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

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#51

Post by petercooper »

isleyaardvark wrote: post #21

"If I had to generate revenue to keep my sites going, I would find a way other than advertising to do it. Or I'd shut them down." He makes it sound easy. As though there weren't a multitude of websites facing the same problem with covering their operating costs. TV before cable faced a similar dilemma. Anyone could access it, but how do you pay for it? Ads did. Cable TV came along with commercial-free channels, but t…

A key here is that Ars is trying to find another way - their $50/year subscriptions. See http://arstechnica.com/subscriptions/

Clearly not enough people value what they do enough to warrant paying $50 a year (I don't, but I only go on their site a few times a year and am totally cool with seeing the ads so I consider it great value).

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#52

Post by fexl »

justinph wrote: post #23
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.

While I agree with the sentiment, that's a whole heck of a love of evolution to work against. Nature (think of life on the Serengeti) is all about screwing over one creature for the benefit of another.

Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, then the human race would die out. Of course, a small portion of humans can and do live that way, but that is an aberration. If it ever becomes the norm, misery, illness, poverty, and death will prevail.

[Ed. note: As expected, "red in tooth and claw" is voted up, and "people need to cooperate" is voted down. If that's karma then I'll have no part of it.]

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#53

Post by briancarper »

dandelany wrote: post #40
cilantro wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the Ars article to mean: "We won't judge you for blocking our ads, at the same time, please don't judge us if we choose to block content from those who block our ads."

Exactly. Their statements aren't about ethics, they're about business. When they tried not serving content to ad blockers, "there was a healthy mob of people criticizing us for daring to take any kind of action against those who would deny us revenue." This ignorance of Ars' business model led them to write a post to try and explain to people how they use advertising, and why ad blockers are bad for the future of the…

I have no problem with a site denying content to people using ad-blockers. That's their right. If ad-viewing is mandatory to view their content, I'll abide (by not going back, or paying real money if I think it's worth it). If it's not mandatory, why should I abide?

I have no problem with sites that have subscription models. I have no problem with sites making money.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#54

Post by dandelany »

rimantas wrote: post #45
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…

Sorry, I don't buy it. Advertisers do not expect to get a purchase for every view, they're just trying to get your attention so they can pitch you their business idea. If they're able to get you to listen, and you think that the advertiser's service adds value to your life, you might pay for it. If not, your lack of a purchase is a statement to the business that, yes, you understand their service, but it's not helpful to you. If everyone does this, the advertiser's business model probably isn't very good, just like a brick-and-mortar store that lots of people walk through without buying anything. This is the way business works, if you can't get a profitable number of people interested enough to spend money, your business fails.

OTOH, every time you load an Ars page without loading the ad, you cost them money and deny them revenue. This time, Ars is the business, and you're confirming that their service provides value in your life, but you're refusing to pay the cost that goes along with this benefit: allowing an ad to load. It's definitely not stealing, but it doesn't seem that far off to me. Comparing this to "hurting" businesses by just not being interested in the product they provide seems ludicrous.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#55

Post by briancarper »

petercooper wrote: post #46
briancarper wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am emotional about advertising in general, not those ads in particular. I am not frothing at the mouth over a single ad, no.

Are you OK with a bunch of marketing guys sitting in an office thinking "How can we manipulate people's sex drives to maximize profit this week?" Razor commercials: Hunky guy shaves; heavily-airbrushed, scantily-clad woman looks on longingly. Implication: Buy our razors, get laid. Flashing lights and "power words". Repeat over and over until you can't forget it. What's the difference between commercials and any other form of propaganda? Commercials are more mundane, but use the same principles.

Sorry, but I feel mildly insulted by this. I feel like I'm being treated like an animal. After the ten thousandth attempt to have such a thing drilled into my brain, I start to become annoyed. I'm amazed so many people happily imbibe and internalize these things without any complaint.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#56

Post by awa »

briancarper wrote: post #15
zb wrote: post #4

Ars Technica: "I am not making an argument that blocking ads is a form of stealing, or is immoral, or unethical..." This guy (first sentence, no less): "There's an interesting article on Ars Technica about how blocking ads is somehow unethical..." Give me a break.

The article starts off saying that ad-blocking is not unethical, but then goes on to strongly imply that it is. e.g. I think in some ways the Internet and its vast anonymity feeds into a culture where many people do not think about the people, the families, the careers that go into producing a website. And: And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. These sound like ethical stat…

So, everytime you read a blogpost from start to end, you should send the blog writer some compensation since he had ads and blocked them screwing him out of the money he thought he was making from you reading the article.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#57

Post by Tichy »

dandelany wrote: post #43
Tichy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

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

I read that, but as I said, if they have a higher conversion rate, they should be able to negotiate a higher fee for the ads anyway.

On the other aspects, I guess we just disagree (why is it worse to screw advertisers than ad pushing people)?

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#58

Post by natrius »

rimantas wrote: post #45
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…

Ignoring ads doesn't hurt anyone. Ads have been ignored for centuries.

If you think a site you enjoy has a business model that sucks, shouldn't you tell them? Passively making their business model even less effective will make them less likely to exist in the future. It is a dumb thing to do.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#59

Post by briancarper »

petercooper wrote: post #41

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 w…

I use hyperbole to emphasize a point. I don't cry myself to sleep when I see an ad, no. Sometimes I become mildly annoyed. Life is generally OK.

Likewise, ad-blocking isn't really "devastating" the internet, is it?

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#60

Post by Tichy »

natrius wrote: post #30
metamemetics wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3rd party javascript ads hosted on ad servers should be blocked. The majority of them disrespect web site viewers, so it is a rational decision for web site viewers to block them. If a site is running ads that they don't mind being associated with and are worthy of reader's attention, they shouldnt mind hosting them directly from their webserver as content.

Inform sites which you enjoy of this opinion. If you don't, you're just reducing the probability of sites you like existing in the future, which is stupid.

This would all be very well, if I cared enough about the majority of sites. For example if HN would start popup ads, I might communicate. Most other sites first have to make me like them enough, and they don't do that by pushing obnoxious ads.

For what it's worth, I wish all those people complaining would indeed just block their entire site for people with ad blockers. I don't even want to see their sites anymore.

Or at least they should have a warning splash page: "warning, if you proceed to this site, you are stealing from us - OK/Cancel".

Post reply on HN