Someone brought up piracy from the monetary perspective.
Another perspective I like is piracy and streaming services.
I, and most in my bubble, stopped pirating when streaming services provided, well, good service.
We've bit by bit moved back to piracy when the service has degraded.
My journey with ad blocking is similar.
Even though my browser was loaded with extensions, I used to not run an ad blocker.
No other reason really than laziness. The ads didn't bother me much. It was one of those "I've been meaning to do it but never got to it".
What finally got me to install an ad blocker were news of malware being served even on popular websites through ads.
Ads weren't simple anymore if they ever were. They were part of one of the most complex and lucrative domains of tech business. And that was leaking into websites. It felt too dirty, so I got an ad blocker.
Nowadays the ad-tech industry boasts about moving to first-party ad tracking, a cat-and-mouse game where I don't hold high hopes for ad blockers. So I went a step further and turned off JavaScript by default in uBlock Origin.
Or take YouTube ads. I was still watching them on my TV not long ago, but when it got to the point where a 20 minute video has 5 ad breaks I couldn't take it anymore.
If ads sticked to being image only, no dark patterns, no targeting persons but instead content and not exceedingly disruptive, I would have probably never bothered with ad blocking.
I remember clicking on some Google ads - when they were unobtrusive and textual - just to get these new nice guys some additional revenue (often ads were “on-topic” even).
But these jumping, blinking, content obtrusing things? And I am on a tablet 90% of the time…
The right to general purpose computing should be on a level with the right to free speech in every country that claims to value free speech[1]. Same protections as speech.
Because nowadays computing is essentially speech. There certainly is a better argument for computing to be speech than monetary political donations (ie. bribes) being it.
And this does of course not mean that every form of computation is permitted, just as not every form of speech is allowed (ie. threats or libel). It also doesn't mean that anyone has to platform your speech. But using technological tools to take away other's right to computing on their purchased device would be considered a free speech violation. This would include DRM, Web Integrity, denial of service and other attacks on computing devices you don't yourself own.
[1] I'm referring to the free speech value with its roots in the enlightement, not on the narrower definition of the free speech as defined in the first amendment (which only limits governments from hindering free speech).
I started blocking ads back in the 2000s when viruses would be delivered over bad flash videos.
Nowadays, I still block ads because I'm paying for limited bandwidth on my mobile devices. I'm not paying for unlimited bandwidth when 5gb with ad blocking gets me what I want. I can't use this excuse on my PC but...
I honestly don't care if it harms the content creators and more importantly, the video delivery networks like Google.
Does that mean there might be less content made? Sure and I'm Ok with that as a consequence.
I don't want loud audio blasting on my headphones before watching a Youtube or news site video. I don't want to watch scam advertisements on Youtube or Instagram. I don't want to be tracked without my consent by third-party ad companies. I don't want to even support companies that track users without consent. I would actually prefer that websites using non-privacy-respecting ad-ware would die. I don't want my computer to be slowed down by random websites. I don't want to be forced to spend hundreds/thousands on computer upgrades. I don't want ad code from ad companies running on my device. I don't want the risk of malware that might come via ads in some websites. I don't want my attention going to jumpy animations on GIF banners (the original reason I started blocking in the early 2000s). And finally: I don't want to spend the bandwidth, regardless of the fact it's gonna cost me money or not.
I am, however:
Happy to watch a Youtube NordVPN or Ridge Wallet sponsorship segment on Youtube that doesn't track me and allow me to skip if I want. Same for TV ads (unless they're obnoxious and loud). Also Happy to unblock websites that don't have obnoxious third-party ads.
I wish for companies that require my attention be taken up by their ugly pixels to all bankrupt and for their C-staff and marketing departments to be unemployed and in the gutter.
Ads are, in the vast majority, toxic shit. Endemic income inequality and unicorn worship has produced VC-backed hustle culture where "creators" spew "content" over platforms, and slap ads on top to generate income.
If a business can't generate sufficient income by selling a product, it's not a viable business. It's certainly not one I want to interact with.
Tail wags dog: Without advertising, all this content would be paywalled or simply wouldn't exist.
Dog wags tail: Sell your product, maybe give away samples. Sink or swim.
