Agnostic.com

30 5

I have a question for the community that I am curious about. Is it wrong (basically, am I playing the part of a digital freeloader?) by browsing the internet behind ad blockers and otherwise restricted browsing (I don't even visit non- https : sites anymore).

My reasons are twofold, performance and security. Some pages load themselves with so much junk that things can really slow down. And you can't control what code (possibly malicious) that an ad may prompt the browser to run. Not to mention tracking (even if that is on the edge of being a lost cause).

Their reasons for ads are . . . it keeps the lights on. As such, I can also understand the various restrictions some of these sites pose (from blocking videos, to locking out the entire site, as is the case below).

Where does everyone stand on this? And is there a way to do this any better?

NOTE: Don't just blame The Friendly Atheist. The entire website is restricted (which is unfortunate. I like Neil Carters material).

But on the bright side, it's now https enabled.

Mb_Man 7 Aug 1
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

30 comments (26 - 30)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Some things are hard cause we end up seeing only our side. For most people this question is a matter of who you are in this interaction

Edu_0 Level 4 Aug 1, 2019
0

I click the little turquoise "Show me how to disable" button, and then immediately click the "Continue to site" button without disabling any of my ad blockers. I fucking hate being advertised to everywhere I go IRL, and it's become even worse on the internet. Commercials interrupting my music, my videos, my TV shows, my movies, news articles, every fucking thing. I see it like this: If they need to advertise this much to keep the lights on, then they would not be making a profit, and they will have to shut down (because they'd never give up their profits willingly to keep things going), and if enough sites have to shut down due to costs, eventually the costs will threaten the providers having to shut down due to lack of sites, then the costs will come down, and the cycle starts all over again. They agreed to allow advertising to make profit. I did not agree to be advertised to. They gain profit, I get a headache. This is not a fair arrangement for whomever they are forcing their ads upon. Honestly, I feel they should do away with ads entirely. If they can't keep the lights on, they can charge a ten cent fee per article to read it. I'd gladly pay a dime to read a good article, and those dimes would add up. Otherwise, I don't much care about how poorly they are handling their finances without ads.

0

i use uBlock but some cites can circumvent it. i've never bought anything advertised on-line & i really wonder how many ppl do. FB & google seem to be making big profits so the advertisers must think that their ads work. sometimes i think the whole phony economy & false prosperity are built on the promise of everyone buying everything on-line. and not just what they need but more.
i can't help bu feel that one of these earnings seasons ppl will start to realize that all this supposed wealth is just an illusion.

Very well said. There’s a marvellous story purported to be about Socrates but I doubt it! When asked why he went to the market every day and never bought anything his reply was “I never cease to be amazed at the things I don’t need”

0

Answers to your 3 questions:

  1. No
  2. I can only speak for mysel, I don't like to pay for anything that should be free.
  3. No
0

Not your call...always take what you are given, or block it. And BTW, more memory will stop those "slow-diwns".. I use a samsung (cheap!) 10"tablet, with 32 mbits, and have No slowdowns of any kind, ever.

not everyone can afford more memory. i also don't feel i should have to pay not to be inundated. memory is only one of the problems. distraction, and the feeling of being shouted at constantly, also count.

g

@genessa memory cards are quite cheap, around $40 for additional 16 gbytes at Walmart for most devices

@AnneWimsey $40 is not cheap for me. not at all. we may lose the house. i did not take my cat in to the vet as early as i could have because it would have cost $12 round trip and i didn't have it on top of the vet bill, which i also didn't have.

g

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:382225
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.