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

241–250 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#241

Post by zuzun »

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…

There's no reason to believe that this would get rid of ads in the long run. Once the big publishers have established such a payment model, what keeps them from adding ads on top of it? You pay $5 for printed newspapers and magazines, do they come ad-free?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#242

Post by justabystander »

Ad networks regularly serve various forms of malware and spyware, as well as tracking beacons that put my data at risk of being stolen or misused. And once it's in a database somewhere, it's only a matter of time until it gets stolen and someone attempts to hijack accounts or steal an identity.

It's funny how you never see the sites that whine about adblockers offer to accept legal responsibility for their complicity in the potential theft and property destruction served from their site. When you take away the option to protect myself, you accept responsibility for attacks. After all, if it's morally/legally wrong to alter the presentation of the content they serve, then they also morally/legally responsible for incidents when they serve it improperly and cause losses/damages. Quite obviously it's not financially viable for them to pay for their negligence, and so it's also not financially viable for me to trust that a site won't host some sort of attack vector.

The pennies of advertising revenue earned from my modest browsing over the course of a year doesn't pay nearly enough to compensate for the time I lose through dealing with malicious ads. Unless online advertising cleans itself up, adblockers will be the best option. And sites that don't respect that aren't sites I'm interested in.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#243

Post by neltnerb »

username223 wrote: post #51
Mz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon. So far, for me, the tip jar has been more successful than ads or Patreon (though I am new to Patreon, so, time will tell). I would be happy to get rid of ads altogether (with the exception of one site, for REASONS) if I thought that would drive up tips. But I have experimented a bit and it didn't seem to drive up tips. Then, whenever I read these discussions, there is…

> You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon. I've contemplated this kind of thing, but it feels like panhandling, and I'm reluctant to go there. I would do it if I thought I could do so tastefully and respectfully. I'm a (non-tech-related) "content producer," and I absolutely refuse to put up ads or be a shill or "native advertiser." Instead, I wrote a book, and if people want to support what I do, they can buy…

I think people donating on Patreon get the whole "predictable income makes an artist's life an awful lot easier" thing, if you're looking for a tactful way to approach the topic.

Saying that you'd like to be able to make it your full time job is a very reasonable thing as well, and I imagine people get that you need some kind of salary to do it.

Both of these are things that I, if I were a frequent visitor to your site, would have a pretty good incentive to make happen.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#244

Post by Baeocystin »

reitanqild wrote: post #230
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, not even that tiny amount. (You is to be read as Google, not you personally) You didn't even give me a chance! I was actively looking and you denied me, I think because I was European and didn't want to lie or something. And seriously: I only knew of it through HN. Was there ever any campaigns to inform about it? I can't remember seeing a single ad. Never heard about a single talkshow appear…

If I hadn't seen it mentioned deep in a thread here at HN, I would never have seen a single mention of it, either.

As it was, I was the only one of the dozens of other techs/devs I know who heard about it. Most were interested once I told them! There must have been zero advertising.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#245

Post by boyce »

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…

What about alternative ad business models like http://projectwonderful.com

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#246

Post by reitanqild »

tomc1985 wrote: post #232
SFJulie wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Who said the whales are rich ?

Something like lotteries being a tax on people who don't get math.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#247

Post by Fiahil »

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…

> Then you see all those shitty ads for [...]

Nowadays, when a family member is asking which "antivirus should I pick?", my answer goes along the lines of "just install uBlock Origin, activate this and that filter and allow it in incognito mode. You can do it on your own, it's super easy and super effective". Even better, this also "fix" most of the "slow computer" complaints.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#248

Post by adrianN »

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…

If we could go back to self-hosted ads without scripts, cookies and other forms of user tracking, without autoplaying videos and whole-page overlays, I'd be much more willing to turn off my adblocker.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#249

Post by harwoodleon »

I started, ran an sold an ad based business in 2008. To say that most of the activity in the ad space was dubious back then is a complete understatement.

Most of our traffic to the adverts was generated, purely to syphon off money from the advertisers and we established this by fingerprinting the traffic with JS tools at the client side. This was what let me to the conclusion that the business is dysfunctional, the customers at best are getting wildly ripped off, their privacy effectively sold off and they open themselves up to huge amounts of malware too.

Advertising is a horrible business model. But until a new way is found, people/businesses don't have any other choice of marketing their activities.

I totally stand by the publication. Any publication that really cares about it's readers will try to find another way.

(Edit: I am viewing this page on a Brave Browser, check it out, it has ad blocking and publisher micropayments built in https://brave.com)

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#250

Post by harwoodleon »

ori_b wrote: post #223
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…

> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.

Moot argument. If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Newspapers had this model for decades, worked for them.
Post reply on HN