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

191–200 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#191

Post by matt4077 »

mitchty wrote: post #102
paulcole wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

The ethical problem isn't ethical, but existential. If everyone acted on only their immediate self-interest, ad-supported business models would fold. Then, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls. Even if you decide to pay for a few sources of information, you will never again have access to the breath of journalism you have now.

If paywalls don't catch on, it's game over for he current model of societies. Because even if my contribution of a vote every four years seems quite small, it's still the currency that democracy depends on. And without an informed public, their decisions tend towards randomness, and are no longer a factor in the decision-making process.

All this isn't a new mechanism, it's basic tragedy of the commons. "It's my boat, and I'm gonna go out tonight, and fish as much as I want to. Nature belongs to me as much as to anyone else, and nobody has the right to tell me what to do, especially not in international waters".

There's nothing really wrong with that argument, except that many a fisherman has made it, and seen his haul cut to almost nothing when overfishing had decimated the population.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#192

Post by baddox »

erikbigelow wrote: post #145
mitchty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

I hate the ad model too, but you're stealing bandwidth and hosting. Delivering those pictures and text comes from somewhere, and ads are how they're hoping to pay for it. Justify it to yourself how you want, but it's true.

It's not stealing, because you request the resource from the server and the server explicitly decides to fulfill your request. And this isn't exploiting a bug or security vulnerability. The server is deliberately programmed to fulfill requests regardless of whether the requester's client.

If running an ad blocker is stealing, then so is disabling JavaScript or using curl.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#193

Post by matt4077 »

nebabyte wrote: post #96
paulcole wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

> Society has many unwritten agreements Well that's convenient. Next time someone does something I don't like, I'll be sure to tell them about the unwritten agreement they're violating.

Sure, it's called "manners", or "social behaviour". Of course, as time goes on, many informal social rules have been made into law, because someone always figures he can live with the disapproving looks.

As just one example: If you've agreed to meet with a friend and they don't show, without notice, you'll probably inform them that they are in violation of your unwritten agreement.

(I'm not actually in favour of this line of argument, but I believe it's pretty obvious that unwritten social norms exist, and often serve a purpose)

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#194

Post by danieka »

I noticed how civil all the comments are. I wonder if automatically prepending all comments with "Dear Editor" makes people think twice before writing the more common and nasty form of comments usual found in the comment sections of news pages?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#195

Post by baddox »

erikbigelow wrote: post #147
Crito wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a digital analogy for you. Suppose I: 1) Disable my ad blocker. 2) "Open Link in New Tab" 3) Wait for my browser to finish requesting that data from the server 4) Close the tab without ever looking at it. Is that unethical? Is it unethical for me to decide I don't want to read a webpage after requesting it? Should the "open in new tab" feature always force a tab switch against my wishes, so ensure I'm not ripp…

If you're doing it for the sole purpose of wasting their money then it's pretty unethical. That's why in law they always talk about intent.

You've lost me on this analogy. Ad blocking is generally not used for the purpose of wasting a publisher's money.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#196

Post by fmueller »

paulcole wrote: post #79
kaishiro wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also think it's wrong to change the channel when an ad starts playing on TV, or to turn the volume down when an ad starts playing on the radio?

No. I also don't think it's wrong to navigate away from a website when it loads an ad I don't like.

According to your logic you are obliged to watch the ads on TV. Because by watching a film you made an agreement that watching the film is only free because you watch the ads.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#197

Post by baddox »

Confusion wrote: post #158
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

When you enter a physical store or the house of your neighbours, you are also entering into an unspoken agreement that far exceeds the minimum requirements set by law. You didn't sign anything and no notice was posted, yet you abide by the rules. When they clearly and openly change those requirements, for instance by hanging advertisement banners from the walls, then you have the option of leaving. You are certainly…

But you certainly are entitled to use magic shades, unless of course the homeowner bans them. Likewise, a server is free to deny my browser's web request for any reason. The fact that the server does not deny my browser's request makes it pretty clear that using an ad blocker is analogous to using magic shades in my neighbor's home and receiving no complaints from the neighbor.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#198

Post by joeyo »

candiodari wrote: post #166
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…

I wonder if there is another solution: All large websites switch to canvas rendering (like Netflix already does). This provides scrape, adblocker, content filter, ... protection. And of course it makes the internet completely unusable by anyone either blind or ... You might even create a startup that makes a javascript web browser, that allows all these companies to get consistent rendering across all web browsers, p…

In the long term, even that won't be tenable: machine-learning will be able to block all the right pixels.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#199

Post by graycat »

pjc50 wrote: post #168
graycat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, question on ad blockers: So far I have not tried to use one. And my Web site for my startup, to be ad supported, has not gone live yet. But, what if: What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?

Hardly anyone will pay for that kind of ad, because it can't be audited and you could just forge ad impressions.

But maybe could get paid based on clicks?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#200

Post by Baeocystin »

matt4077 wrote: post #181
Ironchefpython wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rece…

I, too, am waiting for a cross-publisher content network. I'd easily pay $30/mo, instead of the $0 I'm paying now. But, for the individual publisher, this would mean the end of their current subscriber base and 70%+ of revenue. I'm pretty sure the NYT has a spreadsheet somewhere, and currently it's still saying that they are likely to lose out in such a model. If they get, say, 10% of my $30, that's $3 x 12 = $36, wh…

There's http://blendle.com . They let you pay-per-article. It's still early work, but I do use them, and I was glad to find their service.
Post reply on HN