←back to thread

Web page annoyances that I don't inflict on you

(rachelbythebay.com)
569 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 05 Jan 25 01:54 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
swyx ◴[05 Jan 25 02:41 UTC] No.42599320[source]▶
this is exactly the sort of idealistic post that appeals to HN and nobody else. i dont have a problem with that apart from when technologists try to take these "back to basics" stuff to shame the substacks and the company blogs out there that have to be more powered by economics than by personal passion.

its -obvious- things are mostly "better"/can be less "annoying" when money/resources are not a concern. i too would like to spend all my time in a world with no scarcity.

the engineering challenge is finding alignments where "better for reader" overlaps with "better for writer" - as google did with doubleclick back in the day.

replies(8): >>42599404 #>>42599406 #>>42599783 #>>42599973 #>>42600198 #>>42608321 #>>42610248 #>>42610867 #
MathMonkeyMan ◴[05 Jan 25 03:01 UTC] No.42599406[source]▶
The author isn't trying to profit from the reader's attention; it's just a personal blog. An ad-based business would. Neither is right or wrong, but the latter is distinctly annoying.
replies(1): >>42599639 #
NotYourLawyer ◴[05 Jan 25 03:56 UTC] No.42599639[source]▶
Ad-based businesses are indeed wrong and immoral.
replies(1): >>42600206 #
StressedDev ◴[05 Jan 25 06:50 UTC] No.42600206[source]▶
Ad-based businesses exist because a lot of people (including many on this forum) refuse to pay for anything. During the late 1990s/early 2000s, people hated paying for anything and demanded that everything on the Internet should be free. Well, that led to the vast surveillance machine which powers Google, Facebook, and every ad-tech business out there. They need surveillance because it lets them serve more relevant ads and more relevant ads make more money.

The bottom line is if you hate ad-based businesses, start paying for things.

replies(7): >>42600222 #>>42600288 #>>42601253 #>>42605449 #>>42605712 #>>42605832 #>>42611564 #
1. tensor ◴[05 Jan 25 23:04 UTC] No.42605832{4}[source]▶
I pay for things, but often there is no option to pay. When there is, eventually the company figures out that they can have you pay AND show you ads. Then the argument becomes "well if they opt not to have ads, you should pay more for the privilege."

But no matter the cost of a thing, you can always "make more" by adding ads and keeping the cost as is. So eventually, every service seems to decide that, well, you DESERVE the ads, even if you pay.

Sure, competition could solve this, but often there isn't any.