and the business is indeed non-sustainable. But I doubt this.
Or in a worst case scenario, everyone who is willing to pay already is, and the business is indeed non-sustainable. But I doubt this.
No, I said precisely the opposite.
People can be willing to pay, but corporations are unable to coordinate amongst themselves to receive the payment or make it frictionless enough. This is not an uncommon situation in economics. It's not a fictional concept.
E.g. you can look at Spotify as a success story of coordination. That wasn't inevitable though. If record labels had chosen to launch fragmented independent music streaming services, that wouldn't have changed people's willingness to pay for all music for $10–12/mo., even if it weren't available.
People can be willing to pay, but corporations are unable to coordinate amongst themselves to receive the payment or make it frictionless enough. This is not an uncommon situation in economics. It's not a fictional concept.
E.g. you can look at Spotify as a success story of coordination. That wasn't inevitable though. If record labels had chosen to launch fragmented independent music streaming services, that wouldn't have changed people's willingness to pay for all music for $10–12/mo., even if it weren't available.
I imagine it comes down to costs either way. If it was quick and easy companies would have done it. And that willingless is partially based on if more buyers come in from it. They wouldn't do it for the most dedicated buyers nor for the ones who think it's too expensive.
>you can look at Spotify as a success story of coordination.
By basically giving the record labels all the money and make the actual artists not really make money on their craft. I guess nothing can be perfect.
But music is realtively cheap to produce (but not cheap at the top, of course). There is also a reason Netflix has been price hiking and still bleeding content and customers as everyone rolls their own. You simply want more control when each episode of content is 7 figures.
>you can look at Spotify as a success story of coordination.
By basically giving the record labels all the money and make the actual artists not really make money on their craft. I guess nothing can be perfect.
But music is realtively cheap to produce (but not cheap at the top, of course). There is also a reason Netflix has been price hiking and still bleeding content and customers as everyone rolls their own. You simply want more control when each episode of content is 7 figures.
Things like newspapers and comic books and whatnot have had ads for over a hundred years. These types of things partly being sponsored by ads is hardly a new concept.
Ads are not going away.
I would argue that the internet has gone rather overboard with it, but that's a different thing.
Ads are not going away.
I would argue that the internet has gone rather overboard with it, but that's a different thing.
For me, the problem that internet ads have that older media ads didn't is all the spying that comes with them. It's the spying that elevates them from being incredibly annoying to being just plain evil.
That's not an ad problem, that's a tracking problem. I think it's important not to conflate the two concepts. But other than that, yes, I agree.
They are two different things, but you don't get ads without the spying. Often, you get the spying even if you block ads.
That's not true; there is nothing preventing anyone from serving ads without tracking, and I'm pretty sure there are solutions out there that do exactly that, even if they're not the most commonly used. Like I said, ads were viable in print, well before the internet.
Just <img href="/ad.png"> would work, and has no tracking and is essential the same as print media ads (or those YouTube sponsors for that matter). While this would probably net in less income than e.g. the Google ad stuff, it's completely viable and I'm sure there are people and companies doing something like that.
But uBlock will block that, because it's an adblocker and not a trackblocker, and that's clearly an ad. That's perfectly fine, but what I want is a trackblocker
Just <img href="/ad.png"> would work, and has no tracking and is essential the same as print media ads (or those YouTube sponsors for that matter). While this would probably net in less income than e.g. the Google ad stuff, it's completely viable and I'm sure there are people and companies doing something like that.
But uBlock will block that, because it's an adblocker and not a trackblocker, and that's clearly an ad. That's perfectly fine, but what I want is a trackblocker
It's pretty hard to do online ads without tracking because of how easy fraud is online. With newspaper, TV, and radio we put a bunch of effort into measuring the size of the audience, but those methods are far easier to subvert online.
If I tell you jefftk.com has 10k daily active users so you should pay me $500 to put a banner on the top of my site, should you believe me?
If I tell you jefftk.com has 10k daily active users so you should pay me $500 to put a banner on the top of my site, should you believe me?
> there is nothing preventing anyone from serving ads without tracking
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not done.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's not done.
How do you know? For starters there's a bunch of solutions out there that specifically market "non-tracking" as a feature. I assume they're being used.
Come to think of it, you're on a site with track-free ads right now: the ycombinator launches/hiring posts really are just ads.
And whatever the status-quo exactly is right now, what I responded to was "if something is not sustainable without ads then it's not a good business model", and tracking really doesn't come in to play in discussing to what degree the very concept of ads is or isn't desirable, as that's just an entirely separate issue.
Come to think of it, you're on a site with track-free ads right now: the ycombinator launches/hiring posts really are just ads.
And whatever the status-quo exactly is right now, what I responded to was "if something is not sustainable without ads then it's not a good business model", and tracking really doesn't come in to play in discussing to what degree the very concept of ads is or isn't desirable, as that's just an entirely separate issue.
OK, let me be very precise, then.
The vast majority of ads are supported by and come with tracking. Sure, there exist sites that do ads in a way that isn't so intrusive, but they're an extreme minority. It's also hard-to-impossible to tell if a site is tracking you or not.
So long as more than a tiny number of sites use ads that involve tracking, it's necessary to treat all sites as doing so.
The vast majority of ads are supported by and come with tracking. Sure, there exist sites that do ads in a way that isn't so intrusive, but they're an extreme minority. It's also hard-to-impossible to tell if a site is tracking you or not.
So long as more than a tiny number of sites use ads that involve tracking, it's necessary to treat all sites as doing so.
> that specifically market "non-tracking" as a feature
Which ones? All the non-tracking, supposedly-GDPR-compliant ads/analytics out there just use a convoluted and overcomplicated interpretation of the GDPR to claim their solution complies while it ultimately doesn't, or stretch the "legitimate interest" definition quite a bit.
For example, if it's able to reidentify a user coming back to a website, then it doesn't matter if they hash the IP address 20 times which is salted with the outcome of a crystal ball and all under the supervision of a magic unicorn, it's still processing personal data for non-essential purposes and should require explicit consent.
Which ones? All the non-tracking, supposedly-GDPR-compliant ads/analytics out there just use a convoluted and overcomplicated interpretation of the GDPR to claim their solution complies while it ultimately doesn't, or stretch the "legitimate interest" definition quite a bit.
For example, if it's able to reidentify a user coming back to a website, then it doesn't matter if they hash the IP address 20 times which is salted with the outcome of a crystal ball and all under the supervision of a magic unicorn, it's still processing personal data for non-essential purposes and should require explicit consent.
What's the superlative of conflation? That's what bringing analytics into the discussion here is.
I'm just sharing the experience that most of these "privacy" products (whether ads or analytics - the latter seem very popular on HN) only make that claim because of an outlandish interpretation of the GDPR or whatever privacy law they're trying to work around.
https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
There is one "tracker" on DF, but it doesn't affect the ad you see. And if you read the RSS feed, you get the ad without the tracking.
There is one "tracker" on DF, but it doesn't affect the ad you see. And if you read the RSS feed, you get the ad without the tracking.
it's not done as often =/= no one does it. And I feel it is a good distinction to make.
> If something is not sustainable without ads that seems to imply that people are not willing to pay for it. If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model.
Advertising can be a perfectly fine business model. Look at the radio, television, and newspaper industries. These have existed for decades and have brought much good to humanity even though they need advertising support to exist.
Advertising can be a perfectly fine business model. Look at the radio, television, and newspaper industries. These have existed for decades and have brought much good to humanity even though they need advertising support to exist.
The crucial difference being that traditional advertising didn't enable mass surveillance.
It's a well understood part of human nature that it's very difficult to charge for something you previously gave away for free.
The vast majority of the web has been given away for free by being ad supported, that's never going to roll back, the expectation has been set.
Thankfully, the wider public might find ads irritating but they'd still prefer them over paying so ads aren't going away anytime soon.
The vast majority of the web has been given away for free by being ad supported, that's never going to roll back, the expectation has been set.
Thankfully, the wider public might find ads irritating but they'd still prefer them over paying so ads aren't going away anytime soon.
I know it will never happen. At least not anytime in the near future.
There is usually a group of people advocating that using an adblocker is like stealing or killing businesses. My counter argument is that I'm fine with that. Don't offer something for free when I have complete control over how it is displayed on my end if you can't stay in business if I block some part of it. Everyone on the planet should use ad blockers for their own protection and to actively change the internet to a non-ad business model.
I will never stop using ad blockers and I don't feel bad about it in the slightest.
There is usually a group of people advocating that using an adblocker is like stealing or killing businesses. My counter argument is that I'm fine with that. Don't offer something for free when I have complete control over how it is displayed on my end if you can't stay in business if I block some part of it. Everyone on the planet should use ad blockers for their own protection and to actively change the internet to a non-ad business model.
I will never stop using ad blockers and I don't feel bad about it in the slightest.
> Regardless of the consequences I'd rather see an ad free internet. If that means Youtube can't exist and Facebook can't exist and Google can't exist then so be it.
But you can already do that by not using Youtube and FB. You just want to deny opportunity to use them to other people who may like to have access to "free" (ad supported) internet services.
But you can already do that by not using Youtube and FB. You just want to deny opportunity to use them to other people who may like to have access to "free" (ad supported) internet services.
> If people aren't willing to pay for it then I'm not sure it is a good business model.
People literally can't pay a sane price for content. A blog post or warmed over press release isn't worth a penny let alone a dollar. Ads unfortunately are the only mechanism to pay the sub-cent value for content.
Even if you could reasonably conduct a penny transaction that's still an insane price to pay for a blog post or tweet.
So it's not about people being unwilling to pay it's about being unwilling to pay transactable amounts of money for content that's nowhere near worth those amounts.
