Google prepares publishers for the release of Chrome ad-blocking

[Joseph Frazier]

No real offence intended but, to me it seems obvious that your arguments
are logically flawed and I'm not going to waste my time, but I will say
your contrarianism is actually kinda entertaining in a sadistic sort of
way. I really am only expressing my opinions, I could be wrong, but I
really don't think I am, really it's just a matter of perspective. There
are givers and there are takers in this world, and when there are more
givers than takers the world becomes a better place. However the trend,
which indeed I assume you are a good example of, for people these days
seems to be towards takers and zero-sum minded people. Which is something I
hope to discourage. This all of course is philosophical and not technical,
I have a preference for discussing real technical matters in regards to
crypto, cryptocurrencies, algorithm ideas, privacy assurance, and
steganography (favorite cipher), and of course sharing of industry related
news and insights. I hope you all have a great day. :-)

*Joseph Frazier*



On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:47 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 16:40:40 -0600
> Joseph Frazier <j0zffrazier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Personally, I
> > > > consider ad-blocking a form of theft,
> > >
> > >         priceless. You might have not noticed but people are
> > > supposed to own their computers. So the actual theft is done by the
> > > ad publishers who are criminally accessing hardware they do not
> > >         own. That's especially blatant in the case of the tons of
> > >         javashit tracking malware they run on the computers of their
> > >         victims.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, it's their computer, but they chose to visit a site which is not
> > theirs,
>
>         so? If you don't want your site 'visited' then don't make it
>         public. This is a variation of a non-argument for 'intellectual
>         property'. if you don't want 'your' ideas 'stolen' then keep
>         them secret.
>
>
> > One that was created and maintained by somebody else. It
> > costs to create and host sites,
>
>         so?
>
> > if there is no means for monetization
> > then the likely macro repercussion is less sites
>
>         you mean, less garbage, less misinformation and the like?
>         Sounds like a good thing.
>
> > or more pay-sites.
>
>         but you want people to pay through advertising so what's the
>         difference?
>
>
> > Perhaps someday on some sites you may choose:  1. micro-crypto
> > payments. 2. give me ads. 3. allow my browser to mini-mine crypto
>
>         .... 4 - put people who run malware on my machine in jail.
>
>
> > for
> > the site owner. 4. by donation ie wikipedia.... There is no free
> > lunch, the attitude that people should get something for nothing in
> > my opinion is a cancer to society.
>
>         nah, it's the greedy idiots who want to sell or advertise
>         garbage and who think they own the computers of other people.
>
>         so now go back to your outrageous claim that "
>         ad-blocking [is] a form of theft"  and try to grasp how fucked
>         the claim is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20180420/9c33a7f3/attachment.txt>