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

211–220 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#211

Post by JetSpiegel »

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.

Isn't this what clippings services provide? I don't see Obama (because Trump only watches TV) wasting his precious time reading the ads. He has people literally picking the wheat from the chaff.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#212

Post by Confusion »

djsumdog wrote: post #188
Confusion wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. No you don't. Just because something is technically possible, even easy, does not mean you are entitled to do so. Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?). Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?). Some bytes may not be rendered in…

This gets onto very shaky ground. What if I'm in a console and only browse with w3m or lynx? What if I simply disable all Images and Javascript (older web browsers made disabling images really simple; back when we had very limited dial-up bandwidth). Can websites dictate what web browsers you use? Are you violating an agreement by using a different User-Agent? No, no and no. You are requesting data and your browser r…

  No, no and no.
You have given no arguments to support these claims. You are just repeating the idea that you can do with those bytes what you want, when I just gave several examples of cases in which you can not do with those bytes what you want.

I'll make it explicit. You can't show a Netflix show to an audience (let alone a paying audience). You may not render an e-book that you haven't bought. You may not even store that sequence bytes on a device you own. You may not decrypt an encrypted file not intended for you.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#213

Post by Twisell »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #154
Twisell wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we might need to call that the Netflix theorem at some point: "If you just ask for the fucking right price, people will pay and great original content can arise"

Netflix was massively popular because the price was anchored against the price of cable. Americans were used to paying $100/mo or more for a collection of channels of which the majority were never watched. (because... ESPN? I never understood that) So $10/mo looked like a bargain. Currently, online journalism is anchored against the price of free. So if I want to sit down with my coffee and read an article from the N…

Yeah but if it was like 1$ a month each or 10$ for all newspaper problem solve customers would pay.

They just haven't figured out yet that on the web no-one is ready to pay 15$ for access to a single news source given that no-one is able to actually read all available content produced in one day.

New potential news customers born in the 1990 are like bees that fly from sites to sites.

Loyals customers that relly on one newspaper and are paying high fee are elderly people and they will stop paying when they unfortunately dies.

It all about not getting the demographic of you potential customer base...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#214

Post by elorant »

The real problem is that Google approves pretty much everyone for AdSense. Which works in favor of scammers and plagiarism. Someone scrapes content from respectable sites, parse them through an article spinning mechanism and voila, you have a legitimate looking site with absolutely no original content on it. Google shouldn't be approving any of those sites for ads. But they do, and that's a bit shocking for all of us who grew fond of them because of the "do no evil" mantra. Well Google, you're doing evil and perhaps it's time to do something about it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#215

Post by tarpherder »

matt4077 wrote: post #172
mc32 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the situation has devolved into a kind of arms race where content providers need to recover costs via advertising more aggressively because more people are "skipping"/blocking the ads. Those "more people" include me because some of it has become unbearable as well as malicious. That said, I do maintain that a site owner has the right to try to extract revenue from their enterprise and to a degree as vis…

I tend to think framing in terms of (legal or moral) rights isn't the best argument. The debate needs to be about utility and interests. People seem to think they exist in a vacuum. But now everyone is using ad blockers, and the dynamics have devolved to resemble the Greek tax system: "I'm not paying those taxes, they are too high" -> "We're not getting enough revenue, need to lower costs" -> "Why should I pay for th…

Goodwill? Good faith? After years and years of abuse, attacks, and irritation from their part? I think not.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#216

Post by elorant »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #110
reaperducer wrote: post #15

I've been on the fence about this for a while, and after reading what GroundUp wrote, I can't agree with them more. So I think it's time for me to dump Google Ads from my sites, as well. I send Big G three million ad impressions a month, and in return I get $150 and a bunch of visual dreck that makes the site look bad. $200, if I'm lucky. And this is all U.S. traffic on an award-winning news site. I only need to sell…

There's something wrong if you're getting paid $0.05 CPM for AdSense US traffic.

It's not a CPM problem, it's a CTR one. Click through rates for news sites are abysmal.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#217

Post by [deleted] »

robryk wrote: post #178
candiodari wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And the arms race progresses to image-based ad blockers.

[deleted]

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#218

Post by Confusion »

fmueller wrote: post #182
Confusion wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. No you don't. Just because something is technically possible, even easy, does not mean you are entitled to do so. Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?). Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?). Some bytes may not be rendered in…

What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.

Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view.

When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.

Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.

Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#219

Post by F2 »

DocTomoe wrote: post #170
nebabyte wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some…

> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.

You mean copywrite? That already exists.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#220

Post by terryf »

paulcole wrote: post #62
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…

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."

I'm sorry but it isn't that black and white. To be honest, I wish there was a way to put in my HTTP request headers the fact that I'm going to use an ad blocker - then your server has enough knowledge what to serve me exactly - if you wish, the text without adds, if not, then a notice saying that the text if for pay.

That'd be perfectly fine. Many sites already do this - detect my adblocker in javascript and then deny me access to the content. This is also perfectly fine - I fully agree that circumventing this forcefully is immoral/unethical.

In essence - the seller (content provider) should have the option to not give me content if I have an ad-blocker. If this is possible, then I don't see anything immoral about me using an adblocker. Do you?

And in fact, it does seem to be possible - wired for example does this. And I certainly don't try to circumvent this.

Many sites manage to work around and still show me ads. I dearly wish there would be some way for me to indicate "I'd rather be denied access to the content than be shown ads." Unfortunately that doesn't technologically exist easily yet.

Post reply on HN