←back to thread

178 points elsewhen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
MrVandemar ◴[] No.41856070[source]
>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.

I'm not seeing the "unwritten social contract" when I look up something on Wikipedia, or download an old textbook or manual or something off Archive.Org. I don't remember seeing advertising on either of those services.

replies(1): >>41856303 #
shiroiushi ◴[] No.41856303[source]
You haven't seen all the requests for donations on Wikipedia? It's not technically "advertising" I suppose, but it's basically the same, just more direct.
replies(1): >>41866245 #
MrVandemar ◴[] No.41866245[source]
Nobody is compelled to donate. Wikipedia doesn't automatically get 0.05c because I viewed their donation request.

On the other hand, the act of visiting someone's website with advertising they do get some remuneration automatically. And it inspires them to put more advertising on, and more intrusively.

replies(1): >>41866393 #
1. shiroiushi ◴[] No.41866393[source]
These are good points, but to the viewer, the effect isn't really that different: in both cases, you're seeing something that 1) isn't the information you're looking for, 2) is "polluting" your screen space (i.e. getting in the way of what you are trying to look at), and 3) is asking for money in some way (whether directly in the form of a donation request, or indirectly in the form of a 3rd-party ad trying to get you to go somewhere and purchase something).