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

271–280 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#271

Post by bambax »

matt4077 wrote: post #157
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)... That right there is the problem, though. You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word). But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That's an illusion, conceptually very much like clean water: almost free, but vital. The stuff the wire services collect and sell (and that everybody republishes) does cost quite a lot to produce,…

"News" are bad for you and bad for democracy. "News" are not what we think about when we think about the word "news", ie, reporting about important issues in the world, put in perspective -- historical perspective, geographical perspective, etc.

Actual news are, in essence, gossip. They destroy people's ability to think and reason.

News agencies are the worst. They define the agenda, what is important and what isn't. They pollute the "news ecosystem" right at the source.

Adblock is one way to fight back. Not the only way but a good way.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#272

Post by Jean-Philipe »

My experience with google ads was not great. I once ran google ads for my mom's online shop. Before, there was a constant stream of visitors and revenue. With google ads, the visitor rate went up crazy - the revenue, not at all! Despite the fact that the ad was very specific for what you could buy for how much. Once the google ad credits were all used up, the visitors rate dropped to almost zero. As if google was punishing us for not running ads anymore.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#273

Post by arjie »

dheera wrote: post #20
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…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

This is also why I pirate all the indie games I want. Cracks are just modifiers to bits I have on my computer. And don't get me started on movies. Some people offer me some bytes at a cheaper (free!) rate than so-called 'legitimate' sources.

Previously, lots of indie games used to have serial codes which I could just get off the Internet (just more bytes), but now they act in a user-hostile manner by using debilitating spyware like Steam. It's still crackable, and some people let me play their games for free because they don't put any DRM on it so all I need is the bits and lots of people are giving me those bits for free.

Non-subscription software is my favourite. I only need to modify the check algorithm, which are just bits and bytes that I can change however I wish, but subscription algorithm often means I have to get help from the Internet to prevent the spyware phoning home.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#274

Post by tomaskafka »

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…

Piano Media tried this in central Europe and folded.

Reason as I understand it: downward spiral. Publishers of worthy content learn to make people pay for content, and then go off-platform once they have large enough audience to keep the whole profit.

Weaker publications stay in a bundle, but at that point not many people want to pay.

Is this a future of Spotify model as well? Taylor Swift or Adele are now powerful enough to try to break away.

(use Google translate) https://www.pianomedia.sk/122/system-piano-na-slovensku-spln...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#275

Post by fwn »

zoul wrote: post #162
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 is a big difference between print and web: by the time you rip the ads out of the newspaper you have already made it to the ad statistics (“our newspaper sells X copies daily”). On the other hand, with an ad blocker an ad load is never recorded. In the first case, the publisher still makes money, in the second he doesn’t.

In the first case you are also screwing the advertising entity for the gain of the publisher, in the second case you are not pretending to see ads to profit for someone in the ecosystem on the expense of someone else.

I can hardly see any moral advancement there.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#276

Post by draugadrotten »

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.

> Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.

Isn't Spotify and Netflix evidence that suggest otherwise. All the music on Spotify is available for free on the so called dodgy sites. Torrents and whatnot. Heck, you can even listen to it for free on FM radio! However, literally millions of people choose to pay for Spotify - because it's worth it.

The news is no different. If news content providers provide a useful service, millions of people WILL pay.

My analysis is that millions of people avoid paying because news content providers don't sell news, they sell people. They sell their readers as fodder to the ad men. When that business model changes, people will pay for news.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#277

Post by fwn »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #151
Crito wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a kid, my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines as soon as they came in the mail. That's a practice I've carried on, despite getting far few magazines these days... My family also used to mute the advertisements on TV, though I don't think any of us still watch it. So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazin…

> my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines sheezus. didn't that take a shitload of time and effort? i can't believe how many ads magazines have. they're all over everything.

This big effort could serve as an indicator how experience damaging those ads were perceived to be.

If you create great costs (like ripping 30 pages from a magazine) for a small gain is this a particularly well intended economic strategy?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#278

Post by MarkMc »

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…

At least for me here in Australia, Google AdSense ads aren't obnoxious.

Below is the result of a quick scan of a few websites in private mode. I wonder why OP has such a different experience? Maybe the ad market in South Africa is very different? Or maybe GroundUp hasn't spent the necessary time to filter out bad ads?

----- New York Times:

Cycling clothing

Microsoft Enterprise

Health Insurance

Avoid overeating

Mortgage

----- Forbes:

Unfair Dismissal Lawyers

'JobActive' - Aust govt ad for employment service

Cancer council Australia - funding drive

Commonwealth bank Australia

----- Bloomberg:

Doesn't seem to use AdSense

----- Fox News:

Save the children (charity)

Find best debit card

Business Travel saver

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#279

Post by StreamBright »

People should realize that Ad-blocking became a way of protecting users from malware and scam that even Google includes in their system. I understand that they do their best to remove these sort of things but they are doing a shitty job.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#280

Post by pechkin000 »

howenterprisey wrote: post #81
sp33k3rph433k wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm working on something that will benefit people who have high traffic sites that don't want to show their users ads. The basics are here: http://www.trussapp.com/ -- it's not quite ready for production, but if it's something you might be interested in, I'm looking for beta users. cam@trussapp.com

Small nitpick, and if you want some unsolicited feedback on that site: the GIF that shows a user using the site goes super slow and it would be a lot more engaging if the user typed faster. Although I don't know how much I can blame this on connection problems on my end, it looks like it takes five seconds or so to type "Test Tester", when in my opinion it should take only one.

Sorry if I am misunderstanding the concept. What is the benefit of your service vs simply putting up a PayPal donate button on the site?
Post reply on HN