I always have a hard time swallowing the price of modern smart phones. Having something so ridiculously expensive and fragile as an everyday carry seems absurd to me. For reference, you can buy two Steam Deck LCDs for the price of one iPhone 17.
I agree. I've started thinking about phones like cars. I'd never consider buying a brand new car, and I generally wouldn't buy a brand new phone either (although they're not quite as expensive as cars). I've found that year-old models are typically around half the price of new ones.
1 year old sure unlikely 50% cheap but 2 years old for sure can get for 50%. I don't see much difference between iphone 15 pro and iphone 17 pro. Honestly I'm still having iphone 13 mini and don't see much reason to upgrade but if decide to upgrade I will most likely buy 2nd hand iphone 15 pro.
the iphone 17 is like the peak of consumer technology. They have the SOC manufactured on the newest TSMC node, they have cutting edge radio, decent camera system, etc. And all have to fit into a body that small enough for your pocket.
It’s pretty instructive to compare an iPhone to a consumer product that’s priced for affordability first, like a Nintendo Switch. The differences in build quality are very evident.
I see your point, on the other hand I have never lost or broken a phone by dropping it. I also use mine around 3h per day. From that perspective, it is definitely something I get a lot of value out of.
you're gonna carry those two Steam Decks in your pockets?
I think modern smart phones are pretty remarkably un-fragile compared to 20 years ago before the iPhone ($300-700 for a Symbian with a tiny plastic screens that got scratched super fast) or even 10-ish years ago with much more fragile screen glass and cases. Last phone I did major damage to was my HTC Evo in 2012.
> you're gonna carry those two Steam Decks in your pockets?
Watch me! My point was more about how expensive phones are.
I'm not so sure about modern smart phones being less fragile. My first phone was a Nokia 3310-descendent, and my second a Samsung Beat flip phone. Neither were over $100 at the time of purchase, and both were rugged devices I could throw in my pocket or in a bag without thinking it would need a protective case or that their screens were going to break.
The screens could definitely break, they were just very small so the likelihood that they would suffer an impact that would break them was comparatively small. In fact, the reason for the flip form factor was to protect the increasingly fancy displays when it’s in your pocket. They also didn’t weigh very much so they didn’t fall as hard.
Modern phones are extremely sturdy, people are just more precious about them because they’re much fancier and more expensive and more of a requirement for everyday life.
I always think the same when I see people complain about the price of weird new niche computers (think new Amiga-like computers and stuff) and then you realise it's cheaper than an iPhone. Something created by a cottage industry for a tiny market with blood sweat and tears, it's still cheaper than mass-produced smartphone.
As a constrasting comparison data point, a Nokia 8800 cost around USD 900 in 2005 when it launched, which is approximately USD 1450 in the 2025 USD.
The buyer would get a chromium-plated metal case within which a slightly fancier version of a dumb phone was enclosed, and bragging rights as a bonus, and that would be it.
So, today’s USD 1k (or less, for the non-Pro versions) buys the user – depending on one’s point of view – either a commodity appliance or a personal computing contraption whose performance exceeds that of many high-end RISC workstations that once commanded five-digit price tags, and all for a ⅓ less than the launch price of the Nokia 8800.
Apple is the pioneer of 'expensive is the new cool' phenomenon. Like the pied piper, with every release, Apple keep leading the fan boys to jump off progressively taller cliffs. Meanwhile, other manufacturers realized that they, too, can play this game. Rather, they gets looked down upon if they don't amp up their prices. It's amazing to witness this happening.
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).
If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
My view is that core bargain was fine, but advertisers have broken the agreement with other offenses, like:
* Autoplay videos that preemptively take my bandwidth.
* Autoplay audio that takes over my speakers unexpectedly and interrupts other things.
* Forms of pop-ups that clutter or disrupt my tab/window control.
* Being spied-on by a system that tries to aggregate and track all of my browsing habits.
* A mostly unaccountable vector for malware and phishing sites.
* Just a genuinely horrible experience whenever a page is one part content to three parts blinking blooping ever shifting ads that would make Idiocracy blush.
They try to pretend customer resistance is just over the most innocent and uncontroversial display of ads, but it's not true, and it hasn't been for decades.
I wish there was a middle ground where I could block ads like the ones you mention, while allowing privacy-respecting ads that don't ruin my browsing experience. I know Adblock Plus have their "Acceptable Ads" policy [1], but that just meant letting through ads from companies that paid them, like Google [2].
Ads are only easy to block because they load from centralized, third-party domains. Physical print publishers don't leave blanks in their newspapers and send them off to advertisers to fill in. They approve and print the ads, just like any other content. If digital publishers made similar agreements to embed static ads, they would not be affected by ad blockers.
I don't mind ads that are targeted based on the content of the page, like how DuckDuckGo ads work. Google AdWords used to be the same, and it paid publishers much more than it does now.
My approach today is Firefox with Enhanced Tracking Protection and then keeping Google, Meta/Facebook, and Amazon logins sequestered to individual containers. At that point a lot of the worst ad networks will complain that you are using "an ad blocker" simply because most of their trackers fail and won't even bother showing ads.
(Then on mobile, similarly using Firefox on iOS, being heavy and fast on the "ask app not to track" buttons and keeping logins to first party apps only and almost never in either Safari or Firefox.)
Again, I use no real "ad blocker", just the above steps.