People literally can't pay a sane price for content. A blog post or warmed over press release isn't worth a penny let alone a dollar. Ads unfortunately are the only mechanism to pay the sub-cent value for content.
Even if you could reasonably conduct a penny transaction that's still an insane price to pay for a blog post or tweet.
So it's not about people being unwilling to pay it's about being unwilling to pay transactable amounts of money for content that's nowhere near worth those amounts.
>Even if you could reasonably conduct a penny transaction that's still an insane price to pay for a blog post or tweet.
depends on the content TBH. some (relatively few in the grand scheme of things, but "some" when focusig on otherwise helpful feeds) blogs are worth their weight in gold. some feel like they should pay me to even read it. I do wish a micropayment sort of system was feasible in general so we could test such models. But I'm guessing that's a logistics issue with payment vendors; they probably don't like small, disparate transactions anymore than a GPU.
Still, I've tried the closest thing for a few comic websites back then where you buy "coins" in bulk and purchase new releases a la carte (e.g. say, 2000 coins for $10, and each new chapter is 10 coins. so roughly 5 cents). Doesn't feel too bad.
depends on the content TBH. some (relatively few in the grand scheme of things, but "some" when focusig on otherwise helpful feeds) blogs are worth their weight in gold. some feel like they should pay me to even read it. I do wish a micropayment sort of system was feasible in general so we could test such models. But I'm guessing that's a logistics issue with payment vendors; they probably don't like small, disparate transactions anymore than a GPU.
Still, I've tried the closest thing for a few comic websites back then where you buy "coins" in bulk and purchase new releases a la carte (e.g. say, 2000 coins for $10, and each new chapter is 10 coins. so roughly 5 cents). Doesn't feel too bad.
Why not just ignore sites that use ads? If people find value in ad supported product they can use them and if they don't they can just avoid them and use an alternative without ads or nothing.
If there were a way to filter sites that serve ads out of Google searches, that would be an interesting thought.
As of now, any given random website is far more likely to have ads than not, and many of the drawbacks of getting served ads (tracking, data collection, and performance issues) arise before the page is even loaded enough for you to know they exist.
As of now, any given random website is far more likely to have ads than not, and many of the drawbacks of getting served ads (tracking, data collection, and performance issues) arise before the page is even loaded enough for you to know they exist.
I don’t use google but surely there is an extension to allow you to block a domain?
If there were no ads anywhere on the internet than everything would be on an even playing field. Currently a site that offers a paid service for something that someone else gives away for free is at a huge disadvantage.
> If there were no ads anywhere on the internet than everything would be on an even playing field.
In one dimension. Maybe.
Influencers would still be a thing. So would SEO. The web would be like some medieval map with vast uncharted territories and "here be dragons" but also the few known sites where everyone in the known web lives.
Unless we dismantle media and tech monopolies, they will still dominate that web.
In one dimension. Maybe.
Influencers would still be a thing. So would SEO. The web would be like some medieval map with vast uncharted territories and "here be dragons" but also the few known sites where everyone in the known web lives.
Unless we dismantle media and tech monopolies, they will still dominate that web.
Even if the web was on an even playing field it has to worry about being disrupted by other platforms that allow ads. That could take the form of Web2 which is the web + ad supported sites with backwards compatibility with the original web or it could take the form of mobile apps where users can get useful ad supported apps.
That would eliminate 99% of news. Including anyone on social media.
Good. 99% of news and almost everything on social media is garbage. Burn it all down.
ironically enough, it'd just mean that most news would end up being funded by the government where possible. Which is how the FSFE gets its funding.
The only government funded news in the US is VOA. The CPB gives out grants but public media are all responsible for their own budgets and a lot of them (notably NPR and it's largest affiliates in NYC and LA) have been crushed by a drop in ad revenue and cutting back severely on content production.
No, it would eliminate most news sites, and little value would be lost. Frankly, net value might be created that way. People will still write about things that happen, and people will still read that, and money just won't change hands. Or people will read paid news, and the quality will almost certainly improve as a result.
No, no they will not. News sites pay reporters. If news sites have no money reporters stop reporting. Journalism costs money.
I said "Or people will read paid news", by which I mean news sites supported by subscriptions rather than ads. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but it's another possible alternative world that could arise.
Aside from industry news, nobody survives just on subscriptions.
Except that users are willing to pay for it, since a vast majority of them look at the ads and some of them even click on the ads.
I wouldn’t have a problem with ads if they weren’t so intrusive and obnoxious. Imagine trying to read a magazine that would jump itself to the page with the “Axe” ad, you go back to the page you were reading and 10 seconds later it jumps to the “Chevy colorado” ad. Or asking the bookkeeper for “a book of holiday recipes” and on you way home in every corner a guy knocks your car window to sell you “holiday food”.
Some services would go the subscription route and survive, but then they're limited to the users that are able and willing to pay. I can't imagine offering a search product or wiki product where payment is required. Donations may be a viable option but may not provide enough starting runway.
Maybe I've been drinking too much internet capitalism koolaid, but a completely ad-free internet would not have had the commercial lift we've enjoyed these past 20-plus years.
Maybe I've been drinking too much internet capitalism koolaid, but a completely ad-free internet would not have had the commercial lift we've enjoyed these past 20-plus years.
> Maybe I've been drinking too much internet capitalism koolaid, but a completely ad-free internet would not have had the commercial lift we've enjoyed these past 20-plus years.
I completely agree that an ad-free internet would not have seen numbers get big as quickly as what we've experienced, but it doesn't necessarily follow that an internet that makes numbers get big quickly is also the internet offering the best user experience.
Usually, user experience gets sacrificed to make the numbers get bigger, faster.
I completely agree that an ad-free internet would not have seen numbers get big as quickly as what we've experienced, but it doesn't necessarily follow that an internet that makes numbers get big quickly is also the internet offering the best user experience.
Usually, user experience gets sacrificed to make the numbers get bigger, faster.
> a completely ad-free internet would not have had the commercial lift we've enjoyed these past 20-plus years.
Would that be a bad thing?
Would that be a bad thing?
I’d wager a significant number of people posting here owe their careers to that commercialization - I hate listicles, too, but not so much that I would wish them away and gamble that I ended up with the same standard of living on an Internet reserved mostly for nerds (nerds said lovingly, of course)
> I’d wager a significant number of people posting here owe their careers to that commercialization
I'm sure that's true, and it would be a bad thing for those people. But for the world at large? It's not clear to me at all that it would be bad.
I'm sure that's true, and it would be a bad thing for those people. But for the world at large? It's not clear to me at all that it would be bad.
I'd wager that the pandemic would have gone a bit different too if we hadn't had the internet growth preceding it.
I recognize the double-edgedness of that, too, though.
I recognize the double-edgedness of that, too, though.
>imagine offering a search product or wiki product where payment is required.
I mean, we just called them Encyclopedias back in my day. They won't be as high quality, complete, nor peer reviewed, but there are plenty of fan wikis powered entirely by free labor. no money in nor out.
Search is much harder, but I've been keeing an eye on Unlimited Kagi which seems set to do this very thing. Hope it succeeds.
I mean, we just called them Encyclopedias back in my day. They won't be as high quality, complete, nor peer reviewed, but there are plenty of fan wikis powered entirely by free labor. no money in nor out.
Search is much harder, but I've been keeing an eye on Unlimited Kagi which seems set to do this very thing. Hope it succeeds.
And most of those wikis are now on Wikia, sorry, "Fandom", which runs some of the most aggressive ads I've seen. The flippant response is to strawman then as evil and greedy, but the less satisfying reality is that web hosting can actually get quite expensive for popular sites, especially with media. And there's the additional cost of defending against abuse, of the DDoS, spambot, or malicious human types
Yeah, if the users don't care enough to move to ad-free sort of content, there's not much you can do as a passive viewer. Fortunately, Wikis are in theory easy to migrate should such a motivated user comes along.
That said, these days more and more guides and tribal knowledge is stored in discord servers. I don't know if that's better or worse. At least there's no ads.
That said, these days more and more guides and tribal knowledge is stored in discord servers. I don't know if that's better or worse. At least there's no ads.
Yeah it's pretty simple, the world doesn't owe anyone a business model (something that's forgotten way to often) but nor are we owed free content. My understanding of a transaction is that there needs to be a "meeting of the minds" - if I value what you want to give me more than the price you want, we have trade and everybody wins.
Unfortunately the ad economy is closer to begging. The consumer doesn't value what's being provided and the provider somehow tries to guilt or force users into "paying". And overall everyone loses - the content provider doesn't get the value they want for their content and the consumer doesn't get something they value. The only winner is advertising intermediaries. That unfortunately is the system we've set up.
Unfortunately the ad economy is closer to begging. The consumer doesn't value what's being provided and the provider somehow tries to guilt or force users into "paying". And overall everyone loses - the content provider doesn't get the value they want for their content and the consumer doesn't get something they value. The only winner is advertising intermediaries. That unfortunately is the system we've set up.
There is one major aspect that I find troubling with companies blocking users with an activated adblocker. It removes the illusion that they are providing a service without any expectation for payment.
Tax law, at least where I live, is very explicit on this. If a company provide goods or services with the expectation of payment, be that as a good or service, then that transaction trigger value added tax. Free samples and gratis products do not trigger this, including those that has advertisement, because those do not have an expectation of payment.
In general it is the company that is selling a product that must manage payment of value added tax to consumers within the country, and the government has soft blocked imports from companies when that tax has not been paid.
I don't know German law around value added tax so they might have different exemption rules. I do wonder however if the court acknowledged in the Axel Springer case that the viewing of advertisement is an payment for providing content.
