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

Advertising is devastating to my well-being

briancarper.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 148 posts

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#41

Post by petercooper »

Stop making the world a garish and hideous place to live by flooding it with ads.

There are people so soft that they consider the world a "hideous place to live" because of some advertising? There are people who can barely eat each day without getting so offended by a few commercials.

It so happens that advertisements are devastating to my well-being.

This is crazy talk. Is it even possible to argue against someone who resorts to saying they get "very emotional" when seeing any sort of advertising or that advertising "devastates" their well being? Is he scared of animal crackers as well?

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#43

Post by dandelany »

Tichy wrote: post #36
kevinh wrote: post #2

As naive as this may make me sound, I think this attitude is hurting society. The idea that everyone is and should be trying to screw everyone else out of as much pleasure and profit as legal is, in my opinion, detrimental to society. When we stop doing things that don't negatively affect us much and help others, we've lost the benefits of altruism that helped our species evolve beyond the rest.

This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? How about by watching ads I screw the people who paid for the ads, as there is no way those ads would affect me in a positive way? I don't see how one is worse than the other. If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. They should be thankful for ad blockers, because at least they preve…

> This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody?

Yes. As Ars said explicitly in their post, every time you choose to block the rendering of an ad on their page, their ad provider does not count the impression, and they do not get paid anything. So yes, you're directly screwing Ars by costing them money, denying them revenue, and nullifying their business model.

> If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads.

In the first instance, "screwing" means "putting out of business". In the second, it means "mildly inconveniencing".

> If I block ads, the site should have a higher conversion rate

Again, if you'd read Ars' post, you would know that they are paid on impressions, not conversion rate.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#45

Post by rimantas »

natrius wrote: post #26

It's painful to see so many intelligent people unable or unwilling to analyze the effects their actions cause. If you block ads on sites you enjoy without communicating with the producers of that site, you are lowering the probability that sites you enjoy will continue to be produced. There are several ways to mitigate this effect if you don't like ads: 1) Pay for a subscription. 2) If no subscription is offered, ask…

Do you realize, that not blocking the ads but simply ignoring them just pushes "the hurt" down the chain? In this debate let's not forget the whole point of advertising—to sell some product. So someone pays money for ads, some site gets them, maybe for clicks, maybe for just views. The point is that if I see/click on the ad but don't buy the product advertized then site owner profits on acciunt of ad buyer. So what's next—the urge to feel guilty if you don't buy everythig you saw an ad for? It is about time to end this obsession with ads as the only way to monetize…

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#46

Post by petercooper »

briancarper wrote: post #28
ErrantX wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they can say they feel it borders on unethical (which is the impression I got from it). Along the lines of: "ok so you can block our ads, but that's a bit sucky guys :(" On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?): I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice. I assume you can see the diff…

Yes, it's my blog post. (I would hesitate to call it an article.) Advertising is unethical insofar as it's manipulative and dishonest and invasive. Even if not unethical, it's highly annoying and aesthetically displeasing. Most people probably are OK with ads, but I'm not, so I wouldn't run ads on my own site. I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't e…

I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't even tell what it was selling. I admit to being very emotional about this

!?? Is this April 1st or will you next claim that the letters "g" and "x" upset you too? What about the number 283?

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#47

Post by moron4hire »

Profit is not wrong. Profit is not screwing someone. Any freely contracted trade results in a net benefit for both parties. It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered.

When someone says ads are "screwing them over", I have to laugh and wonder what kind of life that person leads that annoying ads are considered an atrocity. If you want to see being "screwed over", look no further than our tax code. Our tax code is a system where one does not own 40% of their life, where there is an explicit understanding that anyone above a certain income level is not going to get out of it what they pay into it, where there has become a rational expectation that the money will largely -- to the order of 90% -- be wasted on bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In all of the battlefields of life, you choose online advertisements to rail against? Hell, give Sally Struthers a dollar a day already.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#48

Post by el_dot »

kevinh wrote: post #16
jrockway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument, while emotional, leads nowhere. So not viewing ads hurts society; why should I care whether or not I hurt society? Now we are right back where we started.

If people don't view the ads, the site shuts down. Maybe you don't like that site all that much, so it's fine. However, more and more sites would shut down due to lack of funding. Or, perhaps, they find different manners of obtaining money. Maybe they enforce pay walls, maybe they have product placement in their articles. The fact is, most advertising is not obtrusive. Despite the problems that Google Ads has, it is…

While I am in agreement with the sentiment, these "its good for society" arguments don't really move anybody. Just look at the music industry and it's pleas against piracy. Most people don't view their actions at such a global level; they do what's best for them and those close to them. If ads disturb them, then guess what? Ars technica will be releasing a few more staff. And most people won't care either, they'll just move on to the next thing. Thats just nature my friend. A taste of natural selection: adapt or die.

It would be much more practical to create things that boost advertising's strengths, but mute the weaknesses, rather than trying to convince people that current ads are good/tolerable. Like you pointed out, Google Ads are a step in the right direction, but obviously still lacking. The market always points you in the right direction, better to listen than to fight it.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#49

Post by ErrantX »

briancarper wrote: post #28
ErrantX wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they can say they feel it borders on unethical (which is the impression I got from it). Along the lines of: "ok so you can block our ads, but that's a bit sucky guys :(" On the topic of your article (I assume it's yours?): I pay for a book, and then I read the book start-to-finish with no ads, no distractions. A few pages at the back maybe, but I can ignore those. Books are nice. I assume you can see the diff…

Yes, it's my blog post. (I would hesitate to call it an article.) Advertising is unethical insofar as it's manipulative and dishonest and invasive. Even if not unethical, it's highly annoying and aesthetically displeasing. Most people probably are OK with ads, but I'm not, so I wouldn't run ads on my own site. I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't e…

> both animated Flash ads

Perhaps they change the ads based on region. I see 2 image only ads - no flash.

EDIT: ah, sorry. Now I see one of them as a flash ad (a rollover one)

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#50

Post by lotharbot »

rick888 wrote: post #14
lotharbot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a better way to phrase it: you should expect your customers to act in accordance with their best interests (as they understand them.) They aren't trying to "screw" you so much as trying to get the best value they can. Not viewing annoying ads is of value to people, which is why they go to the trouble of running adblock or paying for ad-free premium pages. It's up to content providers to figure out how to get…

"I submit that, if sites ran carefully-vetted ads that were of legitimate interest to their readers, were not annoying, and did not compromise user privacy, far fewer of us would use adblock." How do you know if the site has changed if you are using adblock? If they do decide to change ads, it won't really matter because they are already blocked. What about people that are using a computer with adblock already instal…

I'm speaking more generally, and more long-term. If the average content model on the web was "carefully vetted ads, of legitimate interest, not annoying, not privacy-compromising" then far fewer people would opt to use adblock in the first place.

For an individual site to get users who are already using adblock to stop, they may have to resort to the type of pleading or content-blocking Ars Technia did.

Post reply on HN