It's probably not an approach for everyone, and entails a bit of paranoia to operate, but I think it sends the right message that I don't mind untracked/untargeted ads and don't think companies deserve my unfiltered data.
I wrote this one to remove all <iframe> elements, which is where most of the worst distractions live. I mostly only use it when a site has gone too far.
Well, hang on. Your comment is fair minded, but to be fair we have to consider the context.
The context is that the courts have found Google holds two illegal monopolies within the online adtech market [1], the remedy for which has yet to be determined. Furthermore the DoJ has sued Meta for holding one as well and that trial is now underway. [2]
I don't know about you, but to me, if the counterparty breaches a contract, that contract is now null and void. Same goes for a social contract, and if someone tries to kill me or rob me, whatever social contract we may have had, is now null and void.
Fortunately Google and Meta aren't actually taking hits out on anyone as far as I know, but the fact remains that the market makers for these online ads, are either outright convicted criminals, or being sued by the government for such. I don't see that we have any social contract to respect or allow any of this. It is right, just and moral to oppose the very existence of online advertising in my opinion, until the illegal abuses are corrected.
If the court has resolved that Google's breaking the law, how about we get an injunction ordering them to halt their ad tech business until the remedies are implemented. Why are we going so easy on them?
You don't owe crooks anything, neither do I.
This isn't about being cheap or breaking a fair deal. It's about asking that law and order be restored within American business and society. What's the point of this society, what moral justification does it have to exist as it is, if it keeps on breaking its own laws to protect the most powerful?
Now it's unfortunate that publishers (websites) get caught in the crossfire of this, they might not agree with me when I say you should oppose all online ads full stop until the problem is corrected, but they are getting screwed by Google and Meta and they would be more than happy to see justice done.
This is the best counterargument I have hard so far. Saving it and using it next time someone brings that up, hope you dont mind I stole it without generating $0.000000001 of ad revenue in compensation.
Dang I'll just have to pay for 0.00000001ml of my morning coffee some other way! Thanks and please share by all means. One of my siblings rightly points out how terrible modern online ads are: autoplay, clutter, surveillance, intrusion, malware, etc.
They're totally right of course and my question is - how bad would all this be if the biggest ad market maker wasn't an actual literal convicted-by-multiple-courts criminal with the second biggest market maker not far behind? What if these guys had just followed the existing laws that are on the books?
Well I don't know but I bet it would be better somehow and the only way to find out is to finally start enforcing the law.
I'm sure ads would be better somehow if there were fewer criminals involved. One obvious theory is that Google is underpaying the publishers and the publishers have resorted to dirtier tricks in response. Another is that Google implements stuff everyone else hates because hello monopoly, where else are you going to go? Maybe the lawbreakers cause the slop.
You could block only ads from Google and Meta. Most large sites use header bidding, where Google's ads are a fallback only if no other ad company bids higher, so most ad revenue come from those other companies. And IIRC Meta doesn't participate in that at all, so for them you'd just have to block ads on their own sites.
Yeah, no thanks.
I used to think like this, and i remember exactly what happened the day i installed my first adblocker:
i was already annoyed that some sites i visited employed very annoying ads, on both sides of the window, occupying about 20% of the screen, each. And they were serving an animation with _very_ loud music.
That day instead, when i opened the page 3-4 other pages opened as soon as the website loaded, all serving loud and obnoxious virus alerts, porn and some other crap. But how? I disabled popups a long time ago.
That day i found out about self-clicking ads.
That day i installed an ad blocker.
It is THEM that have broken the social contract. Screw them and screw ads.
(good thing that i wasn't on dialup anymore. Anybody remember that? scam sites that would make your dialup bill go up crazy, as if you were calling a courier's help line)
This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost.
Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people. There is no social contract with them. They just sell your data.
If you know what they are doing, know how to block it, and refuse to, you are complicit in making the world a worse place. Corporations are not people that should be treated with the respect you are talking about.
For so many arguments, I'm also thinking copyright here, the framing is always about the little guy. These laws/practices are there to protect/enable small businesses and content creators.
The reality is very much the opposite, they're about maximising revenue for monopolies. I see no social contract here.
>This is a fine social contract for the independent blogger just sharing their thoughts on the Internet and maybe hoping to get a few dollars for their server cost.
The trouble is the ad-blockers will block their ads as well. Visit somewhere like John Gruber's Daring Fireball site which has the least offensive ad placement possible yet his adverts are still blocked.
With Ad Nauseum, the extension destroys your ad profile by clicking on all or nearly all of the blocked ads. The only people that lose anything are the companies.
> Mega corporations that have been sucking up personal data for a couple decades now are not people.
IMHO this is a very wrong take. Mega corporations are people. Demonstration: nobody goes to work at Google for a while. Everything stops, technical stuff and non technical stuff. No people, no corporations, small ones and large ones.
Sure, then governments are also just people. How about we restore Monarchy now so someone can actually be held responsible? Also we should completely abandon Nulla poena sine lege since evidently the imbalanced power does not exist between people and also people (government).
Easy bet that most of those people disagree with the corporation's ad (and other) practices also. I'd even bet the ones working directly in ad tech are probably the most likely to always use an ad blocker.
> However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
No it isn't. Free websites exist: Wordpress, Blogger, Wix, Weebly etc. The only "ad" they show is a static banner for their own platform, not the giant scripts Google loads for Google Ads. Neocities and Digital Ocean are $5/mo for a custom domain and hosting, theme it anyway you like.