There is no right to advertise, is how I see it, any more than there is a right to use asbestos, lead, and mercury any way you please. There is societal permission to use those substances in strictly controlled ways, requiring that serious work be invested in preventing and limiting the toxic effects upon the public of using those substances, because those toxic effects are real and taking the benefits of using those substances while shuffling off the toxic effects onto someone else, is evil. We should regulate advertising in the same way: it is evil to shuffle off its toxic effects onto the public at large while the advertiser and ad-inventory-seller keep all of the benefits. Ad-blocking is as virtuous as carrying around kits and sensors to check how much lead and mercury is in my immediate environment — certainly I will benefit from doing it, but I shouldn't have to, because pumping out ad-toxins into the social environment constantly and pervasively, is evil.
> those toxic effects are real and taking the benefits of using those substances while shuffling off the toxic effects onto someone else, is evil
*is capitalism, ftfy :)
More seriously though, there is always a dicothomy between the "healthier" features of capitalism (competition, private initiative, etc) and the rest: rent-seeking, pocketing the profits and dumping externalities on others, enclosing the commons, etc.
Is there a right to free content? Because ads are obnoxious and I do block them, but I also pay for stuff were I can. If ads didn't exist there effectively there would be a pallwall on the internet. As there should be, people need money to live. If people feel so strongly about ads they should either not consume the content or pay for the ad-free version. I use YouTube premium and I've never seen an ad. I get the ad-free version of everything. My child even uses Amazon kids, so she can enjous apps to her hearts content without ads. But I pay for that.
Ad blocking is theft. It's theft that I will commit, but it is theft. When you block an ad you reduce the content creator's salary. We then have to ask: what happens if the creator gets no money? They stop giving the content away "for free".
This is the piracy fight all over again. Again, I'm on the high seas, so I'm not innocent. I still think that we need remember that content isn't free. We pay for it with attention or money. If enough people don't do that then the content won't be there. That's how capitalism works.
Ad blocking is not theft. If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft. Youtube is freely sending people content. No one is forcing Youtube to send them cat videos. No one is acquiring Youtube videos illegally via torrents.
Ad blocking is only possible on Youtube because Youtube insists on doing big data auction based advertising. If they wanted to, Youtube could embed ads in the video stream making it impossible to block them.
Youtube does not have a right to display whatever content they want on my devices. If they freely send me data, I have the right to display that data however I can on my device.
If Youtube wanted they could end the utility of adblock today. They could only send data to people who paid. They could embed ads into the video stream. It is their choice to make adblocking possible on Youtube.
Because it's my device. If youtube wants to not send me the video, that's perfectly within their rights. But once they've sent the video, their rights end unless they have a contractual agreement with me personally.
Me. And, I believe, the vast majority of other humans who have given it any thought.
> They don't? Why not?
If you feel that way, you must also believe I have the right to display whatever I want on your devices. Which you naturally agree I do, right? I hope you like very early morning disco...
> it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
People can say whatever they like. Like, I can say "for reading these words, the person behind the insanitybit account owes me $20."
Tell me, just how obligated do you feel to pay that?
If I don't want to view this post I can close the window. I'm on HN, a site with an existing ToS. If HN decided to put ads on display and say "if you want to read you have to abide by a ToS that ensures you don't block our ads" obviously that would be legal.
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the [ToS], didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
- Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (slightly modified by me).
Equivocating sending a GET request with signing/agreeing to a 100 page contract of legalese is about as ridiculous a proposition as the quote I posted depicts, if not more.
holy fucking shit. no. you've been gaslit into this absolutely insane reality friend.
bodily autonomy is basical human right number one, including the right the close your fucking eyes. there's no fucking "contract law" with https requests. if you're playing devil's advocate, well the devil forgetting basic human rights is bad rhetoric
> Well, it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
"you must watch" is bodily autonomy. currently what they can enforce technologically is "you must wait" for these 30 seconds of ads, which I can close my eyes for, or similarly with technology block the domain name they are served from
> > If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft.
> Who says it isn't?
"you must stay" is bodily autonomy. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand
Ad blocking is no more theft than is blocking crypto miners or a virus turning your computer into a botnet member. This particular form of malware is common, but it's still malware attempting to hijack my computer to do things I did not authorize.
Would you support websites using your GPU to mine crypto coins? It's a more direct form of payment that doesn't create editorial conflicts or involve spying. Even if you're on battery, energy is just the price being charged. Or would you see it as them using your computer without your consent and taking advantage of the horrible security model of the web?
