Major update - simpler file structure, better layouts, moar content

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/03-18-developing-the-web.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+---
+title: Developing the Web
+date_pub: 2015-03-18T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-12-01T14:39:00-05:00
+description: A "Web Developer" should "develop the web" by building their projects in accordance with their own vision of how the web should be. For me, that means using open source software to build standards-compliant, accessible, and secure sites and apps.
+content_type: journal
+tags: code internet js web WebDev
+---
+
+The great Remy Sharp ([@rem](https://twitter.com/rem)) wrote a [piece](https://remysharp.com/2015/02/26/i-am-web-developer) about what it means to be a web developer, as opposed to an engineer, and the difference a title does (or doesn't) make. In the end, he settles on the title of "web developer":
+
+> I don't know why I thought it was uncool to be a "web developer". Perhaps because it's utterly vague.
+>
+> What "web developer" does mean to me though, is this:
+>
+> Someone who writes code for browsers. Likely from the school of view source, is comfortable with drop-in libraries, understands standards and best practice techniques. But mostly, a tinkerer.
+
+I like his definition (especially the part about tinkering), but I think that it's incomplete, being merely functional.
+
+I suggest that the term "web developer", by its definition, carries a philosophical imperative: to **develop** the **web**. That is to say, a web developer should visualize how they would like the web to be (as a whole), and build their own projects in a way that reflects that vision.
+
+This is something I've tried to do myself, both in my professional and personal projects (albeit with varying degrees of success). To me, being a web developer means that I should use [responsive design principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design), [ensure accessibility](http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria), and [follow the standards](http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerevents/) wherever possible. It also means using only open source software, be it [in the server stack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29), the [service layer](http://philecms.com/), or even as a [client browser](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/).
+
+As a web developer, I want to participate in a decentralized web, and would rather use a self-hosted, fully-open [social media platform](http://withknown.com) than a corporate data silo. Likewise, I support the use of standards-based communication protocols (IRC, e-mail, etc.) over proprietary solutions. Finally, as a web developer, I believe in a more secure web, and support initiatives like [HTTPS everywhere](https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere).
+
+All in all, I think this definition adds an air of legitimacy to the "web developer" title. As I noted in a [comment](https://remysharp.com/2015/02/26/i-am-web-developer#comment-1876942490): based on this criteria, one could say that Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the definitive Web Developer (a title he himself uses, as Remy pointed out), and that's not bad company to be in. In fact, I think I'm going to go get some business cards with "Web Developer" on them.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/04-22-the-people-vs-john-deere.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+---
+title: The People vs. John Deere
+date_pub: 2015-04-22T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-12-01T14:39:00-05:00
+description: John Deere argues that farmers don't own their tractors, and this does not bode well for our IoT future.
+content_type: journal
+tags: code hacking politics privacy
+---
+
+Over at Wired, [iFixit's](https://www.ifixit.com/) Kyle Wiens ([@kwiens](https://twitter.com/kwiens)) points out that #DMCA abuse extends well beyond preventing you from [jailbreaking your PS3](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/us-government-takes-on-legal-fight-over-console-jailbreaking-once-more/) and into the world of... [farm machinery](http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/)?
+
+> In a particularly spectacular display of corporate delusion, John Deere—the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker —told the Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”
+>
+> It’s John Deere’s tractor, folks. You’re just driving it.
+
+I find this particularly worrisome with regards to the #InternetOfThings, and the possibility of forced vendor lock-in on even the most trivial of items ("I'm sorry, sir, you'll have to call a certified Moen plumber to fix your leak.")
+
+Welcome to the future. [Fight to make it better.](http://www.digitalrighttorepair.org/)

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/05-04-ethics-in-shilling-videogames.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: Ethics in Shilling Videogames
+content_type: journal
+date_pub: 2015-05-04T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:37:00-05:00
+tags: games internet politics
+---
+
+[David Wolinsky](https://twitter.com/davidwolinsky) has a [great article](http://www.unwinnable.com/2015/05/11/actually-its-about-ethics-in-shilling-videogames/#.VVR9luRXbrc) on [Unwinnable](http://www.unwinnable.com) capturing his thoughts on the whole "ethics in game journalism" / #GamerGate thing.