Most "content"-focused websites like Buzzfeed, The Verge, Gizmodo etc simply embed third party content (Youtube, Vimeo, Giphy, random poll generators) instead of hosting them on their domain. Much of their content is rehashing news articles with a paper-thin layer of "analysis" on top. Then they add metric tons of ads, and throw in affilliate link garbage "product reviews" on top.
This is the dropship-ification of the web and it pretty much killed the free website culture of the Geocities/Anglefire era.
The websites you speak of don't get to decide what my hardware and my software does when running in my hands. Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
>Their content is a suggestion for my user agent, not some unbreakable law. If they don't like it, they should shut down completely.
Alternatively, they can also refuse to serve you their content unless you turn off your ad blocker. Which would be fine. It is their content they're hosting after all.
And it's also fine for you to decide not to turn off your ad blocker and not view their content.
There are some that do this and I also think it is fair. I just close the website and do not view the content. Nobody is forced to either serve or be served so I do not see what is the problem to be discussed here.
I wonder why not many websites do this """adblocking freeloaders""" is such a big issue?
That's why the parent said it was a social contact based on the honor system. Just because you can technically block ads, it doesn't meant it's the right thing to do.
It is not a social contract. They track me whether I use their services or not, on websites that are completely unrelated. I do not get a choice, not to mention the monopolies they built (yeah, fuck YouTube). These ads eat up my resources and affect my battery life.
There is no more honour involved as when someone pays the mob for protection. I strongly reject this argument. I am bound by honour but they can do anything and change the contract unilaterally? Fuck them, that’s no contract at all.
When sites like these host a large part of our culture, I think it’s reasonable to think about non compliance because the alternative is essentially to become a digital hermit and not to be able to understand the world one is in.
I never agreed to have all public spaces for Dr age ad-supported, for example. These illegal monopolies have made it impossible to talk to large chunks of the population without either watching ads or using an ad blocker. That feels wrong.
Just because a place hosts culture, it doesn't mean that you are entitled for it. For example new movies are pay of culture, but that doesn't mean you should sneak in to a theater without buying a ticket because every movie theater requires paying. Compensating creators for their work is a part of experiencing creative works that are culturally relevant.
The US constitution absolutely does recognize that the public is entitled to all cultural works, which is why copyright is required to be time limited.
Their software is running on my computer. I decide what scripts I want or don't, and I can and will block whatever the fuck with impunity.
If they can't prevent that, or it's too expensive, or they don't care, that's not my problem. That's a business problem. Its not my business. I don't care.
Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.
If you want to run software on my computer, you play by my rules. That means an ad blocker. If you don't like that then figure it out. I'm not gonna figure it out for you.
No one is saying ad blocking is not technically possible. Wanting everyone to play by your rules is selfish and doesn't acknowledge the needs of others.
>Its like getting a free sample at Costco and then taking it home and throwing it away. That's my right. I can do that if I want.
It's also like stealing a TV from Costco. Just because you technically can pick up a TV and then bring it to your car without paying and drive off, doesn't mean you should do it. It's unfair to Costco for them to play by your rules.
But why is it illegal if it's physically possible for you to take it? By your line of reasoning it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
>You are REQUESTING to run advertisement scripts on my computer.
That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter. You are focusing too much on the way it's implemented and not the high level picture of how it works. If you have to get to the point of describing the HTTP protocol to justify why what you are doing is moral, you need to realize that you are just coming up with a justification for your actions to not feel bad about doing bad things. You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.
> That's an implementation detail of how the webpage works and does not matter.
Lol, not bending over and letting whoever the fuck run whatever the fuck programs on my computer is an "implementation detail".
> You should just accept that you are being greedy and you will block ads because you don't care if creators make money from ads and want to prioritize having an ad free experience.
This is so, so obviously wrong it's actually frustrating I have to reply to this level of rhetoric.
Once again, I am not your accountant. It is not my responsibility to make sure your business model makes sense.
I don't have the time to babysit and hand hold every corporation in my life and make sure their business model makes sense. I just don't, and it's not my responsibility.
If your business model relies solely on me allowing you to run potential malware on my computer, then that is YOUR problem. Not mine. Figure it out, or don't. Youre always allowed to go bankrupt. Not every business model is viable.
You are not entitled to a viable business model. You are not God. If your business model doesn't work, then you lose. Too bad, so sad, not my fucking problem.
And on the topic of money: running ads on my computer is a computer system security problem.
The FBI recommends running an aggressive ad blocker. The reality is most ads are basically malware and often literally malware. They can be phishing, linking to malicious sites. They can be deceptive. They can be spyware, collecting information about my computer, identity, or web browsing activity.
Google, Meta, et. all have demonstrated they simply do not take adequate steps to prevent malicious advertisement payloads.
You do not have a god-given right to run software on my computer, but you CERTAINLY don't have a god-given right to run malware on my computer.
If you disagree, take it up with the FBI, I don't care.
> This is an exaggeration. There are ad free alternatives.
Again, their (mostly Google and Facebook’s, but there are many companies tracking me with whom I never had direct contact) trackers are all over the web and I see them in the blocked list very regularly on websites that have nothing to do with them.
> Youtube has a subscription you can pay for no ads. There other video sites who charge a subscription instead of offering ads too.
Yeah, cool. They changed their terms of use, and I changed mine. Happy to negotiate when they are available.
