Only reason I caved and joined Facebook a few years ago was to get access to a group dedicated to Boston Whaler boats. There were two previously-thriving forums that were slowly dying. The forums were great. The Facebook group was not better, just alive.
Probably true with most successful things. Marketplace is just a low barrier to entry for people already using Facebook. I find it generally terrible, but that's where people are selling.
Running a 2009 Mac Mini in a business setting. Connected to a barcode scanner within a local python development environment and communicates over a wired network. Runs 24/7 with barely an issue.
A stream in my community that had been rerouted and straightened in the name of both farming and development was recently restored to a more natural course, including its flood plains. Beavers came back quickly. Most obvious sign, beyond the dams and ponds created, are the signature pointed stumps and felled trees. Some are significant in size, and have actually fallen across trails and roads. They have fenced around some trees bordering roads, and have gone in to do see preventative trimming. Pretty cool.
For #1, I appreciate your approach. I can see the benefit. However, something to be said for allowing kids to consume music, as an example, on their own terms, just as you were likely able to.
Can't argue with #2 or #3. I know I could always manage my screen time better.
Love #4. I think the previous three could be "See #4."
There is only so much you can control as a parent. Do the best you can with what you can control. Be a good example. Help them learn from mistakes. There are certainly more appropriate ages than others to expose children to technology, media, etc. Whatever you decide, just know that they will eventually have the freedom to find it on their own. The important thing then is how well prepared are they to make healthy and positive choices at that time.
Interesting point to consider. I recently questioned the validity of a statement made by a newsletter publisher related to a repeatedly-debunked conspiracy theory that he used to attempt to bolster his point. It reeked of irony.
I politely asked for a fact-check on it in the comments section, as I otherwise enjoyed and agreed with the substance of the post. He both removed the claim in question and my comment.
I was unsure of how to feel about this. Those who had already read the post online or still had the original in their inbox were left with the misinformation from what they may consider a trusted source.
I believed it would have been better to edit out the false information, leave my comment, and reply with clarification on the editing and why.
Likewise, this practice of dynamically-edited online content is actually relevant to the topic of PG's post and the role it plays in replacing the traditional constraints on printed media.
I use the silent mode on my Apple Watch. It does require topping off the battery in the early evenings and/or keeping it on the charger after I wake up until after showering.
Absolutely I have skin in the game. Do you never benefit from free content, tools or services that exist only because the opportunity to monetize through advertising is possible?
I display a single banner ad on a website that offers a free business tool, as an example.
I also do the same on a free business tool where I also offer a paid, advanced, ad-free version. If a user sticks around for 30 seconds, which most do (average time on both ad-supported sites is more than six minutes), then the freemium site pops up a message alerting them to the paid option.
No obligations and no restrictions on the free versions.
I don't make significant amounts from ads or subscriptions, but I would have no incentive beyond this to continue to offer these services, which many appear to find valuable and use for commercial purposes.
I frequent many free sites/tools that benefit from my visit, and I benefit from their offering for both business and personal reasons. I understand and agree to the transaction occurring.
Outlandish comparisons like you offer completely miss the mark and dilute the legitimate arguments for the use of ad-blockers, which I do believe exist. But I will offer an equally outlandish counterpoint: You prefer a world where over-policing would occur and round up innocent victims with criminals? "Most crimes are committed by males aged 18-25, if we round them all up, we will drastically reduce crime!" Hyperbole, I know. But probably more applicable than your argument for the use of ad blockers.
As I said before, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Using an adblocker allows for a cleaner, safer internet for the user. No doubt about that. It also, it has to be acknowledged, sweeps the good under the rug with the bad. Period. All-or-nothing enforcement is your proposition. Again, that simply has to be acknowledged. There is no debate there. If you believe that will ultimately lead to a better internet, then that is where we can disagree, as that is entirely subjective.
While we likely agree there are egregious abusers of both user experience and privacy, I don't believe I have a fundamental right to define how a website is allowed to present their content and/or monetize it. But I do retain the right, which I frequently practice, to leave a webpage and utilize alternate sources in that moment and in the future.
I mean, sure, if you insist and make site-level negotiations with yourself about the value of the content.
Here’s a simple example for me:
I search Google for how to perform an operation in an Excel spreadsheet. I skip past the obvious ads at the top first. I click on a promising result on a user forum, but first have to click through a popup and then have a banner covering a third of the screen and a small inset screen with a video. That’s too much for me. I stop and go back to Google. I pick another option. And I may remember that forum is not worth the click in the future.
We make decisions like this online and offline every day. The fact is there are many valuable sites and services that are ad supported and done so responsibly. Not all, but many. Ad blockers are a blunt tool. Installing one on grandma’s browser is a constructive use, but not just because “ads are bad.”
That’s glib. It is possible to discern websites that are safe, respect privacy and are generally pleasing to visit without an ad blocker. If you deem them unsafe, leave, don’t log entirely off the internet.
I’m not saying you are telling me to. I’m pointing out that you are depriving sites from their chosen method of monetization while continuing to consume their content. Effectively “averting your eyes” from their ads, instead of just not visiting the site.
I’m not accusing you of anything. It’s just simply what you are doing. It’s the mental gymnastics these threads are always full of justifying the wholesale disavowal of all ad-supported content that is hard to follow.
It’s baffling to me why you would insist on consuming content produced by such dangerous abusers of your security and privacy. And then thrusting your opinion that all content should be free onto all sites monetized by ads is further confusing.
I guess we are going down a rabbit hole that 12ft-dot-io doesn't specifically address — it doesn't bypass paywalls. Regardless, #2 is an option. And the choice is entirely yours.
I get more peeved at the entitlement many feel to use ad blockers and rail against content producers monetizing their sites, when the choice to not consume the content is an option. Ask my why I gave up twitter a few weeks ago :)