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

411–420 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#411

Post by tomp »

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.

You wouldn't even need to - ads like that are practically indistinguishable from locally-hosted images, I'd reckon most adblockers don't block them anyways!

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#412

Post by tomp »

redm wrote: post #378
andrepd wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer or mobile operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising. Before the term malware was coined by Yisrael Radai in 1990, malicious software was referred to as computer viruses." [1] [2] I don't think most people would consider Google's purposeful display ads, which site ow…

> gather sensitive information

It's right there in the definition, literally.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#413

Post by beagle3 »

zoul wrote: post #142
visarga wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the agreement? Access for losing privacy and risking malware?

The point is that if you don’t like an ad-supported website, you should simply not read it, not strip the ads and read it anyway.

Would you say the same about changing the font size or the color contrast?

For years I had "flash click to play" for usability reasons (I always have 20-50 tabs open), before ad blocking was a thing - but as a results, ads wouldn't play or show until I clicked on them. Do you think back then I had the obligation to click-to-play the ads?

It is exceedingly simple. If you don't want me to see content without ads, don't serve it to me without ads. If you don't want me to change the font size, serve it as a png so I can't change it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#414

Post by bebopfunk »

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…

Reply All did a great episode about google assisting in scammers operations inadvertently. It primarily focuses on the barrage of cheap shady lock smith services offered as sponsored ads at the top of google results.

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/78-very-quickly-to-the-drill...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#415

Post by lawik »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #286
draugadrotten wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dif…

Publishers that have come to the web from old-school media are still failing to understand the medium. They take their print content, slap it up on a website (designed to replicate the look of a print newspaper!), surround it with ads, and expect it to behave in exactly the same way as hardcopy newspapers. It doesn't, for a myriad of reasons. I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publish…

Thought this would just be a rant against old media but the last paragraph surprised me. Yes, that would be interesting. Not sure if spotify for news would work but a single db where you could read up on most major publications content around a specific subject or search term, standard interface, could be amazing.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#416

Post by [deleted] »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #286
draugadrotten wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dif…

Publishers that have come to the web from old-school media are still failing to understand the medium. They take their print content, slap it up on a website (designed to replicate the look of a print newspaper!), surround it with ads, and expect it to behave in exactly the same way as hardcopy newspapers. It doesn't, for a myriad of reasons. I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publish…

[deleted]

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#417

Post by [deleted] »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #286
draugadrotten wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dif…

Publishers that have come to the web from old-school media are still failing to understand the medium. They take their print content, slap it up on a website (designed to replicate the look of a print newspaper!), surround it with ads, and expect it to behave in exactly the same way as hardcopy newspapers. It doesn't, for a myriad of reasons. I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publish…

[deleted]

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#418

Post by yazan94 »

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.…

Disclaimer: I live in the US, and run an adblock indiscriminately and urge others to do the same.

Yes, news as we generally know it contains a lot of fluff, is almost certainly biased - whether politically or racially - and misleads through omission and incredible sources, we can go on. But, who will then do the reporting if these big news sources do not? Imagine a world without CNN or NYT or whatever. All of these sources are blamed by one political party or another to be biased and left/right/radical/whatever leaning. If we got rid of them and relied only on the smaller news entities and blogs and such, who will do the reporting on wars in Syria and Ukraine? Or who will report on whistle blowers and interview them? Why would someone of Edward Snowden's level of infamy be interviewed by a no-name news paper? Actually, on the topic of infamy, would it have even been possible for Edward Snowden to stay alive so far if general opinion was not so divided? If no one knew about him, what would save him? I would credit those same big news entities with spreading his story around and making him known. I believe that credible news sources are required for a healthy democracy, and that news organizations need to make money. Last thing we need is a government-run news entity (how can we trust one to keep us informed about grievances our governments may commit. Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart).

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#419

Post by aws_ls »

I think this speaks for 1000s and 1000s of small(er) website publishers. All squeezed by Google.

For example, we run a website having millions of page views a month. And similarly frustrated.

If we can divide the slot between 10 advertisers directly, we might make much more. Perhaps even double than what Adsense pays. The only reason, why we don't attempt that is time and effort getting directed in an unwanted direction.

And many small businesses are always struggling for bandwidth to do the core job (and projects that enthuse them). And Google is getting full advantage of this situation.[1]

Sometime back, I even wrote to them on falling CPCs (eCPMs) but of course, Google has a culture of not replying.

Its amazing to see, Internet living with a broken Ad model, for so long. I can't wait for a browser like Brave to take off. Where we can collect an ultra small amount from users for pageview, and still make more than Adsense.

[1] I suspect, this squeeze is happening more recently, because Google itself is feeling the pinch from Facebook. As its stealing a lot of its Ad revenue.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#420

Post by tomp »

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…

Wow, thanks for this. I've been using an adblocker for a while (and even before, I was "blind" to Google ads), but it's really ridiculous what comes up by searching for e.g. "windows help" or "hp support". Shame on Google!
Post reply on HN