shanecleveland

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.

A lot of beautiful scenery, and the locations themselves are like characters in the show.

Love Twin Peaks. Puget Sound resident here. I can see the big driftwood log Laura Palmer was found next to from my window.

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.

Hatchet (Gary Paulsen)

Safari has also been buggy on Stripe's dashboard.

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.

Did you think I would deny or hide that?

Are all ads, and are all sites that serve ads evil?

I know you visit sites that serve ads. And you may even block them, Gasp!

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.

Marco said said it better than me: https://marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good

No doubt.

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.”

> Because I'm not an ascetic monk.

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 :)

I liked Apple News for a bit, but the more I used it, the more it felt like an algorithmic echo chamber like all other social media.

While this is generally true for legacy publications (impossible to cancel!), I mostly enjoy paying for niche-topic newsletters from a single source. A great example is a former newspaper journalist who was laid off and now produces his own newsletter focused on a single college football team. He probably makes more now than when a newspaper employee. I am a happy subscriber. I pay for a handful of these. I also subscribe to newsletters like "Morning Brew." while free and ad-supported, it is well done.

I guess I fail to see how one can entirely remove how fully voluntary the visiting of a webpage is. It is how the web works! And how all kinds of "free" media has worked for eons.

I don't mean to excuse incredibly poor user experience design, and certainly not abusive tactics. But sorry if I have zero empathy for your clicking, loading and scrolling pain. Leave the website! It is amazing how many people are defending a site that claims to "Remove popups, banners, and ads" while: 1 - failing to even work. and: 2 - shows it's an ad on the resulting page!

And then 12ft-dot-io throws an error, but still shows its own ad in the bottom right corner! But you probably knew that since you constructively use them.

100%. And sometimes that form of payment is putting up with ads, etc. I routinely back out of sites that suddenly take over the screen with a popup or take up large chunks with video or animations. Same as opting not to go in a particular store. But I also stick around and occasionally use products advertised to me. Shocking, I know.

So back out of the webpage and don't read it. That is a constructive way of letting a content producer know their user experience is not worth the "expense" of consuming their product. But if the content is worth your time and energy to consume, pay the "price" of admission.

Boat resto and outboard engine maintenance. On my second, bigger restoration (old fiberglass boats). Knee deep in electrical right now. I really want to get a smaller two-stroke outboard and fully take it apart and rebuild it, and work my way up to larger engines.

Want to get into some sewing. I believe this is an incredibly undervalued skill.

I agree. As I said in another comment, you have the right to not visit sites in the same way you have the right to change your TV channel. But what you cannot do on your TV is strip away ads and force a channel to only show programming.

My pie-in-the-sky theory is that if enough people avoided "abusive" ad sites, they would change their behavior. But if ad blockers are used instead, the bad sites get more abusive to circumvent them, and the responsible sites become unsustainable.

Perfectly said. Your readers do not have to use your website, they choose to. And they can choose to leave your website, and they can choose not to click on your affiliate links.

When and ad comes on the radio, I can change the station. When an add comes on the TV, I can change the channel. I cannot force either one to not broadcast the ad to me and go back to normal programming.

So the car pictures you cut out were not free. Not a good comparison.

Unless you are saying you would be willing to pay up front for every website you want to visit. Is that right?