Ad blockers typically only block ads, and not the website too. That way people can experience content for free without compensating the creator hy giving them an ad impression.
It's not any kind of contract. A contract (even an unwritten "social" one) implies at the very least some kind of agreement, some meeting of the minds. There is no meeting of the minds on the web: Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content," then the server says, "Here's what I'd like you to show," and finally the browser decides what out of that stream of bytes gets shown. There's no agreement by the user in that conversation, not even an implied one. The site can decide whether or not to reply, whether or not to send anything, and the user agent then decides what to show. There's no contract.
>Your browser simply says "Hey, give me this content,"
The technical details do not matter. Social contacts are about societal expectations, not about your personal ones. Do you think a thief has a meeting of the minds about not stealing something from a shop keeper? It's not the theifs world view that matters here. Similar to your example the physics of the world say it's possible for a human to pick up an item without paying for it, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
I disagree that there is a societal expectation in this case. If I request HackerNews, it will start sending me bytes. There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes. Maybe I'll have my browser render them as-is. Maybe I'll strip out the HTML and render them as plain text in a green 80x24 terminal. Maybe I'll drop every second character and print out the result as wall art.
Or (back on topic) when I'm watching cable TV and they send an ad over the wire. There's no societal expectation that I watch that ad. I could hit the mute button. I could get up to take a piss or grab a beer. I could record the broadcast and watch it later, fast forwarding through the ads.
This is not like a store where there's a clear societal expectation that I don't go in and rob them. I don't think anyone would equate leaving the sofa during a commercial with robbery.
>There is no societal expectation around what I do with those bytes
Yes, there is. If you had a group of 100 people and asked what google.com should look like and showed them how Chrome renders the page and your 80x24 modification does that all 100 would say that yours is not expected. You are still too hung up on these technical details of how things are implemented than how the average person thinks of these things.
A consensus answer to "what should google.com look like?" does not suggest or imply any sort of "social contract".
There is not, and has never been, a social contract that says I have to look at the ads served with any website. If you think there is, then I'm sorry, but you're sorely mistaken.
Similarly, there is no social contract that says I have to watch commercials while I'm watching TV (not that I've watched linear TV in over a decade, but...). I can mute it, change the channel, go to the bathroom, whatever. If you think there is, then I'm not sure what to tell you; your opinions on this are so outside the mainstream that we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
My browser already automatically mutes video ads on my behalf. And an ad blocker effectively "clicks the X button" for me. Sometimes I don't even scroll down far enough to see an ad. How is one of those activities breaking the social contract and others not? Or are they all breaking the social contract? Or none of them? I have no idea because I don't know who's defining the terms of this social contract.
If there is no meeting of minds, why are you going to websites? You go to websites to see information that was in someone else's mind and load it into your mind.
You are pushing your opinion of it being "wrong" as though it were something objective. You are acting as though others are choosing to do something "wrong", rather than that they do not believe it to be wrong in the first place.
If I am allowed not to look at the screen when an advert is playing, then I should be allowed not to play it in the first place. There is no moral obligation on the part of the viewer here.
An advert is an investment: someone pays money to broadcast something and hopes that will generate awareness. Any investment is allowed to fail.
The problem is that commercial ad-supported websites force themselves into all available online spaces: search results, discords, social media, affiliate links on blogs. The only way to stop them doing so is to take away their source of revenue.
If ads weren't profitable, you wouldn't find no results for your search about which kitchen knife to buy, you would would find better, less weaponised, more relevant results. If you don't block ads then you are directly contributing to a world with more ads and less content.
Sites are using ads to be anti-competitive, such that you literally cannot compete with them on price because their price is $0. I'm rather surprised that we haven't seen the emergence of a site where you are literally paid to use it, because that business model is 100% viable.
And the reason that business model is viable is because people don't realize how literally valuable their attention is. And most people also think they're not heavily affected by advertising. Sites are actively exploiting this to deter competition. I would not be, in the least bit, sad to see this state of affairs end.
SomethingAwful forums have this for ages but also newspapers do, too. As do streaming services. Turns out youth don't have much to spend (nor to people generally outside of West), and it stops sockpuppets somewhat.
Generally speaking youth have more than enough money to pay the same rates advertisers pay. But publishers want to take users who earn them $0.10 per month through ads and charge them $10 per month as a subscription, that's where the business model obviously breaks down and they claim that ads are the only thing that works.
That existed in past. It was a program you had to run, and it would force you to watch ads (while browsing?). IIRC it embedded MSIE. I was still in high school, and my classmate who had cable internet would run this almost 24/7. It made him earn a couple of hundreds of dollars (end of 90s). There were also all kind of hacks to make it not so annoying (because you had to watch it all the time). Eventually, they quit paying.
There's also a TV you can get for free (it being worth 600 EUR?), but it has a camera and watches your living room 24/7 (if the TV is in your living room?). It also has very strict ToS.
We had static ads. We called them banners and websites abused them. Some sites were so bad that it was challenging to find content between horizontal and vertical banners. Animated GIFs followed soon and then everything else we know. Some sites are still as bad as those old ones. I'm can't believe what eyes are seeing any time I look at friends browsing on their computers.
Good point. My point still stands that it's possible to have ad revenue with unintrusive ads.
For instance, I'm fine with video creators having sponsored sequences because I can skip them if I want. And there's no way for them to know if I watched the ad. In fact, they don't care because they already got paid.