Ad- and spyware should be recognized as what they are: malware. Distributing malware and using someone else's computer for unauthorized purposes is a crime. Doing it to 10 or more computers is a felony. It also gets used to destroy markets by dumping free products onto them. The whole model should be illegal.
No, but there's also not a right to force others to consume content. Websites are within their rights to send ads to my browser, and/or to make users pay to get ad-free content, and I am within my rights to block ads if I don't want to see them, or just not visit their site at all (the latter is mostly what I do). This isn't a contest of theft on one side vs. honest toil on the other. It's a straightforward conflict of interest--websites want to show me ads that I don't want to see--which leads to a straightforward arms race of ads vs. ad blocking.
> When you block an ad you reduce the content creator's salary.
No, I don't; I'm not paying the content creator a salary by viewing an ad. I am simply not participating in the content creator's chosen business model. The content creator has no right to force me to do so. He does have the right to detect that I'm using an ad blocker and simply refuse to show me his content at all in that case. And then I'll just go surf somewhere else.
If the content creator wants me to pay him for his content, he should set up a Patreon or a Substack or something like that. There are perfectly good vehicles available for people to get paid for the content they write without having to clutter it up with ads. If a content creator chooses not to do that, that's his choice, and choices have consequences.
> This is the piracy fight all over again.
No, it isn't. Using an ad blocker is not piracy; I'm not going and fetching content behind the back of the copyright holder. I'm just refusing to view content I don't want.
> If enough people don't do that then the content won't be there.
Which for me at least would be no great loss. Given the content that I usually see with ads, I would be perfectly fine with not having it at all. Which is why, as I said above, I mostly just don't go to websites that insist on showing me ads; their content isn't worth enough of either my money or my attention to make me even care about entering the ads. vs. ad blocking arms race with them.
One could make the argument (I do) that the way advertising is done today is a cancer on society. Never mind whether it’s legally sanctioned to do so.
> That’s how capitalism works
Indeed, capitalism has a weakness when it comes to enabling and encouraging predatory behavior. Thankfully, we don’t live in a (completely) capitalist society. Instead, we can make laws to protect consumers against the negative effects and don’t need to strictly adhere to an “ideal” vision of capitalism.
> If ads didn't exist there effectively there would be a paywall on the internet.
This is a false premise. The internet of old, from which the current version evolved, had no advertising and yet still contained useful information. In fact, the ratio of useful information to garbage was much higher, so it could be said that with advertising was brought a flood of trash, and so a more informative, useful internet is one without advertising.
That's how capitalism works, it brings the con men and scammers and bottom feeders looking to make a quick dollar from the naive and unsuspecting, and if such behaviour can stay under the radar of regulation long enough then it becomes normalised, and otherwise good citizens defend it as 'the only way'.
The problem is that the content offered most of the time is not good enough to pay for it.
For instance the so called news. Most newspapers publish ready made stories with their own editorial take at best. Articles are typically processed by LLM so the wording is slightly different than the stock story.
The press has abandoned investigative journalism because it is too risky. Corrupt governments and police can't protect journalists. So they mostly serve three-letter agency approved information and not much beyond that.
and they want people to pay for this nonsense.
If Google wants people to stop using adblockers, they should be forced to share ad revenue with every single contributor. If they show in their results your aunt recipes, the aunt should get a share of the revenue from ads displayed on that results page.
Well, re: journalism yes there is now 1000x more shit-tier content spamming farms than there were before. But the prestigious and serious news organisations still do perform serious high-quality reporting and investigative journalism. From Der Spiegel to The Guardian and many others. Even in my small country with a dire newspaper market there are still 2 or 3 serious newspapers performing high quality journalism.
They only "investigate" approved stories. What you say is an illusion they create quite well.
In the UK, there is probably only one that goes slightly deeper - Private Eye and they still have not touched many topics related to corruption and other scandals where Guardian either low-key supports (the perpetrators) or don't talk about it at all.
> Despite the steps forward for user control found in these judgments, they do not go as far as we would hope to secure user freedom when using the internet
This is a strange take. They contend that the courts not forbidding website owners from refusing access to adblock users is a bad thing somehow, as if the courts should have forced businesses to serve them... The German courts took the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want.
> the only logical conclusion: You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want.
I very much agree with this bit.
