Re: [projectvrm] "I am not a brand."

[Adriana Lukas < >]

Hm, and there was I thinking of adblockers as the very examples of
tools that increase individual autonomy on the web....

For myself, I cannot express how grateful I am to the adblock creators
for the ability to browse the web ad free.

As for being deprived of the 'content' as a result of the current
faustian bargain - well, the sooner the ad model collapses, the sooner
we'll have alternatives. But that would be too much to hope for from
my isolated individual position. :)

Adriana

-- 
The network is always stronger than the node...
but a network starts with a node.

Background:
http://www.mediainfluencer.net/about/
Twitter: adriana872
Skype: adriana872
UK mobile: +44 787 6757129




On 23 June 2010 21:20, Joe Andrieu 
<
 >
 wrote:
> Alec,
>
> Your persistence is admirable.  In some disturbing way, it's an honor that
> you still find my post so troll worthy.
>
> If you don't like what's on a web page, don't visit the website. You're not
> being forced to download it. To accuse websites of forcing content on you is
> disingenuous. You request the HTML, you download the images, you display the
> images. In fact, the very possibility of running ad-block proves that you're
> not being forced to do anything. SPAM and pop-ups are out-of-context
> interruptions into your life.  But web pages exist for the very purpose of
> defining the content on a page. It's part of how it works.
>
> However, if you still like to block ads on sites you visit, I stand by my
> original position: what you are doing is not good for the net. No matter
> your political disposition, your position doesn't scale. It is simply a
> selfish refusal to acknowledge the reasonable expectations of the web page
> author or site owner.
>
> The ethics are simple. Does the activity work at Internet scale?  If
> everyone used ad blockers, the bulk of the content you obviously want to
> consume would no longer be produced and displayed for free. That's why
> blockers will never be built in to any major browser. It breaks down at
> scale for a vast number of people and organizations who help make the
> Internet and the web an interesting and useful part of our lives.
>
> You, are, of course, free to violate whatever social contracts you want. As
> you say, you never "signed" it. And it'll remain rude, selfish, and
> ineffective. That's why its a social contract... the consequences aren't
> civil or criminal, just social. You aren't forced to do anything. You can
> always go elsewhere to get your content. Or continue to be an ungrateful
> consumer.
>
> If you don't like display ads, find a more constructive means to get rid of
> them or to transform them into something valuable rather than offensive.
> Running ad blockers isn't really changing anything except your own isolated
> experience. Find an alternative that makes more people happier, including
> those who produce and package that content that brought you to the web page
> in the first place.
>
> -j
>
> Joe Andrieu
> 
 
> +1 (805) 705-8651
> http://www.switchbook.com
>
> On 6/23/2010 12:36 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
> But give people tools to manage their experience effectively and I think
> they'll use them.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> Nobody [eg: no corporation or individual] should be empowered force any
> particular content [eg: spam] upon any user [eg: me].
>
> Nor should anyone [eg: corporation or individual] receive sympathy for a
> user's [my] electing not to partake in their content.
>
>
> I hereby now direct everyone's attention to Joe Andrieu's spirited
> excoriation of my use of AdBlock+:
>
>       
> http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2008/07/20/notes-on-user-driven-search/comment-page-1/#comment-1506
>
> ...which he deems to be "violation of a social contract":
>
>
>
> AdBlockPlus is a violation of your social contract and terms of service. You
> may not like that your website of choice has chosen a business model that
> offends you, but it doesn’t give you the right to access their content
> without addressing the quid-pro-quo they clearly expect you to participate
> in.
>
>
> So somehow a "social contract" - one to which I have not signed - makes it
> all OK; there must be a very shadowy line between going to a website and
> having adverts foisted upon me, versus going-there and suffering popups,
> versus going-there and being auto-signed-up to a maillist.
>
> The whole thread is worth reading, incidentally, and at the end - as you
> suggest, Christy - you may find yourself wondering who are the good, and who
> are the evil.
>
>       -a
>
> --
> 
 
> http://dropsafe.crypticide.com/
>
>
>
>