[phailhaus]

Yeah but you're not entitled to use their server's resources for free. If you're not okay with them running a miner while you use their site, don't use their site. I'm okay with this approach as long as they are transparent about it.

[TeMPOraL]

I am. That's literally how HTTP, and broadly the Internet, works.

If you want to put restrictions on how your site is meant to be used, use appropriate protocol means. Like, respond with 402, or simply don't serve content until I pay you / agree to display ads / agree to run your cryptocoin miners / whatever.

Ads, and sneaky cryptocoin mining scripts, are underhand attempts at having a cake and eating it too. Because they know people don't like to pay, they choose to pretend they're free, while at the same time bleeding the visitors for small amounts of indirect money (in attention => time, or computing resources => electricity).

[notheguyouthink]

> Because they know people don't like to pay, they choose to pretend they're free, while at the same time bleeding the visitors for small amounts of indirect money (in attention => time, or computing resources => electricity).

I mean... I get where you're coming from, and I agree that I don't like it either - but I'm curious what the "right" solution is.

I think it's clear that people, on average, hate to pay. They hate to let go of money, and will put up with a surprising amount of bullshit as long as they aren't giving someone else a cent. So what's the winning solution here? Your 402 example is wishful thinking at best, imo.

So far, the only thing I can imagine is some type of system that's built into internet providers. A monetary sharing scheme, based on traffic or viewing receipts, etc. Something to pass revenue via meaningful metrics, and not 402s (which i think are wishful) or crypto mining.

With that said, that seems difficult. Though I do wonder what will happen to these crypto models once they become popular. Suddenly farms will up the hash rate and lower income for site providers. A view will steadily decrease in revenue as hash rate goes up, which will seem to promote longer crypto times. They'll want you to read longer, or wait ~60s before turning to page 2, or etc. All to inch out some extra seconds of crypto time.

Weird world we live in.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, people hate to pay. Like 'Eliezer said once, paying literally feels like losing hit points in a video game. Still, I think we should accept it.

My proposed solution is bit unpopular, but it goes like this: just have people pay actual money. Now, this would cause a lot of the present Internet to disappear, and I say good riddance. Here is why.

The Internet is mostly made of two kinds of people: 1) those who publish stuff pro bono, as a hobby or a service to their fellow Internet citizens, and 2) those who publish stuff in order to earn money. If we switched to ad-free, direct-payment-required Internet, here's what I believe would happen:

- People posting stuff pro bono will still post stuff pro bono, still paying the costs out of their own wallets. That content will mostly remain, and will remain free.

- Businesses that also publish something will start treating publishing as a marketing expense, and that content will also remain free.

- The rest of money-earners will try to switch to a subscription model. Those providing actual value will succeed, and people will pay for their publishing directly. As for the rest, there will be carnage, and they'll disappear from the Internet, no longer profitable. Because this literally affects the most worthless (from consumer's POV) kind of publishing, we'll all be better off without it, and the people involved will have an opportunity to find a more socially useful way of earning a living.

- The adtech industry will collapse, which would be a huge win for freedom and privacy on-line.

Now there's one bad side of this solution that comes to my mind: this privileges people with money to spare. Currently, even though we are drowning in sewage that masquerades as content, people without any spending money (like e.g. teenagers) can access disproportionately big amount of quality information (after they sift through the refuse, of course). I know I personally benefited from that when I was younger. I don't know how to handle this particular case; but overall, I still feel the tradeoff is worth it.

[monsieurbanana]

That's not an unpopular solution. Because it's not a solution at all.

What you just said: "Here's what I would do: I would make a perfect world. How? That's for you to figure out."

How would you get rid of ads? If you can't answer that, the best you can do is write a fiction book.

[TeMPOraL]

One straightforward (though possibly not the best) way: just ban ads on-line.

[notheguyouthink]

As an aside, I think newer p2p oriented technologies will slowly improve the "pro bono" culture. When we can all host a site with a good UX, easily, that can handle reddit level traffic for free.. the model changes a lot.

Tech like IPFS could make the world a very interesting place.

[TeMPOraL]

I hope so. I'm following the development of IPFS closely. In fact, sillysaurus3's subthread about Twitch[0] made me think that maybe something IPFS-like (e.g. the libp2p that powers it) could be used for video streaming, making a streamer independent of big companies subsidizing bandwidth. I'm very hopeful for more developments in this area.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15272175

[phailhaus]

> Ads, and sneaky cryptocoin mining scripts, are underhand attempts at having a cake and eating it too

Like I already said, I'm fine with it if they're transparent about what they're doing. Miners should not run by default, they should get the user's permission first. If they refuse, don't serve the site.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, we agree on that. If and only if they're transparent about the requirements, they can demand whatever they want. They're also free to back those requirements up with tech to get rid of the users who, as you called it, feel entitled anyway.

[wtallis]

> If you're not okay with them running a miner while you use their site, don't use their site.

The onus is on the site to not serve up content if they don't trust that I'm running their code as-is at full speed. Nothing about the design of the Web says that servers should trust unauthenticated clients or that clients should prioritize the server's wishes over those of the user. Server operators have no standing to complain when a user agent ignores the server's request for the user agent to do something that is against the user's interests.

[phailhaus]

Or I mean, you can just ask if the user is okay with the site running a miner, and if they refuse then don't serve the content. That's what I mean by transparency.

[wtallis]

That works, if you trust the user not to lie when they have every incentive to lie.

[phailhaus]

It's not possible for the user to lie since the miner has to report back to the server with the proof of work that they've done.

[wtallis]

Hardly any website is going to be willing to require non-trivial proof of work before delivering content. It might work for cutting off a streaming video and to a lesser extent as a gate before allowing a large file download, but it's completely implausible for a text-based article. Would-be readers are not that patient.

[TeMPOraL]

You can't; hence you should back it up with tech checking if the user is complying with your requirements.

[testestx]

Simply return an HTTP error code if your server doesn't want to spend resources with my request. HTTP 500 perhaps.

[adrianN]

HTTP 402 was made for this.

[cakedoggie]

Simply don't go to any website you don't control.

[wdr1]

It seems equivalent to ad blocking.

[phailhaus]

Yeah, and there are sites which will prevent you from viewing their content if you have an ad blocker enabled. That's their prerogative.

[BatFastard]

I would love to have the option to pay with CPU cycles so that I dont have to subscribe.