Tax law, at least where I live, is very explicit on this. If a company provide goods or services with the expectation of payment, be that as a good or service, then that transaction trigger value added tax. Free samples and gratis products do not trigger this, including those that has advertisement, because those do not have an expectation of payment.
In general it is the company that is selling a product that must manage payment of value added tax to consumers within the country, and the government has soft blocked imports from companies when that tax has not been paid.
I don't know German law around value added tax so they might have different exemption rules. I do wonder however if the court acknowledged in the Axel Springer case that the viewing of advertisement is an payment for providing content.
There is a grey area though when a company becomes the defacto monopoly over a service. Google and Microsoft email both have history of blocking email from other providers and have created a landscape where trying to run your own email server is a nightmare. But should they be able to refuse service to you if you block ads?
Unequivocally yes. If not, do you also think they should be required to serve all your requests while you dos them?
"It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet."
Maybe even more of a life without it.
There is one fact that I learned immediately when I started using the internet in 1986 and then the www in 1993.
There will always be an endless supply of free "content" on the internet and www. With or without advertising. The ads did not even start until 1994 or so. There was an internet without ads. A non-commercial internet. That's what I signed up for.
That people today are paying for multiple "subscriptions" to view stuff on the internet is amazing but it will not make the free stuff disappear. It will not stop non-commercial use of the network.
The internet did not come into existence for the purpose of advertising. But the companies exerting oversized control over it, that is all they are interested in.
Maybe even more of a life without it.
There is one fact that I learned immediately when I started using the internet in 1986 and then the www in 1993.
There will always be an endless supply of free "content" on the internet and www. With or without advertising. The ads did not even start until 1994 or so. There was an internet without ads. A non-commercial internet. That's what I signed up for.
That people today are paying for multiple "subscriptions" to view stuff on the internet is amazing but it will not make the free stuff disappear. It will not stop non-commercial use of the network.
The internet did not come into existence for the purpose of advertising. But the companies exerting oversized control over it, that is all they are interested in.
I mostly agree with this in principle, but an important point is that, when you squint, the technology behind blocking ad blockers starts looking very similar to the technology behind blocking web scrapers. If you're capable of programmatically scraping content without a human user viewing ads, then you're capable of displaying the content to a user without the ads. So any solution for preventing ad blocking implies that the content can't be scraped programmatically.
I know that web scrapers carry some negative connotations, but keep in mind that search engines like Google couldn't possibly exist without web scraping. A world where you can't block ads or scrape content for indexing is a world where only a few preordained companies have the ability to build search engines. Proposals like Web Environment Integrity (WEI) accomplish two goals for Google: they make ad blocking more difficult, and they kick down the ladder to prevent new innovative search engines from emerging. There are already many websites which only allow-list Google's IPs for indexing, and I think we should be very hesitant about anything that could further entrench their monopoly on search even if we support content creators being compensated through ads.
I know that web scrapers carry some negative connotations, but keep in mind that search engines like Google couldn't possibly exist without web scraping. A world where you can't block ads or scrape content for indexing is a world where only a few preordained companies have the ability to build search engines. Proposals like Web Environment Integrity (WEI) accomplish two goals for Google: they make ad blocking more difficult, and they kick down the ladder to prevent new innovative search engines from emerging. There are already many websites which only allow-list Google's IPs for indexing, and I think we should be very hesitant about anything that could further entrench their monopoly on search even if we support content creators being compensated through ads.
I agree, I don't even care about ads in specific. I primarily use the tor browser which doesn't block ads due to fingerprinting (it's ok for casual browsing, though some sites are actually obnoxious and slow down the browser). More generally, I care about web scraping and being able to control the presentation of content: for internet archival, using a featureful video/music player (mpv) or library like a local imageboard, utilities like user scripts to add features/programatically do stuff, content blocking (filter rules for specific posts/users), creating RSS feeds for notifications if the site doesn't offer one, simpler/faster frontends like invidious/nitter, etc.
> Everything on the internet is expendable. Trust me. Yes, even TikTok, son. Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago.
This is unfortunately patently not true anymore. As the internet has gotten more intertwined in our lives, so has into the gvmt, corporations, society, etc. For example banking, for using my bank I need an internet connection. I literally work on the internet, but even if I didn't I cannot imagine any of the main jobs I would be remotely qualified to do that doesn't need internet, so I'd be back to minimum-skill minimum-wage jobs. Which wouldn't afford me my current home, and from which I'd be kicked out of the country I live at since I wouldn't qualify for either the job type or minimum salary.
Note: I assume by "expendable" you mean "can be avoided without a huge impact in life", I _could_ live without internet but I'd also need to be working a minimum wage, wouldn't afford my home, and probably would even lose my visa.
This is unfortunately patently not true anymore. As the internet has gotten more intertwined in our lives, so has into the gvmt, corporations, society, etc. For example banking, for using my bank I need an internet connection. I literally work on the internet, but even if I didn't I cannot imagine any of the main jobs I would be remotely qualified to do that doesn't need internet, so I'd be back to minimum-skill minimum-wage jobs. Which wouldn't afford me my current home, and from which I'd be kicked out of the country I live at since I wouldn't qualify for either the job type or minimum salary.
Note: I assume by "expendable" you mean "can be avoided without a huge impact in life", I _could_ live without internet but I'd also need to be working a minimum wage, wouldn't afford my home, and probably would even lose my visa.
I like it because it forces some decisions on various parties.
Don't want to look at ads online? Block them but realize you yourself may be blocked from certain places.
Don't want to allow ad-blocked users? Okay, but you lose those users unless you engage with the reason they are blocking ads and either give them an alternative or convince them to greenlist you.
Don't want to look at ads online? Block them but realize you yourself may be blocked from certain places.
Don't want to allow ad-blocked users? Okay, but you lose those users unless you engage with the reason they are blocking ads and either give them an alternative or convince them to greenlist you.
>let me reassure you: you can. Everything on the internet is expendable.
Every single thing on the internet is expendable. The internet as a whole is arguably not. I think that's where the rub lies.
>It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet.
really depends on the person. I would not have my current career nor WFH role without the internet. It doesn't mean I can't "live", but it would cause a radical enough shift in my life that I'd essentially become a different person. I'll leave that answer to the philosophers.
Every single thing on the internet is expendable. The internet as a whole is arguably not. I think that's where the rub lies.
>It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet.
really depends on the person. I would not have my current career nor WFH role without the internet. It doesn't mean I can't "live", but it would cause a radical enough shift in my life that I'd essentially become a different person. I'll leave that answer to the philosophers.
This echoes my thought process, too.
I would go full Luddite and swear off YouTube, Twitch, etc if I absolutely had to watch ads to use their services. I already do this with twitch - once the unblockable ads start playing I close the tab and spend my time elsewhere, with nothing of value lost. There is literally no content that is worth being exposed to ads to access, from my point of view. I realise that many others don’t share such militant views on this, but for me it’s non negotiable.
I would go full Luddite and swear off YouTube, Twitch, etc if I absolutely had to watch ads to use their services. I already do this with twitch - once the unblockable ads start playing I close the tab and spend my time elsewhere, with nothing of value lost. There is literally no content that is worth being exposed to ads to access, from my point of view. I realise that many others don’t share such militant views on this, but for me it’s non negotiable.
Agreed. The server gets to decide whether to send data and what to send, and I get to decide how I use it when it is sent to me.
In short protecting the users' right to run what they want on their computing device.
Now just apply this general principle to copyrighted content as well and we would approach a sane legal system (at least in this specific area).
In short protecting the users' right to run what they want on their computing device.
Now just apply this general principle to copyrighted content as well and we would approach a sane legal system (at least in this specific area).
I’m pretty much with you on this almost word for word.
I can’t have my cake and eat it too, and I’m fine with that.
Maybe if at a certain point everything is locked down with the help of device attestation/DRM I might change my tune, but even then I’m sure there will be alternatives for me, whether online or offline.
I can’t have my cake and eat it too, and I’m fine with that.
Maybe if at a certain point everything is locked down with the help of device attestation/DRM I might change my tune, but even then I’m sure there will be alternatives for me, whether online or offline.
> Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago.
I wasn't in love with my girlfriend / kids / etc before I met her either but I wouldn't want to go without her just because there was once a time where it was true. That seems like weak argument.
I wasn't in love with my girlfriend / kids / etc before I met her either but I wouldn't want to go without her just because there was once a time where it was true. That seems like weak argument.
Maybe because that particular sentence wasn't an argument at all but rather an illustration?
[deleted]
While I agree with you, I also am not sure what I should think about nearly every news article on here has a link that someone has posted that circumvents the paywall that has been put up prevent people from accessing the content without paying (either directly or via ads). Is it okay to use an adblocker and not pay for a subscription, but also circumvent walls so I can still access the content?
Christ, this is why I don't even browse the web on my phone. I email myself reminders to look things up when I get home to my laptop. The absence of adblockers makes it unbearable. Three different videos selling three different products unrelated to my query all trying to talk over each other? Kill me please.
Maybe use android then? Then you can use newpipe, AdAway, FF with desktop add-ons. I use it and don't have the same problem
Firefox mobile can run an AdBlock addon just fine. Firefox focus even has it built in.
There are ad blockers available for both Android and iOS. Both free and paid.
Personally I’ve got a great experience for years now with Wipr on iOS, but at this rate I should start asking for a commission because I literally just suggested it to someone else here on HN.
Personally I’ve got a great experience for years now with Wipr on iOS, but at this rate I should start asking for a commission because I literally just suggested it to someone else here on HN.
I leave my phone connected via OpenVPN to my corporate network with a PiHole server to filter out most web ads, trackers, etc. What I do try to avoid is using any apps where I can use the website instead.
