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

441–450 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#441

Post by sp33k3rph433k »

pechkin000 wrote: post #280
howenterprisey wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's effectively the same thing, but it prevents users from having to leave your site to contribute. The hope is that it will increase donations because of that.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#442

Post by jes5199 »

aws_ls wrote: post #419

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 direct…

Internet advertising is a bubble - it delivers so little value but so much money is flowing through it. It has to pop sometime.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#443

Post by coldpie »

NLips wrote: post #432
coldpie wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be surprised if this is true.

It's completely true. If I finish my meal and don't have a credit card, the restaurant will be annoyed. I offer them cash, and they refuse the payment. I therefore leave without paying. The restaurant takes me to court for non-payment and I agree to pay. I pay in cash. From the link in your sibling comment: "This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for…

Being a legal offer of payment is different from being mandated to accept that payment. You may be right, but I would find it surprising.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#444

Post by countryqt30 »

specializeded wrote: post #17
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…

Have you tried Blendle? It's exactly as you say towards the end, articles are ~20 cents each with lots of good publishers. I've been using them since they launched in the US and couldn't be happier, they even offer refunds for clickbait!

How have you heard about Blendle?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#446

Post by dhimes »

jlebrech wrote: post #256

I wouldn't be on any social network if i had to pay $1 a month, but how much am I worth to them i wonder.

I would pay if they would keep my privacy, but I realize it would lock a lot of the world out. From last year's financials it looked like you were worth just over that to Facebook.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#447

Post by jacquesm »

bad_user wrote: post #429
jacquesm wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement. It wouldn't be. You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer, you just don't have the right to redistribute all of those bits. Copyright is about distribution, not about modification (well, it is in part, such a modified work would be classed as a 'derived work'…

For using apps in general you need to agree with an EULA, which can be upheld, otherwise EULAs wouldn't exist. Of course you can't sell your soul in an EULA and there's always this gray area where users might not be held accountable for selling their souls with a single click on " I agree ". But you're saying that copyright law refers to distribution, but well, you can't have that binary distributed legally unless yo…

You keep using the words 'copyright infringement' but you really have no idea what they mean.

> And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement.

No, it really isn't.

Breach of the EULA does not automatically translate into breach of terms-of-use for the service and neither of those translate into copyright infringement.

They would have a case to terminate your right to use and maybe they'd sue you for damages if you cause any but copyright has nothing to do with it (in this case, there are edge cases where copyright might be invoked but this is not one of those).

> Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it.

Yep.

> There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.

Well, the company won't like it and may sue you but they will still have to convince a judge that you caused them damage. And suing a private individual for pennies in lost ad sales is just not going to happen.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#448

Post by _m8fo »

If no one would pay money for your service then isn't it inherently valueless? Advertisements is just a scam that's gonna pop eventually.

I'd pay a lot of websites a buck a month for access. Multiply this by millions and you see. It's only when you introduce advertisements that the craziness begins.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#449

Post by rdiddly »

Confusion wrote: post #158
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

When you enter a physical store or the house of your neighbours, you are also entering into an unspoken agreement that far exceeds the minimum requirements set by law. You didn't sign anything and no notice was posted, yet you abide by the rules. When they clearly and openly change those requirements, for instance by hanging advertisement banners from the walls, then you have the option of leaving. You are certainly…

This analogy breaks down because it's my browser and my hardware. You're essentially putting both the web site and the viewer in a room together that happens to belong to the people who own the site. Whereas the reality is that each party owns his own end of a connection. My house is connected to their house/store. Neither party's rules apply outside their own domain, no pun intended. I can't remove the banners from their store, without permission and they can't display them in my house without permission.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#450

Post by jessaustin »

eli wrote: post #30
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

The cool thing about AdWords...

...is that a competing business down the road from mine has decided to spend $20/click for my business name, so now I have to spend much more than that in order for customers who already want to make an appointment with me to be able to call my phone number consistently. Google are complete gangster at this point... "nice business you have there."

Post reply on HN