+
+> It’s time we retire the term “videogame journalist.”
+>
+> Most writers in the field need to accept that they, too, are marketers unless their approach or something else in the landscape shifts and changes.
+
+Part of the problem, as he sees it, is that videogame companies aren't driven to do PR with journalists that might give them serious criticism (a.k.a. bad reviews). As a result, traditional "videogame journalists" have to choose between being a PR puppet for the game companies, or not being at all.
+
+Part of the reason for this all-or-nothing attitude are the YouTube streamers, whose undeniable popularity means that they are getting courted more and more often by the game companies in lieu of print / online journalists. For example, look at [Pewdiepie](https://www.youtube.com/user/PewDiePie), and his 36-million followers:
+
+> Thirty-six million subscribers means roughly anything he puts online is more popular than Nirvana’s Nevermind (somewhere around 30 million sales) or Michael Jackson’s Bad (also around 30 million).
+>
+> Think about it. An audience that size, bigger than the population of Canada (a country), and they are all paying attention to one person’s opinions about videogames. That is staggering on a basic human level.
+
+He hits on a lot of different notes, and it does tend to run long, but it's an overall great read for anyone that wants to move beyond the black-and-white #GamerGate in-group / out-group fighting and into a serious discussion about marketing vs. journalism, and what ethics in gaming can (and should) be.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/05-22-the-web-is-dead.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: The Web is Dead! Long Live the Web!
+date_pub: 2015-05-22T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:40:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: code web WebDev
+---
+
+In browsing through some of the fallout from the arrival of [Facebook's Instant Articles](http://instantarticles.fb.com/), I stumbled across a couple of great pieces by Baldur Bjarnason ([@fakebaldur](https://twitter.com/fakebaldur)) that go a long way to explain how we got into [the situation we're in](http://www.newser.com/story/206784/facebook-instant-articles-a-tectonic-shift-in-news.html), and why it's us [web developers](http://blog.itsericwoodward.com/2015/developing-the-web) who are responsible.
+
+In the first, he takes on [the ongoing debate about apps vs. the web](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/notes/media-websites-vs-facebook/), and makes the assertion that it isn't "the web" that's broken, it's how (we) web developers are using it that's broken (emphasis his):
+
+> Here’s an absolute fact that all of these reporters, columnists, and media pundits need to get into their heads:
+>
+> The web doesn’t suck. Your websites suck.
+>
+> _All of your websites suck._
+>
+> You destroy basic usability by hijacking the scrollbar. You take native functionality (scrolling, selection, links, loading) that is fast and efficient and you rewrite it with ‘cutting edge’ javascript toolkits and frameworks so that it is slow and buggy and broken. You balloon your websites with megabytes of cruft. You ignore best practices. You take something that works and is complementary to your business and turn it into a liability.
+>
+> The lousy performance of your websites becomes a defensive moat around Facebook.
+
+In other words, if the [mobile web is dead](http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mobile-web-is-dead-long-live-the-app/), it's because we developers killed it.
+
+On a side note, I wonder if this isn't alot of the reason that millennials have increasingly [preferred using apps to browsers](https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2010/11/24/mobile-ads-shock-millennials-prefer-apps-gen-x-browsers) - because mobile browsing is, for many, a needlessly painful experience.
+
+In the [second piece](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/notes/new-age-of-html/), he even goes so far as to explain why people can't seem to get on the same page about how "the web" should be: Because they're all talking about different versions of it:
+
+> Instead of viewing the web as a single platform, it’s more productive to consider it to be a group of competing platforms with competing needs. The mix is becoming messy.
+>
+> 1. Services (e.g. forms and ecommerce, requires accessibility, reach, and security)
+> 2. Web Publishing (requires typography, responsive design, and reach)
+> 3. Media (requires rich design, involved interactivity, and DRM)
+> 4. Apps (requires modularity in design, code, and data as well as heavy OS integration)
+
+Just to drive this point home, he makes reference to the Apple Pointer issue from [earlier this year](http://studiotendra.com/2015/03/01/the-web-has-covered-the-basics):
+
+> This is just one facet of the core problem with the web as an application platform: we will never have a unified web app platform.
