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

Content is dead

veekaybee.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Content is dead

#81

Post by logicallee »

pcmaffey wrote: post #65
logicallee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're objectively mistaken that an advertisement is not a transactional fee. As in, you're wrong epistemically, and if you were to get a doctoral in whatever field it belongs to you would be more correct and would no longer believe what you do today. But out of curiosity, given your belief today, what if the TOS of the site states that you agree to look at ads in exchange for requesting content from the server (whic…

Given that's not what most sites' TOS say, viewing advertisements is not a transactional agreement in 99% of applicable cases.

again it's rather nuanced. (Personally, I think it is.) I mean, it's not "transactional" if you say to a person (of either gender, and you can be of either gender) at a bar "Hey can I buy you a drink?" and they say "sure", wait for you to buy them the drink, then take it walk away without another glance at you. Where is the TOS that they agreed to share at least a second or two of your company? That said, it's still transactional, just at a different level than you're playing on, and they're being dicks if they behave that way.

But you didn't answer my hypothetical:

Do people have a right to click a button on a blank page with nothing else that says "I agree to look at ads in exchange for loading the content on this site" that sets a cookie "I-agree-to-load-ads-in-exchange-for-requesting-content-from-this-site", if, after doing so, they actually block ads?

(Or more likely, do they have the right to run a plug-in that clicks that agreement for them, while afterward blocking the ads anyway)?

This is a yes-or-no question about your world view.

Re: Content is dead

#82

Post by wpietri »

untog wrote: post #31
logicallee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's kind of like what I do at my local bakery/patisserie. I hate that I have to ask for something from behind the counter, and the person wants to handle my extremely dirty cash with the same fingers that they use to take out and give me what I ask for. It's disgusting. So I just reach behind the counter (technically quite easy) and take it out, without bringing cash into the equation. It's not my fault they make it…

Seems telling that you're getting downvotes but no replies explaining how your comparison is wrong...

Or it could be such a tiresomely old straw man that people see no point in typing out an explanation that he could figure out for himself, or read in one of the many previous discussions of this.

I'm generally happy to reply if I think a) the writer is willing to listen, or b) their comment might mislead others, so that a reply helps provide a balanced perspective. I don't think either is true here.

Re: Content is dead

#83

Post by [deleted] »

klint wrote: post #74

(Disclosure: I write full-time for Wired, but I'll try to leave my feeling about our content aside here) Even if you pay for a subscription to The Economist, you're still going to see ads, both on their website and in their apps. Even though I'm a subscriber and logged in, Ublock Origin is showing over 100 blocked requests on an article I just pulled up there, some of them coming from the same third party ad networks…

[deleted]

Re: Content is dead

#84

Post by Retra »

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

If people can't see your site, they certainly aren't going to bring anyone else to it or share it over media.

Re: Content is dead

#85

Post by [deleted] »

noam87 wrote: post #75
intrasight wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really sad about The Guardian. But truth be told, one only needs two or three news sources. They are no longer one of mine.

> one only needs two or three news sources. But society as a whole needs more. If the available pool of profitable resources for quality journalism keeps getting smaller, then a) the number of stories that fall through the cracks get larger, b) the surface area for corruption gets smaller: now all I need is to influence one editor/journalist to get story x pulled.

[deleted]

Re: Content is dead

#86

Post by pcmaffey »

logicallee wrote: post #81
pcmaffey wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that's not what most sites' TOS say, viewing advertisements is not a transactional agreement in 99% of applicable cases.

again it's rather nuanced. (Personally, I think it is.) I mean, it's not "transactional" if you say to a person (of either gender, and you can be of either gender) at a bar "Hey can I buy you a drink?" and they say "sure", wait for you to buy them the drink, then take it walk away without another glance at you. Where is the TOS that they agreed to share at least a second or two of your company? That said, it's still…

There is no such agreement to click. If there were, then yes you'd be breaking an agreement. But there isn't, so it's not part of the transaction.

Re: Content is dead

#87

Post by leereeves »

pcmaffey wrote: post #77
leereeves wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The client can't be trusted.

Not 100%. But what about 80%? Even 50%? Is it still worth it for publishers? The greatest cost of digital fraud in a case like this would be perceptual... given the current paradigm.

The cost of fraud would be roughly the same as browsing with an adblocker now.

But probably the hardest part of creating any system like this is getting everyone on board at once. There's a big incentive not to join the system. (People who don't want to or can't be bothered to join will visit your site instead.)

Re: Content is dead

#88

Post by lowmess »

qrv3w wrote: post #34
pier25 wrote: post #17

We need a Netflix for content. You pay a (reasonable) monthly subscription and they pay each content provider depending on number of views.

https://blendle.com/ is attempting just this. They have a beta service available now, and its rather nice. You pay a few cents per article and you can easily get refunds if you don't like the article or if it isn't what you expected.

I'm in the US beta, and it really is a great service. Could use more publications and the price point seems a little too high (lots more $0.49 articles than $0.19, in my experience). That said, it has proved to be popular in NL/GE and I trust that they will attract more US pubs & prices will lower as (or if) adoption grows.

Re: Content is dead

#89

Post by return0 »

zem wrote: post #71
return0 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is a really great way to reward for the content we need. The fact that this money has to be channeled through ads is the problem. Even if a miraculous solution to this problem is found, i wouldn't expect free content to be of high quality.

i have read some very good creative commons novels and fanfiction, so for writing at least free has proven to be high quality. likewise for webcomics; i've seen strips that are every bit as entertaining as the professional strips that run in the newspapers. for other media, such as music, video and animation, one of the problems is that there is a barrier to creating casual content with decent production values. like…

> the better and more popular your work is, the more money you'll make from it

That is not always true. Highly specialized content, which has tiny audience, can be equally profitable. In the end, money reflects the need for the content.

Re: Content is dead

#90

Post by vkb »

klint wrote: post #74

(Disclosure: I write full-time for Wired, but I'll try to leave my feeling about our content aside here) Even if you pay for a subscription to The Economist, you're still going to see ads, both on their website and in their apps. Even though I'm a subscriber and logged in, Ublock Origin is showing over 100 blocked requests on an article I just pulled up there, some of them coming from the same third party ad networks…

Thanks for reading. The Economist ads are a great point that I didn't address, and makes me even more worried for the high-quality news and content industry than I initially noted.
Post reply on HN