Youtube creators get access to watchtime stats which show a dip for sponsored segments. My understanding is that sponsor contracts typically don't ask to get access to that data though, instead they look at views and refferals
Hey, are you interested in whey powd... <skip> I guess not. And often it is the same sponsor in multiple video/audio. No, I am not interested in Crowdstrike. No, i don't want to become a Lord by owning a small amount of land in Scotland. Yes, I know about Ground News but I won't need it and yes, I know you can cheaply buy whey powder, add some flavor and hype it up.
And yet, HN (a text-based website) has advertising. It is a small headline in the list. Do people block this? I don't, and I am quite an adblocking person.
I actually believe billboards are a net minus for public safety. Just like you wouldn't want all kind of unnecessary traffic signs.
Unintrusive ads are still there to manipulate you into acting against your own interests and therefore unethical.
> I'm fine with video creators having sponsored sequences because I can skip them if I want.
I'm not fine with them because skipping the obvious segments doesn't mean the rest of the content isn't compromised due to the financial incentive to not upset those advertisers.
The problem is not with the ads but all the bad things that come along with it. Collecting unnecessary personal data, targetting, disregard for others privacy and list goes on.
These small bloggers/websites are letting the huge ad corporations take up the butcher job and cry when people use adblock.
Google provides a way to turn off ad personalization and when i turn it off you know what i see. Scam/adult/gambling ads and these small websites/bloggers are ok with showing scams to earn 0.01cents. then where they broke the social contract.
Google/meta with all the policing of billion youtube/fb videos/posts dont have same policing for ads quality. Thats where they broke the social contract.
Yes they need to make money, one alternative, I am ok with companies using my compute to run crypto mining( or scientific worlloadw ) when i use their website instead of ads. Small companies should look out of box for money rather than employing a butcher to make money.
Ads in and of themselves aren't really the issue. It's the tracking that is.
If the ad was delivered without cookies and without tracking, as just a stationary gif, I'd be more okay with it.
But without tracking, back in 2008/9 ish before the real estate crash, the Simpsons made a reference to the dancing cowboys ad for selling mortgages. These were the adjustable rate mortgages that went sky high shortly after closing on the house.
> Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads.
That hasn't been true for decades. In a way the race to bottom has already finished, we are at "100% clickbait" stage. I checked it very carefully and both Android build in "news" page and Microsoft's equivalent in Win11 Weather&News Widget are just that.
Yes, there is. It's, "I ask your server for bytes, and if your server gives them to me, I interpret and display them however I wish".
The idea that someone downloading a webpage from a publicly-hosted web server could be a "freeloader" is ludicrous.
If you really must extract some form of payment from literally everyone who visits your site, you'll have to put up a paywall. Otherwise, if you give me content when I request it, I'm going to display it however I want.
> If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine
The "contract" you describe is just something you made up. I've been on the internet since the early 90s, and that has never ever ever been the deal.
Advertising is malware for your brain. I won't let it in, and no one else should either.
Yes, the paywall is reasonable, I agree. I think what the OP meant by 'social contract' is that if everybody were to use an adblocker, we would end up with a mostly paywalled internet. All the sites that currently have ads, would have a paywall.
The reason why some people get to browse the internet free, and without ads, is because there are some people that don't. Hence the 'leeching' part.
The part that annoys me sometimes, is that when there IS the option to pay to remove ads, and people still use adblockers in this case. How is this justifiable, morally?
We didn't have a paywalled internet before ads became commonplace. Most content on the internet is still user-generated and almost all of those users do not get paid anything from the ads put on their works. Hosting is quite cheap unless you want to run a centralized service that serves literally everyone.
If anything is a social contract then it's that if you want to provide a paid service you are up front about requiring payment. Ad-supported websites don't much care about that social contract because they think it's more profitable to pretend to be free when they are not.
I wanted to point out that the users that download websites to read them aren't the freeloaders.
The actual freeloaders are the ISPs, because they don't share the profits with the networks they provide access to.
In a better world, Browsers would all be peer to peer, and share their caches end-to-end, with verifiable content hashes, so that websites don't need to provide the majority of bandwidth.
But here we are, Google not giving a fuck because they actually like being a monopoly that does not need to create a healthy ecosystem because everyone involved is paying them anyways. With resources, and with money. Who would have thought?
Ad networks have been that invasive since the early 2000s. They now only support more channels. It is a stone old business and literal the source of Google finances for a very long time.
My eyeballs and attention are not for sale, I will pay you a reasonable fee for your effort but I will never watch ads and subject myself to tracking as payment, just like I won't provide you with sexual favours as payment, no matter how much you declare it to be "the social contract".
gentle reminder: online advertisements are so dangerous that the fbi recommends you use an ad blocker [1]. If there’s a social contract at play, users aren’t the ones breaking it.
Their behavior is abusive, and our behavior is self defense.
Let the ads networks do the hard work of 1) cleaning up their act, and 2) rebuilding trust before you worry about your end of the social contract.
Ad-supported services undercut honest ones by pretending they are free when you are paying for them indirectly. They are also incentivized to engage in other bad behavior like gaming SEO or wasting your time with low quality content that's designed to increase ad impressions instead of helping you. I do not recognize the social contract you are implying there is and would be happy if all ad supported sites shut down so that better ones (either actually free or paid honestly) could take their place.
There is no social contract with any corporation, only legal contracts. If you want social contracts, you have to use the things that are owned and built by actual people with a reputation.
>However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
You know what's even uglier? The notion that because I got access to a bit of your free content, I should then be completely fine with utterly pervasive, deeply granulated parasitic tracking, measuring, watching, spying and recording of as many of my habits as possible. This is a sick notion, an idiotically, disgustingly fucked up concept of fairness and those who subscribe to it are either deluded or neatly entrenched in earning from it.
No, nobody has any "right" to expect people to submit to utter surveillance because that person created content that they can't get enough people to pay for directly. I'd rather see any sites on the web that can't sustain themselves without such ad garbage burn and die than make it somehow punishable to evade their shitty cookies and other trash.
With that said, unlike many on HN comments, I also don't think ads should be banned.
There needs to be a balance. I don't block ads on sites that respect me enough not to drown out the main content with ads. However, I always block sites that have excessive ads or use pop-ups. On a side note, whoever invented pop-up ads should be sentenced to life in prison on a diet of pickled beets and prune juice.
> I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
This is why I don't go as far as running sponsorblock. Yes the sponsored segments can be irritatingly repetative¹ but at least they don't result in direct commercial stalking, popups, surprise audio/video, etc, and they more directly benefit the content makers.
--------
[1] sponsor segments are actually useful for juding creators: if one I would otherwise trust starts parroting the smae script as others but trying to make it sound like they wrote it themselves ("my favourite feature is …") then I know to tone my level of trust down a notch as it is then clear their opinions have a price.
I don't consider myself/users responsible for solving the broken business model of a big part of the modern web. The problem of ads is not just "I do not like ads", which is also a valid reason imo concerning how intrusive and distracting they are blinking and yelling around and making everything slower, but a matter of privacy and safety. There is no social contract that accepts this. Moreover, I have no way to actually know or consent to be served ads before actually loading them, so I have to use an adblocker just in case. I would not mind if a website detects my adblocker and not serving me the content either. So in this sense, imo if a website decides to serve me the content without ads it is up to them, not me.
I would care much less if tracking/personalisation was not part of the ad systems and we were just shown ads based on the content of a webpage. Actually, I am ok with stuff like sponsor segments from content creators, sponsored articles etc. There are ways to serve ads without invading privacy or making it disturbing, but modern advertising industry has chosen a different path.
There are also alternative models, subscriptions, actually buying and *owning* the content (how outdated! let's have ads instead), donations, having a "pro" version with extra optional features etc. There is important stuff in the internet (eg wikipedia) that works fine without ads at all. But if you want to scale to a billion $$$ business maybe it makes sense to rely more on ads, but I do not find this compelling as an argument for users to suffer ads or part of any social contract.
> I would not mind if a website detects my adblocker and not serving me the content either.
How do you feel about ad blockers continually trying to evade detection, though?
Or guides about how to avoid things that block access to users of ad blockers?
I think the "you're free to block me for using an ad blocker!" argument doesn't mean much when said ad blockers do their best to not let that happen in the first place.
I believe that if websites actually cared, if adblockers was a big issue for them, they would get to detect when a user uses one, eg by looking at specific parts of the webpage that are not loaded. There are some that do it. Even if it turned out to be an arm's race, it is a socially beneficial one imo, because it could reduce the appeal of the tracking-advertising model, by increasing the cost of keeping it up. But that's not what is going on here.
Personally I don't just block ads, but as much of any third party js/requests I can without breaking a website. Websites do not load any third party js etc by default except from some whitelisted domains. This takes care of a big part of the most annoying things out there. If you do not want to serve me the website if I block this stuff, don't do so, I don't care.
The websites are in their right to try to detect adblockers, and the adblockers are equally in their right to avoid detection. If a website really cares, they can try harder.
The goal of an adblocker is not just to block ads, but to block anything that isn't the content the user wishes to see. This includes calls to action, consent banners (despite websites wishing otherwise, the default answer is still "no"), and of course "please disable your adblocker."
If you had a switch you could turn on that makes your browser send a header that states you use an ad blocker, and that the website could reliably use to decide to show you nothing (including no ads, obviously), would you use it?
If the websites had a similar switch to make it easy for me to decline being tracked, sure. But why should I care about making it "easy for them" if they do not make it easy for me? So that they make more $$$ more easily?
Its not my responsibility to make your stupid ass business model profitable.
If your business model is stupid, that's not my business. I don't run your accounting department, I'm not your CFO.
Figure it out, or don't. I don't have the time to handhold every corporation I interact with and make sure they're getting their money. They are not babies, and I am not their father.
I feel like SEO and click bait of all kinds has already broken that unwritten social contract. I feel like your argument is that using an adblocker is impolite, borderline unfair. But I also feel like we, the users, have been exploited by surveillance capitalism. If anyone broke the social contract, it's the websites that participated in [enshittification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification).
How can you say there's some sort of a social contract here when the ads side has no problem with psychologically manipulating me, outright lying to me and putting me in danger just so they can extract a tiny bit of profit from me? In any other context such a party would be classified as sociopathic. Why should the ad industry get a pass?
I've come to feel that the unwritten social contract was broken decades ago when ad networks decided their best bet was to become data farms and to sell ads and private data to any bidder regardless of ethics (and morality and truth in advertising laws).
My only "ad blocker" is Firefox enhanced tracking protection and walling off Facebook (Meta, but their only app I still use is Facebook), Amazon, and Google logins to separate containers and/or apps and/or private browsing tools. I feel like this is a good ethical compromise still fills my part of the social contract. If a site wants to show me the most generic, untargeted ads, I welcome that.
They don't get my data for free, that's not part of an ethical relationship with ad networks in my mind. I am happiest to keep them in the dark and feed them junk and lies, that is all I think that they deserve.
It's fascinating how the ad networks respond to this. Several, like Admiral (to especially call out at least one offender) whine loudly that I'm using an ad blocker because they've confused targeting and tracker blocking with ad blocking and ask me to disable it. They don't even try to show ads. It seems pretty clear what their real slimy game is and I don't think they deserve to exist. Ads existed for centuries without tracking and privacy violations. Ad "common sense" up until about the 1980s was the broader the message and distribution the better; demographics and targeting was about saving money with the trade off of losing potential audiences. The more you target an ad the less you benefit from people that didn't even know your product might apply to them, or to people that might buy it for others or as gifts. "Everyone knew that."
Google is nasty in its own ways. ReCaptchas get worse. YouTube ads have several levels of hell, including interruptions in parts of videos it shouldn't interrupt, all sorts of racist and intellectually disgusting groups (including but not limited to allowing outright scams, platforming disinformation, and spreading malware) it allows to buy ads, and how much it allows those groups to serve 30 minute/1 hour/2+ hour videos as "ads". It's amazing how many ads I've felt I had to report from hate groups alone. All of that seems to background radiation for everyone with access to Google's ad networks, but the less tracking data you have the fewer targeted ads you see and the more the mask off greed feeds you terrifying things that make you wonder how humanity is okay with all this and why Google isn't seen as more of a greedy, evil company for how much of this stuff they fail to vet and continue to associate their brand with.
Show me old family friendly TV advertising staples like Clorox ads and whatever the latest cereal fad is, please, I don't mind. That's a written social contract that worked for a long time, especially because it had rules like Truth in Advertising laws and followed ethics boundaries like brand contamination by association with criminals and liars. Targeted advertising is and was a mistake. Ad networks believing private data was their new playground and revenue gold mine was a mistake. Neither of those, I think fit the old social contracts about ad-subsidized content, and I think all we can do is send a message that both of them break the spirit of the contract and it is past time for a change/fix.
But that's also maybe just me and a personal crusade at this point. I don't see a lot of people going to the sort of privacy minded extremes I have and also still not install an actual ad blocker. But that's how I'm trying to square the ethics dilemma of appreciating ad-subsidized content, but also understanding that the internet is no longer safe without some sort of privacy-minded safeguards that companies like Admiral and Google are going around and calling "ad blocking", because it is starting to interfere with their real, more lucrative, and much more evil business models.
Ads are not the problem. It's the ad-tech surveillance and the malvertising. There are ways to show ads that are not a threat. When online services choose to become hostile, adblockers are the defense. I don't mind ads, I don't mind paying for services without ads, in fact I do for multiple services and news. I don't want surveillance ad-tech anywhere near my devices. It's the business decision of the company, that aides the worst enduring tech businesses with data collection and targeted scams and malware. So fuck'em. I'll steal gladly from overt assholes.
I just use Plex hosted on a Raspberry Pi, and Plex Amp. I download mp3s from Bandcamp/wherever, and use beets [0] to auto-tag.
EDIT: FWIW, I don't recommend most people host their own music. Spotify/YouTube music is easy to use and has most music people want to listen to. I only self-host because I'm the type of person who has built a collection of mp3s since 2005, and the few times I tried switching to Spotify, I would commonly not be able to find specific things I wanted to listen to.
I self-host digital media (and have physical copies of the very best stuff) because I want to be able to access the things I like even if there's some legal bullshit about the content.
And when it's on my NAS and backed up, I can be pretty sure that I can still access it in 10 or 20 years.
Some services like youtube music also allow you to upload your own tracks and mix them in the playlist so you can have the versions of songs you want or ones that they don’t have.
Yeah, there's something about Honeypot (or I guess CultRepo now) documentaries that rub me the wrong way. Sometimes it feels like an over-glorification of the subject matter, sometimes it's the slick editing and music choices that remind me of corny biopic films. I get that it's trying to be engaging to not just technical people though.
Every reasonable politician agree illegal immigration is illegal. But you're conflating immigration with illegal immigration in your comment, for some reason.
> Any immigration at all will affect the availability of homes, of jobs, of healthcare... So, it ought to be monitored and controlled. This is becoming more relevant as home prices rise and the job market stays sucking.
So does having babies. I don't see your point here. Immigrants come and they provide labor, the same labor we use to build homes and staff hospitals. Most immigrants that come to the U.S. are young and utilize less healthcare services than non-immigrants.
>On August 24, 2021, then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum requiring all U.S. armed forces members to get the COVID-19 vaccine. This policy, which was supported by then-President Joe Biden, led to the discharge of thousands of service members who refused the vaccine.
>It's important to note that a dishonorable discharge is a specific type of punishment that can only be issued after a court-martial for serious offenses. While some sources claimed that the Biden administration ordered dishonorable discharges for those who refused the vaccine, this was not the case. The President does not have the authority to issue such an order, and the military services themselves handled disciplinary actions.
>The military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate was rescinded in January 2023 after Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which directed the Department of Defense to end the mandate.