+>
+> What Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla want from web applications is simply too divergent for them to settle on one unified platform. That’s the reason why we’re always going to get Google apps that only work in Chrome, Apple Touch APIs that are modelled on iOS’s native touch model, and Microsoft Pointer APIs that reflect their need to support both touch and mouse events on a single device at the same time. There really isn’t an easy way to solve this because standardisation hinges on a common set of needs and use cases which these organisations just don’t share.
+
+A more conspiracy-minded individual might even believe most of the major vendors would be better off if the standards never really do work out, since it would prevent "native-esque" web apps from cutting into their bottom-lines in their respective app stores. But I digress.
+
+Speaking for myself, I know that I had never really considered this point when talking / ranting about "the web". What's more, I wonder if half of our inability to come to agreement on some of these issues is simply a matter of terminology getting in the way of having meaningful conversations. I mean, apps aren't "better" than "the web", because they are essentially part of (one form of) it: they use the same web protocols (HTTP / HTML) as the rest of the "browsable" web, they just use them on the back-end before glossing it over with a pretty "native" front end.
+
+In fact, one might argue that this is the reason that the one area of web standards that has actually seen some progress in the past few months is the [HTTP2 spec](https://http2.github.io/) - an update to how data is transmitted on-the-wire, which should bring notable speed and security improvements to anyone that uses HTTP (including all of those native apps I mentioned earlier). After all, improving this part of "the web" is the one thing that all of the players involved can agree on.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/06-03-an-act-of-freedom.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: An Act of Freedom, But For Whom?
+date_pub: 2015-06-03T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:43:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: politics privacy surveillance
+---
+
+On this most auspicious day, when the [USA FREEDOM Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act) passed through the Senate on it's way to president's desk, I spent the afternoon listening to some of law professors [Eben Moglen's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen) excellent talks about [Snowden and the Future](http://snowdenandthefuture.info/index.html).
+
+One of the things that I noticed he mentioned, which I don't recall hearing anywhere else, is our (the US citizenry) continued complacency about spying, as long as they aren't spying on Americans.
+
+> Military control ensured absolute command deference with respect to the fundamental principle which made it all "all right," which was: "No Listening Here." The boundary between home and away was the boundary between absolutely permissible and absolutely impermissible—between the world in which those whose job it is to kill people and break things instead stole signals and broke codes, and the constitutional system of ordered liberty.
+
+Of course, we all know how that turned out:
+
+> Not only had circumstances destroyed the simplicity of "no listening inside," not only had fudging with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act carried them into the land where law no longer provided them with useful landmarks, but they wanted to do it—let's be frank, they wanted to do it. Their view of the nature of human power was Augustan if not august. They wanted what it is forbidden to wise people to take unto themselves. And so they fell, and we fell with them.
+
+Nearly every time that the USA PATRIOT Act is demonized in the press (even the leftist press), it seems to only be because the NSA dared to spy on _us_. But, shouldn't we be questioning why they have to have such a large net at all, irrespective of the national boundaries?
+
+Or, as professor Moglen so succinctly put it (emphasis mine):
+
+> The empire of the United States, the one that secured itself by listening to everything, was the empire of exported liberty. What we had to offer all around the world was freedom—after colonization, after European theft, after the forms of twentieth-century horror we haven't even talked about yet—we offered liberty; we offered freedom.
+> ...
+> It is, of course, utterly inconsistent with the American ideal to attempt to fasten the procedures of totalitarianism on American constitutional self-governance... Partly, as I shall suggest next time, because freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all. But primarily because _there is an even deeper inconsistency between American ideals and the subjection of every other society on earth to the procedures of totalitarianism_.
+
+Something to think about the next time someone talks about "freedom".