If you’re talking about iOS, ther is adblocking there. Adguard works well for me on Safari, and Orion browser even runs ublock origin. I honestly never see ads on mobile.
> Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick.
You’ll be saving them money (less infrastructure costs, like bandwith) without giving a penny to their competitors (because you’re using an adblocker); actually now you’re probably a net loss for their competitors.
So they’re happy to lose you, I guess?
We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it.
You’ll be saving them money (less infrastructure costs, like bandwith) without giving a penny to their competitors (because you’re using an adblocker); actually now you’re probably a net loss for their competitors.
So they’re happy to lose you, I guess?
We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it.
There is so much good content on the internet that people put out because they just love it and don't expect any money for it. All of that won't change. Lots of the ad-ridden blogs and stuff will go away but I'll echo the sentiment found largely around these comments: good riddance.
and my favorite content creators only post once in a blue moon when the stars align, likely because they don't have a need to post more often. Which is why my most frequent content creators tend to be the consistent ones who try to get something out at least once a week or month.
Thing is, even with this ad-free model, the most motivated ones will be the ones on top. And They will just find other ways to monetize instead of ads, because they are motivated to capitalize on their audience. Donations (charitable or incentivized), merch, content paywalls, self-ads instead of sponsored ones. Same concept. Ads are a big problem, but not THE core issue.
Thing is, even with this ad-free model, the most motivated ones will be the ones on top. And They will just find other ways to monetize instead of ads, because they are motivated to capitalize on their audience. Donations (charitable or incentivized), merch, content paywalls, self-ads instead of sponsored ones. Same concept. Ads are a big problem, but not THE core issue.
I'm actually very excited to get back to the point where services compete for my money rather than for my attention. Advertising has created an internet that has an enormous amount of content, most of which is just... bad. It's hard to find good content because almost all of it is engineered to get clicks.
A paywalled internet will mean I'll have to be choosier about what I consume, but what's available will hopefully be high quality because it's not competing for my attention when I'm at my weakest at the end of a long day, it's competing for my wallet when I rationally review the budget every month.
A paywalled internet will mean I'll have to be choosier about what I consume, but what's available will hopefully be high quality because it's not competing for my attention when I'm at my weakest at the end of a long day, it's competing for my wallet when I rationally review the budget every month.
> We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet, I know first hand. And I hate it.
I'd be completely fine with that result. It would mean that commercial websites would be segregated off, leaving the rest of the web (the part I get real value from) more discoverable.
I'd be completely fine with that result. It would mean that commercial websites would be segregated off, leaving the rest of the web (the part I get real value from) more discoverable.
> We’re headed towards a paywalled Internet,
If that's the intersection of need/demand, okay so be it.
Like, I have preferences but I understand they might not be others'.
If that's the intersection of need/demand, okay so be it.
Like, I have preferences but I understand they might not be others'.
Part of the problem is the terminology 'adblocker' is outdated and essentially incorrect.
Ads aren't ads. They're trackers, viruses, malware, scams. Even video ads on Youtube, whilst not vectors of viruses or malware, they're advertising literal scams and YouTube are responding saying these ads are 'within' policy guidelines.
As I've said a few times before (in various ways), browsing the internet without an 'ad blocker' is like running Windows in the 90's / 00's without anti-virus software when you're a serial downloader of interesting programs / executables (like I was); it's negligent, you're asking for trouble.
The advertising industry, Google, Facebook, etc. are hiding behind the terminology "advertising" because it makes it sound a lot more palatable than what the reality is, as I said above: tracking, malware, viruses, scams.
If it was just advertising, then I'd be much less rabidly agressive in my defense of blocking it: Annoying is a long way separated from Dangerous.
Advertising, as it has evolved on the Internet, is Dangerous.
Ads aren't ads. They're trackers, viruses, malware, scams. Even video ads on Youtube, whilst not vectors of viruses or malware, they're advertising literal scams and YouTube are responding saying these ads are 'within' policy guidelines.
As I've said a few times before (in various ways), browsing the internet without an 'ad blocker' is like running Windows in the 90's / 00's without anti-virus software when you're a serial downloader of interesting programs / executables (like I was); it's negligent, you're asking for trouble.
The advertising industry, Google, Facebook, etc. are hiding behind the terminology "advertising" because it makes it sound a lot more palatable than what the reality is, as I said above: tracking, malware, viruses, scams.
If it was just advertising, then I'd be much less rabidly agressive in my defense of blocking it: Annoying is a long way separated from Dangerous.
Advertising, as it has evolved on the Internet, is Dangerous.
I'll add that on top of that the ads use so many resources in the browser, CPU/RAM, that it slows many otherwise great budget computers to a standstill. And if you're on a low-res screen like me (1280x720) the ads often overwrite half the content or make the site completely unnavigable.
Additionally, the amount of bandwidth the ads use is enormous, especially when they include self-playing video, and people who have government-issued phones in the USA (poor people) only get 15GB of bandwidth on most plans, and that is burned up within a couple of days due to this.
Additionally, the amount of bandwidth the ads use is enormous, especially when they include self-playing video, and people who have government-issued phones in the USA (poor people) only get 15GB of bandwidth on most plans, and that is burned up within a couple of days due to this.
>Ads aren't ads. They're trackers, viruses, malware, scams. Even video ads on Youtube, whilst not vectors of viruses or malware, they're advertising literal scams and YouTube are responding saying these ads are 'within' policy guidelines.
>If it was just advertising, then I'd be much less rabidly agressive in my defense of blocking it: Annoying is a long way separated from Dangerous.
This really needs to be emphasized more, because the problem is that these so-called "ads" aren't just ads anymore as you said.
If they were just ads, sure they would be annoying (or hilarious if they are made well!) but ultimately not something that most of us would feel a religious desire to block out of our lives.
But no, they aren't just ads anymore. They are malicious in their intent and harmful in their contents. If it's not the "ads" trojan horsing malware onto our computers, it's their contents directing us towards scams and harmful activities. That dangerous bullshit deserves to be blocked out with extreme prejudice.
Adblocking is the anti-virus of the 2010s and '20s, it's a defensive measure to keep ourselves safe.
>If it was just advertising, then I'd be much less rabidly agressive in my defense of blocking it: Annoying is a long way separated from Dangerous.
This really needs to be emphasized more, because the problem is that these so-called "ads" aren't just ads anymore as you said.
If they were just ads, sure they would be annoying (or hilarious if they are made well!) but ultimately not something that most of us would feel a religious desire to block out of our lives.
But no, they aren't just ads anymore. They are malicious in their intent and harmful in their contents. If it's not the "ads" trojan horsing malware onto our computers, it's their contents directing us towards scams and harmful activities. That dangerous bullshit deserves to be blocked out with extreme prejudice.
Adblocking is the anti-virus of the 2010s and '20s, it's a defensive measure to keep ourselves safe.
I call them HTML firewalls.
Good point, they should rename to scamblockers to change the narrative.
My go-to analogy:
I subscribe to a magazine. It has ads. I pay my butler to cut out the ads. Is that illegal? Now I have a robot butler doing the exact same thing. Is that illegal?
The web server is serving you content. Your ad blocker is a robot butler cutting the ads out of the documents you're receiving.
I subscribe to a magazine. It has ads. I pay my butler to cut out the ads. Is that illegal? Now I have a robot butler doing the exact same thing. Is that illegal?
The web server is serving you content. Your ad blocker is a robot butler cutting the ads out of the documents you're receiving.
The magazine is given to you for free, you don't pay for it.
The magazine is able to detect that your butler is cutting out the ads.
The magazine decides it does not want to send you its issues any more.
Is that illegal?
To continue this strained analogy, what is happening now would be like the magazine trying to prevent your butler from doing what you told him.
Dropping the analogy, YouTube has every right to block me from using the site if I'm using an adblocker. They do not have the right to continuously try to circumvent my adblocker
Dropping the analogy, YouTube has every right to block me from using the site if I'm using an adblocker. They do not have the right to continuously try to circumvent my adblocker
I'd say they have that right to circumvent your blocker. And you have the right to circumvent that. Ad infinitum.
I agree: they have the right to try to detect on their end that I'm not watching the ads, and then refuse to send me more videos. And I have the right to try to evade this detection with software on my end. They don't have the right to use the legal system to force me to watch ads on my equipment (for instance, by banning ad-blockers).
Should a company have the right to constantly harass you IRL with ads, even after you take actions to avoid seeing those ads?
I think your description is unfair.
Yes, I think that, say, Mc Donalds has all the rights to bombard me with ads when I enter their "restaurant". Even ads for, say, cars, if they get some deal with a car-factory.
So, yes, I think a company has the right to bombard me with ads when I visit their premises, even if I've taken actions to avoid seeing those ads. If I don't want that, I'm free to not enter their premises (i.e. visit their websites)
Yes, I think that, say, Mc Donalds has all the rights to bombard me with ads when I enter their "restaurant". Even ads for, say, cars, if they get some deal with a car-factory.
So, yes, I think a company has the right to bombard me with ads when I visit their premises, even if I've taken actions to avoid seeing those ads. If I don't want that, I'm free to not enter their premises (i.e. visit their websites)
Neither one should be illegal. Not every conflict needs the court system to resolve it.
They can refuse service for any reason (outside of protected class like race, gender, etc.). YouTube already does this, it refuses to play if you have an ad blocker. Of course people have developed further countermeasures to ad blocker detection.
>YouTube already does this, it refuses to play if you have an ad blocker.
No, it doesn't. Maybe they'd like it to work that way, but in my experience it's never worked that way: it works just fine with my ad-blockers. (knock on wood)
I guess we'll see if they come up with more effective measures, but honestly I doubt it: anything they come up with can be countered, and there's a literal army of people happy to find ways around their ad-blocker-blocker measures.
