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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#131

Post by Canada »

paulcole wrote: post #91
dheera wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read newspapers without looking at the ads. I use highways and public transportation without looking at the billboards. I don't see how it's any different. I would say it should be arguably illegal to resell content with ads removed, but how something is rendered in my brain or inside the confines of my home is upto me to decide. There's nothing illegal about ripping out the ad pages before reading a magazine at ho…

>There's nothing illegal about ripping out the ad pages before reading a magazine at home. Nope but hanging around the printing press and cutting out the ads in all your friends' papers seems unethical.

Unless your friend asks you to cut ads out of their newspaper. Ad blockers operate with explicit permission, so it's not as if anyone who wants to view ads is being deprived.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#132

Post by JKCalhoun »

rootusrootus wrote: post #53
paulcole wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

I agree. It's just like any other kind of piracy. If the content isn't valuable enough to see with ads enabled, then the ethical answer is to not view the content at all.

Sucks when you actually buy the content (DVD) and then still have to sit through ads (previews).

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#133

Post by duskwuff »

cpeterso wrote: post #120
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

I don't mind ads; I just don't want clickbait crap about shocking celebrity photos and "deep searches" for local singles. So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola): https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. If you know of any other bad clickbait ad networks, please let me know! As the article describes, I n…

A few years ago, I wrote something similar:

https://github.com/duskwuff/syndicationblock/

Is Yavli still a thing? I had a hell of a time blocking their ads -- they served content from custom subdomains, and used class names "borrowed" from Google to evade ad blockers.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#134

Post by Ironchefpython »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #112
gruez wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user. That will incentivize people to unblock ads. microsoft tried that with bing rewards. i suspect it's not working well because i only heard of it in the context of botting it to get free money. the advertiser wants to spend as little money to gain as many sales, whereas the viewer (and blackhats) want to get as much money as possible. the…

And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…

> the websites I frequented the most frequently [...] still received only pennies.

And what I don't understand is when I decide I want to subscribe to a newspaper, it's hundreds of dollars a year. They take pennies to serve me spam and malware, but if I want to pay them, it's 1000x the price.

And don't get me started on how the Washington Post gives a $70 annual discount on a digital subscription if you agree to receive a print copy of the Sunday edition. It sounds incredibly stupid and backward until you remember, advertising.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#135

Post by JKCalhoun »

beezischillin wrote: post #59

It's such a weird time to be alive: with all the controversy around advertising nowadays we're kind of seeing Google's previously invulnerable tendrils around the Internet slowly being peeled off. That being their major source of income, they must be worried. I am too, but for another reason -- I don't want a company like Facebook taking over and establishing a monopoly (say what you will about Google, companies like…

Is it no easier to peel back the tendrils of Facebook though?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#136

Post by pocketstar »

killjoywashere wrote: post #33
eli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is seriously doubting your legal right to block ads. > If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented. If the ad blocking becomes so widespread that the ad-supported model becomes unsustainable, I think a lot of people will be unhappy with what happens next. There will be a lot more paywalls and a lot more native advertising, which will be fine for entrenched players but much hard…

> Maybe micropayments can take care of that some day? Seriously, where's the Spotify of blogs?

http://www.inkl.com/

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#137

Post by 59nadir »

paulcole wrote: post #73
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the following: If you pick up a newspaper or magazine, is it wrong to skip the ads? What about changing the TV channel or radio station while commercials play?

I think it'd be wrong to hire a dude to clip out all the ads before I open the paper in the morning. I think it'd be wrong to mod my TV and car radio to change the channel when an ad starts playing.

I don't know if you're doubling down because you just committed to this idea at some point and you just want to stand by it, or you're actually this bone-headed. You do realize that someone sees those ads if there's a guy taking out the ads of the paper, right?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#138

Post by anoisyboy »

I added this article to /. (Slashdot) and it was marked as spam, sending it's rating black and instantly damaging it's chance of being seen, yet here it has proper and full engagement?!? How did someone at /. consider this spam? Hopefully someone here can shed some light.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#139

Post by komali2 »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #112
gruez wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user. That will incentivize people to unblock ads. microsoft tried that with bing rewards. i suspect it's not working well because i only heard of it in the context of botting it to get free money. the advertiser wants to spend as little money to gain as many sales, whereas the viewer (and blackhats) want to get as much money as possible. the…

And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…

I remember the pirate Bay team pushing something like that way back when.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#140

Post by jancsika »

rootusrootus wrote: post #53
paulcole wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

I agree. It's just like any other kind of piracy. If the content isn't valuable enough to see with ads enabled, then the ethical answer is to not view the content at all.

It turns out to be the other way around: the site owner claims that the ads Google served up were of such low quality that they "polluted" the content of the site:

"For about R20,000 a year, it isn’t worth it to pollute our content with get-rich-quick adverts featuring Patrice Motsepe, Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey (see image at top of article)."

Moreover, the author states in the comments that their non-profit is sustained by donations, not by ads. If someone had visited this site with an ad-blocker turned on before the author stopped using Google ads, it would have improved the content (by the author's own stated standards) without endangering the site's source of funding.

Granted this may be a special case. But I think special cases are often worth the read, or at least not "just like any other kind."

Post reply on HN