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

Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 462 posts

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#361

Post by corobo »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #350
daveguy wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you stop using ad networks and just inline unobtrusive text ads?

This is a trap. If you make your ads content-like, and integrate them into your content, then people will say your site is deceptive, hiding ads in content so people read them like factual articles.

You don't need to make them content-like. Have ad sections that are just text. I can't recall the name of the site but that one Mac-related site that does text ads seems to be doing pretty well at it. Please if someone does know the site I mean let me know it's on the tip of my tongue!

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#362

Post by kbenson »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #337
kbenson wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. Well, you've given them permission to try. I doubt they are giving you any such permission, so you're actually presuming quite a bit when you say you're welcome to try as well. This actually matters, because as far as the law is concerned, you don't have any right to to the content beyond what they allow you (excluding laws specific to your subm…

I also don't read all ads in print magazines, should I no longer buy print magazines? If I rip out all ads in a print magazine, or throw away the flyers in a magazine - which I do first after buying a mag - then I shouldn't buy the magazine? (magazines are paid for by ads not by me buying them).

> then I shouldn't buy the magazine?

Ethically? Maybe not? I don't know, I'm just exploring the problem space. I understand nobody likes advertisements, but while whether I like something may affect whether I allow it personally, I try not to let it affect whether I think it's an ethical thing to ignore.

What this means in practice is that I use an ad-blocker, mostly for security reasons, but understand that it hurts the bottom line of every source it's effective for. In cases where a site puts up a small notice at the top asking me to not block the ads, I generally do so or choose not to consume the content. This wasn't always the case, but it's where I arrived at.

The whole system is broken, I understand that, but I don't necessarily think increased ad-blocker usage will lead us to the solution we eventually need. That will probably require some sort of legislation, but I'm honestly not sure which interest will get served first, and thus more favorably. I'm slightly afraid it will be the commercial interest, barring some really nasty massive breach of aggregated data from advertising companies that's used to very bad effect, and in that case we lose quite a bit as well.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#363

Post by nv-vn »

>“It just seems like a poor bargain to be forced to choose all or nothing. There’s a middle ground,” Mr. Bosworth said.

Is the "middle ground" really to serve ads that track you without asking? I think a middle ground is having non-tracking ads and the user choosing not to block them (though they could try to make these harder to block, for example serving them in the same way user's posts are served). Of course, this is Facebook we're talking about, so even if their ads don't track you, you can be sure as hell that they are.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#364

Post by eridius »

asib wrote: post #356
eridius wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're saying that targeted ads are bad because they influence you to buy stuff. But that's what every ad is for, regardless of whether it's targeted.

Targeted ads are much more effective at influencing you, so you avoid more unwanted influence by blocking a targeted ad than just an average ad. Targeted ads are insidious - as natrius says, they prey on your psychology. By comparison, non-targeted ads are generally just an eyesore.

Your entire position depends on the unstated assumption that it's wrong for someone else to convince you to buy their product. And that sounds pretty absurd. As for targeted advertising, seeing ads that are relevant to your interests instead of seeing unrelated ads does not seem wrong at all. As long as you're being advertised to, isn't it good to have those ads actually be things you might care about? The part that's wrong is the fact that targeted advertising depends on violating your privacy in order to figure out who to target. So it's the tracking and privacy violation part that you want to avoid. But if you're talking about some site that you voluntarily gave behavioral information to (e.g. Facebook), then seeing ads based on that information isn't violating your privacy.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#365

Post by lastyearman »

nostrebored wrote: post #271
ominous wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the party has no justification to exist other than someone wants to be paid for it. Close it down, if you can't force me to pay. Keep trying.

Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right. The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are…

But advertising is already regulated, just like any other market. There is no ethics involved.

Perhaps one day we (society) come to the conclusion that advertising, as a whole, is doing more harm than good and we decide to ban it entirely. Or we decide set a limit on how much advertising is allowed.

Right now adblockers are not against the law (afaik) so I don't see any problem using them. After all, they're a product of the somewhat free market that facebook is part of and they accepted the market price (which is that some people choose to block ads).

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#366

Post by f_allwein »

I am also surprised at all the hate against ads. Yes, there are some bad ones (disrupting, malware etc.), but how does that justify you blocking all ads (and thereby robbing websites of their only legitimate source of income)?

As Immanuel Kant said (loosely translated): Act in such a way that you actions could serve as the foundation for a general legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I.e. "if there are some bad ads, nobody should have to look at any ads" would be a bad law.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#367

Post by eridius »

natrius wrote: post #97
lopatin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?

When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.

Re-reading your comment, it strikes me as extremely anti-capitalistic.

> Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid.

That is literally the goal of every merchant everywhere. They need to sell stuff for more than they paid, otherwise they don't make money. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. They aren't forcing you to buy things, their buyers think that what they're selling is worth the amount they're selling it for (or they wouldn't buy it). This is the fundamental basis on which all commerce everywhere operates.

As for the Las Vegas angle, that's complete bullshit. Gambling operates very differently from commerce, and there's really no basis to make this comparison at all. Seeing an ad that's relevant to your interests has pretty much nothing in common with gambling beyond the fact that both of them involve money at some point.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#368

Post by blahi »

elmigranto wrote: post #341
blahi wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see why that consideration should make a difference. Facebook provides a service, if you want to use the service, you see ads. If you don't want to see ads, don't use the service. Your livelihood is not threatened if you don't see some information hidden through a facebook login. If some friend of yours handles invitation through FB, that is because facebook provides a very good infrastructure to handle tho…

No. Facebook does not provide a service, you said it yourself, it is "ad supported". What they provide is a platform that companies pay to show ads on. Kind of like billboards and ad agencies. Snickers bar drawn on the street is not a service, even if you happened to glance over it.

Chatting with your friends and looking at their pictures are not services?

The lengths to which you guys will go to for justification of your sense of entitlement is staggering.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#369

Post by nostrebored »

lastyearman wrote: post #365
nostrebored wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you against businesses being able to set their prices? They're asking you to pay the market price. If you're not fine with it, doing some unilateral haggling isn't exactly how exchanges work, just don't use their product. Using Facebook is not a right. The fact of the matter is, most people waxing poetic here about ads infringing on their rights, will still use Facebook when their adblockers don't work. They are…

But advertising is already regulated, just like any other market. There is no ethics involved. Perhaps one day we (society) come to the conclusion that advertising, as a whole, is doing more harm than good and we decide to ban it entirely. Or we decide set a limit on how much advertising is allowed. Right now adblockers are not against the law (afaik) so I don't see any problem using them. After all, they're a produc…

That is akin to saying that shops have accepted the market price of shoplifting, and that hiring a security guard or secret shoppers is trying to interfere with it.

Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users

#370

Post by cpeterso »

chollida1 wrote: post #24

> Facebook’s change will open up more online ad space for it to sell, although Mr. Bosworth said that wasn’t the motivation for the move. Facebook now garners 84% of its advertising revenue from mobile devices, which are less susceptible to ad blocking than desktop devices. Something about it being difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on it seems appropriate here. This is what happens w…

> Facebook now believes that users won't abandon them and they can really start to use/abuse their position to increase their revenue.

I read that Facebook experimented with injecting random crashes in their Android and iOS apps to measure how much app stability affected user retention and usage. The answer was there was no effect! People wanted to use Facebook so much that the experiment's random crashes did not deter them.

Post reply on HN