undefined | Better HN

0 pointsliterallycancer9y ago0 comments

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them.

Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

Smaug1239y ago· 3 in thread

"The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker." - there is also the externalised cost that the sites which rely on ads will eventually go bust if everyone does the same thing as you do. Given the current state of things, you are defecting on a massive Prisoners' Dilemma.

imagist9y ago

That's not a cost, that's a benefit. There's not one ad-supported site I care about that I wouldn't be willing to donate to. And I'd be ecstatic if Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/BuzzFeed/etc. went out of business.

TeMPOraL9y ago

It can be argued that those sites going bust is actually a good thing. So the payoff matrix favors ad blocking both short and long-term.

redner9y ago

if you dont have money for a site, you can't have one, that is the universal law of life, i would like to have a alienware, but i can't afford it, i don't go spamming people around....

dispose134329y ago· 2 in thread

>Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"?

How are adblock-blockers (which are counterbalanced by adblock-blockers-blockers by adblockers) different?

type09y ago

> You own your machine but not the text.

You don't get to own the text just because you can read it, see if you read this - it is still my text (because I wrote it!).

>what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content.

And how would I know it's safe? I don't even let the closest friends on the wifi because they don't run adblockers on their phone and I don't want my router to get pwned [1] just because someone like Forbes is making a buck using Ads.

> Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"?

It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this.

[1] https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-route...

dispose134329y ago

>It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this.

You're free to do what you want, but not to read content.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse