My approach probably will result in it being more difficult to ask content, but it preserves privacy and performance to the extent the user is willing. Would be interested in everyone's thoughts on this. Asking the user to allow ads can be built right in and privacy is preserved if they say no which is better than all the consent dialogs we've got today. This also means GDPR consent and a whole host of other stuff can be handled directly by the browser too. We might as well ditch ad blockers and their performance issues if we can.Ģ) We have a standard way for publications to respectfully say no to serving content to blocking users rather than the JavaScript, anti-ad-blocker monstrosities we've got today - I respect the freedom of companies too, and they're always going to try and do this - likewise, we might as well ditch the awful performance/battery issues with this.ģ) Performance and privacy can be kept in the hands of the user. Yes, it does ultimately make it easier to block ads, butġ) Users who want to do that are always going to, and I'll always stay on the side of freedom for the user. This gives the user back control, and allows optimisation directly in the browser with C++ - also allows us to say: load only X ads with Y performance constraints and no more than Z bandwidth before they get dropped. I think a standard web component built into browsers is a good idea. For them, the fact that these policies improve some aspects of security is just a bonus.
I'm also sure that there are executives at Google who look at locked-down extension APIs and the inability to side-load extensions as a way of locking out people like Gorhill, and making sure the debate over acceptable ads is primarily restricted to industry players. I don't doubt that part of the reason Google is locking down extensions is for security. You have to find some kind of leverage over those people so they can't cause as much trouble. Purely ideological actors, or people who don't pay attention to the conventional rules of engagement are much more annoying. In general, if you're a business, you would prefer to only deal with other businesses and (to an extent) the government. None of the conventional strategies you would use on a competitor work for Sci-hub. If you're a traditional publisher, you can't reason with Sci-hub. Sci-hub is just as large of an actor in the debate about academic publishing as any other official institution, but it refuses to be subject to the same rules as those institutions. But when people talk about competitive and regulatory forces, it's important to remember that some forces also come from outside of the system.Īdblocking is legal, but another good (less legal) example is Sci-hub. This can obviously be both a positive and a negative. People like Gorhill though are hard to control using conventional strategies, because they're not getting any money out of it, they don't have supply chains or a duty to investors that you can exploit.
#1blocker x how to#
Industries generally know how to deal with companies and senators. I'm really glad you brought that up, because it's an interesting dynamic. And also by not having a company behind it, a partnership with uBlock Origin for "acceptable ads" isn't possible.
0 kommentar(er)