The real worry is the next step, as per your TOS you force me to render your website content only in an "approved" signed browser. This is a step several players are pushing towards (Netflix and others are already there, but for distinct reasons- at least they degrade your experience if you aren't using an approved stack).
I mean, what if there are actual technical limitations of whatever browser you'd like to use that prevent, for example, the on-the-fly playback of 4K video?
Or, even more broadly, what if the device you're watching on has insufficient compute to accomplish the task? Do you, as proverbial Netflix's chief engineer or whatever, degrade the quality of the experience so things run smoothly, or do you press on and let the user choose a worse experience, and leave nasty feedback on public listings/forums/what have you?
I don't mean to argue for the Netflix's in this situation, I'm just genuinely curious what HN thinks of this: in a situation where whatever tech a user is bringing to the table is insufficient to run your product, be it hardware or software, what do you do?
I've been in a situation myself where the tech stack of our user base was directly contributing to the stream of angry emails our support was getting and was forbidden by management to gate content only to those who we knew could run it, yet simultaneously was held responsible for the negative impressions of our product as a result of it. I left that job soon after because it was an obvious lose/lose scenario.
Netflix does not offer 1080p+ content to people watching on a Linux desktop. There is no technical reason for this, Linux browsers are capable of playing 1080p+ content of course. So why do you think Netflix does this?
Rather than deal with hypotheticals let's focus on reality, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into ensuring that web browsers can run the same content on every platform. This is already a solved problem, even if imperfect.
The only genuine reason a device might not be able to play a browser supported 4k video is because it's too resource expensive (rare) and this is simply an immutable property of computers that isn't going to change unless you are expecting all users to use the exact same hardware forever.
You're absolutely right, and its pathetic. There is no reason for anything to just "not work" on linux. As far as technical limitations go, computers have hit a zenith over 10 years ago. Yes sometimes things change, i remember when youtube's codec was altered and suddenly perfectly good hardware was unable to stream videos any longer. This was however still a technical change, as it allowed for more efficient packing of content. I digress.
What we're seeing now, is purely political, or at the very least business-strategic, and linux is being purposefully omitted as an un-attested platform since it precisely gives users too much control/takes away revenue from someone's bottom line. The same thing could be said for console games which never hit pc at all either. And the last example which i think really brings it home is that ms teams not only doesnt work on firefox, linux is also off the table. Not because of any technical limitations in the least, as an off the shelf dell laptop + ubuntu + ff will give you a working video conferencing solution with google meet. Out. Of. The. Box. So it certainly isn't technically limited. It is rather chosen to be this way to force users into windows + edge or their native app solution.
>Netflix does not offer 1080p+ content to people watching on a Linux desktop
This is the reason I refuse to use streaming platforms even though I have enough money to pay for them. It's not a question of money. It's a question of: paying money to install spyware on my computer for the privilege of streaming low-quality video on a list of pre-approved devices? That is simply not gonna happen.
> Rather than deal with hypotheticals let's focus on reality
Imagine coming into a discussion telling of a thing you experienced and then the reply is: I don't want to discuss hypotheticals, which is great because a) this isn't a hypothetical, it's the reason I quit my last job and b) you replied to my comment, which is the only way you could possibly even have the chance to discuss this.
I am explaining (admittedly with low detail because Internet) an actual situation I experienced, and it's not like there aren't all manner of entertainment product available on the market which requires a floor of technical power to consume in a way the average consumer would deem acceptable, be that hardware requirements like VR or other bespoke controlling apparatus, or looser ones like the minimum requirements on videogames, or more is-or-isn't ones like the ability for streamer boxes, phones or tablets to playback video of a given resolution and at a given frame rate.
> I mean, what if there are actual technical limitations of whatever browser you'd like to use that prevent, for example, the on-the-fly playback of 4K video?
This is the core of what you were asking, perhaps my answer was too roundabout for you. What I'm trying to tell you is that:
- This question is a hypothetical because it's not true, you can encode videos to play on every platform so long as it's browser supported, this is not 2013
- There is not a technical floor in video playback of even 4k videos unless you are playing on something like a first gen raspberry pi, and even then, bandwidth constraints necessitate multi-quality video support regardless
- VR and other "manners of entertainment" are moving goal posts and irrelevant to this discussion
- Streaming content to multiple platforms is a solved problem, if you failed to accomplish this then it sounds to me that you probably couldn't do your job
- Using platform based attestation to resolve this technical incompetentcy is an unreasonable solution to the problem and deserving of complaints
It's not the only logical decision, because it leads to a technological arms race which is costly to all parties. The outcome is binary: see ads or not. The only logical decision is to figure out from first principles what the outcome should be, and make it binding for all parties to avoid the arms race.
the problem is that they also say it is legitimate to charge for adfree access. while that is technically correct is has negative impact on society because it means only rich people (i exaggerate intentionally to make a point) can live ad free.
poor people have to suffer ads or be excluded, which is fine if the content is something not of interest to the general public, but it is not fine at all if it is eg facebook or youtube.
add to that that poorer segments of the population tend to be less well educated and thus more susceptible to manipulation.
if you force ads on people you must do so to everyone equally and block adblockers equally. any exchange of money creates a situation where only those that can afford it can protect themselves
if you charge for access you may not offer the same access for the price of watching ads. it should be either one or the other
> That says your actual product is worth fuck all.
Look I use ad blockers and a pi-hole. And I don't bother reading paywalled sites that I don't pay for. But your comment is a little harsh. It is a sad reality of the internet that there are so few options for generating revenue. I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me. That way niche websites (like, for example, hobby sites or local sites) could get some income without having to resort to ads or fundraising. In my view the real ripoff are the exorbitant monthly fees I pay to my ISP.
The fact that even in Silicon Valley, the Comcast monopoly is very strong for both single-family and multi-tenant housing tells you everything you need to know about the viability of anyone actually solving this problem. They’re simply making far too much profit from bad service and terrible business practices, and they’ve paid for all the regulators they need to ensure they’ll never have to change or have any meaningful competition. That they and others in the ISP and mobile ISP cartel have been handed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to build out FTTH and rural areas that they instead pocketed is just the cherry on top of the turd banana split that is consumer protection in the USA. Check out “The Book of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal” for more on this.
It's brutal but true. Either have a revenue model or expect no income. That is the reality. The fuzzy grey bit in the middle is where all the garbage is.
Your idea sounds a fantastic way to make a system incredibly complicated with no actual gain other than a billing dystopia.
> I wish there was a micro-payment model where part of my monthly ISP payment was divvied up and paid to websites based on volume of content read by me.
> The whole problem starts at (1) which is "create a business supported only by advertising revenue". That says your actual product is worth fuck all.
It's a bit more complex than that as the market is long oversaturated with products and services, that is, there are not enough buyers compared to the number of products and services, but that awful thing called consumerism calls for more and more production anyway to keep the machine going and prices down, therefore companies need to fight hard for potential customers attention, and one way to achieve that goal is to put their names on every possible free spot where one's eyes might look.
There's nothing wrong in being dependent on advertising, but at the level necessary today it simply doesn't scale anymore, and on the web a lot more than half of the (sometimes metered) traffic is already made of advertising, and is growing steadily.
We already know where this thing is leading: more and more advertising, coupled with less and less attention which in turn will generate the need for even more advertising.
It doesn't scale and it doesn't work anymore like it should. I would rather start looking right now for alternatives, for example one where (local) governments convert a tax collected from all registered companies to a system of unobtrusive advertising which by rotating equally, still being weighted according to the amount of investment in research, production, personnel, etc. would guarantee fair exposure to all businesses. That would be however deeply against current idea of uncontrolled capitalism, though, therefore we likely will have to wait for the day the world will be ready for a more mature, harmless way of doing business.
100% this. If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article. Sometimes Reader works on iOS in those situations, sometimes not.
Between crap like Admiral, GDPR nag screens that help no one, incessant useless live chat boxes, large banners on mobile that are pinned to the tops and bottoms of views (doubly so if they’re simply cosmetic), “spin the wheel for a discount” modals, and SMS spam signup schemes, many websites are quite annoying to use and very user-hostile on the modern internet.
> If companies use Admiral to block Adblock and don’t have the tiny “heck off” link at the bottom of the modal, I just hit back and don’t read their article.
The most asinine part of that is the fucking site has already delivered the content. They incurred whatever costs their multi-megabyte bloated JavaScript monstrosity requires and only then blocks it with a stupid blocking banner.