No, it doesn't. Maybe they'd like it to work that way, but in my experience it's never worked that way: it works just fine with my ad-blockers. (knock on wood)
I guess we'll see if they come up with more effective measures, but honestly I doubt it: anything they come up with can be countered, and there's a literal army of people happy to find ways around their ad-blocker-blocker measures.
There was a period of time where uBlock origin wasn't cutting it, so I switched to Brave. But yeah, I agree that the whole ad-blocker is a big cat and mouse game that doesn't favor the tech companies.
Once in a while, the tech companies might figure out a way to block the ad-blockers, but it just won't last: the hackers will figure it out before long.
If the tech companies stopped using regular HTTPS to serve webpages and set up a walled garden like Netflix, they really could stop the ad-blocking. They'd have to make their own browsers/clients to support their proprietary protocol, and use encryption, so for instance you'd have to download and install a new app just to watch YouTube videos, but it could be done. But this isn't going to go over well with users I think.
If the tech companies stopped using regular HTTPS to serve webpages and set up a walled garden like Netflix, they really could stop the ad-blocking. They'd have to make their own browsers/clients to support their proprietary protocol, and use encryption, so for instance you'd have to download and install a new app just to watch YouTube videos, but it could be done. But this isn't going to go over well with users I think.
The magazine is given to you for free, you don't pay for it.
Sorry, but data allowances are NOT free. In the past I have had data allowances of 2GB per month which works out to just 60MB per day on average. It doesn't take many 5 MB advertisements to completely use up that small data allowance.
Now supposing you have to actually choose whether to download a movie or to download hundreds of unwanted ads, which choice will YOU make?
Sorry, but data allowances are NOT free. In the past I have had data allowances of 2GB per month which works out to just 60MB per day on average. It doesn't take many 5 MB advertisements to completely use up that small data allowance.
Now supposing you have to actually choose whether to download a movie or to download hundreds of unwanted ads, which choice will YOU make?
Cosmo isn't free.
Yup. If you reverse the situation it gets even harder to define. Ie to say you're not allowed to automate your avoidance of ads seems to bundle your consumption of content with your attention to ads.
How much attention are we required to give these ads? How much annoyance in bypassing them is required? Are we only allowed to walk away from the TV to avoid ads? etc
How much attention are we required to give these ads? How much annoyance in bypassing them is required? Are we only allowed to walk away from the TV to avoid ads? etc
Not only are you expected to put up with the ad, you’re expected to put up with your personal data being sent to hundreds/thousands of third parties whenever someone wants to show you an ad.
Indeed, either muting and doing something else or changing the channel was a common thing to do back when TV was an actual tube.
From a similar era, it's also worth noting that some VCRs had automatic "adblocking" (pause recording, and resume once the ad breaks were over.)
Personally, I think it boils down to: my eyes, my brain. I shouldn't be compelled to effectively lose the right to close my eyes when I want to.
From a similar era, it's also worth noting that some VCRs had automatic "adblocking" (pause recording, and resume once the ad breaks were over.)
Personally, I think it boils down to: my eyes, my brain. I shouldn't be compelled to effectively lose the right to close my eyes when I want to.
That's a pretty charming analogy and it would be perfect some 15 years ago; nowadays adblocking extensions are more like a personal bodyguards that fend off all the leafleters and shady individuals in trentch coat and dark glasses who follow you.
Yes, and the magazine company has a right to stop sending you more magazines if they don't like that
Depends on where you live. In my country refusing to sell is illegal, unless the company has good reasons.
If it's free with ads is it really a sale?
Don't really know, I was responding to the analogical version. But I'd say that a EULA that requires you to watch/see ads is something different in nature than usual EULAs that just cover legal-and-good-relationships things.
At the end of the day, you have no "right" to a site's content. You have the right to use an adblocker, and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you.
I’d happily put up with banner ads on websites, it’s the mechanism that serves that ad that I find contentious and is the reason I personally use an ad blocker.
Yes, that's what the court ruled:
> While user freedom means that users are able to use the tools that they wish to when browsing the World Wide Web, the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content. This can be understood as an approval on the use of adblock detection tools by companies like Axel Springer.
This sounds fine to me. If you want to put your content on the internet for all to see, great, but I'm not going to let my browser render the ads that you suggest that it render. If you want to put the content behind a paywall or otherwise block ad blockers, fine, I'll pay if it's worth my money or I won't if it's not. But I'm not going to turn my ad blocker off just because content publishers whine about it.
> While user freedom means that users are able to use the tools that they wish to when browsing the World Wide Web, the court nevertheless preserved Axel Springer’s right to exclude users with an activated adblocker from accessing its content. This can be understood as an approval on the use of adblock detection tools by companies like Axel Springer.
This sounds fine to me. If you want to put your content on the internet for all to see, great, but I'm not going to let my browser render the ads that you suggest that it render. If you want to put the content behind a paywall or otherwise block ad blockers, fine, I'll pay if it's worth my money or I won't if it's not. But I'm not going to turn my ad blocker off just because content publishers whine about it.
Yep! I use an adblocker but I can't fault a site for trying to keep me out.
and a site that depends on its revenue has the right to refuse to serve you.
Certainly. But it's dumb on their behalf because you won't see any of their message at all. In practical terms, they might as well not exist.
Certainly. But it's dumb on their behalf because you won't see any of their message at all. In practical terms, they might as well not exist.
Not at all, because you ended up on their site anyways.
You can end up on their site, but if they refuse you, you won't see anything there will you?
And the next time, you won't even bother to follow a link to there.
And the next time, you won't even bother to follow a link to there.
As long as malvertising(1) exists, adblockers are basic security hygiene. You wouldn’t click a random link, so why would you allow an ad server to execute arbitrary code on your computer?
(1) https://www.tomsguide.com/us/malvertising-what-it-is,news-19...
(1) https://www.tomsguide.com/us/malvertising-what-it-is,news-19...
I can't find the original source, but there are many articles that claim that FBI recommends ad blockers, the ad networks made the internet unsafe so we need to setup ad blockers on our and our family computers.
This piqued my interest and lo and behold they do!
"Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others."
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
"Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others."
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221
Right to use Adblockers also means the remote server has the right to force you to download and display the ads as a condition of getting the content.
Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user (possibly including a blank screen with a timer for enforced video ads).
Then the server starts forcing client attestation to make sure their scripts run in a trusted environment.
Gets really messy really quick.
Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user (possibly including a blank screen with a timer for enforced video ads).
Then the server starts forcing client attestation to make sure their scripts run in a trusted environment.
Gets really messy really quick.
> Thus begins the arms race.
Except, the one side has to pay for the dev work on their own proprietary system, the other side is a horde of volunteers. At a certain point it isn't worthwhile, easier to just accept that some people aren't going to cooperate
Except, the one side has to pay for the dev work on their own proprietary system, the other side is a horde of volunteers. At a certain point it isn't worthwhile, easier to just accept that some people aren't going to cooperate
That isn't true, DRM won in games thanks to dedicated DRM companies coming around. We still have DRM free games that you can download, but some games take forever to crack. The same thing will happen in the adblocker wars in the end, it is much easier to automate systems that takes too much work for volunteers to crack. Not every company will be able to afford that themselves, but if they can buy a proprietary system to do it they will.
When people make it clear to me the terms of visiting their property, I take care to abide by them or go elsewhere. It only escalates when one side decides they must visit yet not abide by the terms.
>Thus begins the arms race. The client can simulate all that happening, but ultimately not actually present the ads to the user
That's trespassing but with a computer.
That's trespassing but with a computer.
I disagree, because the 'processing' occurs on the local (my) machine.
A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are sending a request for data, and the website is replying to that request. A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine.
In the case of DNS blocking, requests to advertising addresses aren't made, so no response is received. In the case of in-browser content blocking, the received reply is put through a filter to remove the elements of the reply that the user doesn't want.
The concept of trespass just doesn't fit here.
A user is not "visiting" a website, they're not stepping onto their property, they are sending a request for data, and the website is replying to that request. A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine.
In the case of DNS blocking, requests to advertising addresses aren't made, so no response is received. In the case of in-browser content blocking, the received reply is put through a filter to remove the elements of the reply that the user doesn't want.
The concept of trespass just doesn't fit here.
>A copy of their data is being willingly sent for display to the users machine.
Not if you're telling their posted signage to go fuck itself and ignoring the terms under which it was provided.
Not if you're telling their posted signage to go fuck itself and ignoring the terms under which it was provided.
Don't read this text.
I understand the point of view you're coming from but, from my point of view it goes against the idea behind having a web presence in the first place (which is likely because I'm stuck on that old romantic view of the web from 20 years ago when people shared information for reasons of passion rather than profit). It's also a bit like a EULA, it's not enforceable it's just game-theory-esque attempts at claiming more ground than that to which they're entitled.
If no one pushed back, they'd push further and harder.
I understand the point of view you're coming from but, from my point of view it goes against the idea behind having a web presence in the first place (which is likely because I'm stuck on that old romantic view of the web from 20 years ago when people shared information for reasons of passion rather than profit). It's also a bit like a EULA, it's not enforceable it's just game-theory-esque attempts at claiming more ground than that to which they're entitled.
If no one pushed back, they'd push further and harder.
It's worth noting that Eyeo makes money by being paid to not block ads. This article estimates it at 55M euro in 2020.
https://www.startbase.com/news/adblock-plus-mutter-eyeo-waec...
I can understand defining a standard for acceptable ads.
I can understand allowing ads that meet that standard.
What I struggle with is allowing ads that meet that standard AND require payment.
https://www.startbase.com/news/adblock-plus-mutter-eyeo-waec...
