blocking ads is evil grr
HTTP is a pull-based medium. it is within the original philosophy of HTTP to selectively pull the data, for example, a device that doesn't support images won't download them. by circumventing ad "blocking", you are spitting in the face of HTTP. a more accurate term would be ad rejection. ads are not "blocked", they are simply not asked for.
now give me a seat on W3C you animals
LOOK UPON MY GOOD TAKE. READ IT AND ABSORB MY GENIUS INTO YOUR PATHETIC MIND
@lynnesbian love you
not smooching dani
smooching dani right on her little snoot
@lynnesbian aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa yes pls
@lynnesbian the bune queen's throne
@lynnesbian it's only money.
@lynnesbian hey remember when people donated to Lunduke to get him in the W3C????????????
all I'm saying is.... you are a lot more likeable than Lunduke.....
@lynnesbian imagine: literally sitting on the w3c
@aral @lynnesbian push isn't forced; the protocol sends a push frame to say it wants to push and the client is ultimately in control of accepting or rejecting it. The binary format saves processing time (e.g. faster) on both ends, in both directions, and takes less bandwidth to transport and power, making it better for the environment.
@dshafik @aral @lynnesbian I think it's popular here to hate Google, justified or not.
A lot of the tech enables soooo many cool things but "nooo they just want to push ads on you". Ffs people, there's a guy running a free photoshop in a browser. Web and web getting capabilities is a _good_ thing for us all!
As for HTTP/2, it's not a #Google thing, but Google is who gains a comparative competitive advantage by its introduction and implementation complexity.
We should always remember that each increment in complexity strengthen the position of the biggest players and often half-addresses the problem they created.
I don’t know shit about ad “block” and I have a question
@lynnesbian So does this mean that sites still get ad revenue? That’s kinda the #1 reason I don’t use ad “blockers”.
@DylTheFunkyHomosexual blocking ads means that the website doesn't get and revenue, yes
@lynnesbian I see. It took me a while for me to understand your original post
@DylTheFunkyHomosexual yeah it was kinda nerdy
it was a post about the philosophy of HTTP and how it relates to ad blocking
i.e., nerd garbage
@lynnesbian don’t worry about it being nerdy. I make obscure jokes only I get all day
@lynnesbian @DylTheFunkyHomosexual Yes, but a web site has to be seeing ad impressions in the hundreds of thousands of hits per day to even really make a reasonable amount of money off the ads. My tiny web site, for example, was getting configured to run freaking MacKeeper ads, and it sees maybe 600 hits per month, and it would probably get me my first ever $100 deposit in revenue after 5 years or more. Then again, more of my typical users are likely to block than the usual tiny average.
not one single fav
we're dicks aren't we
@cdmnky favs just don't federate, there are plenty of favs
@lynnesbian Spitting in the face of specifications is routine for businesses.
• Google proposes a modern push-based replacement for HTTP(S)
• Chrome starts marking HTTP* as insecure, then removes the support
@lynnesbian ads are bandwidth theft and processor misuse.
@lynnesbian HTTP/2 isn't pull-based
Although as far as I know no ad provider uses push yet
@irl companies intentionally don't do that with ads to make them harder to block
I like this line of thinking, that ad blocking is fundamental to the founding philosophy of the web.
And if you don't want to serve content without ads, then don't. That's what Forbes does (or at least did 2 years ago), and is why I just don't ever visit their site.
@lynnesbian YESSSS FINALLY THE REAL TAKE
@lynnesbian Well it's mainly pull based but you can also send a post request. On the other hand when a script is already downloaded and it tries to access some remote data is that blocking?
@lynnesbian sorry, my browser doesn't support ads
@lynnesbian they hated her because she spoke the truth
@lynnesbian web-based advertising over avian carriers
@email@example.com's anti-chud pro-skub instance for funtimes