You know, I'm with you here. I was just about to write a good ol'
retort to the frankly ridiculous assertions by Vijay. But then I
realised some people refuse to engage in sensible discourse.
Oh and remind me - which plug is it for free access to the "public
internet" ?
tom
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright
Sent: 28 February 2007 13:02
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [backstage] Ad Blocking
Ok Vijay. You win. Everybody block those evil adverts, and those
fools who educate and entertain me everyday (for free) can sod off down
the dole office.
J
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
Sent: 28 February 2007 12:27
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
On 28/02/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Slashdot has put content on a public network, it
serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it
all.
The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is
that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are
served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't
request the content.
No one informed me of this deal, I've signed nothing obliging me
to hold to it. I reiterate, if you don't want end users doing what they
like with your content on their PCs, don't put it on a public network.
It's up to me what my client displays and how it renders it, if you
don't like it, use a private network with terms of use forbidding ad
blockers.
> Secondly I contribute back to slashdot because I
meta-moderate, moderate and submit stories regularly
This contribution is of little or no monetary value -
and hence doesn't pay for thier salaries/bandwidth/servers etc etc. Know
anyone that makes a living from Amazon's Mechanical Turk service?
On the contrary, if no one meta-moderated, moderated or
submitted stories etc. OSTG (the owners of slashdot) would either have
no site to operate, or have to employ an army of people to do it for
them. I'm saving them quite a lot of money, combined with purchases I've
made from other OSTG sites (I've bought stuff from Think Geek), overall
they have made money from me, despite my blocking of their ads. I have
no ethical qualms about it.
> it's not the public's responsibility to fix your site
design
Bugs happen, no matter how good your
management/coders/testers are. Best to have a feedback from the end
user.
J
True, and for Public service sites (Government, Local
government, the BBC etc.) and non-commercial sites, I'll give it help,
after all it's my money being spent. However I see no need to help a
commercial site (radio stations, newspapers etc.) make money, and unless
they have good content to draw me in as a regular reader, I'll see no
need to help the with their UI design.
Secondly, they are providing me with a service for free; what
right do I have to complain? I help admin a forum for a firefox
extension (I'm not the dev, but I've been using it since the beginning,
and giving my time is my way of donating to the project); we get
millions of complaints (often rude or abusive) about the extension,
despite the fact that the dev is giving away his time and effort away
for free, yet people expect more from him than they do if they had paid
for the software (of course constructive criticism and feature requests
are welcome, but RTFM before coming to the forum with trivial requests
please).
FYI it's the Wizz RSS news reader that I'm involved in:
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/424/
