| |||||||||||||
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)Posted Jun 8, 2012 20:35 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)In reply to: Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) by AndreE Parent article: Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review)
Did you ever occur to you that this site only exist due to the work of a lot of people on free software development ? That somehow free software are not bundled with ads to cater for the "the realities of doing such a development", and that developers could expect the same courtesy here without any feeling of entitlement, especially when they are subscribers ?
Jon is always claiming that ads bring very little money and yet is unwilling to part with this practice.
(Log in to post comments)
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 8, 2012 21:02 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
every free software developer faces "the realities of doing such a development", some deal with it by having other jobs, some deal with it by running their own companies, some deal with it by getting hired to do the developement full time.
any project where they developers don't deal with "the realities of doing such a development" in some way will die when the savings accounts of the developers run out and all development stops.
Besides, and Android and iOS a lot of free software _does_ get bundled with ads to pay for it :-)
LWN advertisements may not bring in a lot of money, but they apparently bring in enough to be noticable or they would not be leaving them on. I'm sure that if someone were to offer to sponser LWN for enough money on the condition that advertisements went away, Jon would be willing to agree.
Ads Posted Jun 8, 2012 22:29 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] They actually bring in a bit more than they used to now that we have Linux New Media doing the sales for us. It's still a relatively small part of our total revenue picture, but it's definitely enough to make a difference.
Ads and the Linux New Media cookie explained Posted Jun 9, 2012 1:47 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] now that we have Linux New Media doing the sales for us. Oh, so that explains where the linuxnewmedia.com cookie is coming from. At least it isn't advertising for Microsoft. It scares me sometimes how pervasive banner ads (and the companies hosting them) try so hard to push their way onto my desktop (and into my life), but I guess that's just business. Oh well, welcome to the online world of We-Want-All-Your-Personal-Info... P.S. As I said in my comment linked above (from August 2008), and still feel this way, I do realize our editors have to make a living, and I applaud them for being creative in how to keep LWN afloat. I disabled ads some time ago, and now I'm feeling a little guilty for doing so. (I'll re-enable ads after posting this comment.)
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 9, 2012 10:45 UTC (Sat) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Yes, it is quite obvious to me that this site exists because of free software, much like Groklaw exists because of legislation targeting Linux, Lifehacker exists because others write software, the Wall Street Journal exists because businesses are doing business, etc. etc. That reporters depend on the reported is true by definition, and so it's not that interesting. It also has very little to do with the quality of the reporting in question
This site really exists because someone takes to the time and energy to research, write, and edit the content. It's a valuable service and the quality of this site is in my opinion superior to any other site writing about Linux. To suggest that charging a subscription fee for such content is akin to extortion is just absurd.
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 9, 2012 23:08 UTC (Sat) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
> To suggest that charging a subscription fee for such content is akin to extortion is just absurd.
This may explain why nobody made that claim.
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 9, 2012 23:49 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
what do you call this statement
"Yeah, so first they bombard me with annoying stuff, then they try to extort money from me to stop the discomfort they intentionally caused me in the first place."
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 10:54 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
The OP is not complaining about having to pay to access content, but rather to have to pay not to receive ads (quite the opposite in fact).
When it is so easy to install ads filtering technology, attempt to extract money from users unable to do so can be aptly described as extortion.
And for those not blocking the ads out of respect of LWN, this is not economically viable: instead just buy an extra "starving hacker" LWN subscription, this will get more money to LWN while costing you less in the long run. Adding intermediary always increase cost.
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 11:14 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
given that paid subscribers of LWN do not see advertisements, if he was willing to pay he wouldn't be worrying about the ads
Doctorow: The Curious Case of Internet Privacy (Technology Review) Posted Jun 11, 2012 12:18 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
This is untrue: at the lowest subscription levels, subscribers still see the ads.
|
|||||||||||||