[bradleyjg]

If you had a plugin that simply blanked the entire page if it contained advertising you'd be acting in a principled fashion aligned with your preferences. As it is you want to have your cake and eat it too. It may be legal and technically possible, but isn't ethical.

I'm reminded of the debates that raged on the internet when Napster was around. All the people downloading music strenuously claimed that the industry model was broken and they should come up with a new one. Well, if that's what they thought why weren't they out there patronizing artists using a new model?

[Erik816]

I can't agree with you that blocking adds on a webpage is unethical. I am accessing a website through a web browser that has the ability to modify the page before it is presented to me. How I choose to view the content that is made available on the open web is my business. If content producers don't want to make their content available in a format where ads can be blocked, they can simply stop doing so.

[PhasmaFelis]

> If you had a plugin that simply blanked the entire page if it contained advertising you'd be acting in a principled fashion aligned with your preferences. As it is you want to have your cake and eat it too. It may be legal and technically possible, but isn't ethical.

What you're saying here is that, if you don't like advertising, your only ethical option is to never use the Web again. (Well, I suppose I can read the comments on Hacker News. None of the articles, though.) That is not reasonable. I have actually gone out of my way to configure my adblocker to un-block as many inoffensive ad providers as possible, because I want to support the sites I use, but when those sites are knowingly degrading not just my browsing experience but the functioning of my computer, measures need to be taken.

> I'm reminded of the debates that raged on the internet when Napster was around. All the people downloading music strenuously claimed that the industry model was broken and they should come up with a new one. Well, if that's what they thought why weren't they out there patronizing artists using a new model?

Because there weren't any new models yet. Which is why the downloaders wanted people to come up with one.

[bradleyjg]

There were options. You could go to concerts, you could listen to the radio. You could go to free concerts in the park. What you couldn't do was listen to the latest Britney album when and wherever you wanted without going and buying the CD or unethically downloading it off of Napster.

You could tell yourself that you were perfectly justified in doing so. In fact it was Britney's fault for not coming up with easy way for you to pay her and get 128mbit mp3s from your pajamas in your room. But I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

[emp_zealoth]

But now there is Spotify, and it's getting more money than I'd spend on buying CD's I haven't downloaded any music in years

[ianlevesque]

Yeah I mean, iTunes Music Store never came into existence to fill the demand. You must be right.

[loco5niner]

You're getting shot down here. Perhaps if you found an argument NOT based on the music model...

[Khaine]

Do you watch ads when they are on the TV, you know to support the content, or do you go to the bathroom, surf the web etc?

Why is it suddenly different when its the web?

[Nadya]

>All the people downloading music strenuously claimed that the industry model was broken and they should come up with a new one

Most people now pay for their music through iTunes, easily-accessible YouTube channels, Patreon, or Satellite XM radio.

So I'd say they found new models - and they're working.

The issue with music was a different one (accessibility/distribution) and not a privacy-concerned one. So it doesn't quite fit. But they were able to change their business model to accommodate.

Now it's "change your business model or die." for another industry.

[JulianMorrison]

People are, it's called Patreon.

Which would be a good model, too, for "free but we need our salary paid" content.

[jordigh]

There's also Google Contributor.

https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/

I'd be fine with websites requiring a Google Contributor login for unlimited access.

[gkop]

Also Beacon: http://www.beaconreader.com

[kuschku]

Can we PLEASE stop posting stuff that is US-only? Solving an issue only in the US does NOT help the world.

[powertower]

The "either help everyone or help no one" mentality helps --> no one.

Also consider that usually a problem has to be solved in your garage before it's solved globally.

Other times the situation is that there are external barriers (such massive fraud, incompatible laws, etc) and issues (such as the market not being developed enough yet, little to no demand, etc) that prevent the local solution getting scaled out to a global solution.

[kuschku]

It's annoying when there are countries that have the ability to use it – like NFC is everywhere accepted, but no one has a system that uses it yet – but the US-only solution on HN is presented as "solves all issues, everywhere".

Or, at the point where we are, just put a "US-only" banner at the top. Because that’s the case. Most solutions here could be implemented far more easy in countries across Europe than in the US, but they are implemented in the US, and only the US. Despite demand.

Like Netflix only in 2014 for most of Europe, and then complaining that europeans pirate all the movies.

[tertius]

Point me to an AUP that would make your music to article an apples to apples comparison and I may listen.