They'd incur the same (or less) costs if they just sent a static HTML page with the content. Doing this they could still make advertising money with a simple text add saying "this content brought to you by Slurm" inline with the content. Just log analysis will get them a ton of visitor information some overwrought AdTech product promises will revolutionize their synergies.
A $5 VPS with its included terabyte of data transfer can serve so many fucking web pages in a month. Loading that down with autoplaying videos, megabytes of uncompressed PNGs, and a dozen copies of Doom worth of JavaScript is just a ludicrous pointless cost. A sprinkle of CSS can make those basic pages look amazing.
Despite you preferring paying websites directly (besides the fact that Brave is/was some crypto BS and took money even for recipients that didn't opt-in that didn't opt in[0]), most people mad at YouTube for blocking ads are people who won't pony up the money to pay for YouTube Premium. I get the sentiment, but it's still piracy if you don't pay for a service in the ways they provide.
They still load you up with many more adtech trackers on YouTube premium than you get when using adblock.
But yeah, if you use youtube a lot, at least premium does exist as a more morally righteous choice if you don't really care about the tracking side of things and are mostly just annoyed at ads themselves. Which I'd imagine is most people.
www.youtube.com/ptracking - general playback tracking
It's all first-party, no other ad trackers are loaded.
All of YouTube's tracking is done via your "watch history" which is via the api www.youtube.com/api/stats/watchtime. Most blockers don't block this since, as a user, you kind of expect the most useful features of YouTube to work - tracking how far into the video you've gotten (so you can return later at the same moment), and having your watch history be used to curate your recommended feed to give you more videos.
> but it's still piracy if you don't pay for a service in the ways they provide.
Nope, it’s called “negotiation”. Here’s the money I want to pay for your service. You don’t want it? Fine, I’ll leave it here in case you change your mind.
Negotiation despite them not accepting that negotiation. In contracts, if you try to "negotiate" and the counterparty rejects your offer, you can't just drop a bag full of cash at their door then expect to reap the benefits of an unsigned unexecuted contract to which they didn't agree to.
All I'm saying is that it is "piracy" by definition, even if it's morally acceptable and basically 0 risk to partake in (AFAIK the only criminal offenders of Piracy have been booked for distribution, at least in the US).
The Brave model does not allow you to directly pay websites.
You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value of their "basic attention token" shitcoin for themselves.
> Technical curiosity: how site owners are able to detect blockers
Let's take a simple rule from EasyList:
> /snowplow.js
This blocks the loading of any URL ending in snowplow.js. To see if a visitor to my website is using an ad blocker with EasyList, I can set a global variable `window.usingAdBlocker = true;` in my main content and then later change it in a scriptcalled snowplow.js that I include (`window.usingAdBlocker = false;`). So with a fresh Chrome install, the page loads and then the script sets the variable to false. However, with an ad blocker, the script never loads and the variable remains true.
> why blockers are not able to bypass detection?
Adblockers have developed rules to block this detection mechanism. It is a cat and mouse game. For example, there's a library called 'jQuery Adblock'. So the AakList (Anti-Adblock Killer) has a rule to block scripts called `/jquery.adblock.js`
The quick death of WEI makes me hope that RA might end up like the Secure Boot fracas a decade ago; it’ll end up in the enterprise because companies want it in their internal IT but won’t end up being used in the consumer world.
No Apple device can attest to what extensions are running or what apps are installed (at least not without some kind of MDM) and Apple specifically won’t support that to prevent user tracking and fingerprinting.
I'm talking about what can be done with remote attestation. It forces you to be beholden to what the device manufacturer allows you to run. For now they allow you to run ad blockers.
It still works at that point - websites can send you ads and you can choose not to view those websites. No one is forcing you to go to Youtube or whatever.
> "You can block ads all you want, and website owners can block you all they want."
This is absolutely the correct conclusion to come to, given that the Internet is really "just" a network of networks (still an amazing thing, don't get me wrong), and when one connects a device to a network, they should have absolute control over the data that device allows to flow to and from the "outside world", for the safety of the user, the device, and for the health of the larger "outside" network. This holds even more true when connecting a network to another network. For your own security, you (should) run a firewall at the very least. Even better is when all devices on the network all have their firewall enabled, but sadly, not all devices were designed with network security in mind, so that's not always possible.
