The Ad Blocking Wars • Hacker News Board

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#231

Post by olegj » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 1:00 PM UTC

vog wrote: post #230

olegj wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is you didn't explain why, you merely restated the core issue JacobJans has with fighting advertising. Where exactly is the line between "manipulating" and "changing view"? There are many associations and causalities studied with regards to human mind, should I be guilty of manipulation if I create a promotional poster using colours which are associated with some particular emotional response? In the end this i…

There may be a grey area between "manipulating" and "changing view", but in the case of advertisement this this clearly on the "manipulation" side, almost by definition. Ads are fully paid by the seller, and exist by definition to serve solely the seller's purpose. In addition, ads are expected to "look and feel" like they were in the customer's interest, which makes it even more clear that this is all about manipula…

How in your opinion should a material which informs potential buyers of a product be created? They seem to fit the same definition you use for ads as manipulative... I really don't see a way for a seller to inform about his product, highlight its good aspects to convince it is worth its price, without being charged guilty of manipulation by the argument you present.

I have to say I really dislike ads, and would like if product promotion was done in a way most benefiting society in general, but the points that manipulation and changing views are very close, that ads change your view is not the bad thing about them and that we need to be careful about regulating ads (both legally and morally) as not to harm other beneficial things is very legitimate.

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#232

Post by chris_wot » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 1:24 PM UTC

vog wrote: post #182

abrookewood wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my kids simply don't watch commercial TV. Everything used to be DVD based and now its all streamed, so they never see ads. I remember the first time they actually saw and advertisement - my son screamed! "Where did my show go??" "It's OK .. it's just an ad". A few seconds of silence passed and then he asked:"What's an ad?"

Congrats! This is really a great step forward, and may improve their childhood a lot. Children should become used to consume media at their own pace, without distracting noise (ads). Also, their schedule should be determined by their parents, not the TV program. Moreover, it may help to make fun of the ads they still see. (on websites, outside at walls, etc.) This may improve their awareness, and hopefully later thei…

I have to wholeheartedly agree with everybsingle thing you've just said. This is why I love Netfix - there are lots of awesome shows my kids love like Hulk and the Agents of Smash, Spiderman and others I've forgotten.

Otherwise, they watch Australua's State run kids channel, which sounds awful but actually tends to run somewhat subversive shows like Yoohoo and Friends (universally panned by those who watched the original Korean version, but not by me or my kids!) and Adventure Time. And not a single advertisement, except promos.

Still have to find something for my daughter, who also loves those shows and we encourage her to watch them, but she is still into Shopkins (despite my best efforts of discouraging her) and other shows designed to appeal to her and her friends.

But she said watches absolutely no commercial TV. This is more by happy accident than design, because commercial TV in Australia is so completely rubbish that there is literally no need to watch it - ever!

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#233

Post by chris_wot » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

kriro wrote: post #185

abrookewood wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my kids simply don't watch commercial TV. Everything used to be DVD based and now its all streamed, so they never see ads. I remember the first time they actually saw and advertisement - my son screamed! "Where did my show go??" "It's OK .. it's just an ad". A few seconds of silence passed and then he asked:"What's an ad?"

This is an awesome story...would make for a great ad for Netflix (well irony aside). I can vividly picture the "Where did my show go??" moment :)

Which would prove advertising works. The irony!

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#234

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Feb 25, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #171

unclebucknasty wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, can it go too far in the other direction? Can ads be abusive or is anything a content publisher does to monetize fair game? For instance, apps that use dark patterns that make it difficult to dismiss an ad without "accidentally" clicking through the ad...are these cool? Or would you say that one simply should not use the app?

> apps that ... An app is not analogous to a junk page with no useful content. You installed and use it repeatedly in spite of the ads because it provides some sort of benefit. Any app which contains a clickable element which leads to malware infestation, or shows children inappropriate content, is malware. Regardless of whether that button is on an ad or elsewhere, and regardless of whether it is contrived to make i…

Junk pages with no useful content do not tend to survive, hence that is not a valid comparison. Just as you "install and use repeatedly" apps that are useful, you only revisit pages that are useful.

So, the relevant analogy is between a page of some value and an app of some value. If ads weren't a problem on pages that fit this description, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Annoyance is annoyance in any context, even if it stops short of outright malice.

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#235

Post by 1stop » Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 10:43 AM UTC

laotzu wrote: post #209

1stop wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying it isn't my right to consume what I choose? Like is lynx an ad blocker, because it's text based? What is the difference between lynx and an ad blocker?

>You are saying it isn't my right to consume what I choose? That's what the law says actually. Not trying to be snide here but unfortunately the law does not allow for sovereign domain over one's own body (at least in the US -- and elsewhere) in many cases. Though I realize you are asking in regards to advertisements.

Which law are you referring to?

Re: The Ad Blocking Wars

#236

Post by laotzu » Tue, Mar 01, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

1stop wrote: post #235

laotzu wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are saying it isn't my right to consume what I choose? That's what the law says actually. Not trying to be snide here but unfortunately the law does not allow for sovereign domain over one's own body (at least in the US -- and elsewhere) in many cases. Though I realize you are asking in regards to advertisements.

Which law are you referring to?

Vice laws