I can understand defining a standard for acceptable ads.
I can understand allowing ads that meet that standard.
What I struggle with is allowing ads that meet that standard AND require payment.
IMHO this is just a small part of a bigger struggle -- the right to use the browser of your choice (and thus one that also presents content the way you want), and by extension, the rest of your software and hardware environment.
I'm totally fine with this.
Content is paid with your eyeballs or with money. If you're not willing to pay with your eyeballs, then you shouldn't get the content. I think that's fair.
In China where copyright laws aren't enforced, there's simply no economic incentive for producers to create content...let's not go there.
Content is paid with your eyeballs or with money. If you're not willing to pay with your eyeballs, then you shouldn't get the content. I think that's fair.
In China where copyright laws aren't enforced, there's simply no economic incentive for producers to create content...let's not go there.
Advertisers like to claim that their content is speech. While this might be true I’d classify advertising as attempted manipulation.
The advertiser only wins when they convince me to do something I wouldn’t have done otherwise. Often that thing is not in my best interest. Buying a new car is great for advertisers. It’s a terrible financial decision for me.
Advertisers succeed by manipulating consumer behavior in ways that harm the consumer. Protecting myself from harmful manipulation is not only my right but I’d be an idiot not to do it.
Companies that prevent me from protecting myself from manipulation earn my ire. Fighting against Adblock makes you a bad company, and people who do it are doing a bad thing. What do we call people who do bad things? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The advertiser only wins when they convince me to do something I wouldn’t have done otherwise. Often that thing is not in my best interest. Buying a new car is great for advertisers. It’s a terrible financial decision for me.
Advertisers succeed by manipulating consumer behavior in ways that harm the consumer. Protecting myself from harmful manipulation is not only my right but I’d be an idiot not to do it.
Companies that prevent me from protecting myself from manipulation earn my ire. Fighting against Adblock makes you a bad company, and people who do it are doing a bad thing. What do we call people who do bad things? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The way I see it, is that I have a choice whether to pay* for ads that are forced on me without my consent, or whether to block that advertising content.
The website owner has the choice to allow me to see his website ad-free, or to refuse my access to his website altogether.
That's OK. I can survive if I don't see his website at all. OTOH, if he blocks out too many of us, there won't be sufficient eyes on his advertising anyway.
* pay for the ads I see? Yes. I have many times been in the situation where I had a small monthly quota of data such that my total data allowance per day was only 60 MB. It doesn't take many 5 MB advertisements to complete use up my meagre daily data allowance.
The website owner has the choice to allow me to see his website ad-free, or to refuse my access to his website altogether.
That's OK. I can survive if I don't see his website at all. OTOH, if he blocks out too many of us, there won't be sufficient eyes on his advertising anyway.
* pay for the ads I see? Yes. I have many times been in the situation where I had a small monthly quota of data such that my total data allowance per day was only 60 MB. It doesn't take many 5 MB advertisements to complete use up my meagre daily data allowance.
I think it should be obvious that I have a right to decide whether server-imposed JavaScript and CSS will run on my computer. If I only want HTML to render, that’s my prerogative. And if a site’s HTML isn’t useable without CSS and JS, then that site is defective and I’ll black hole its domain on local DNS.
If this breaks websites’ business models, that’s their problem, not mine. I don’t have bareback sex with strangers and I don’t visit random websites without uBlock Origin.
If this breaks websites’ business models, that’s their problem, not mine. I don’t have bareback sex with strangers and I don’t visit random websites without uBlock Origin.
If you don’t want me using an adblocker, you don’t want me using your site. I’m ok with that.
If your site fails because I’ve blocked your analytics suite, you have a poorly developed site.
If your site fails because I’ve blocked your analytics suite, you have a poorly developed site.
> According to Axel Springer, Eyeo’s business model constituted: ... a violation of freedom of the press
Wah, cry me a river. Some corporation making hundreds of millions of dollars thinks it has a right to run malware on people's computers, just so the executives can line their pockets with more money. Maybe they should spend some of those millions and figure out a less stupid monetization strategy instead of trying to dream up a bunch of laws that suit them
Wah, cry me a river. Some corporation making hundreds of millions of dollars thinks it has a right to run malware on people's computers, just so the executives can line their pockets with more money. Maybe they should spend some of those millions and figure out a less stupid monetization strategy instead of trying to dream up a bunch of laws that suit them
This feels off to me. I feel entitled to use an adblocker, but I also feel the site should be entitled to make corresponding choice their side.
The reality is much of the web is ad funded, so some sort of ugly compromise is necessary. Allowing both sides to do as they please seems more fair than holding a gun to corporates head and telling them no.
That said I reckon news is an exception - it's way too centralized and way to crucial to democracy to let all the big news orgs move as a unit. The way they all moved as a unit & some lead the charge on paywalls knowingly taking a hit felt way too coordinated for my liking.
The reality is much of the web is ad funded, so some sort of ugly compromise is necessary. Allowing both sides to do as they please seems more fair than holding a gun to corporates head and telling them no.
That said I reckon news is an exception - it's way too centralized and way to crucial to democracy to let all the big news orgs move as a unit. The way they all moved as a unit & some lead the charge on paywalls knowingly taking a hit felt way too coordinated for my liking.
Ads in the street fund...something.
I ignore them as they aren't terribly targeting, and I'm not an impulse buyer based on some pic of an overly happy smiley person.
Inasmuch as I'm not obligated to fund the advertisers and companies I see in the streets, the same is true of the net.
I owe them nothing - especially as they try and track me. I leave my phone in the car when i go shopping so location isn't a thing they can utilise against me, which they would if possible.
Having said that, i am looking after a friends dog at the moment. I walked past a store that sells royal canine a few days ago... got an ad for dog food on amazon, and in my gmail.
Coincidence? Possibly. Am i nervous? Absolutely you should be too.
I ignore them as they aren't terribly targeting, and I'm not an impulse buyer based on some pic of an overly happy smiley person.
Inasmuch as I'm not obligated to fund the advertisers and companies I see in the streets, the same is true of the net.
I owe them nothing - especially as they try and track me. I leave my phone in the car when i go shopping so location isn't a thing they can utilise against me, which they would if possible.
Having said that, i am looking after a friends dog at the moment. I walked past a store that sells royal canine a few days ago... got an ad for dog food on amazon, and in my gmail.
Coincidence? Possibly. Am i nervous? Absolutely you should be too.
Ads in the streets fund surprisingly little.
I've spent energy and time finding out how much my local govt got from these ads and learned three things. They don't want to tell, because it's embarrassing small amounts. They don't really know the exact numbers. Many ads on "public spaces" fund private or corporate coffers rather than municipality.
I've spent energy and time finding out how much my local govt got from these ads and learned three things. They don't want to tell, because it's embarrassing small amounts. They don't really know the exact numbers. Many ads on "public spaces" fund private or corporate coffers rather than municipality.
Streets are a public space. Yet even there access to the street remains free, and ads tend to be on private property. Most of the Internet would not qualify. Though I suppose it could be argued parts are much like a public square.
You aren't allowed to display whatever you want on private property. If you put up a massive billboard on your front yard the police will come knocking very quickly.
Depends. In the US most townships won't care. Cities or HOAs vary from liberal to quite strict.
I'd also raise the issue if liability, for when that advertisement is a scam or a vehicle for malware Javascript or buffer-overflowing media.
If I have some kind of legal obligation to permit their system to do stuff on my computer, then surely they must have have some level of liability for what that stuff does or enables.
If I have some kind of legal obligation to permit their system to do stuff on my computer, then surely they must have have some level of liability for what that stuff does or enables.
Unfortunately devs don't get a vote, we're just too much of a minority. Remember IE6? It took google literally firing all guns to de-throne it, and they did it because they injected a message with every google search to use chrome.
Unfortunately... i don't know what we can do, even if the entire dev community gives google the finger.
Unfortunately... i don't know what we can do, even if the entire dev community gives google the finger.
In Europe, Firefox usage was 30-40% (depending on a country) before Chrome has arrived.
[deleted]
How you choose to render bits that are served to you is as fundamentally your right as whether you choose to leave your eyes open, or read text that has been put in front of you.
Moreover, your right to not be spied on for you browser configuration is the same as your right to not have your irises tracked. This isn't even close.
Moreover, your right to not be spied on for you browser configuration is the same as your right to not have your irises tracked. This isn't even close.
i have a straightforward principle for using the Web and serving a part of it: both parties have the right to serve and consume the content as they choose to.
all this shaming by content owners who tend to continue pushing more intrusive ads is being rather unfair. at the same time, i don't see any issues with them witholding access to content if we try to bypass their intended use.
today serving content at a reasonable level has never been this cheap. if you serve a 2MB webpage for 500 word piece, then it serves you right when you complain about how much it costs you to run it. using that argument to moral policing only goes so far.
all this shaming by content owners who tend to continue pushing more intrusive ads is being rather unfair. at the same time, i don't see any issues with them witholding access to content if we try to bypass their intended use.
today serving content at a reasonable level has never been this cheap. if you serve a 2MB webpage for 500 word piece, then it serves you right when you complain about how much it costs you to run it. using that argument to moral policing only goes so far.
This is ridiculous. We don't need people pontificating about what "rights" exist when I chose to request content from someone else's server.
We need better ad-blocking technologies. Let the arms race continue. Haven't had to deal with ads for years now, as a happy Firefox + uBlock user.
We need better ad-blocking technologies. Let the arms race continue. Haven't had to deal with ads for years now, as a happy Firefox + uBlock user.
> We don't need people pontificating about what "rights" exist
While you may prefer anarchy, in the real world courts will make these choices for you, and enforce the rules, putting your property and liberty at risk.
