Then it's not every ad. That's the whole thing I've been trying to establish to plenty of people this whole time.
Go take a look at nearly any conversation about streaming services, for example. It won't take long to find someone upset about how "it's as expensive as cable now". Then extend that same logic to the entirety of the Internet and how do you think it would go over.
My issue is that blocking all ads indescriminantly is costing someone and the rich won't allow it to be them.
The analogy would still break down because the robot would need parts or maintenance. There would still be a cost and someone would still be getting their money. Instead you've just got a lot of people proud of themselves for sneaking their hand into someone else's pocket.
Another argument against not my position.
If someone who does something for a living does that thing for you, do you pay them or scamper off beforehand? Why?
Great. I'm glad you think it's inconsequential. I think people being able to pay their bills is very consequential, so I raise my concerns where I see a problem.
Though you'd think inconsequential would go along with how you don't enjoy ads. Curious, no?
If donating weren't an option and there was, occasionally, an easily missed ad somewhere off to the side, what then?
Am I obligated to look at every billboard by the road or can I not get up and leave or at least mute commercials on TV?
Just as easily as you can scroll past an ad on a page
Why should I have my computer use my bandwidth against my data cap so that a company paying someone other than me can show me an ad?
Why should someone have to pay for your ability to access that data? Your isp isn't sending that site money for you to be able to access it. Someone has to cover costs.
Frankly data caps are bullshit but that doesn't help the current situation.
The way I see it is that the host is getting paid for giving the opportunity to show an ad.
Except you are denying them that opportunity.
The exchange is between the company hosting the content and the company advertising the product, not the end user.
So an advertiser should pay for functionally nothing?
Let's go on a hypothetical journey. Tomorrow a switch is flipped and everyone in the world is blocking ads the same as you. How are the web designers and content creators getting paid now? Ad revenue dries up because it's pointless to pay for a thing you'll never get. Those employees are not going to continue to get paychecks because the site is just an expense now. This should not be difficult to understand.
Right. How do you cut the ads out? Do you just snip around blindly and hope for the best?
that's what paywalls or logins are for
And how do you react to those when you encounter them? More often than not the people I see blocking everything flip out.
There's absolutely something wrong with taking steps to get everything for free as it's going to come at the expense of someone. Companies and the rich are unwilling to absorb any costs when they can get away without, and they usually can.
Who are you willing to pass the cost of your consumption on to?
That's not at all the same situation. To even get close to similar we'd need to assume that we're getting either the console or the games for free. Even then it's still quite a road to even imperfect analogy.
In the current situation we buy every piece of that puzzle and are still locked out of modifications through obfuscation, proprietary knowledge, and security measures. So that makes the analogy even harder to sell.
It's more like ordering a package and being upset about the company's name appearing on the box/label/receipt.
We're obviously not on the same page here.
I object to blocking "all ads".
You responded to that by stating you lost trust for, presumably, everyone after a specific incident.
To extend that it seems implausible that you could trust anyone, about anything, ever. If one instance of a thing can break your trust for everything like it, what other possibility could exist.
On the other hand, if you're blocking malicious ads, which is to say not every ad across the whole of the Internet, that's a very different thing which I do not object to.
Are we more clear now?
I'm totally with you there. JavaScript ads are not ok. But that's not what the quoted statement said. It said "all ads".
I see this a lot with the ad blocking crowd. Especially the ones that will run over to tell you how you're doing things wrong if you're not using their preferred method (usually ubo). It's not enough to block problematic ads because all ads, simply be existing, are problematic.
But then they won't offer anything else either. They want all the content of the internet served up to them for free.
I'd love to live in a utopia where we can all freely share everything. Until that happens I've got a family to feed and bills to pay. So does everyone else.
So you got screwed once and that's it for everyone ever? How do you not live in a hut in the mountains?
I'd rather try and remember than have a single point of failure for all my accounts' security.
If the passwords are stored offline then I can't get at them if I'm away from where they're stored. If they're stored online they're not secure.
Doug
joined 1 year ago
In your opinion. "Jiggawatt" is not a common English pronunciation outside of back to the future references at this point. People mostly settled on one over the other because it makes sense to pronounce a word a similar way to be more easily understood. It's not always the case, sure, but I think you'll find multiple pronunciations are the exception, not the rule. That's why you can come up with a good handful of such words, but you'll be using words with single pronunciations to talk about them.