Back

@cazabon @jwz @bignose I know very few people who are both against ads and willing to pay for the content they consume (unless it's so cheap it's not economically viable). I think it sucks, but I cannot imagine it working. A lot of people feel entitled to other people's work for free, and ads was the easy choice for those website owners to deal with this reality. Now we're stuck with privacy-invading ads. :(

@res260 @jwz @bignose

That's funny; most of the anti-ad brigade that I know - including myself - would fall over with gratitude if there was an easy way to pay directly for use of a web site (or similar service).

It can't be that "no one will pay enough", because ads pay *terribly*. Tiny fractions of a penny for an "impression" (that more than likely goes to a bot anyway).

I already pay (through monthly subscription etc) for multiple websites, buy video content from my favourite creators...

@cazabon @jwz @bignose I'm glad to hear and I do too. Arguments I heard are "paying for stuff online is worse for privacy", "It would cost too much" and a lot seem to simply not think it's their responsibility to care about it.

Looks like we have different experiences, which might partly explain our differences in opinion.

Some stuff seems to be working out so far with this model (we're tooting on mastodon, after all), but examples that grow to wikipedia-scale are rare.

@res260
> Arguments I heard are "paying for stuff online is worse for privacy"

This has the virtue of simply being true, today.

We need to dun our lawmakers and fund our regulators, until the ad-tech practices that cause this (paying for stuff online is worse for privacy) are simply unprofitably illegal.

Until then, when friends complain about that, I can't honestly say their concerns are wrong.

@cazabon @jwz

@bignose @cazabon @jwz I dont think any of the concerns I mentionned are wrong. I just think we should advocate for all of that and in the meantime, try to minimize harm to those we consume content from. This include entertainment and such, but most importantly news sites. I also think this is the approach that mozilla is taking, and I respect that.

Specifically for news sites, it is very common for people to have very negative feelings when there is a "please disable your ad blocker to access the content we need the ad money" popup and don't want to pay either. It's a bit difficult for me to not consider these people as thinking that theyre entitled to other people's content for free.

@cazabon @bignose The point I was trying to make was not about the okayness of user-tracking ads, but the fact that a lot of people feel entitled to reading a website's content for free, even when the website tries to put restrictions like "have ads or pay us". It's fine hating user-tracking ads (I hate them) (or even ads in general), what I don't think is fine is the idea that one's hatred for ads/user-tracking ads justify consuming other people's content for free when the website owner(s) is clearly not willing to allow that.

@res260 @bignose

If you're saying that, as a moral matter, I need to allow an arbitrary 3rd-party to run their un-vetted code on my computer to have the right to read a web page hosted elsewhere -- then we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this.

My computer is mine, not yours, and not "theirs".

@cazabon @bignose Isnt the whole purpose of javascript "running unvetted 3rd-party code on the browser"? Not sure I get the sentiment here. My point is that there is no power dynamics here that forces you to visit a news site, you can just refuse to visit the site and not consume their content.

@res260
> Isnt the whole purpose of javascript "running unvetted 3rd-party code on the browser"?

I can't figure out whether this is trolling. Assuming you actually mean that question seriously:

Hell no!

JavaScript is for adding dynamic features to a site, and if that JavaScript misbehaves it's the site's responsibility. If *they choose* to direct my browser to fetch code from a third party, the site *still has* responsibility for that third party code.

@cazabon

@bignose @cazabon I'm not trolling btw this is genuinely me trying to understand. As I said I respect this feeling but can't understand why you just don't visit these websites. There is no power dynamics that prevents you from just not engaging with stuff you don't agree with. Stuff that doesnt do invasive ads exists all over the web…

@res260
> can't understand why you just don't visit these websites [with malicious surveillance and invasive advertising]. There is no power dynamics that prevents you from just not engaging with stuff you don't agree with.

Poppycock. As you're surely aware, this is a hugely widespread malicious behaviour all over the web. The power is *vastly* on the ad-tech side and those who enable it.

I'm not going to turn into a hermit because of their bad behaviour.

@cazabon

@bignose @cazabon

So you:

1. Consume other people's content without giving them back anything (excluding paying in exposure I guess haha)
2. Are aware of it and understands the implications

Yet don't think you're entitled to other people's content for free?

(This applies to services you don't pay for otherwise, which I'm sure there is probably a long list as it's very hard to pay for everything individually and sometime the option isn't even there)

Btw I'm not sure how to word it without it sounding like an attack so sorry for the tone.

And it's probably not obvious but I couldnt care less if big tech is impacted by this behavior. Who I'm concerned about is small creators and news sites (mostly smaller and local news orgs)

@res260
> Consume other people's content without giving them back anything

No, and I've already dealt with that earlier in this thread.

> don't think you're entitled to other people's content for free?

I want workers to be compensated for their labour.

Surveillance, ad tech, take-it-or-leave-it spying in a visitor's browser? Is not a valid means to that goal, and indeed significantly undermines it.

@cazabon