Ad-blocking: a sign that web publishers don’t care about readers • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by striking » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #79

striking wrote: post #6

It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burning energy, bandwidth, and our time. Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.

> Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are. Not really; they're blocking all ads except the ones that are unblockable: ads masquerading as content (sponsored posts, etc). It's inevitable to a degree; most people are willing to whine loudly and pretend they have the moral high ground about things that are immediately visible, bu…

Paid content is not always awful. Take this tasteful, sponsored Ashens video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGcjkdIfTk

There is a clear disclosure (no misleading marketing!) and he presents a new and interesting version of his usual show while incorporating the product.

It's not selling out, and it's fairly enjoyable (as evidenced by the rating counter on the video, as well as the comments).

If I must be advertised to, I prefer this method. Having watched the video, I would actually like to purchase the device mentioned. Not because it was shoved down my throat, but because it is relevant to me and I find it interesting.

The video merely brought it to my attention.

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

#82

Post by wutbrodo » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

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.

Disabling Javascript and making flash click-to-play take care of most (all?) of these. Though the latter has become more difficult to do (in Chrome) on either a whitelist or blacklist basis since Chrome recently made the controls to quickly change a sites content policy more buried.

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

#83

Post by mziel » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #40

acheron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Viewership in tv and radio isn't measured directly, but indirectly through polls and surveys. You're counted as part of the set of potential viewers based on your age, location and whether or not you have a Nielsen box (or whatever they use nowadays.) TV stations don't actually know that you decided to turn the channel, and they don't really care, since that time has already been paid for. When you can very accuratel…

I would argue that it has exactly the same impact. Your argument is a bit of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" nature.

Unless the advertisers want to publicly (!) admit that they wish they could block TV content from people muting/changing the channel/walking out to make tea during commercials.

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

#84

Post by MacsHeadroom » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:09 PM UTC

jalfresi wrote: post #66

icebraining wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as someone who doesn't earn money from ads, I'm on their side. I agree with the arguments against ads, but I also remember what it was like to not have a CC or money to spend, and ads work as a redistribution mechanism; until someone can make a good argument why the poor won't be left out of the brave new world of paid-for content, I still won't use an ad-blocker.

Here's a counter argument; just because you can throw clickbait articles up onto a website doesn't give you the right to rape my personal details for your personal profit. Quite simply, produce something of value and you won't have a problem financing it. The worlds smallest violin plays for those websites producing garbage to feed the never ending stream of garbage that comes through the data pipe that I pay for. No…

That's literally Mozilla's argument.

Mozilla is for blocking tracking, not again using advertisement to monetize content/services.

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

#85

Post by acdha » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:13 PM UTC

__david__ wrote: post #55

krapp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, you are somewhat responsible if the revenue stream is failing because you want to consume content without caring whether anyone gets compensated for it.

That's approaching from the wrong angle. I am not responsible for publishers adopting a distribution format that allows me to render their content without ads (HTML). If they can't survive in an environment where people can freely (ethically, morally, and legally) block ads [1] then that really is their problem and not mine. The web has changed the face of publishing, but the world has no obligation to keep someones…

Your point #1 is sophistry. They're making things available with the clear expectation of getting ad revenue. If you don't like ads, either don't visit the site or complain when it all goes behind a paywall.

Besides, your argument is essentially “If you want me to pay, use DRM”. I would suggest that this is not a direction we need to try going down again.

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

#86

Post by daviross » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:15 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #31

hiphopyo wrote: post #5

> Look at New Yorker, for example. The ads are generally interesting and feature great photography. Wish Google would introduce some sort of minimum design requirements for their AdSense image ads. I also wish they'd give publishers full control over the appearance of their text ads. Right now, these ads look horrible, and only premium publishers (ie. websites with millions users) are given this sort of control.

The downside of that is that it makes harder to distinguish advertisement from actual content. Some sites are quite good ad hiding sponsored links and there is way too much advertisement masquerading as editorials already.

This is where stronger protections against this sort of deception would be useful. I'm (sometimes) fine with sponsored articles. I've seen some sites use it well. But it has to be honest, clearly marked.

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

#87

Post by acdha » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:26 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #26

acdha wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So … in your idealized 90s web, how does a reporter pay their mortgage? Storage space was never the expensive part even back then – it's always been the skilled humans who create things.

> how does a reporter pay their mortgage Some combination of charging up front for access (with only a few samples shown to people who don't subscribe), charging for timely access (see LWN, which provides articles 1-2 weeks earlier for subscribers), and patronage (if you want to see more investigative reports like this, pay me via Patreon).

That's certainly what I'm hoping happens – I think the ads / pay not to see ads model has a lot of potential since it's a short step from the current model.

That's also a much better answer than the person I replied to, who seemed to think that the problem was that we aren't using peer-to-peer file change.

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

#88

Post by acdha » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #11

acdha wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So … in your idealized 90s web, how does a reporter pay their mortgage? Storage space was never the expensive part even back then – it's always been the skilled humans who create things.

Back then there weren't so many worthless garbage news sites. So the reporter most likely worked for a real newspaper that printed and sold the thing.

As jsnell pointed out, newspapers sold tons of ads – and the reason we had so much more resource-intensive journalism back then was because you bought the entire newspaper and so the classified ads, car dealers, etc. were subsidizing the Podunk Herald-Clarion's international reporters.

Further, your description of the past is either limited to a few months in 1994 or needs to include the tons of small “portal” sites which were plastered with ads and ran only content from AP and Reuters or, more likely, lower-tier networks but produced no original content except for advertorial sponsored content. The click-bait headline might have taken awhile to reach its modern form but it was invented shortly after the invention of advertising.

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

#89

Post by wpietri » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #79

striking wrote: post #6

It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burning energy, bandwidth, and our time. Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.

> Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are. Not really; they're blocking all ads except the ones that are unblockable: ads masquerading as content (sponsored posts, etc). It's inevitable to a degree; most people are willing to whine loudly and pretend they have the moral high ground about things that are immediately visible, bu…

Paid content on the web has been bad because there has been a glut of free content.

But if we look at the history of print, paid content did quite well for a very long time. Books, you might recall, were pretty popular. Many magazines and newspapers used to make a great deal of their revenues from subscription fees.

Video similarly seems to have worked well when paid: movies have always been profitable. The recent "golden age of television" has been attributed to the increasing volume of paid content; the ad-supported stuff is seen as lower quality.

I use an ad blocker because I'm not interested in participating in a system that is based around manipulation of people. I pay for some media both old (e.g., Economist, NYT) and new (e.g., via Patreon). The system of ad-supported print content is certainly in trouble, and if I can help along its demise by using an ad blocker, I'm glad to do it. It'll be exciting to see what comes next.

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

#90

Post by wpietri » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 10:50 PM UTC

cbhl wrote: post #18

douche wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, if all the websites that are the most flagrantly abusive and dependent on ad-support (the Buzzfeeds, Crackeds, HuffingtonPosts, etc) disappeared tomorrow, how much have we really lost? I can survive without another shitty slide-show of the 17 Most Ridiculous Cats Twerking, or another news article that is a summary of a summary of a Reuters, machine-learned bot-written summary of a press release about an abs…

You would also lose Google, GMail, and YouTube.

GMail is already a product people can and do pay for. That would surely be fine.

Google is in a different category for me as far as ads go. When people are actively searching for something, offering them things they are searching for is working with their interests. Most advertising, though, is distraction from whatever the user is up to, so it's working against their interests.

YouTube might have a problem. People might, god forbid, actually have to pay to host stuff. I suspect we'd survive.