undefined | Better HN

0 pointskllrnohj7y ago0 comments

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry.

Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft?

Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source of real money. Alternatives could, and should!, be considered. But simply cutting off a revenue stream while arguing that the ability to cut off that revenue stream should be protected by regulators is weak at best.

0 comments

giornogiovanna7y ago

> Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website.

Chrome is the user agent. It acts purely on behalf of the user. Browsers aren't trojans built to exploit my eyeballs. This "virtual theft" talk is as silly as claiming that spam filters should be illegal - your server sent me some markup, and I'm free to preprocess it in any way I want.

> Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense.

Not really. Advertising has always been about manipulating people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do - if all ads were purely informative it'd hardly be a multibillion dollar industry.

BLKNSLVR7y ago

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry

Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.

WkndTriathlete7y ago

It's impossible to aim regulators at every single country on the planet.

BLKNSLVR7y ago

Aaah, the Homer Simpson position: Can't win, don't try.

Regulate what's within your jurisdiction. That's all any government can do in any circumstance. If regulation results in more friendly advertising that's less likely to have users reaching for the blockers, then those advertisers are going to be more successful, and so even those in unregulated countries will need to conform in order to compete.

That's assuming that the number of users that have already reached for the blockers are of a significant enough percentage to make a difference to website ad revenue.

Start somewhere or stay nowhere.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

giornogiovanna7y ago

> Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website.

> Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense.

Not really. Advertising has always been about manipulating people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do - if all ads were purely informative it'd hardly be a multibillion dollar industry.

BLKNSLVR7y ago

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry

Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.

WkndTriathlete7y ago

It's impossible to aim regulators at every single country on the planet.

BLKNSLVR7y ago

Aaah, the Homer Simpson position: Can't win, don't try.

That's assuming that the number of users that have already reached for the blockers are of a significant enough percentage to make a difference to website ad revenue.

Start somewhere or stay nowhere.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse