Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just doesn’t feel good

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 315 posts

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#121

Post by rm999 »

ixtli wrote: post #55

I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? Annoying advertisements are, in practice, the result of people failing to be creative in monetization. Ars Technica, for instance, has done a great job of integrating ads in…

The way online monetization currently works is extremely inefficient for pretty much everyone involved, and it will change. I recently worked in the ad tech industry and I know this first hand: publishers have been feeling the heat of dropping ad prices, advertisers have been seeing terrible ROIs, and consumers have been getting fed up with a poor online experience.

No one is going to stop changes from happening - market effects are in play here. But change always comes with pain for some, and not everyone wants to directly be involved with that pain.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#122

Post by notNow »

ixtli wrote: post #55

I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? Annoying advertisements are, in practice, the result of people failing to be creative in monetization. Ars Technica, for instance, has done a great job of integrating ads in…

Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else?

No but you didn't compensate the content creator with anything to demand a superb UX. When you pay them or exchange anything of value in return of the content you consume unless they're giving it explicitly for free, you could then argue that web advertising is degrading the UX.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#123

Post by potatolicious »

jsonne wrote: post #99
mitchty wrote: post #39

Here is the whole thing about ad supported sites: We are worth a lot less than you think, and also overall an individuals monthly worth in advertisements is also small. https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ Turns out, we're worth about $6.20/mo in advertising. Lets just round this up to $10/month to not have ads but still support sites we visit. If content providers aren't working on an alternative like the above, I…

>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... This is an extremely simplistic view of the world. You can go on thinking that you're really only sticking it to coca-cola or walmart, but the truth of the matter is that 50% of digital ads (At least on facebook) are SMBs. They're sta…

> "You're sticking it to the little guy."

And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around.

Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same.

If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them.

Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet.

Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies.

But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#124

Post by ixtli »

benihana wrote: post #118
ixtli wrote: post #55

I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? Annoying advertisements are, in practice, the result of people failing to be creative in monetization. Ars Technica, for instance, has done a great job of integrating ads in…

> Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? No. I value UX over almost everything, but you have to realize that your values don't exist in a vacuum. Without something to keep the lights on and the AC blowing air on the servers, UX is pointless and doesn't amount to anything.

But what you're supposing is that there is _no way_ for people to profit off of their content except to bother me with invasive advertising. I simply can't accept this: the history of our industry and capitalism as a whole is a case study in how clever people are at monetization.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#125

Post by robotresearcher »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27
Moshe_Silnorin wrote: post #12

If you are getting money from a legal activity you consider morally unsound, consider donating the profits to a charity GiveWell recommends. Some other service will pick up the slack, so throwing in the towel and your profits is a very inefficient means of stopping that act you consider to be morally unsound. In fact, you're subsidizing those without moral scruples. Stopping this because it "feels wrong" is odd. Dona…

Do what you feel is morally wrong, and give away the profits? That's... bad ethics. "It's wrong, but it's for the greater good, so it's OK!" should be a major red flag. It says that what you're doing is wrong, you know it's wrong, and you're rationalizing. What lies down that road is the destruction of such morals as you currently have. Don't go there.

Governments do this on a massive scale with lotteries. I agree it's very dodgy ethically.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#126

Post by mitchty »

jsonne wrote: post #99
mitchty wrote: post #39

Here is the whole thing about ad supported sites: We are worth a lot less than you think, and also overall an individuals monthly worth in advertisements is also small. https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ Turns out, we're worth about $6.20/mo in advertising. Lets just round this up to $10/month to not have ads but still support sites we visit. If content providers aren't working on an alternative like the above, I…

>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... This is an extremely simplistic view of the world. You can go on thinking that you're really only sticking it to coca-cola or walmart, but the truth of the matter is that 50% of digital ads (At least on facebook) are SMBs. They're sta…

> I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy.

And that is the exact reason I noted there needs to be an alternative to "my site is ONLY supported by ads". Right now all of this is predicated on that assumption.

I challenge that as being necessary, which is why I also noted the google effort which while great for google ads, does nothing for other ad networks.

Hopefully that clarifies things as apparently you think I'm against supporting businesses despite my efforts in making that abundantly clear that I am not trying to deprive people of money for their content. I'm unable to right now provide support outside of viewing ads, and that isn't just my problem, its the content providers as well.

Taking the easy way out and saying I am the issue with not wanting to view ads and not that all of the parties involved is not very convincing. I do not buy into it being a moral view, nor ethical for that matter.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#127

Post by bcrescimanno »

cjensen wrote: post #20

Lots of people here trying to infer motives. Why not just believe what he says? He's a guy who has enough money, wants to do what he loves, and doesn't enjoy controversy. He's hacker enough to want to muck about with how to make a blocker, but it's not his joy. Basically, he's what many of us aspire to be.

I don't want to infer motives because I don't know. I will say that I am among those who doesn't really believe this is simply a morality tale. There are several folks here, like yourself, who are basically saying, "yeah, I can understand the mentality of not wanting to do and ad-blocker because of the moral grey area" I can understand that as well.

What I can't understand is the quite sudden change of heart 2 days after launching the product. I don't think people here are questioning whether developers are willing to forego their own financial gain for their moral ease (the very existence of the FSF makes it clear that there is a willingness). It's simply a very sudden turn for someone who previously demonstrated no such compunction.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#128

Post by scott_s »

inversionOf wrote: post #104
arrrg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kick kittens because you didn’t really think about it, then you think about it and you stop. Humans make errors in judgement all the time. That’s just ordinary. Also, he himself clearly says that he doesn’t think blocking ads is somehow undoubtedly immoral (like kicking kittens) or something. He makes a much more subtle argument, basically saying it’s a complex issue and he doesn’t feel confident in his ability t…

especially if you expected this app to be not very popular in the first place The anticipation about adblockers on iOS has been fervent and growing for a while now. Marco went and setup an agreement with one of the larger purveyors of block lists, then utilizing that to all advantages to corner the market. I find it highly dubious that he didn't think it would be lucrative. The ramifications and gray area of adblocki…

What argument are you making? The person you are arguing against is saying that Marco didn't fully realize what he was getting into, quickly did realize it, felt uncomfortable, then got out. If your argument is that Marco should have realized what he was getting into, then you're not disagreeing with anyone, including Marco.

Re: Just doesn’t feel good

#130

Post by Osmium »

vermontdevil wrote: post #98
Osmium wrote: post #69

> I’m sorry to all of my fans and customers who bought this on my name, expecting it to be supported for longer than two days. Well, that was me. Funnily enough I haven't had a good experience with Overcast either (vs. Pocket Casts), so I think next time Marco releases a product I'll be a lot more skeptical. It's an awkward position too: I know I should request a refund since the app will become progressively less us…

Agreed. I recommended his app to many friends because of Marco's stance on web ads, his passion for quality, etc. Oops - my mistake. Pulling an app two days after a long period of development without really thinking through seemed odd to me. But that's his choice. My choice - I won't buy anything from him again. Life goes on.

> Pulling an app two days after a long period of development without really thinking through seemed odd to me. But that's his choice.

Right, absolutely it's his choice. I wouldn't even go as far as saying I'll never buy a product from him again, just that I wouldn't on day one. It's not that I necessarily disagree with what he's saying (I'm glad the conversation is being had), I'm just surprised he didn't anticipate this reaction.

On a broader note, if he is concerned about the ethics of ad blocking, perhaps it would've been better to maintain control of one of the most popular ad blockers? Then he would at least have been able to influence the outcome, e.g. encourage his users to adopt whitelists or similar.

Post reply on HN