While you may prefer anarchy, in the real world courts will make these choices for you, and enforce the rules, putting your property and liberty at risk.
In this case it's a bit like legislating the weather.
Rights are just commitments by a government to ensure certain things do/don't happen within its area of reach. A right is only as good as a government's ability to enforce it.
In this case we aren't talking about life or property or physical things in a single jurisdiction. We are talking about information exchanged over a distributed network, that spans nearly every jurisdiction on Earth. Unless you are expecting a single world government, monitoring every network link, and a ban on encryption in the near future, it's unreasonable to expect the "rights" being discussed to materially impact you.
Maybe you work in advertising, and this does actually affect some number in a quarterly report.
Rights are just commitments by a government to ensure certain things do/don't happen within its area of reach. A right is only as good as a government's ability to enforce it.
In this case we aren't talking about life or property or physical things in a single jurisdiction. We are talking about information exchanged over a distributed network, that spans nearly every jurisdiction on Earth. Unless you are expecting a single world government, monitoring every network link, and a ban on encryption in the near future, it's unreasonable to expect the "rights" being discussed to materially impact you.
Maybe you work in advertising, and this does actually affect some number in a quarterly report.
This just sounds to me like you don't know a whole lot about the philosophy of law and you think it's not worth learning or thinking about.
Yes. It's my computer, my screen, my power, my network connection. I will choose which content I wish to view using my resources. I don't wish to view ads, especially the kind of intrusive, annoying ads that are predominant today. If they were simple banners that didn't try to interupt my use of the site and tax my CPU and network I probably would care a lot less.
If a site doesn't like those terms, fine. I'll find my content elsewhere.
If a site doesn't like those terms, fine. I'll find my content elsewhere.
This. Service operators have no saying in how you process the response, as long as it doesn’t violate any laws (e.g. redistribution beyond fair use)
But. The end of this arms race is gonna be problematic because of the halting problem. Unlike some other issues, we possibly don’t want to push it too hard here until the society catches up, or we’ll end up with black box programs inside the browsers, handling all aspects of rendering. That would be a wasteful loss for everyone.
But. The end of this arms race is gonna be problematic because of the halting problem. Unlike some other issues, we possibly don’t want to push it too hard here until the society catches up, or we’ll end up with black box programs inside the browsers, handling all aspects of rendering. That would be a wasteful loss for everyone.
If I can't find browsers that help me protect myself from websites, I'll just stop using the web entirely.
The web has been getting less useful, more irritating, and more problematic for years anyway. At this point, it wouldn't be a huge loss to me.
The web has been getting less useful, more irritating, and more problematic for years anyway. At this point, it wouldn't be a huge loss to me.
The camel's nose is already there. Say hi to DRM.
It is difficult to take the complaint terribly seriously when part of their case against Adblock Plus is that it “violates the freedom of the press”.
Imagine if newspapers were free and supported by ads, but only had ads in the top 2” x 2” corner, on the outside edge of the paper. Imagine also that I sold a kind of square knife-press that you could use to stamp-cut the ads out all in one go. No one would seriously claim I was doing something wrong — just move the ads around to random places on each page!
Is it laziness that stops publishers from shipping targeted ads from their own servers, inlined in the content in a way that cannot be distinguished from article images or text?
Imagine if newspapers were free and supported by ads, but only had ads in the top 2” x 2” corner, on the outside edge of the paper. Imagine also that I sold a kind of square knife-press that you could use to stamp-cut the ads out all in one go. No one would seriously claim I was doing something wrong — just move the ads around to random places on each page!
Is it laziness that stops publishers from shipping targeted ads from their own servers, inlined in the content in a way that cannot be distinguished from article images or text?
> Is it laziness that stops publishers from shipping targeted ads from their own servers, inlined in the content in a way that cannot be distinguished from article images or text?
No, it's about fraud. With your proposal advertisers have to trust publishers really will show their ads, and unless the publisher is very large and has a reputation to protect advertisers pretty reasonably don't trust them.
(We do actually see what you're proposing, with YouTube, Facebook, Google Search, etc)
You could do this by having the ad networks serve the pages, reverse proxying to the publisher and inserting the ads. And then the publisher page can run its verification scripts, instead of the ads running verification scripts. But that gives us a web served by Google, Criteo, AppNexus, etc. which would be pretty sad.
No, it's about fraud. With your proposal advertisers have to trust publishers really will show their ads, and unless the publisher is very large and has a reputation to protect advertisers pretty reasonably don't trust them.
(We do actually see what you're proposing, with YouTube, Facebook, Google Search, etc)
You could do this by having the ad networks serve the pages, reverse proxying to the publisher and inserting the ads. And then the publisher page can run its verification scripts, instead of the ads running verification scripts. But that gives us a web served by Google, Criteo, AppNexus, etc. which would be pretty sad.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, there isn't yet a corresponding human right to not being blocked for using an adblocker.
Adblockers can be likened to piracy, similar to downloading movies from torrents.
It's true that service providers should be mindful of ad usage to avoid alienating users. However, using services and bypassing ads equates to appropriating the service's property.
If you disagree with a service's monetization methods, it's best not to use it. Don't steal it.
It's true that service providers should be mindful of ad usage to avoid alienating users. However, using services and bypassing ads equates to appropriating the service's property.
If you disagree with a service's monetization methods, it's best not to use it. Don't steal it.
It can’t be likened to piracy because I am asking the website for a document, they’re giving it to me, suggesting I download other documents, and I am deciding not to.
I am not taking something they own by force on a ship.
I am not distributing their intellectual property to others without authorization.
I am not taking something they own by force on a ship.
I am not distributing their intellectual property to others without authorization.
Except you're offering their bullshit Hobson's choice: submit or live like a Mennonite. Anything now that doesn't involve you jumping at the chance to hand over larger and lager piles of money is deemed "unpatriotic" and "criminal". That sort of groomed consumer bullshit can GTFO.
How should someone know the terms of use BEFORE being served the data (including the terms)? It's not stealing if you're broadcasting.
Remember shrinkwrap EULAs? You agree to a EULA you can't read beforehand by opening the box or shrinkwrap.
Now, there are perpetually-changing EULAs you don't get to agree to that just change underneath you, and are rarely notified about.
Now, there are perpetually-changing EULAs you don't get to agree to that just change underneath you, and are rarely notified about.
I would first need to see the site to get a sense of if I agree with the monetization, but at that I would have seen the ads.
Hence I block all ads,if a site has a nag screen about ad blocker, I block it from my searches with Kagi. I wish it already had a block list for that so I never see these sites at all. Sites who does that are typically of very low quality anyway.
Hence I block all ads,if a site has a nag screen about ad blocker, I block it from my searches with Kagi. I wish it already had a block list for that so I never see these sites at all. Sites who does that are typically of very low quality anyway.
If I cannot use an ad-blocker, then I should be able to have a perfect measurment of what % of my bandwidth, for which I pay for, is consumed by ads, and then charge them a fee for resource utilization, convenience fee, fcc annoyance fee, corrupt-packet fee and dropped-packet waste of resource fee, and congestion fee.
If you're consuming content on ad supported services and sites, then why would anyone be reimbursement you for bandwidth costs that they have no control over?
You could be on a network paid for by your employer, one very frugally negotiated, or a redundant yet costly satellite link you have for vanity reasons.
You could be on a network paid for by your employer, one very frugally negotiated, or a redundant yet costly satellite link you have for vanity reasons.
Why do you feel entitled to send a bill to someone who only gave you what you asked them to give you?
The point was, I think, that they're giving more than what was asked for. With an ad blocker a user can opt out of expensive parts of the content and if they're denied that then they're being forced to consume the content they didn't want. A website makes a bunch of files available publicly. My user agent picks a few of those files it wants and ignores the rest. If my UA is forced to acquire all the files or the specific set the site requires, they're forcing me to spend my resources downloading, processing, and displaying files I don't want, at great expense both to my wallet and my time, and my mind. I have a tool that manages this for me and they're telling me I can't engage with some of their content because I won't engage with other of their content.
It's like a buffet that requires you fill your plate only the way they want it filled. It's a buffet. It's not a prefix.
It's like a buffet that requires you fill your plate only the way they want it filled. It's a buffet. It's not a prefix.
>The point was, I think, that they're giving more than what was asked for.
They're not. You just turned out to not actually want what you asked for.
>I have a tool that manages this for me and they're telling me I can't engage with some of their content because I won't engage with other of their content.
Yes, because they provided the former free of charge solely on the basis that you'd accept the latter as well.
They're not. You just turned out to not actually want what you asked for.
>I have a tool that manages this for me and they're telling me I can't engage with some of their content because I won't engage with other of their content.
Yes, because they provided the former free of charge solely on the basis that you'd accept the latter as well.
You're reply is to tell me that you and they know better than I do what I'm asking for? Really?
All respect to Michael Larabel's reporting itself, but opening a Phoronix article and seeing a dozen ad embeds which constitute most of the page weight is a frequent reminder to me that I live in heck.
It should be a reminder to just pay for Michael's work.
The ads are nothing compared to the comments section. I'd happily start paying, if they deleted the comments section entirely.
A browser is your car on the digital highway. Said car should have your best interest as priority #1. Not the highway itself, not some company. You.
Use Firefox people, before it is too late.
Use Firefox people, before it is too late.
If only it gracefully supported profiles in a similar way to Chrome. Having two binaries running gets real funky when you want to open a page in whatever browser window you recently used, which also happens to be the most recent profile, too.
I'm aware it's not the same as Chrome profiles but multi-account containers, where individual tabs can have their own sessions, is a killer feature of Firefox.
The ability to have multiple AWS accounts logged into at the same time in tabs side by side is a real time saver.
