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

231–240 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#231

Post by xxs »

graycat wrote: post #84
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…

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?

I routinely block anything that messes up the layout, ad or not [but mostly advertising]. right-click, add a regular expression rule, never to be witnessed again.

Yet, I am the minority. If you serve your own images/iframes, they are likely going thru... but you have to be trusted not to forge impressions and the like.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#232

Post by tomc1985 »

SFJulie wrote: post #177
Filligree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

> people don't want to pay cough rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them. That's the base of the free internet model. With the Tier1 ISP billing at 95th percentile, and ISP almost illimited subscription and the close to flat rate, the contribution of small internet users in volume is the biggest in proportion of revenues. And with people like google not paying for their transit, it means someone has to pay. W…

> rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them.

Funny, F2P gaming is all about the opposite. The whales pay for everyone.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#233

Post by xg15 »

matt4077 wrote: post #193
nebabyte wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If you argue with that kind of unwritten agreement, I'd argue that ad providers should also adhere to the agreement not to track me, manipulate me or to infect my machine with malware. Which they evidently don't. So I don't feel very motivate to respect theirs.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#234

Post by quickben »

zoul wrote: post #144
JKCalhoun wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more frustrated they're wasting my bandwidth, slowing down load times. If their ads were text-only and not running trackers to follow me on the internet I wouldn't bother with ad-blockers/tracker-blockers.

They have to waste your bandwidth in order to pay for the content you came to read. If you’re not happy with that, don’t read it .

They don't have to. There are plethora of monetizing options and content gating possible (subscriptions , apps, etc).

When one chooses the cheapest to implement approach, one can't really complain that the cheapest ad blocking technique counters it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#235

Post by chongli »

Confusion wrote: post #218
fmueller wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beca…

The difference with paintings and architecture is that there is only one. That is a sufficient justification for letting the creator control the ability to modify it. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of that painting or designing a model of that building and using it in some modern art bodily fluid exhibit or whatever.

Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#236

Post by nabla9 »

mevile wrote: post #6

I always imagined that some website/mobile app/service would appear that would let you buy subscriptions for access to multiple publishers at once. I think people have a hard time spending $5 here a month $10 there a month, but would spend maybe $49 for a range of access to sites. I don't know why something like that hasn't taken off yet. You could pick the sites you want access to or they could do a pay out based on…

The reason why it has not taken off is because success depends strongly from network effect. Starting small provides no value for subscribers.

What we need is subscription payment service network __protocol__. It should be protocol because we don't want to give monopoly for single organization.

You pay something lke $5 -$60 per month for one company of your choosing. Whenever you visit a web page and pay, consume content or tip, your browser leaves an anonymous authenticated tokens/coins/whatever behind. Services can turn these tokens into money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#237

Post by Symbiote »

paulcole wrote: post #78
RodericDay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are advertisements themselves moral? How can you debate the finer points of whether accessing a website and rejecting ads is moral or not, when you haven't built a moral case for urging and tricking people into buying stuff that they don't need?

> tricking people into buying stuff that they don't need This tells me all I need to know. If this is your stance on advertising, I don't know what to tell you.

What do you think the purpose of advertising is?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#238

Post by camillomiller »

rdl wrote: post #122

You really need different monetization for different kinds of sites. 1) Low quality, high volume, low overhead: google ads. 2) High quality/high value, low volume, niche: subscription/services 3) Medium quality, low volume, niche: donation The only form of advertising I'd ever want on my site, unless it is a very low quality, is direct sold by my own staff (i.e. me). I'd probably optimize for effort and just do a sin…

Everyone always forgets about Amazon referrals. For certain categories it's a valuable and inobtrusive monetization method

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#239

Post by ryanx435 »

guelo wrote: post #156

I applaud the advertisers. For a good long while racists were afraid or ashamed to push their racism too publicly. I liked that world, less hate and venom being spewed around poisoning the public sphere. But something snapped in the last few years and all the assholes have become loud and proud of their assholiness and they are celebrated and encouraged to be the biggest asshole they can possibly be. From what I can…

Is this satire? This comment is too ignorant of the Internet to be a real comment on hacker news.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#240

Post by chongli »

graycat wrote: post #84
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…

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?

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?

Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex [0] does this. I've run ad blockers for years and his ads have never shown up on the lists. I feel no urge to block them on my personal list, either, since they don't bother me. It's probably a good way to go if you've got a good sized niche audience and you don't mind negotiating directly with your sponsors.

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/

Post reply on HN