Doug [he/him] @ Doug @midwest.social

Posts

1

Comments

292

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sounds like a pretty weak constitution if you can't stomach looking at something so mundane. I hope you don't drive.

And great job ignoring the other part.

My issue is more with trackers than ads anyways

Agreed. I have no issues with this.

Also, there are quite some sites that just copy content or or have an AI write content, made to rank high in searches, then is putbfull of adds to make money. Those are automated money-farms, and deserve blockers.

I agree here as well. Though the simplest solution is to avoid them altogether I don't have an objection to working against deliberately malicious sites like this.

But I also pay for multiple websites and services I use regularily despite them working fine without paying or having "free" alternatives. After all, nothing is free and I rather pay with money than with data.

And with this I have no objections to anything else. My issue is specifically with the mindset of neither viewing any ad regardless of anything besides it being an ad combined with refusal to offer any sort of recompense. You're supporting at least a few sites that you feel are worth supporting and that's plenty for me.

We're obviously not on the same page here.

I object to blocking "all ads".

You responded to that by stating you lost trust for, presumably, everyone after a specific incident.

To extend that it seems implausible that you could trust anyone, about anything, ever. If one instance of a thing can break your trust for everything like it, what other possibility could exist.

On the other hand, if you're blocking malicious ads, which is to say not every ad across the whole of the Internet, that's a very different thing which I do not object to.

Are we more clear now?

I'm totally with you there. JavaScript ads are not ok. But that's not what the quoted statement said. It said "all ads".

I see this a lot with the ad blocking crowd. Especially the ones that will run over to tell you how you're doing things wrong if you're not using their preferred method (usually ubo). It's not enough to block problematic ads because all ads, simply be existing, are problematic.

But then they won't offer anything else either. They want all the content of the internet served up to them for free.

I'd love to live in a utopia where we can all freely share everything. Until that happens I've got a family to feed and bills to pay. So does everyone else.

Did you cut all the advertisements out of magazines and newspapers before reading them?

What about the billboards on the side of the road?

You are not entitled to their hosting or their content. They provide them to you in exchange for ad revenue they receive from showing them to you. You're refusing to engage in the exchange.

So you got screwed once and that's it for everyone ever? How do you not live in a hut in the mountains?

If you're blocking them all how do you know how obtrusive or obnoxious they are?

Secondarily, why do you think that is? Have they gotten more or less instant since ad blockers have been an option?

I'm not at all against ad blockers. I've got a Pi-hole myself. I just think blocking every ad ever is doing a lot more for the problem than it is to help

If you have so little attention to spare that an ad along side or even within content is too far for you how did you find the time to comment?

Good on you for looking for free options. On the other hand that furthers the question about how much attention would really cost you...

it blocks all ads

Am I the only one that has a problem with this? Unless you're paying for use of a site then aren't you basically being entitled to someone else's labor?

Someone made the site, created the content, and hosted it for consumption. Until money isn't necessary for survival it seems reasonable to make sure they're compensated for it.

That's easy. You just scroll past the things you've already seen and you'll get to it faster

Where's the place people don't complain about reposts every time they see something more than once?

I wanna go there

But it's not the title of the person involved in the kink

No need to denegrate people engaging in a kink.

Shit bags works just fine

Should but far too often does not.

I like short right hand myself. Keeps important buttons in thumb reach for ever increasingly larger screens

FamiliesYouChoose I think did a lot of good for a lot of people but it requires a high quality mod I think, to keep creeps away from vulnerable people.

I mean... yeah

Is that related to the mystic esquilax?

I thought that was a step further. Originally it was gold until Reddit made that a thing you could pay them for so people started doing silver and the wheel turned again

Lunch time doubly so