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

361–370 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#361

Post by herbst »

killjoywashere wrote: post #33
eli wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is seriously doubting your legal right to block ads. > If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented. If the ad blocking becomes so widespread that the ad-supported model becomes unsustainable, I think a lot of people will be unhappy with what happens next. There will be a lot more paywalls and a lot more native advertising, which will be fine for entrenched players but much hard…

> Maybe micropayments can take care of that some day? Seriously, where's the Spotify of blogs?

Didn't medium launch something like this recently?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#362

Post by hawski »

jackdh wrote: post #352
hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

So from that I'm getting is to run it like one of those "Pay to increase download speed" across the site. I mean it makes sense, all content is still available to every user but when you pay you get instant or higher speeds.

It could be tied to Patreon. Reaching $1000 target cuts latency by X or serves Y less useless bytes.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#363

Post by simias »

bambax wrote: post #271
matt4077 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

I agree in the sense that I think "news" alone is rather worthless. You need an analysis, a context to make sense of it. Agenda and partisanship are not necessarily deal breakers IMO, as long as people are being forward and honest about it instead of faking "neutrality", whatever that is. You can be partisan while keeping your eyes open and your thinking critical instead of devolving into propaganda pamphlets. In a sense I believe that the idea of a completely fair and unbiased reporting is completely absurd.

For this reason I only subscribe to weekly or even monthly newspapers. It means those journalists are not racing to be the first ones to relay any information completely raw. Instead they can take a bit of distance, take time to analyze the situation and think of its possible consequences.

I don't know what to do when I'm told that there's been a terrorist attack in a country thousands of kilometers from me. Then we get a stream of picture, and a death count updated every femtosecond. It's sad, sure, but then what? Learning about the causes and consequences of this attack and how they fit in the history and geopolitics of our societies, now that's a lot more interesting and maybe even actionable.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#364

Post by 72deluxe »

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 .

I can't work out why nobody does HTTP 402 to pay for the content on a site.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#365

Post by 72deluxe »

The argument appears to be about whether to block adverts and whether this is ethical or not. The real reason for adverts is to pay for the site and its content.

I think the real argument should be about how we pay for content on a site and how to solve that problem instead of arguing about the adverts.

Why didn't HTTP 402 ever take off?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#366

Post by halflings »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #348
chrisan wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it. Almost every senior citizen I've ever had clean up malware for got it from a malicious search ad. And the tech support scams they continue to list take advantage of tons of people as well. I've pointed out before that Google happily lists phon…

> I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it.

That's quite a serious accusation :). One that is not substantiated by the facts:

https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#367

Post by iDemonix »

hawski wrote: post #320

I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services. Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB. Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP h…

This seems like a very weird solution to a problem that doesn't really warrant it.

Can you let me know which sites you own so I know not to visit them...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#368

Post by andrepd »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #346
chrisan wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Trackers are malware. Google ads are the widest spread virus on the planet.

I don't know why you're being downvoted, teachers fit in the definition of malware.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#369

Post by ocdtrekkie »

halflings wrote: post #366
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it. Almost every senior citizen I've ever had clean up malware for got it from a malicious search ad. And the tech support scams they continue to list take advantage of tons of people as well. I've pointed out before that Google happily lists phon…

> I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it. That's quite a serious accusation :). One that is not substantiated by the facts: https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...

A Google blog post is not "the facts". A Google blog post is, in fact, an ad for Google. Your sources should be independent, and independently verifiable. What Google says they do is useless, because it cannot be verified.
Post reply on HN