Why is that? Perhaps they get business value out of it?
> Why is that? Perhaps they get business value out of it?
Oh, they get value out of invading my privacy? Carry on then!
Ignoring the situation and context to make a comical statement doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
And all targeting Ads is bad. Because by their definition, All ads are tracking ads.
This mentality also fits the current Internet and Twitter narrative. Especially true when it is from Facebook. Which happens to be pure evil on HN, twitter sphere and MainStream Media.
Ads will at best waste my time/bandwidth/processing power and at worst compromise my privacy and/or convince me to make a bad financial decision.
I don't see why this mentality is wrong?
One thing if those micro-payments end up enriching the creators, but another when blackholed into the coffers of a few tech cos.
> but the fact that others don’t allows them to micropay for a lot of content with their time.
I'm not objecting. I do the same. But in what sense are you paying? I'm sure I'm not.
The creator isn't getting any benefit from it, but I'm still paying.
John Gruber has an ad at daringfireball.net, currently for a company called Simris. IIRC the ad is pure text, not loaded by a script, and does not track you. Other blogs (usually security professionals ime) have text-based ads that are probably part of the theme in a static site generator.
I know all of what you said, but somehow HN still thinks Ads are bad.