The ability to have multiple AWS accounts logged into at the same time in tabs side by side is a real time saver.
I use containers with SideBerry for this. I have panels dedicated to google accounts (broadly: work, other and personal). When I'm in a panel and click a link it opens correctly with the right container and corresponding auth.
It's the best flow I've found. You can also set rules for domains to always open (or prompt) in a container, but I found that to be too much work for several common domains that I use from different profiles.
I do still have rules set up for some things like Github, which should always use my personal container. That's nice since no matter what mode I'm working in, it opens correctly and I don't have to log into Github for each container. And I have stuff like Linkedin and Facebook firewalled into a social container.
It's the best flow I've found. You can also set rules for domains to always open (or prompt) in a container, but I found that to be too much work for several common domains that I use from different profiles.
I do still have rules set up for some things like Github, which should always use my personal container. That's nice since no matter what mode I'm working in, it opens correctly and I don't have to log into Github for each container. And I have stuff like Linkedin and Facebook firewalled into a social container.
The problem is there's no single right answer about how isolated profiles should be.
Firefox offers two options:
1. full profiles, which are almost completely isolated. They're separate processes, the data can live on separate parts of your computer. I do not want that to go away, I like being able to have almost separate Firefox installs on my computer.
2. containers, which are lighter profiles than Chrome and attempt to isolate sites without isolating browser settings. I also really like these, and I don't want them to go away, although I wouldn't mind them getting some additional controls for segmenting more of the browser.
What a lot of people want is:
3. Something in the middle between those two things.
I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it's necessarily settled that Chrome's approach is perfect or that different users might not want some things to be less separated than Chrome's approach or more separated.
"Something in the middle" can mean a lot of different things, and there are a lot of users that sound like they're asking for the same things (better profiles), when I suspect in actuality many of them have very different ideas about what they want that to look like.
I'm down for Firefox offering more options there, but I don't know that there is a singular version of profiles that would satisfy everyone, I suspect the only way this actually works is if it's somewhat configurable. And I definitely don't want the less isolated version of profiles to replace the real actually isolated profiles that Firefox has now. I want at least the option to keep my profiles as separate binaries.
Rather than making a completely separate 3rd option, maybe the better option is for containers to have more customization and to allow more isolation? Firefox already doesn't really expose containers without an extension (which is probably a mistake, but whatever) so having different extensions that are hooking in differently and could turn on/off different isolation features might be a middle ground. It does get a little weird if you also want to also isolate addons, but...
Firefox offers two options:
1. full profiles, which are almost completely isolated. They're separate processes, the data can live on separate parts of your computer. I do not want that to go away, I like being able to have almost separate Firefox installs on my computer.
2. containers, which are lighter profiles than Chrome and attempt to isolate sites without isolating browser settings. I also really like these, and I don't want them to go away, although I wouldn't mind them getting some additional controls for segmenting more of the browser.
What a lot of people want is:
3. Something in the middle between those two things.
I'm not opposed to that, but I don't think it's necessarily settled that Chrome's approach is perfect or that different users might not want some things to be less separated than Chrome's approach or more separated.
"Something in the middle" can mean a lot of different things, and there are a lot of users that sound like they're asking for the same things (better profiles), when I suspect in actuality many of them have very different ideas about what they want that to look like.
I'm down for Firefox offering more options there, but I don't know that there is a singular version of profiles that would satisfy everyone, I suspect the only way this actually works is if it's somewhat configurable. And I definitely don't want the less isolated version of profiles to replace the real actually isolated profiles that Firefox has now. I want at least the option to keep my profiles as separate binaries.
Rather than making a completely separate 3rd option, maybe the better option is for containers to have more customization and to allow more isolation? Firefox already doesn't really expose containers without an extension (which is probably a mistake, but whatever) so having different extensions that are hooking in differently and could turn on/off different isolation features might be a middle ground. It does get a little weird if you also want to also isolate addons, but...
Is this not a use case for containers?
On any other browser I always miss my containers.
On any other browser I always miss my containers.
And, yet, if Firefox decided to ship an ad blocker on by default they would lose their primary source of funding.
Has that actually been established, or is it still just speculation? I doubt the contract actually says that, though of course it might affect future renewals.
Sorry, I'm claiming they would lose their primary source of funding in the sense that the next time the contract came up for bid no one would want it.
I'm at least somewhat skeptical here. The value gained by Google from all those searches is not exclusively in the ads shown. It might lower the value of the contract, but I would be at least somewhat surprised if it lowered it to zero.
There is value from seeing which result a user apparently likes best, which lets you train your search engine better. But Google already has a ton of this and the marginal contribution from Firefox users must be minimal. Instead, probably a different, smaller, search engine would probably pay. Though, even then, simply the cost of serving acceptable search results could be higher than the marginal value of the data?
Either way, this goes from a contract bringing in hundreds of millions to maybe tens at best?
Either way, this goes from a contract bringing in hundreds of millions to maybe tens at best?
There's value in being the one to serve personalized results, get people to sign up for accounts, cross-sell other services...
That sounds like Firefox made a bad decision to fund their operations by selling the default search engine space to an advertising company, then.
It’s chicken and egg. Because of their low usage numbers they don’t have much leverage and a deal with devil is the option they’re forced into.
To date, Mozilla refuses to let me donate to directly fund Firefox.
I can donate to Mozilla, but then they'll take my money and pursue whatever their current distraction of the month is. I can pay for Pocket, but then I'm paying for Pocket, which I don't need or want. I can't just give them money and say "I really, really want this money to go directly to Firefox, not to another side project".
Until they offer that as an option, they cannot claim to have tried everything.
I can donate to Mozilla, but then they'll take my money and pursue whatever their current distraction of the month is. I can pay for Pocket, but then I'm paying for Pocket, which I don't need or want. I can't just give them money and say "I really, really want this money to go directly to Firefox, not to another side project".
Until they offer that as an option, they cannot claim to have tried everything.
I'd love to have an option to pay for Firefox Sync. It's by far my favorite Firefox feature, I use it every day, and I'd happily pay for it even if they just said "this just funds ongoing development and offers no added features", though they'd get more revenue if they find something to offer for paying users.
Firefox has been funded by selling the default search engine for decades, including when it had 30% market share.
Firefox has Mozilla Corporation as its #1 priority best interest.
Through the way things are set up, Firefox has Mozilla Foundation as its number 1 priority. Corporation makes money for Foundation, Foundation steers everything.
Mozilla Foundation serves the interests of Mozilla Corporation (including Firefox), and Mozilla Corporation in turn serves the interests of its CEO Mitchell Baker.[1]
Foundation makes money for Corporation, CEO steers everything (literally, as CEO of Corporation and Chairman of Foundation).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Negative_salary...
Foundation makes money for Corporation, CEO steers everything (literally, as CEO of Corporation and Chairman of Foundation).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Negative_salary...
In what way does the Mozilla Foundation serve the interests of the Mozilla Corporation? Not financially, that's for sure. How else?
That Mozilla Corporation serves the interests of Mitchell Baker, that I can believe. Note that Mitchell Baker is also one of the six members of the board of directors of Mozilla Foundation.
> Foundation makes money for Corporation
What? No, that's completely incorrect. Corporation makes some money, mainly from deals with search engines, all of which goes from Corporation to Foundation. No money is ever transferred the other way around.
Corporation is fully owned by Foundation. Corporation brings in money for Foundation, Foundation steers Corporation.
That Mozilla Corporation serves the interests of Mitchell Baker, that I can believe. Note that Mitchell Baker is also one of the six members of the board of directors of Mozilla Foundation.
> Foundation makes money for Corporation
What? No, that's completely incorrect. Corporation makes some money, mainly from deals with search engines, all of which goes from Corporation to Foundation. No money is ever transferred the other way around.
Corporation is fully owned by Foundation. Corporation brings in money for Foundation, Foundation steers Corporation.
Honestly I trust Mozilla more than Google or Microsoft. Not that corporations should be trusted. It's more of a "less bad" situation.
[deleted]
Please, may i use a browser of my choice?
You may choose between Chrome, Chrome (Edge), Chrome (Brave), Chrome (Opera), Chrome (Vivaldi), Chrome (Chromium), Chrome (the others), Safari, and the remainder of which Firefox is probably the most known.
I will allow it. But it’s good to know the consequences and take them into consideration.
The way the interweb currently works is bringing stuff into my computer, and showing it to me here. Even with streaming, I see it 'here'. So My PC, My Rules.
If the interweb changes and I see it 'there' instead of 'here' we can discuss again.
If the interweb changes and I see it 'there' instead of 'here' we can discuss again.
They have an advertisement begging for money at the top of the page.
And yet they don't tell you to turn off your adblocker
I actually think this is fair, and I say that as someone who has been using adblockers since the dawn of time and couldn't imagine using a webbrowser without it.
I believe the court has decided absolutely sanely for one: it should be my choice as an internet user whether I want to be exposed ot ads or not. In my case: no way, Jose. And to those who make the argument that a lot of what the internet offers todays would be unsustainable without the ad revenue, I say that although you may think that you cannot live without this or that or the other on the internet, let me reassure you: you can. Everything on the internet is expendable. Trust me. Yes, even TikTok, son. Heck, most of what you're in love with today wasn't even there 10 years ago.
It may come in as a surprise to some but yes, you can have a life without the internet. And to be honest, I'd rather lose some conveniences if the alternative is this absolute insanity that is today's web without an adblocker.
But if content providers do not want to give me their stuff unless I watch their ads, I think that's fine. It's your right to do that. Just don't think that I am going to turn off the adblocker for you as a consequence. Much more likely, I'm just going to go somewhere else for my kick.