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

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#211

Post by lqdc13 »

belorn wrote: post #143
lqdc13 wrote: post #141

Worst case is if this leads to "sponsored stories" where an article is about one thing and they sneak an infomercial in there for ad revenue but in a very subtle way such that it doesn't name a product even. Effectively, this would make it impossible to tell ads from not-ads leading to a much worse experience for everyone.

Which ever publisher that do so hopefully live in a country which doesn't have advertisement laws (and tax laws, if they try to be sneaky with the source of this new revenue). There is currently several cases in Sweden, and I heard similar tales in several other countries including the U.S. I would say that for once, the law is actually catching up with Internet activity that would clearly be illegal if done on a phy…

How can it possibly be illegal? I can understand if it's a public newspaper, but private media companies can do whatever they want.

Like are you going to fine a movie studio for having an actor in a movie drinking Coca-Cola or driving a Volvo?

Which specific laws are banning this practice in Sweden for private entities?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#212

Post by [deleted] »

dispose13432 wrote: post #108
TeMPOraL wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads? Because I get linked to them. Also, social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. Also, YouTube. > Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right? Yeah, and I mostly do.

>social objects - other people are visiting those pages, so I have to check them out too in order to participate in the conversation. So maybe that's the cost of not seeing ads, you don't get to participate in conversations. It's like if Stallman would, instead of making GNU, hack into MS and put the source online because he "just has to". Most of the time, taking a moral stand requires sacrifice.

[deleted]

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#213

Post by CaptSpify »

eli wrote: post #144
amelius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisers will just lower their bids, so it mostly hurts the publishers of the websites you visit. ... who will then have to revert to a more sane monetization scheme, which doesn't mess with their visitors' data.

I understand where you're coming from, but this seems an awfully aggressive way to send that message to websites that you presumably like and find useful. Merely blocking ads isn't enough?

There have already been multiple attempts at allowing acceptable, quality ads. Nobody played along. Subtle didn't cut it, so now we're escalating to aggressive.

Advertisers had their chance and they blew it. No sympathy from me

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#214

Post by CaptSpify »

lqdc13 wrote: post #141

Worst case is if this leads to "sponsored stories" where an article is about one thing and they sneak an infomercial in there for ad revenue but in a very subtle way such that it doesn't name a product even. Effectively, this would make it impossible to tell ads from not-ads leading to a much worse experience for everyone.

If everyone allowed normal ads through, advertisers wouldn't sit back and say "Well done everyone. Time for us to stop doing sponsored stories! Back to the old model!". They'd still be attacking on two fronts. This just prevents one avenue of attack.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#215

Post by Aldo_MX »

elorant wrote: post #31

I don’t like this. While I strongly oppose tracking and have a variety of privacy extensions installed on my browser, clicking on ads is simply wrong. Someone will have to pay for those clicks. Not to mention that if something like this gets wide adoption then it will make click fraud detection even harder. A bunch of browser sessions randomly clicking on ads will have no difference from a bot doing the same thing.

> Someone will have to pay for those clicks

Someone will get infected with malware by using the shady ad-network with a higher revenue, so what's the difference?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#217

Post by BuuQu9hu »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #179
sanswork wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying YOU would. I'm saying the people saying they would happily pay for an ad free have the choice to and their choice to use an adblocker instead of paying says a lot about their actual beliefs than their claims on forums.

I for one would pay YouTube for an ad-free, smooth and offline-cacheable experience. At least now, that I have spare cash. There is a rarely discussed topic of access for people who don't have funds or means to obtain it - like myself 10 years ago. It's tangential to ad blocking discussion, but a reason why I'm not sure if a pay-per-view Internet would be a good idea in general. Oh, and if it helps me look better - I…

Check out youtube-dl, get-flash-videos or one of the other video downloader tools.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#218

Post by lqdc13 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #214
lqdc13 wrote: post #141

Worst case is if this leads to "sponsored stories" where an article is about one thing and they sneak an infomercial in there for ad revenue but in a very subtle way such that it doesn't name a product even. Effectively, this would make it impossible to tell ads from not-ads leading to a much worse experience for everyone.

If everyone allowed normal ads through, advertisers wouldn't sit back and say "Well done everyone. Time for us to stop doing sponsored stories! Back to the old model!". They'd still be attacking on two fronts. This just prevents one avenue of attack.

Well, with the current model they would have no other choice if they want to survive and remain free.

Realistically though, I have very low expectations for this to actually happen. I know many people who still haven't installed any ad blockers.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#219

Post by CaptSpify »

lqdc13 wrote: post #218
CaptSpify wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone allowed normal ads through, advertisers wouldn't sit back and say "Well done everyone. Time for us to stop doing sponsored stories! Back to the old model!". They'd still be attacking on two fronts. This just prevents one avenue of attack.

Well, with the current model they would have no other choice if they want to survive and remain free. Realistically though, I have very low expectations for this to actually happen. I know many people who still haven't installed any ad blockers.

Well yeah, "the current model" is the problem everyone is complaining about.

Patreon, Kickstarter, micropayments, etc. There are multiple ways for sites to generate revenue that don't involve advertisements.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#220

Post by CaptSpify »

eloff wrote: post #94
jalfresi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been shown to create good content for free too. I'm not convinced advertising is required.

You're both right in that people make good content for free and for pay websites, but you're dead wrong if you think advertising dollars is not also a motivation. You will lose good content.

Sure we will. But, IMO, it's quite worth it.
Post reply on HN