Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2425 mails)
|< Previous||Next >|
RE: [SLE] Ad Blocking (was Alternative Web Browser)
- From: tbutler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Timothy R. Butler)
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:07:57 -0500
- Message-id: <000401bfd71e$8b666ec0$a903fea9@g4958>
> Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal
> with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose
> their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way
a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can
alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's
disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like
the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you
stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over
parts of my e-Realestate?
Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the
fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to
decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs
me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who
doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book
store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's
the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to
do what ever they want on the net.
No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them,
don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody),
don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a
right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less
serious than shoplifting.
Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks
Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996
ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller
===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > > I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said
> > > "program" then it makes little difference. Without being
> pedantic about
> > > exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate
> between doing
> > > "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed
> to something
> > > running on the network is interesting. What if the program is
> running on
> > > another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your
> > > desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
> > I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as
> definitions for my
> > terms:
> > -Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to
> > everything in your system.
> > -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory
> shouldn't have
> > full access.
> I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
> > > Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid
> flame war,
> > > just think about it. It makes no difference where something
> is running. It
> > > also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local
> > > program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java
> > > program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
> > I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have
> nothing against
> > the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like
> how I expect
> > people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites
> rather than find
> > loop holes.
> But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach -
> you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access
> to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based
> applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break
> down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will
> see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and
> want people to put up with it or not use it.
> > > > shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive &
> > > > CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
> > >
> > > I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose
> > > anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web
> advertising will
> > > sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on
> > > things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then
> more people
> > > will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty
> > > simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop
> functioning. I'm
> > > not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too
> > > intrusive and so this won't happen.
> > Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely
> hope that the
> > ones that do don't ruin it for all.
> Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
> > > As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just
> believe people
> > > should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad
> > > blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
> > Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's
> > problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to
> figure out
> > how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
> I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there
> are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure
> from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally,
> in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
> > > If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web
> > > adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great
> many other ways
> > > to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just
> one - and one
> > > I think is probably the least successful.
> > I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it
> are. And if
> > you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to
> the dreaded
> > NDA's?
> I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast
> majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
> > > As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from
> > > that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial
> is on TV, who
> > > do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the
> consumer ends up
> > > paying. The real people who make money in your case are the
> ad companies.
> > True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company
> because I have
> > an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
> Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their
> > with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that
> > don't come with something that could be called a "price."
> Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from
> Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052
> ______________________________________________________ __ __ _
> __ . __
> Opinions are my own and not those of...
> (__)|-</-\(__ |__(-_
To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
|< Previous||Next >|