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

Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 217 posts

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#161

Post by chopin »

bitwize wrote: post #109
team_doom wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're essentially pirating content now. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. It's that simple. To take it a step farther, send an email to customer service explaining WHY you're no longer using the site. This sends a much stronger message to them about what makes you unhappy with the service they provide.

"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing programming." --Jamie Kellner, former Warner executive

"To view this content, you are obliged to shoot yourself in the foot." --me

Any time you shove me down ransomware you are actively supporting crime.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#162

Post by chopin »

cpeterso wrote: post #153
jgalt212 wrote: post #34

If third party cookies were allowed, then sites like Business Insider would not be tempted to fire 50 (or more) resource hogging tracking pixels and scripts. The law of unintended consequences in full effect here.

Besides Safari, which browsers block third-party cookies (when not using an ad blocker that would also block those 50 tracking pixels)?

Firefox, there is a setting for it. It's the first thing I do on a fresh install.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#163

Post by teaneedz »

team_doom wrote: post #20
karterk wrote: post #5

For a very long time, I did not want to use ad blockers. I have used ads in the past to monetize some of my own projects, and I really did not want to stab the creators of quality content. However, last week I finally reversed my decision and started using ad blockers. Why? Frankly, many sites are just greedy. Banners were ugly enough (and I tolerated them) but many sites these days show ads that cover the content, a…

I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're essentially pirating content now. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. It's that simple. To take it a step farther, send an email to customer service explaining WHY you're no longer using the site. This sends a much stronger message to them about what makes you unhappy with the service they provide.

Not pirating since one has no indication if or what type of ad-tech is being used a site. It just takes one click to end up with malicious code or a UX headache. The website owner is responsible and does not even require an email from users (more wasted time) since the data will already show what's happening. If the site owner is too dense to comprehend the issue or importance of UX, then c'est la vie.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#164

Post by klunger »

kuschku wrote: post #113
klunger wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You are basically saying that people should work for free if they are passionate about it. Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion. Same with artists, musicians etc, and every other underpaid profession. Just because they (hopefully) like what they do, does not mean it is not work or does not have value.

> Professional writers cannot pay their bills with passion Professional writers aren’t ad-financed. Look at Panama Papers. Not a single of the involved newspapers and broadcasters is ad financed: All are either tax or subscription financed. Btw, for just 19.99€ you can get full access to all articles about Panama Papers in the Süddeutsche if you don’t want to enter a 12-month subscription for the whole newspaper.

>Professional writers aren’t ad-financed.

Wrong.

While some outlets enjoy full state support or sufficient subscription revenue to not need advertisements, the VAST majority of publications get a significant portion of their revenue (which is the used to pay their staff writers and freelance contributors) from ads. Better known examples of such publications include: The New York Times, Wired, The Atlantic.

In Norway, where I live, Aftenposten was given access to the Panama Papers for analysis and publication. Aftenposten is partially subsidized by the Norwegian government, but also dependent on ad revenue to survive.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#165

Post by burkaman »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #160
burkaman wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those two categories are basically the same. Middle class people with solid 9-5 jobs and not many other commitments. Some portion of these people create stuff in their free time. The people I'm talking about are either too poor to follow their passions and work for free, or have the time but have decided to channel their passion into something that might make them money. Basically, I have a problem with this quot…

Just because you publish content for free doesn't mean that you don't derive value from it. By establishing yourself as an expert you can (just off the top of my head): - create a market for yourself as a consultant/instructor/offer seminars in that area - charge businesses to feature reviews of their goods and services - sell books/prints/tshirts/(insert relevant merch for type of content here) None of these avenues…

That's a great list of things that poor people, people with families, people with busy lives for any reason can't do. You need to first establish yourself as an expert, for free, with all of your free time.

Regardless, this is all possible right now. "if content was free"? Content can be free, there's lots of it. Removing every way for non-experts to make money would only hurt people, it wouldn't help anyone. It wouldn't make it any easier to publish stuff for free.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#166

Post by trolly »

eli wrote: post #156
spacehome wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I'm ready for websites who can't find a viable monetization strategy to just go bankrupt already and stop blaming me for their shitty business plan.

You won't miss them? Quite a few of the sites I enjoy are struggling to remain ad supported and I would be sad if they can't find a way to make it work.

Out of curiosity could you give a couple examples?

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#167

Post by obsurveyor »

inanutshellus wrote: post #54
eveningcoffee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am with you in this. I saw that people around me started to use AdBlockers and I found first that it is not really fair from them. Until one of the news sites I regularly read was barely usable by always running on 100% CPU, which means it was not possible to open it on multiple tabs without making my computer fully unusable. And until Google started to use video ads in my region. I figured that it would be better…

I actually like seeing ads (though I wish they weren't coming from omniscient ad networks and were instead coming from the sites I was visiting). Content providers get money, I get free content. Nice. HTML5 Video Ads are what finally switched me to ad blockers. When people served static images and Adobe Flash videos, I could just disable auto-play of Flash, and voila, I see ads, but don't get obnoxious videos on rand…

Auto-playing any video content that isn't an explicit "click this link to watch a video" is bad etiquette imho.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#168

Post by 0xffff2 »

iand wrote: post #42
cm2187 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like akamai needs to be added to my blockers list.

Don't forget Google's free hosting of Javascript libraries and webfonts. The cost of serving those is recouped by dropping a cookie on you. Also Google DNS can give them great insight into domain popularity.

>The cost of serving those is recouped by dropping a cookie on you.

Only if you allow third-party cookies. I'm honestly amazed that browsers haven't moved to turn third-party cookies off by default.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#169

Post by lgas »

bluejekyll wrote: post #79
inanutshellus wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually like seeing ads (though I wish they weren't coming from omniscient ad networks and were instead coming from the sites I was visiting). Content providers get money, I get free content. Nice. HTML5 Video Ads are what finally switched me to ad blockers. When people served static images and Adobe Flash videos, I could just disable auto-play of Flash, and voila, I see ads, but don't get obnoxious videos on rand…

Safari at least added a disable all sound on a tab button. They should probably add or include video as an option too.

I would prefer all tabs start muted and you have to enable sound if you're interested.

Re: Rise of Ad Blocking Is the Ad Industry's Fault, Says Outgoing FTC Commissioner

#170

Post by pmichaud »

karterk wrote: post #5

For a very long time, I did not want to use ad blockers. I have used ads in the past to monetize some of my own projects, and I really did not want to stab the creators of quality content. However, last week I finally reversed my decision and started using ad blockers. Why? Frankly, many sites are just greedy. Banners were ugly enough (and I tolerated them) but many sites these days show ads that cover the content, a…

I think it's unfair to call it greed. It feels like a strawman dismissal. It's actually hard to make money from content, and the best content creators almost certainly aren't also the best monetizers.

So people do the default thing. The default thing is ads.

And the problem is that ads don't work very well, and they are working less and less well as time goes on because people are acclimating to them like a war of escalation.

To squeeze small a bit of money out of content, you run ads that are increasingly obtrusive.

If they aren't, they don't make any money at all.

There's a huge market opportunity here. It's not greed, it's an obvious outcome of incentives.

Post reply on HN