It's better than nothing but it's still far behind uBlock Origin or even the Brave's built-in ad blocker. Their decision to stop supporting uBlock Origin made me drop it as my alternative browser.
I have a question. My ISP, allegedly, knows what websites I go to. So why can't I pay my ISP an optional $20 a month that gets evenly distributed directly to those websites, in exchange for an ad-free web experience?
Surely I'm not creating much more than $20 in ad revenue in total per month, right? Can't we just cut out the middleman and all walk away happy?
How many websites do you go to a month? Hundreds? Thousands? And you want the ISP to handle the payment processing out to them? Many probably international? And each ISP doing this on their own?
Sure, why not? They're billion dollar corporations, they can handle some basic payment processing. If it creates a genuinely better user experience, it will increase customer loyalty and make them money in the long run.
I'd rather my ISP and ad networks have harsh criminal penalties with prison time for management, engineers, and everyone else involved for tracking what sites I visit. That would be a genuinely better experience.
Well, your ISP likely _doesn't_ know which sites you are going to.
In the old days, they'd run proxies, but with SSL, they no longer know where they are going, only that they are, for example, going to an AWS or GCP site.
Speaking as someone who managed to get uncle Murdoch to sponsor writing an adblocker/payment tool similar to yours (while I was working at an adtech business), but then got stalled by the publishers (who on avg. hated ads), specifically the direct supply sales people (who tend to have louder voices in those companies, have mortgages to pay) -- the issue is systemic.
ISPs are already selling your data to a bunch of data brokers, I don't think ad spend is the only goal there.
People have been trying stuff like this for almost 20 years now.
The core problem is that while people hold up that ads are the problem, the actual problem is that people like free stuff with no strings attached, i.e. have your cake (the content) and eat it too (nothing traded for it).
So when you present people an alternate way to compensate creators directly, they overwhelmingly just stick with ad blocking. There is a long case file of fools taking the internet at their word that "I want to give but the ads are so bad I can't!". They don't want to give lol
I don't think that's the case. I think the problem is that the sort of market behavior that would drive a company to run invasive ads in the first place betrays its fundamental lack of respect for its users. I want to pay for stuff. And I have tried. Even in doing so, I've found piracy is still often the superior service to using what I'm actually paying for.
Exactly. I'm not opposed to paying a few bucks a month to a website I visit a lot, but that adds up. At some point a "Netflix for Adblocking" starts to make sense.
The problem is that the choice isn't seeing ads v.s. paying for the content. Instead, the choice is seeing ads v.s. overpaying for the content, then seeing ads anyway when the service decides to indroduce ads back to the paid subscription. By overpaying, I mean compared to what the service itself values its content at when it serves it for free with ads.
How many people would sign up for a 15$ per month subscription to read one article with no ads? How many would pay 1¢ once to read the article with no ads? How many would sign up for one 15$ per month subscription to see no ads anywhere?
I realize we don't have the infrastructure to make high volume 1¢ payments, and probably not for lack of trying, but I just don't think the core problem is that people only want stuff for 0¢ and not almost 0¢.
The problem is I don't want surveillance and I don't want to incentivize trying to distract me (the "attention economy"). "Creators" just don't want to acknowledge that much of their "content" has zero or negative value to most people, and instead claim that everyone just wants free stuff. No, I want most of these "creators" to stop creating.
I'm not sure why your ISP should be involved. Ideally they don't know what sites you're visiting. Your browser knows, though. And what you're describing is kind of what Brave tried to do with BAT (and kind of failed at).
This[1] claims the average American is worth about $1605/year in ad revenue. It's a model, so it's certainly possible it is significantly off. That said if there was a credible system like this, I'd happily pay for even the right partial offering.
This reminds me I have to see what's up with my install. Tried running earlier and got a message that it's secure store is busted, and have options to switch profile or continue and lose data, and all profiles are similarly broken. Luckily I don't keep much in it beyond sites like GMail and anything else not very Firefox friendly. Hoping this doesn't mean I lose access to my Google account as it's only logged in there.
Is it just me or is it a bit sad that even GPL'd software has websites that are full of Claudisms these days?
Like have some pride when showing off your project. Write a few sentences. Why should I give a shit about your project when you don't even care enough to describe it in your own words?
For me Vivaldi on Linux has a 50% probability of freezing whenever I use Ctrl+F and type some text I am looking for, requiring killing and restarting the process.
It's been the case for years but I keep putting up with it because I can't live without side panels. No issues on Windows and MacOS.
kayart_dev | an hour ago
andyfilms1 | an hour ago
Surely I'm not creating much more than $20 in ad revenue in total per month, right? Can't we just cut out the middleman and all walk away happy?
conception | an hour ago
andyfilms1 | 53 minutes ago
ndriscoll | 18 minutes ago
margalabargala | 36 minutes ago
pwagland | an hour ago
In the old days, they'd run proxies, but with SSL, they no longer know where they are going, only that they are, for example, going to an AWS or GCP site.
saagarjha | an hour ago
AlotOfReading | an hour ago
rpastuszak | an hour ago
ISPs are already selling your data to a bunch of data brokers, I don't think ad spend is the only goal there.
WarmWash | an hour ago
The core problem is that while people hold up that ads are the problem, the actual problem is that people like free stuff with no strings attached, i.e. have your cake (the content) and eat it too (nothing traded for it).
So when you present people an alternate way to compensate creators directly, they overwhelmingly just stick with ad blocking. There is a long case file of fools taking the internet at their word that "I want to give but the ads are so bad I can't!". They don't want to give lol
functionmouse | an hour ago
andyfilms1 | 51 minutes ago
ggsp | 36 minutes ago
I'm aware I'm preaching to the choir here on HN, but boy are there strings...
GrantMoyer | 31 minutes ago
How many people would sign up for a 15$ per month subscription to read one article with no ads? How many would pay 1¢ once to read the article with no ads? How many would sign up for one 15$ per month subscription to see no ads anywhere?
I realize we don't have the infrastructure to make high volume 1¢ payments, and probably not for lack of trying, but I just don't think the core problem is that people only want stuff for 0¢ and not almost 0¢.
ndriscoll | 27 minutes ago
mminer237 | an hour ago
That is basically the whole premise of the Brave browser though.
bastawhiz | an hour ago
vidarh | 11 minutes ago
[1] https://proton.me/blog/what-is-your-data-worth-to-google
skeledrew | an hour ago
jttnr | an hour ago
It was about how the default keyring was called, and that the name of the keyring ia actually case sensitive.
toddmorey | an hour ago
It really is nice to have a browser from a company whose incentives seem to be for the actual users.
leofree | 25 minutes ago
doodlesdev | an hour ago
[0]: https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser...
RunSet | 53 minutes ago
https://nordstjernen.org/index.html
vrganj | 18 minutes ago
Like have some pride when showing off your project. Write a few sentences. Why should I give a shit about your project when you don't even care enough to describe it in your own words?
Buxato | 41 minutes ago
margalabargala | 39 minutes ago
Shame there's no way to check something else isn't included too.
HackerThemAll | 41 minutes ago
hobo_mark | 39 minutes ago
HN hivemind, any ideas why?
FLeXMurphy | 35 minutes ago
grishka | 17 minutes ago