←back to thread

178 points elsewhen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
keb_ ◴[] No.41854693[source]
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of malware and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.

There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).

If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.

replies(10): >>41854706 #>>41854711 #>>41855498 #>>41856070 #>>41856197 #>>41856284 #>>41856893 #>>41858217 #>>41858534 #>>41861410 #
1. ulrikrasmussen ◴[] No.41858534[source]
You make it sound like it's a bad thing if those ad infested web sites disappear, but I beg to differ. If there's a demand for the service but ad revenue is no longer viable, then surely alternatives based on subscriptions, donations or some other for-profit or non-profit model are ready to take over, and that would be fantastic.