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

321–330 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#321

Post by chrisan »

justabystander wrote: post #242

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…

Genuine question: has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past?

I thought they were, while still annoying, safe from serving such content. So much that if they detect your site has malware they prevent it from serving their ads https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/1308246?hl=e...

As such I went along with allowing google ads since it seemed like a good middle ground between not wanting to have everything pay-walled off and still allowing sites to generate ad money

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#322

Post by scrps »

adrianN wrote: post #248
matt4077 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would absolutely turn my adblocker off as well if that were the model. My problem isn't advertising, it is false, malicious, bloaty surveillanceware that most advertising is today.

Ads need to be curated by content providers.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#323

Post by xg15 »

justabystander wrote: post #242

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…

A variant of this that highlights the absurdity of that very nicely are auto-redirecting mobile ads. The two valid options according to the site (and anti-ad-blocker people) would be:

1) Don't open the site to begin with.

2) Open the site and instantly get redirected.

Note how none of the options entails actually reading the content provided by the site.

So if there is no valid way to consume the content, you could ask why it is there in the first place.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#324

Post by detaro »

ac29 wrote: post #175
guelo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-internet you could buy the Sunday edition of your city's newspaper for 50 cents. This included dozens of in-depth articles. So yea, probably on the order of a penny per article. Though it was heavily subsidized by car dealer advertisements and the classifieds.

Yeah, thats pretty much it -- I remember print media too! Quality digital journalism from somewhere like NYT or WP (your opinions may vary) is worth $10/year/sub to me as an occasional reader. Unfortunately, they cost 10x that.

How many articles do you read as an "occasional reader"? 10$ distributed over 0.10 to 0.50 per article is 100-20 articles.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#325

Post by J-dawg »

This might be a stupid question, but is it possible to monetise a website successfully using entirely "dumb" adverts with no ad networks involved?

I mean ads which are simply an image inside an tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.)

I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential advertisers and make deals. But on the upside you could host only well-curated ads that are relevant to your audience. Presumably they would also be difficult to block (although I suppose ad blockers could start recognising images, maybe they do this already?)

Has anyone had any success doing this? Is it likely to become more common as ad blocking increases?

I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious!

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#326

Post by jcbrand »

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,…

> reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?

False dichotomy.

Firstly, ads don't have to be annoying. Secondly, news doesn't have to be financed by ads.

There are lots of smaller and independent news sources that don't rely on ads for funding. The news organisation linked to in the article is a case in point. They make their money from donations. Another one is insurge intelligence (https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence) which uses crowdfunding.

Then there is also citizen media and blogs.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#327

Post by builditand »

executesorder66 wrote: post #169
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…

> When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically. I hate ads. I hate that they track you. I hate that they waste data. But most of all I hate that they are annoying. I always use an ablocker and I don't care if you don't get paid because I didn't look at an ad. I am still busy with my degree this year. (I am studying part ti…

> I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one.

Best idea today, thanks! I pirate it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#328

Post by davidgerard »

boyce wrote: post #245
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

Project Wonderful is the ad network I explicitly enable. They're really nice so far. Very little money in it though.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#329

Post by baby »

J-dawg wrote: post #325

This might be a stupid question, but is it possible to monetise a website successfully using entirely "dumb" adverts with no ad networks involved? I mean ads which are simply an image inside an tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.) I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential adverti…

https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#330

Post by imglorp »

J-dawg wrote: post #325

This might be a stupid question, but is it possible to monetise a website successfully using entirely "dumb" adverts with no ad networks involved? I mean ads which are simply an image inside an tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.) I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential adverti…

Yes, ads targeted to the viewer's demographic and interests are far more lucrative. Just try searching for "mortgage interest" or "divorce lawyer" and see how long until your adscape changes when browsing.
Post reply on HN