TL;DR: All the above is just to say an adblocker is just another form of the end user exercising control over the data that flows into and out of their devices / network, as they've always been able to, until advertising companies (which initially all scoffed at the entire idea of advertising on the "passing fad" Internet) decided that they had a right to our eyeballs and our devices' network data flows at any time and in any way they please.
This is pretty much like the piracy argument where the assumption is there is 100% buy-in from people if they don't pirate. There isn't. Likewise, here. If you insist on forcing ads then I won't participate. There are no monetary damages as people refuse to look at or listen to ads.
This is going to be a controversial position, but nobody is really arguing the other side, the benefits of ads. And if they were more accepted and integrated (a "perfect" federated model), maybe they could be acceptable rather than abrasive and irrelevant. Who is talking, with a measured perspective, about the shift to participatory, user produced content (yes, I know, a lot of it isn't good, but some is and it is available to many more people without barriers), and the benefits that brings? I just see hand waving about alternatives, some "good old days" ideas about media, and a lot of people accessing essentially free ad-sponsored content with generally minor inconvenience in a murky going-nowhere conflict.
I think as much as anyone Google brings alternatives; I pay for Youtube Premium and never have any ads on Youtube/Youtube Music (places where it would be particularly unwelcome), I get paid for Google Surveys, and I think with some work their federated model could be perfectly reasonable.
If you disagree, please say why, rather than simply downvoting.
1. Advertising is a net negative on the human psyche, it steals attention that could be spent on productive work or entertainment. Proliferation of ad blockers affirms this.
2. Advertising is a zero sum game which benefits corporations with the largest advertising budget and hurts small businesses
3. Ads have expected return on investment or they wouldn't be run => In aggregate we're actually paying for that content with hard cash, so it's not "free content with ads", but "content with obscure, deferred payment"
4. Ads incentivize high volume, low quality, clickbait content. This makes it difficult to find high quality information because the only metric being optimized is the number of eyeballs that land on your website.
By eliminating ads as a funding model, we could eliminate this source of stress (1), even the playing field for small businesses (2), make it clear to users that they're, in fact, paying for the content (3). There's no free lunch, just a blue pill illusion of one.
What we need for web that actually serves its users are not ads, but easy, ubiquitous, private micropayments without middlemen who charge a hefty fee. I'll pay 20 cents to read this article, no I won't subscribe for $20 a month.
1. The server does not send the content to you, unless you pay. Websites are responsible for deciding what to give out for free - only public "abstracts" of NYT articles get search indexing.
2. Some browsers keep an account for you, others show you ads and let the advertising companies pay your way through the internet.
3. Anyone who wants to run a server for free or host P2P content may still do it.
All of the advanced tracking technology would be unnecessary if some people browsed through their adsense consumer account and other people ran a tab with their "content intermediary" to pay websites to serve (anonymous) address x.y.z.w.
Ads want my attention. It is a limited resource and I don’t want to spend it on ads.
Google in particular are some of the richest companies in the world due to people who can’t or won’t figure out ad blockers. Why they care about mine now I can’t exactly understand.
The answer is probably related to why a paid premium tier negates the value of an ad-supported free tier. A person who can't (or won't) afford the paid tier is probably not going to pay an advertised product, and thus the consumers of the free tier are less interesting (e.g. valuable) to advertisers.
For value to exist in the free tier, it must reach the entire audience. Think about how radio or newspaper advertising worked. If one segment figures out how to avoid the advertisements, it reduces the value of the remaining audience more than proportionally.
My proposal is that my browser downloads all the content, it just does not display the advertisement.
This levels the playing field among traditional broadcast, the content creators get paid and it is just a little less ethical than just getting up to use the bathroom during a commercial break.
If Google and ad agencies want to press the issue, this is really the next step.
1) I do think fondly of the "good ole days" where advertising hadn't destroyed most of the internet, but I concede the cats out of the bag; we're never going to see that again.
2) I think the only benefit of ads is that it staves off the alternative: widespread shilling. inb4 people with binary outlooks tell me that shilling already exits. I'm well aware. But if you plug the advertising hole (somehow), the same garbage is going to come out through another opening.
