From owner-freebsd-chat Mon May 4 05:59:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA22919 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA22904 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 05:59:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36]) by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA10995; Mon, 4 May 1998 12:59:40 GMT Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id OAA04050; Mon, 4 May 1998 14:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19980504145938.32419@follo.net> Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:59:38 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: John Fieber Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/www/ijb - Imported sources References: <19980503230438.48318@follo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i In-Reply-To: ; from John Fieber on Sun, May 03, 1998 at 06:46:15PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, May 03, 1998 at 06:46:15PM -0500, John Fieber wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 1998, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > Refusing to download ads from the WWW is very bad practice. Those ads are > > paying for the service you're using. I'm not even certain we should have > > the above program as a port > > Yikes! The economics of the Internet are very young and far from > being well understood. In other words, they are in that critical > period of being formulated and are quite maleable. Are you > actually proposing that we consumers should just sit on our > collective ass and just take whatever we get force-fed? No. I think we consumers should get up and do an active choice. However, I don't think we can avoid it - we choose what to view, and with the ease of creating new choices on the net, we will be a large influence no matter what. However: The result of running ad-removal software tends to be the same as grabbing a free ride on public transport - the transport company get less money, which might mean they get less profits - or it might mean that the public get less public transport, and have to take cabs instead. I think the latter is a likely result for many of the services on the net - especially if ad-removal software get common. :-( I don't think this is what the average person running ad-removal software will have thought those thoughts - I think he'll only have considered the aspect that ads are annoying and take time to download, and not the aspect that they're actually paying for the content he views. Thus, I expressed scepticism against the 'ijb'. I didn't ask for it to be removed - I just came with an (attempted) humourous comment to comment on it, and then have been entwined in a long twisty maze of messages, all alike (more or less so, at least). > I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think consumers should be > empowered to define the economics of the internet. I only believe in empowerment if it is combined with education. I don't think having an ad-removal program without a description of what harm you do by running it is a good idea, just as I don't think having a spam-program without a description of why you wouldn't want to spam would be a good idea E.g, both have theft-of-service problems, and are likely to get people annoyed at you (though in a smaller number and probably less personal for ad-removal). Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message