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

Adblock Plus now sells ads

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 388 posts

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#181

Post by pmoriarty »

chii wrote: post #158
bargl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to go out there and say, they don't have the right to poison you, but you don't have the right to their content... I fall in this weird spot with ads. I don't like them, they slow down the experience, they can have PORN on them (this happened to my brother the other day), they have little oversight and track you. Many things I do not approve of. What I DO approve of is paying content creators. And unless…

> you don't have the right to their content... if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed. There's ways to block people from viewing content if ads are blocked - but a lot of sites don't do that, because they deem the traffic more important.

Forbes has started blocking their content if their site detects the use of an ad-blocker.

Interestingly, their content is still viewable (though in raw form) when viewing the page source, at least for now, and there are extensions allowing you to view it anyway.

The content-blocking / anti-content-blocking arms race has begun.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#182

Post by andreareina »

RubyPinch wrote: post #81
synchronise wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dev of uBlock directs users to download and use uBlock Origin instead. I can't understand why they couldn't transfer the name and put it all under uBlock again, that'd make it a whole lot easier.

> The dev of uBlock directs users to download and use uBlock Origin instead. They do? still doesn't seem like that, e.g. https://www.ublock.org all links go to ublock, except for one link on the AMO site

Firefox Add-on page for uBlock says you're probably looking for uBlock Origin.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#183

Post by CannisterFlux »

Yuioup wrote: post #78

This is extortion, plain and simple. Essentially they're forcing advertisers to funnel all ad content through them. Good thing for uBlock Origin because otherwise they should be indicted to anti-competitive behavior. No, I don't like ads and I run uBlock Origin. I don't work for an advertising company and couldn't care less about ads. But what Adblock Plus is doing here is illegal.

Heh, advertisers are getting what they deserve for ruining the internet. I worry it will escalate the arms race and ublock origin users like you and I will be affected, though I tend to avoid sites that are ad-heavy anyway.

As for being illegal? No idea, but Google are doing something similar - reducing the rank of sites that don't use Google as their source of advertising. More or less ;-)

Google frame it the same way as Adblock Plus - only sites with intrusive adverts are going to be punished, while those with Google adverts are wholesome and pure. But it is a very similar technique to AP. It's not quite the same, as the adverts are not blocked "merely" the whole site is downgraded in Google's search. Ouch.

Then there's Brendan Eich's Brave browser that follows exactly the same model as Adblock Plus. Remove sites' adverts and show Brave's in their place! It seems cheeky to me, but not sure what law it breaks. Is there are "don't be a jerk" law in the US? Maybe there should be :-)

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#184

Post by micro_softy »

There are other ways to block ads besides this one solution. The web ad delivery mechanism is brittle.

But when will this game end?

Advertisers should just pay consumers (users). Why bother with a middleman?

Request for Project (RFP): Let all users sign up to be paid by advertisers. (This is not a new idea.) Sign up with enough advertisers and one can have "universal basic income".

Users should not be giving away their time for free. Every time a web advertiser distracts a user, they are "stealing" the user's time.

Advertisers pay for this privilege. But they do not pay the users. They pay off someone -- you know who -- to help them steal users' time.

Just pay the damn users. Enough of this silly game.

Added benefit: It would open up the search engine market and social networking (photo database) market to competition and innovation.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#185

Post by themartorana »

stevesearer wrote: post #159
bargl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to go out there and say, they don't have the right to poison you, but you don't have the right to their content... I fall in this weird spot with ads. I don't like them, they slow down the experience, they can have PORN on them (this happened to my brother the other day), they have little oversight and track you. Many things I do not approve of. What I DO approve of is paying content creators. And unless…

Check out the site in my profile, would love to hear your feedback - I sell and self-host all of my own advertising. Because I have that control the ads end up being both high-quality and targeted to the content (and the reader by association).

Hey! This is great, although I imagine difficult to do when it's your business, and harder to do as a hobby. But I'd love to hear about your experience with this.

In any case, if I turn on uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, I still end up with 15 things blocked: https://cl.ly/0l2r0d440G05

Some are recognizable - Facebook integration, for example. But I noticed that your domain is actually in the yellow for uBlock Origin! https://cl.ly/3v0f0h2K0a39

Looks like the naming convention of your ads is enough to throw up a red (yellow) flag: https://cl.ly/3N1x050G0Z0V

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#186

Post by hnbroseph »

cptskippy wrote: post #162
pythia__ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unethical? What ethical principle is being violated? (These are not rhetorical questions.)

Blocking Ad is itself unethical. Ads are placed on pages to pay for the content. By blocking ads you are depriving the content creators of compensation for their work. Replacing Ads with other ads is worse because you're not only depriving a content creator of revenue but then profiting off of their work. You could argue that it amounts to theft.

counter point: blocking ads is self-defense and defense of others, including one's family. it is everyone's ethical duty to block all ads, because a non-trivial and unpredictable portion of ads contain hostile, abusive, invasive and/or subversive content. this can lead to loss of data, loss of time, loss of money and loss of privacy.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#187

Post by bargl »

stevesearer wrote: post #159
bargl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to go out there and say, they don't have the right to poison you, but you don't have the right to their content... I fall in this weird spot with ads. I don't like them, they slow down the experience, they can have PORN on them (this happened to my brother the other day), they have little oversight and track you. Many things I do not approve of. What I DO approve of is paying content creators. And unless…

Check out the site in my profile, would love to hear your feedback - I sell and self-host all of my own advertising. Because I have that control the ads end up being both high-quality and targeted to the content (and the reader by association).

Is Framery one of your ads? The way you have it it feels like a link to another one of your own products. That's in part because you have content that is relevant and the layout gives the suggestion that they are tied to your product.

That's awesome. I like the fact that you are able to make this feasible and that you advertise based on your content and not your user. Kudos.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#188

Post by thatswrong0 »

themartorana wrote: post #179
chii wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you don't have the right to their content... if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed. There's ways to block people from viewing content if ads are blocked - but a lot of sites don't do that, because they deem the traffic more important.

"...if they allow the public to view their content, they cannot dictate how the content is viewed..." You could not be more wrong. I am having a hard time imagining any art installation, public park, etc., that does not have rules about how you use and consume it. Offering something to the public does not mean the method of consumption is suddenly a free-for-all. This is a ridiculous assumption that gets played out h…

> I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

You could also choose to "block" those ads by coming to movies late. That's what I do.. how is that different from blocking ads on the web? The theater is giving me advertisements + content, and I have the ability to ignore / block whatever I want by leaving / entering the theater. Until theaters stop allowing me into movies late and force my eyes open Lasik-style so that I _have_ to watch ads, I'm going to keep engaging in this perfectly ethical behavior.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#189

Post by pmoriarty »

Fifer82 wrote: post #65
jwise0 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the royal "we", perhaps :-) I started blocking ads because they dramatically slowed down my browsing experience. But I keep blocking ads because, fundamentally, I believe that advertisements are neurotoxins, and nobody has the right to poison me. The old Sean Tejaratchi quote - popularized by Banksy - applies here, I think - http://www.readingfrenzy.com/ledger/2012/03/taking_the_piss

I agree! I appear to have formed selective blindness from long term exposure which is quite useful! My eye appears to skip over anything considered an ad on most static mediums. I just don't notice them and if I do, my brain appears to discard it.

A lot of people think they can just ignore ads and that ads don't work on them.

But there are a lot of very talented and creative people, a ton of research, and a whole industry, really, fighting hard against people's conscious or unconscious attempts to ignore ads, and they can be very effective, even if you don't consciously realize it.

There's a lot of research showing that advertisement is effective. The point of advertisement isn't always to directly make you rush out and buy a particular product right away. So just because you don't do that doesn't mean the ad wasn't effective.

Many times the point of the ad is to make you have a positive association with a brand, or to make you remember (even merely subconsciously) the brand so that you recognize it among a lot of other brands you see in a store -- and thus be more likely to buy a product of that brand rather than that of a brand you've never seen an ad for before.

Re: Adblock Plus now sells ads

#190

Post by snowfield »

etatoby wrote: post #40

I, for one, agree with them. We started blocking ads because they had become 1. obnoxious, interfering with the fruition of the actual content; 2. dangerous, being a vector for malware and disrespecting our privacy; and 3. costly, for those with a slow or metered connection. Most people accept ads, if they are acceptable. They are the first company to actually push through with a plan to restore this market to sanity…

Idk, i started blocking ads because i don't want to watch ads
Post reply on HN