3) I pay for YT premium as well (which increased in cost substantially this last year). I love their music service, and I love that I dont get YT ads. However, I think this service should also skip over content-creator-placed ads (since they get more $ per view from subscribers like us). Furthermore, I'm starting to see "subscriber only" videos - essentially pay-per-view - which I view as an erosion of the contract. Just like there was erosion in the number of ads in TV over the decades, I think we can expect further erosion where "premium" means you just get "one or two (quite often two !)" ads before a video starts, and the "free" version will just be a cesspool or rate limited to N-number ad-infested videos per hour.
Ref shilling: I think there should be a very straightforward test for whether someone should hit "publish" on a piece of content, or a comment, or an ad bid.
Two questions: "is the place where I am about to publish this content/ad or cause this content/ad to be published by a third party my company's own website?" and then "could I reasonably expect this action to result in a net financial or traffic gain for my company?". If the answers are "no" and "yes" respectively, you should be about to incur a fine which is a double digit percentage of gross revenue for the last financial year, with no opportunity to appeal or reduce. 100% if that revenue was under six figures, to immediately exterminate startups who think advertising is OK.
This deals with shilling, astroturfing, "disclaimer: I work for X and recommend" comment section crap, YouTube sponsors, advertising, blogspam, Substack, Medium, and all the rest. Cause an advert, namedrop, or traffic driver for your company to appear on any site that isn't your own? You just lost your entire profit for last year and then some.
Kick the corps offline, give the internet back to the hobbyists, the enthusiasts, and the academics
For me it's much simpler than this... I don't trust the ads to run on my device. They're often disruptive at best, and sometimes little more than malware at worst. I don't trust ad-tech companies to be ethical and responsible, and I don't trust most site operators to do their due diligence before an ad harms someone.
I also remember what TV was like when it was primarily supported by ads... it wasn't "the good old days," it sucked. It was an era of the blandest, LCD-chasing content that was constantly at the whims of hundreds of advertisers. There's a reason that HBO was such a revelation back in the day, you paid them money and they showed you interesting things.
And frankly what I've learned from the Patreon model of funding is that still works, and most people consuming the content don't need to pay for it; the percentage who can and do are enough. Take the fall of The Escapist recently, where all of the talent was fired/left and then formed Second Wind. Like most successful, but not top-20 YT'ers they make their money from merch, Patreon (currently about 13.5k people sending them north of $60k per month) and sponsorships.
So to me the answer is that ads are a terrible way to make money, and we already have working, better alternative funding models that don't require paywalls (for most content) or embedded ads.
Even if there's no malware, full screen scary looking pop ups trying to scare non-technical users into calling a "support" number are very common in my experience.
Those are fraud, which is already illegal. Regulators should be doing some random sampling and find ad platforms that distribute it. And if there is evidence they systematically allow it for profit reasons then they are coconspirators who should be prosecuted as such.
I recently opened YouTube in incognito mode without an ad blocker, the very first video on the home page was a crypto scam video, followed by a Mr. Beast scam when I tried it again a few hours later. Those videos were still up the next day.
Advertisers can cry crocodile tears all they want, they're directly facilitating crime that hurts real people.
the correlation between wealth and education is supported by plenty of evidence. but that isn't even the strongest argument. the mere fact that people who can't afford to pay for an ad free experience are forced to endure ads already is a problem in itself, even if their level of education is the same as that of those who can afford it.
it is just that the likelihood of being less educated rises with lower income, and that only exacerbates the negative effect of ads, but even without that the effect is bad enough because ads motivate people to spend money on things they don't need which has a worse negative effect if you are poor.
i think you took a wrong turn somewhere in interpreting what i said. :-) for the record, if it were up to me, i'd like to see forced commercial advertising banned completely.
i get your point, you think it's fair to pay for ads to go away. i think it isn't. but that doesn't mean you should have ads forced on you. on the contrary, as it is said in the article, we do have a right to not have ads forced on us, and that right needs to become legally enforceable, but in such a way that we all can benefit from it, and not just those who can afford it.
Display a price-tag on content. You can watch 2 ad breaks, or you can pay $0.05 to watch the video (or whatever it is Google is making off of them). Make it super easy to pay (for example with a prepaid wallet you can refill).
ads are just a parasite pretending to provide it, manufacturing demand for overproduced commodities that are mostly harmful for humanity and our environment.
so long as the public library remains upheld as a public institution, with free access to information for all, ads remains merely a parasite slowly eating away at our perception of the public good. and it's no surprise in our rent-seeking, enshittifying economy that the library is crumbling.
