Comment by wtbob | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtbob | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Apple’s new content filtering and São Paulo’s Clean City Law both use code — one via the law, the other through software APIs — to enable the creation of ad-free public spaces.

Except that content filtering isn't about the creation of ad-free public spaces, but rather ad-free private spaces. There are (or should be) only two parties to a web request: the client and the server. Neither Apple, nor the State, nor Google, nor anyone else, is legitimately a party to my session.

The reason that I'm free to use an ad blocker is that it's my browser, and I am free to configure it however I want; the server, of course, is free to try to determine whether I'm actually viewing its ads or not, and may refuse to serve my requests if it chooses.

As for micropayments, I love the idea but people in general seem to be extremely resistant to them. For one thing, they definitely don't want unbounded monthly charges. That could be solved by having a set amount of money, divided up by the sites one visits—but the service that does that would be a privacy nightmare.

"There are (or should be) only two parties to a web request: the client and the server. Neither Apple, nor the State, nor Google, nor anyone else, is legitimately a party to my session"

The ad is arguably part of the content, as it's what's paying for you to see it in the first place.

"The reason that I'm free to use an ad blocker is that it's my browser, and I am free to configure it however I want"

That is a very selfish view, one which ignores everyone else except yourself. What if your company decided that you're not worth paying, but still wanted your work?

Let's say I'm offering you food. If someone else paid me to feed you horse manure, would you have an obligation to eat it? No, because it's not food. It doesn't become food just because some other party is paying me to feed it to you. You certainly aren't coming to me because you wanted horse manure. You don't have a deal with me regarding horse manure. I have a deal with the third party, and that has nothing to do with you.

This is completely ignoring the fact that ads are how the content you enjoy gets paid for, and part of the social contract is that, since people won't pay, that the content will be paid for by ad views.

There is no social contract here. If you have a website and you want to get paid for it, fine. But you don't get to do that without the risk of obsolescence just because, historically, it has worked in the past. Walmart can't order 20 million giant CRT Tv's and demand that customers are obligated to buy them just because they would have 10 years ago. There is no social contract requiring me to see ads I don't want to see.

Contracts don't exist if nobody enforces them.

PS: Most of the content I enjoy is not ad supported. And ads aren't the only way to spread money around while creating value in an industry.

This discussion never ends in changed minds. Best to abort it before you waste too much time.

Remember that there is a camp who thinks that they can do what they wish with the data sent to their computer -including refusing to process said data-, and there is a camp who feels that one has a moral imperative to process all data sent by a website to one's computer.

These camps rarely see eye-to-eye.

It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.

> It's not a moral imperative to process all data, it's a moral imperative to pay others for the product of their labor that you're benefiting from.

There's a very reliable method of ensuring that one who labors and posts to The Internet gets paid: refuse to deliver the fruits of the labor to others prior to payment.

If camp #2 actually thought as you claim they do, they would advise all Internet-publishing laborers to eliminate the ad-blocking worry -and keep the dishonest among us honest- by putting their creations behind a paywall.

If you want me to not block ads from your site, don't have ads that obscure content, deliver malware, or abuse my browser to make life difficult for me ("no do not close this browser window! Come back!").

If your ad network delivers autoplay video with sound, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers annoying animated graphics, it gets blocked. If your ad network delivers malware, it gets blocked.

If your ad network is The Deck, you are fine.

Part of the social contract is that your ad network shows me ads, not distractions and malware.

And if you don't want ads, then pay for the content.

There is a balance where the ads your site displays are not nuisances, and I do not block them, and you get paid more than I am prepared to fork over for each read.

If your work arrangement was "I'll show up and work on what you ask, then you tip me if you want", then your analogy might make sense. No one is forcing websites to respond to requests and serve content.

Unfortunately, this is almost an argument for more interstitial ads. View this ad first, then I'll let you look at the content. No ad? No content.

Great, then the social contract is clear. I can click the back button.

There is a lot of good content out there that is not ad-dependent. If all ad-dependent websites made a clear declaration that "you are not welcome, go somewhere else" that would solve my problem. Not theirs though...

Agreed that I generally prefer clarity, but I'm also one of those who don't mind the occasional "unobtrusive" ad. I would hate to see ads become more obtrusive solely for me to have the opportunity to decline them.

It's solidly an argument for paywalls.

NB: I strongly dislike advertising/tracking networks and paywalls.

So basically, you want everything for free.

Sure thing. That's why I regularly use the threat of force to get my meals from the corner market, once monthly carry a thermonuclear device into the lobbies of my utility company, ISP, and landlord to make those bills vanish, and am always trailed by a cadre of highly competent ninja for one-off encounters.

Far more seriously: your statement is a non sequitur.

> What if your company decided that you're not worth paying, but still wanted your work?

Perfectly reasonable, then you stop working/creating content and find another job. Capitalism is selfish.

> That is a very selfish view, one which ignores everyone else except yourself.

Myself, and the server, whose right to refuse to serve me I explicitly recognised.

Is disabling Javascript or cookies equally selfish? Because it seems like the same thing from where I'm standing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com