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

481–490 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#481

Post by cpeterso »

duskwuff wrote: post #133
cpeterso wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind ads; I just don't want clickbait crap about shocking celebrity photos and "deep searches" for local singles. So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola): https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. If you know of any other bad clickbait ad networks, please let me know! As the article describes, I n…

A few years ago, I wrote something similar: https://github.com/duskwuff/syndicationblock/ Is Yavli still a thing? I had a hell of a time blocking their ads -- they served content from custom subdomains, and used class names "borrowed" from Google to evade ad blockers.

Thanks! I check out your syndication blocklist. I haven't seen Yavli in my testing.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#482

Post by arrosenberg »

lawik wrote: post #415
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This existed (kind of) in an App called Pulse. It was a feed reader, not a database, but it was brilliant for organizing news articles and searching by title.

Then LinkedIn bought it and promptly ruined, then shuttered it. Still waiting for someone to release a new newsreader app with the same scrolling format. I would have absolutely paid to keep and improve that app.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#483

Post by Antrikshy »

alexchantavy wrote: post #149

Off topic: this is the first time I've heard of GroundUp, and I really like the "Dear Editor" format of the comment page on this site. I'm used to seeing mainstream newspaper websites with downright toxic commenting environments, so seeing "Dear Editor" followed by a thought-out response is very refreshing. Maybe they have a "better" readership/screening process/whatever, but I think this higher quality commenting be…

It's not just the framing. They call their comments "letters". Try clicking the "Write a letter in response to this article" button. The UI is designed to promote constructive comments.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#484

Post by wkoszek »

Google Ads I've put on my koszek.com once. Then while doing some layout changes I saw all sorts of things being displayed. Some really inappropriate -- in my Google Summer of Code writeups I got some ulcer and sex-related ads. And I removed it then, never looked back. Not worth compromising your quality.

Right now I only use Amazon Affiliate and I guess only because it's (a) easy to get a link to the books I review (b) they are actually controlled by me, at least in theory. No flipping products Amazon is randomly sending me.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#485

Post by fastball »

user5994461 wrote: post #390
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…

>>> has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past? Yes. Very much so. Look for "VLC download" for instance, the first ads should be adware sites that distribute a fake version of the software and they paid to get that top search position.

The top 3 links when I search VLC download are all Videolan.

There is even a giant banner (looks like it's not paid for) that says "VLC" and has the VLC logo and links to Videolan.

Google removes ads that contain/link to malware/viruses as soon as they are made aware of them. What more do you want?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#486

Post by mancerayder »

ballenf wrote: post #475
jcbrand wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

I'd put up with annoying ads if I knew they weren't tracking every click and mouse movement. That data will soon enough be used to determine things like interest rates and hiring (already is in China). I can deal with stupid ads and have done for decades reading print journalism. Unless they're animated, modal or otherwise unnaturally annoying.

That data will soon enough be used to determine things like interest rates and hiring (already is in China).

Can you elaborate on that, or provide a source? I'm quite curious (and somewhat not surprised).

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#487

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

yazan94 wrote: post #418
bambax wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 s…

> Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart.

Let's also not kid ourselves about the notion of the current, big, established news organizations being independent of the same conflicting interests that ensare various parts of the federal government. No, the government doesn't control the media. Rather, big corporations and rich moguls control the government, AND the media, to the same ends.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#488

Post by briandear »

kuschku wrote: post #266
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,…

Subscribing to a newspaper in paper. That's the best for everyone involved. Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).

Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them?

Journalism's oldest and most important role is to serve as a watchdog over government. When they start profiting from government, they'll be less likely to be critical of it.

Journalism should be supported by the free market. If people want it, they pay. If nobody wants to pay, then you either adapt or die. The really good media outlets are doing just fine (i.e. The Economist, NY Times,) those on the margins are at risk -- but that's their own fault.

State supported media has the potential to turn into Pravda (for the political party from whom they garner the most support, usually leftists,) and it generally does, albeit with much more subtlety.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#489

Post by zeroer »

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,…

How would you even construct a law that bans adblockers but not accessibility features?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#490

Post by WorldMaker »

PaulHoule wrote: post #476

When I started with Google ads, Google was classier than other ad networks. Other ad networks were stuffed with free ringtones, sketchy supplements and other scams. Then at some point Google gave me the option to opt out of various objectionable topics and soon Google ads got as bad as the others. Maybe Google bought the bad ad networks, or partnered with them or something. Quite a bit of subtext is largely unexamine…

I worried when Google bought DoubleClick many years back if Google would become as bad as DoubleClick. I don't think we can point fingers at any one thing precisely, but that did seem like an omen at the time.

I think the problem with ads on the internet is that it will always be a race to the bottom. Ads on TV and in newspapers/magazines have scarcities in play to somewhat help manage them. Ad space on the internet has never been scarce.

The ad companies (Google and Facebook especially) see themselves as somehow unbiased market platforms, and I think we are coming to point where the lack of scarcities leaves "neutral" platforms vulnerable to very cheap "attacks". I worry that ad platforms need to exert a lot more editorial control in the face of that and/or start building a lot more artificial scarcity into their platforms, and I don't think any of them are appropriately incentivized to do that.

I also worry that Google and Facebook's ad spaces are content spaces: search ads at the top of search results, and sponsored "posts" that have like/share/comment abilities. I think that also requires a custodianship and a moral obligation to editorially control those spaces that neither Google nor Facebook have thus far been inclined to take enough responsibility for. Facebook especially, when liked/shared ads graduate to "real" viral content, entirely blurring the lines between ads and content and giving direct power to cheap micro-targeting attacks without having some editorial immune system to help avoid the worst memetic viruses. (Facebook claims to want to do better, but their fiduciary responsibility incentivizes them not to treat ads as user hostile infection points.)

Post reply on HN