* Biden failed to force everyone to get the vaccine
to
* The DOD added COVID-19 vaccines to the Joint Regulation on Immunization and Chemoprophylaxis for the Prevention of Infectious (which already included several mandatory vaccines including for influenza) after the FDA had approved the Pfizer vaccine, mandating military personnel to get the vaccine until 2023.
Very interesting that once you unpack an anti-vaxxers alarmist arguments, you're left with a completely different understanding of reality with nuance and all.
You have misrepresented my claims. The CDC and Biden tried to force vaccination. The DOD thing is another, similar issue. The DOD mandate DID get enforced though, and many military personnel left over it or were forced to quit. In the end, I believe they sued and won some compensation as well as got rehired.
>Very interesting that once you unpack an anti-vaxxers alarmist arguments, you're left with a completely different understanding of reality with nuance and all.
Very interesting that you cannot comprehend the nuance of someone like me who supports reasonable voluntary use of proven safe and effective vaccines, who opposes forcing proven ineffective and experimental vaccine technology on the entire public without reservation, under threat of exile from society. I'm not taking bullshit from big pharma or government so that must make me an anti-vax simpleton, eh? Gtfo
Please share with me the article where Biden attempted but failed to literally break into my house and force a vaccine into my and my children's veins while we were sleeping.
Oh no, he didn't push that. He just tried to command all US employers to require vaccination as a condition of employment. That is severely oppressive. I've seen many cases of people being forced to take the vaccine for stupid reasons, despite known risks, and suffering severe consequences such as organ failure or permanent disability. That is what a mandate does. It eliminates any discretion of the individual. If you had covid once then you don't need a vaccine. Natural immunity is better than a vaccine. Vaccines can harm your immune system, especially in excess. You should only get important ones, not every single one out of the hundreds or thousands out there on the market. Your immune system is finite and can be exhausted.
By the way, if the vaccine worked, then the people who got it wouldn't have to worry about the people who didn't, right? In fact it is completely opposite. The unvaccinated could get the virus from the vaccinated, who were told (at first) that they were immunized and did not have to take precautions anymore. The whole situation was insulting to our intelligence and a severe attack on our basic human rights. Don't give me some bullshit convoluted argument about potentially improved outcomes for people getting the vaccine. That never was good enough reason to force anyone to get a vaccine, especially under threat of being denied healthcare or employment.
I must give the establishment credit. They indoctrinated everyone very well, to the point that even 5 years later many still haven't recognized how badly covid was handled. They even got the ignorant feeling uppity about thinking everyone who is against the way it was handled is anti-vax. I got the stupid vaccine. I stopped getting boosters (like most normal people) when it became clear that the vaccine wasn't working and the virus had mutated to be more harmless than ever. I never got the virus even once but everyone I know who got double boosted and so on did get it, even multiple times (unless they were skipping work).
> Don't give me some bullshit convoluted argument about potentially improved outcomes for people getting the vaccine.
Ah there it is. See, it doesn't matter what numbers or sources I cite to you because it'll all just be bullshit in your eyes. You've already made up your mind and nothing can convince you otherwise.
> I stopped getting boosters (like most normal people) when it became clear that the vaccine wasn't working and the virus had mutated to be more harmless than ever. I never got the virus even once but everyone I know who got double boosted and so on did get it, even multiple times (unless they were skipping work).
It's not at all incorrect. But you are clearly programmed very well. If I prove it to you, you will "yes, but" me to death. No thanks.
>Ah there it is. See, it doesn't matter what numbers or sources I cite to you because it'll all just be bullshit in your eyes. You've already made up your mind and nothing can convince you otherwise.
No, it is not that NO amount of evidence would convince me. It is that the arguments put forth by the mainstream are weak, indirect, and illogical. You seem to know that already, because you aren't even trying. I could be charitable and say this is just a difference of opinion, and maybe the vaccine did help some people. That is still far from a compelling reason to FORCE anyone to get it. Trust me, if COVID was actually bad and the vaccine was actually effective, you'd have been more afraid of other people trying to get the vaccine than you would be of the disease. A lot of people didn't want or need the so-called vaccine because they knew that it didn't work (well enough), and it had risks (in general, or for them), and that being forced to get a vaccine is a major civil rights violation.
>This is Facebook uncle-posting tier.
I think telling you what tier your comments hit would get me banned on here.
I was really close to getting a Framework earlier this year, but ultimately landed on a Thinkpad T14 Gen 5 because at the time, the price gap was significant (the Thinkpad was $250 cheaper) and the T14 still had a better CPU. Not to mention the T14 has expandable RAM, replaceable battery, screen, and keyboard, and is acceptably thin and light.
In the end, I think the Framework is worth it if you have a desire to support the company and the mission, but I think most people should go refurbished if they only care about value.
I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.
There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeloaders resisting the ads then services won't host the content, and on the path to that the freeloaders are really just leeching off a system in an entitled way (unless their goal is to destroy the services they use in which case good on them for consistency and for picking a worthy target).
If people aren't going to be polite and accept that contract then fine, enforcement was always by an honour system. But strategically if a service's social contract doesn't work for someone then they shouldn't use that service - they'd just be feeding the beast. They should go make their own service work or investigate the long list of alternative platforms.
There isn't and never was. Adware and spyware have always been flavors of malware. Some people thought they could use that as a business model. It was pretty much immediately met with people blocking it and providing software to remove it. Some people have tried hiding botnet command and control functions in software they give out as a business model or putting crypto miners on web pages. That also doesn't form a social contract. That makes them malware authors.