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/06-18-the-art-of-authorship.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: The Art of Authorship and Appropriation
+date_pub: 2015-06-18T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:49:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: art copyright web
+---
+
+Christopher Sprigman [takes another look](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/richard-prince-instagram-and-authorship-in-a-digital-world) at Richard Prince's Instagram Exhibit, and makes some bold conclusions:
+
+> Prince’s body of appropriation art is provoking a reassessment of the meaning of authorship at a time when ownership of creative works in our digital world is tenuous. Anyone with access to the Internet can take something made by others, copy it, change it, and distribute it at the click of a mouse. In this context, we can see that authorship is not a stable concept, but rather that it shifts as technology weakens the link between an “originator” and his work. You may like that or hate that; Prince is pointing it out, in the direct way that only art can.
+
+As a would-be artist whose done some "appropriation art" myself (as well as a longtime fan of perpetual copyright-trolls, [Negativland](http://negativland.com)), I find this whole discussion fascinating. However, I have to admit that I'm more than a bit surprised at the sums he's been able to get for his "re"-work, and the implication that one man's copyright infringement is another man's high-brow art.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/06-30-two-hard-things.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: Two Hard Things
+date_pub: 2015-06-30T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:51:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: code computers humor
+---
+
+Came across this little ditty today, via [Martin Fowler](http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html):
+
+> There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.
+>
+> -- Phil Karlton
+
+Personally, though, I prefer the corollary:
+
+> There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
+
+Too true.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/07-10-smartphone-cryptogeddon.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: Smartphone Cryptogeddon
+date_pub: 2015-07-10T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:57:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: code fear internet politics privacy
+---
+
+After yesterday's Senate committee hearing on encryption, wherein both [FBI Director James Comey](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/fbi-chief-tells-senate-committee-were-doomed-without-crypto-backdoors/) and [New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/this-is-the-most-outrageous-government-tirade-against-ios-8-encryption/) made some pretty nasty comments about strong encryption on smartphones and the apocolyptic-problems it could bring, I thought it might be a good idea to remind everyone of what [Representative Ted Lieu of California said back in April](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/irate-congressman-gives-cops-easy-rule-just-follow-the-damn-constitution/) about why some users wanted smartphone encryption in the first place:
+
+> Why do you think Apple and Google are doing this? It's because the public is demanding it. People like me: privacy advocates. A public does not want an out-of-control surveillance state. It is the public that is asking for this. Apple and Google didn't do this because they thought they would make less money. This is a private sector response to government overreach.
+>
+> ...
+>
+> [T]o me it's very simple to draw a privacy balance when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn Constitution.
+>
+> And because the NSA didn't do that and other law enforcement agencies didn't do that, you're seeing a vast public reaction to this. Because the NSA, your colleagues, have essentially violated the Fourth Amendment rights of every American citizen for years by seizing all of our phone records, by collecting our Internet traffic, that is now spilling over to other aspects of law enforcement. And if you want to get this fixed, I suggest you write to NSA: the FBI should tell the NSA, stop violating our rights. And then maybe you might have much more of the public on the side of supporting what law enforcement is asking for.
+>
+> Then let me just conclude by saying I do agree with law enforcement that we live in a dangerous world. And that's why our founders put in the Constitution of the United States—that's why they put in the Fourth Amendment. Because they understand that an Orwellian overreaching federal government is one of the most dangerous things that this world can have.
+
+It might be worth point out that Rep. Lieu is one of four House members with computer science degrees, is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserves, _and_ served for four years as a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, making him (IMHO) someone knowledgeable in this area.
+
+And it just so happens that [fourteen of the world's top computer security experts](http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSAIL-TR-2015-026.pdf) agree with him, but who's counting.

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/07-15-on-william-gibson.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: On William Gibson and Cyberspace
+date_pub: 2015-07-15T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T14:59:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: computers cyberpunk philosophy
+---
+
+I've been on vacation for the last couple of days, and have used some of the time to finish reading William Gibson's excellent "Sprawl" series.
+
+I actually read the first book in the series, _Neuromancer_, some 14 years ago, and always meant to get back to it, but just never did. Then, about 2 years ago, I re-read _Neuromancer_ and dove straight into the second book, _Count Zero_, before again losing momentum and abandoning the series. While packing for our vacation, I happened across my copy of the third and final book in the series, _Mona Lisa Overdrive_, and I made the decision to use this vacation as an opportunity to finally finish reading the series, a feat that I accomplished just yesterday.
