The Fediverse is inimicable to creatives.
Such a big brain take with widespread support and zero pushback.
How are creatives supposed to pay for their websites? Charge a subscription?
Nuance? Empathy? What are the point of those?
Vexing.
@Homebrewandhacking I empathise, but this "take" is from hard won lessons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
My adblocker probably won't block something like an image banner that's *not* from one of the large ad networks (there's really only Doubleclick and Meta)
I also consider ads from companies like Taboola and Outbrain a hazard to my mental health.
While we definitely need alternatives for funding art (even alternatives to Patreon and Ko-Fi), allowing unchecked JavaScript to run on my machine is not the way to go.
@voltagex @Homebrewandhacking I intentionally unblock whole domains for "friendly" advertisers who host static images and other relevant content, like Ethical Ads.
I also pay for my hosting out of pocket, or with my own electricity and residential Internet, as is the case for the handful of things I self-host. The web things are distributed across multiple providers, and the self-hosted behind Cloudflare tunnels so I have no open ports.
This.
It's not the Fediverse being against creatives, it's the ad industry being a hellish cesspool (and deeply intwined with the fascism happening in the us and elsewhere, to boot).
So we need to find different ways to allow creatives to make a living.
@Homebrewandhacking Didn't see that callout in particular, yes the original post could be worded differently but for example, somethingpositive dot net tries to load code from
zergnet dot com and intergient dot com as well as a tracker from PayPal.
If any of these were to be compromised (or sold to a bad actor) the site itself would also become a problem.
So, you would agree or disagree with the statement made that the person running that site intends you harm?
Sorry, hadn't seen any reference to somethingpositive (and tbh still can't). Well, the site pulls in too much from 3rd parties. Paypal, Google, zergnet (why on earth?) and intergient.com (an apparently defunct site - congrats). So yeah, that makes my spidysenses tingle ;)
As for alternatives: I'm supportinga german podcast with 1€ a month via direct money transfer. Sure, different genre altogether, but they are happy with it. :)
Sorry, could you do me a favour and scroll back up to the massively popular post I quoted?
It says that _all_ sites that ask you to disable your ad-blockers are intent on doing you harm. Is there any nuance there?
Go search that post. Does the thread challenge that unequivocal statement or ask for nuance.
Hence my statement which remains correct as the various blocked gobshites and dipshits cluttering up my thread attest.
Had to dig a bit, so to save folks the hassle, here's the link:
https://social.saarland/@SecurityWriter@infosec.exchange/114225506141851860
No, there's no nuance in either OP or thread. And the OP is very much a blanket statement, no discussion there. Is it necessarily wrong? Maybe not technically.
How about we can have our cake and eat it, too? The current ad industry (which is essentially: Google) is so toxic, nobody should be exposed to it, creator or user. So we ALL need better ways than this.
Sound ok? :)
*shrugs* I'm not asking people to get in a fight with this person who is, intentionally or not, against creatives existing online.
As the various sneers of "charge a subscription" demonstrate, creative work is regarded as lesser and likely not work.
None of those people would pay to look at an unknown artists work.
The dipshit saying people should self host and pay for it has no idea about hosting costs either.
Total lack of empathy and interest is widespread.
As for "It says that _all_ sites that ask you to disable your ad-blockers are intent on doing you harm.":
I can't judge a site's (rather: it's owner's) intent. But with intent or not: Disabling security measures opens one up to harm. On every site, regardless of intent. :)
I can tell you that you aren't very popular.
*nods* Your reddit.com asshole nature is bringing out the worst in me.
Rather than responding to your tired and ill-informed blather with the contempt you deserve I should block you.
single use plastique 
@ferret@fedi.workersofthe.world @Homebrewandhacking@mastodon.ie
as if any of that money even goes to 'creatives' to begin with, i think fedi is a great example of how people are very willing to pay artists and creators or anyone honestly asking for help if their consent is respected.
@Homebrewandhacking@mastodon.ie @ferret@fedi.workersofthe.world
well i could easily respond to what your saying and clarify the misinterpretation you've made here, and i would do it respectfully, but since you don't respect me i'm just gonna block you
>How are creatives supposed to pay for their websites? Charge a subscription?
....yes?
How's being part of the problem working out?
@Homebrewandhacking What do you mean? The alternative to an advertising model is for folks to actually pay creatives for their work.
@aspensmonster in fact since you're here to troll me, please enjoy this block.