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

Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#41

Post by bitmapbrother »

teddyh wrote: post #34
bitmapbrother wrote: post #28

Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a…

> Ads will never go away Sure they could. Look at São Paulo, for instance. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kic...

I was referring to web ads. The elimination of public display ads is irrelevant in this context. I'm preventing the provider of the content I'm consuming from earning a paycheck by blocking their ads. If the city of São Paulo received a revenue share from public advertising, to put towards government funding and reduce their taxation on the public, I'm sure they would change their mind very quickly.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#42

Post by gglitch »

In my opinion, a lot of the discussion about ads and ad-blocking leaves a very key factor undiscussed: that, as with US healthcare, the consumer cannot make an informed decision about whether a given piece of content justifies the loading of a given piece of 3rd party code, because the terms of use of that code are undisclosed. The whole notion of "implied consent" seems laughable to me - about as laughable as the idea of going into a car dealership and buying a car sight unseen and for an unknown price that can be redefined by the seller at any point in the future. [Edited for cell phone typos]

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#43

Post by greenyoda »

acheron wrote: post #32
bitmapbrother wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears What a silly statement. Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio? You are visiting a site that gives you content for free in return for viewing their ads. If you don't like that contract then don't visit the site and limit your browsing to sites that adhere to your personal contract.

"Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?" Yes? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to change the station during a commercial?

In addition, you can also mute the volume and/or walk out of the room during a TV commercial, and it's perfectly legal to record a TV show and fast-forward over the commercials.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#44

Post by thedudemabry »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #25
Kenji wrote: post #7

I'll be honest, I hate all ads, regardless of how good they are. I think it's creepy and fills my mind with things I do not want it to be filled with. For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears. I think it barely matters how good the ads are. I've only seen one single website that did ads right (they were perfectly embedded into a mosaic pattern of site functionality, things…

>For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears What a silly statement. Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio? You are visiting a site that gives you content for free in return for viewing their ads. If you don't like that contract then don't visit the site and limit your browsing to sites that adhere to your personal contract.

The free content for ad views model is only tantalizing for web publishers because the internet, which they did not develop using their marketing budget, provides access to billions of eyeballs for very little cost. That fantastic bargain comes at the cost of playing by the internet's rules. The internet is not a broadcast medium, but a request-response medium.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#45

Post by kuschku »

Animats wrote: post #37

The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking: "Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)."[1] This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to make Yahoo…

I’m sorry: I got so angry reading this, I accidentally downvoted you :/

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#46

Post by elorant »

dogma1138 wrote: post #30
elorant wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies. It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from various ad-serving companies with which I have no…

Most tech-savvy users aren't the problem, ad-blockers aren't popular because some people don't want to be tracked, they are popular because most people don't like being annoyed and spammed with obnoxiously loud advertisements.

I beg to differ. Ad blocking has been around for almost a decade, AdBlock Plus was first published in 2006. But if you take a look at historical usage [1] of ad blocking technologies you’ll see that it started spiking after 2012, right when profiling was widely adopted by the digital advertising marked due to the usage of programmatic advertising. Also it’s tech related sites that are taking the biggest toll [2] (although that could also be attributed to adoption of video ads). I also don’t think it’s irrelevant that ad blocking usage in European countries is twice that in US [2]. Generally speaking I think Europeans are more concerned for their privacy.

Just to be clear, I won’t argue that ads are annoying and that makes a lot of users willing to use something to block them. I just have the impression that it was after the adoption of profiling technologies that ad blocking usage boomed.

[1] http://www.mondaynote.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/347_adb...

[2] http://digiday.com/publishers/global-rise-ad-blocking-4-char...

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#47

Post by bitmapbrother »

acheron wrote: post #32
bitmapbrother wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For me, the entire debate is silly because it's my screen -> my decision what appears What a silly statement. Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio? You are visiting a site that gives you content for free in return for viewing their ads. If you don't like that contract then don't visit the site and limit your browsing to sites that adhere to your personal contract.

"Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?" Yes? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to change the station during a commercial?

No, but you do allow the presence of advertising on your TV or radio so why should web pages be different? That's the contract you agree to.

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#49

Post by makeitsuckless »

timbits wrote: post #38

Ethical ad blockers should let the web page know that they are blocking ads so that the web page can chose to not display the content, or offer a paid option. It will avoid a stupid arm race between the two parties, and it's transparent.

Yes, violating a user's privacy is really ethical...

Re: Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers

#50

Post by njitram »

elorant wrote: post #27
sparkzilla wrote: post #4

I'm fairly sure that if publishers removed popups (ads and subscription forms), ads that move the text while you're reading it, and autoplay video or audio ads, then most people would be happy. As it stands, readers are bombarded with ads that ruin the actual reading experience.

No, that wouldn't be enough. The real problem is profiling. It's spooky and most tech-savvy people dissent it. And they (aka we) are the ones that influence the general public as to adopting ad blocking technologies. It's one thing having Google serving me personalized ads which I know come from my search history, and a whole other having the same thing happening from various ad-serving companies with which I have no…

They get that information from tracking you across the wide internet (because you see the banners which also track you) and they sell targeted advertisement to specific audiences using real time bidding systems where you can bid for advertisement space for a specific audience ('interested in cars', 'interested in electronics', 'probably male', 'age 30 to 40') etc. That profile data is gathered/derived from your browsing behavior.
Post reply on HN