+
+First, I have to say that I loved the book. You can tell that Gibson's style got more focused as the series went on, making each book better than the last. Also, the series fits his style well -- he has a habit of creating apparently unrelated strands of storytelling, featuring characters that don't seem to have anything to do with each other, and bringing them together in the climax. In that way, _Mona Lisa Overdrive_ serves as the climax of the series itself, bringing apparently unrelated characters and story elements from the first two books together (along with some new ones) into an explosive ending.
+
+Much of what I like about the series are the background elements, like the way he describes the sprawl and the histories of his characters. But, most of all, I love the idea of [cyberspace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberspace):
+
+> Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts... A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding.
+
+As a computer nerd whose been into networking information and virtual worlds since the days of BBSing (and through into MUDs, the web, and even [OpenSimulator](http://opensimulator.org), for a little while), the notion of connecting to digital realms directly via ones own mind has always appealed to me. In fact, one of the most depressing things about the books, to me, is that in the nearly 30 years since they were published, very little of that technology [has come to pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface).

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/07-21-rss-atom-comeback.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: RSS & Atom Making a Comeback?
+date_pub: 2015-07-21T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T15:01:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: internet js rss web
+---
+
+[Baldur Bjarnason thinks he knows](https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/notes/the-rules-have-changed-for-rss/) why RSS and Atom have come back into vogue, powering both Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles after years of disuse:
+
+> There’s one thing that’s very different this time around for RSS and Atom and it’s the reason why this time it might be different. Back then ‘just the HTML, no CSS, JS, or Flash’ meant nothing more than rich text with images.
+>
+> Now, ‘just the HTML’ means rich text, video, audio, SVG, and more. While at the same time ‘HTML with CSS and JS’ has come to mean slow loading websites full of annoying ads and broken functionality (i.e. scroll-jacking).
+
+It's that last point (again) that's the most important, IMHO, but it's also the one that seems to be [falling on deaf ears](https://blog.itsericwoodward.com/2015/self-fulfilling-prophecymicahgodboltstatus623180750142058496).

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/07-22-fatigue-and-mastery.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+---
+title: Fatigue and Mastery
+date_pub: 2015-07-22T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T15:21:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: code js philosophy
+---
+
+Tero Parviainen has a nice piece about [Overcoming Javascript Framework Fatigue](http://teropa.info/blog/2015/07/15/overcoming-javascript-framework-fatigue.html), but don't let the title fool you - much of the advice can be applied those who work (and live) in most any rapidly-evolving field. Plus, it contains [one of the best quotes](https://gist.github.com/prakhar1989/1b0a2c9849b2e1e912fb) from Rich Hickey (the creator of [Clojure](http://clojure.org/)) about what skills a developer really needs to have (and those skills have nothing to do with preferred language or framework):
+
+> Programming mastery has little to do with languages, paradigms, platforms, building blocks, open source, conferences etc. These things change all the time and are not fundamental. Knowledge acquisition skills allow you to grok them as needed. I'd take a developer (or even non-developer!) with deep knowledge acquisition and problem solving skills over a programmer with a smorgasbord of shallow experiences any day.
+
+Via [JavaScript Weekly](http://javascriptweekly.com/issues/241)

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/07-29-anti-gmo-scaremongering.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+---
+title: Anti-GMO Scaremongering
+date_pub: 2015-07-29T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2018-11-04T15:25:00-05:00
+content_type: journal
+tags: fear gmo politics science
+---
+
+> The people who push GMO labels and GMO-free shopping aren’t informing you or protecting you. They’re using you. They tell food manufacturers, grocery stores, and restaurants to segregate GMOs, and ultimately not to sell them, because people like you won’t buy them. They tell politicians and regulators to label and restrict GMOs because people like you don’t trust the technology. They use your anxiety to justify GMO labels, and then they use GMO labels to justify your anxiety. Keeping you scared is the key to their political and business strategy. And companies like Chipotle, with their non-GMO marketing campaigns, are playing along.
+
+[Unhealthy Fixation](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html), William Saletan

src/sitePosts/journal/2015/09-18-commercial-web-dying.md

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+---
+title: The (Commercial) Web is Dying? So What?
+content_type: journal
+date_pub: 2015-09-18T00:00:00-04:00
+date_upd: 2021-07-10T23:44:00-04:00
+description: In defense of ad-blockers and a demonetizied web.
+tags: web money blogging
+---
+Lately, there seems to have been a up-tick in the [never](http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ad-blocking-is-stealing,news-20962.html)-[ending](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml) [debate](http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/17/9338963/welcome-to-hell-apple-vs-google-vs-facebook-and-the-slow-death-of-the-web) about the web, advertising, and content-blocking. While Apple's recent [introduction of content-blockers in iOS9](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/releasenotes/General/WhatsNewInSafari/Articles/Safari_9.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014305-CH9-SW8) is the most proximate reason for this discussion, it isn't a new battle, and has been raging for [quite some time](http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love/). The basic argument is that many sites rely on advertising revenue to cover not just their costs, but also to turn a profit. And these web-based companies are (justifiably) concerned that ad-blocking could reduce (or destroy) that revenue stream, which might force them to shutdown.
+
+To which I say, "so what?"
+
+I'm not trying to be mean, but the fact is that [lots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_retailers_of_the_United_States) and [lots](http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/) of businesses are forced to close every year, and many (most?) of them close because they have what some might call a "flawed business model". Like [some others](http://entreproducer.com/online-advertising/), I believe that's exactly what the "web advertising" model is, because if it wasn't, no one would be blocking the ads, there would be no heated discussion about it, and blog posts like this one would never exist. I mean, some may liken ad-blocking to stealing, but others see it for what it actually is - [disruption](http://www.ideafaktory.com/technology/ad-blocking-web-of-lies/).
+
+Look, I've been online long enough to remember the early attempts at monetizing the web: first came the embedded banner ads, which paid-per-view, but were easily ignored by end users; then came the pop-up (and pop-under) ads, which were still pay-per-view, but which couldn't be ignored (unless you turned them off, since they relied on JavaScript); then came embedded banners with a "pay-per-click" model, which didn't work because nobody wanted to actually click the links. And as each one rose to prominence, there were always those crying for people to engage with their ads ("If you don't click on one of my ads, I'll be forced to shut my site down!"). But the web remains.
+
+And that's part of why I titled this the way I did. Even if the commercial web went away (which, let's be honest, it probably won't), it wouldn't be the end of the world: many sites which rely on [donations](https://wikipedia.org) or [subscriptions](http://ft.com/) would remain, as would [storefronts](https://amazon.com/) and sites that support [physical](https://samsung.com) [things](http://hasbro.com). Plus, there are still many sites which are run more-or-less as hobbies, paid for by the people [who run them](https://itsericwoodward.com/). And, despite what the anti-blockers would say, there are [other successful revenue models out there](https://medium.com/on-blendle/blendle-a-radical-experiment-with-micropayments-in-journalism-365-days-later-f3b799022edc).
+
+So, if you are a blogger or news site who is concerned about how this change will affect your bottom line, you have my sympathy: not because I block your ads (which I do), but because you put your faith in a fundamentally flawed business model (and believe me, [you aren't the only one](http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/06/03/no-readers-have-no-obligation-to-support-a-publishers-flawed-model-or-bad-decisions/)). If, however, you think I'm wrong, then I encourage you to take the next obvious step and start blocking (or [Comic Sans-ing](https://twitter.com/howtogeek/status/638861518575173632)) users who run ad blockers. If your content is worth viewing ads for, then people who run blockers will turn them off just so they can see it. But be prepared for the horrifying truth: when people have to actually pay for something (either with their eyeballs and "unblock" buttons, or with cold-hard cash), your site may not be good/interesting/original enough to actually generate revenue. Again, you have my sympathy... but not my cooperation.
+
+[It has recently been asked](http://oleb.net/blog/2015/08/is-it-immoral-to-not-block-ads/) what the web might have looked like if the ad-based model had never taken off. Since we can't rewind the clock, we can't know for sure what course history may have taken in that instance. But if we keep running ad-blockers long enough, we may yet find out.