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

501–510 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#501

Post by kuschku »

briandear wrote: post #488
kuschku wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

> 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?

Do you think the BBC is biased? ARD, ZDF? They are not.

Because they don't get paid by the government, but they have the right to collect their own taxes instead. That way they are independent, and still always funded.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#502

Post by protomyth »

Mz wrote: post #499
protomyth wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic. I realize SV never has to worry, but…

You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual. I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people. I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $…

> You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual.

> Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.

A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population.

> This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)

That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#503

Post by user5994461 »

fastball wrote: post #485
user5994461 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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?

I know they remove the worst links and I am not denying that.

They are however replaced with new ones as soon as they are deleted. It is a constant war and the only salvation is adblockers.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#504

Post by Spivak »

ori_b wrote: post #479
harwoodleon wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moot argument. If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Newspapers had this model for decades, worked for them.

> If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Interesting, the ones who tried to charge seem to be dying.

Yeah, and that says more about the perceived value of their content more than their business model. Paying for news is something that basically every household in the US did up until recently so it's a tough argument to make that people are unwilling. But the honest truth is that their content isn't that much better than the ad supported alternatives.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#505

Post by pasbesoin »

At some point, someone is going to turn static visual (and text, I suppose) ads (back, per the "text" part) into a competitive advantage. Why? Because they actually get through. For the graphics, forcefully stripped of any meta-data and corners of the format that can become mal-ware vectors.

I'll put up with ads that don't move or make noise at me. And that don't/can't try to infect me.

But, no one wants to do that.

Stalemate.

My fear is that, in addition to increasingly locking down the web, the new DRM extensions will be used to force (crap-laden) ads upon us. Content and crap will all get packaged up together, as an encrypted binary. Et voilà, no more open Web.

P.S. Yeah, I don't want to look at gross medical ads, either. So, I guess I have a few more qualifications, personally.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#506

Post by gorhill »

bad_user wrote: post #452
bluGill wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, Facebook seems to have some standards for ads: I don't see the porn/Russian brides/make money fast ads on Facebook like I see elsewhere. (except for a few real world friends involved in some MMF scam who use their personal status to advertise - not Facebooks' fault there though) I do judge publishers by the quality of ads they accept. You cannot advertise a borderline illegal MMF scam and be considered l…

Sure, I agree about quality, but if we continue blocking ads, then how are we going to end up rewarding the good actors? I mean, this GroundUp site decided to drop Google's ads in order to improve usability for users and because the gains aren't worth it. But this change won't get noticed by users having ad-blockers installed. And if they'll decide to push high-quality in-house ads in order to survive, all it takes i…

> all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination.

Anybody is free to disable their blocker on any site. If you want a site to be funded by mean of ads and you are fine with the ads served to you, just disable your blocker on that site.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#507

Post by campuscodi »

anoisyboy wrote: post #138

I added this article to /. (Slashdot) and it was marked as spam, sending it's rating black and instantly damaging it's chance of being seen, yet here it has proper and full engagement?!? How did someone at /. consider this spam? Hopefully someone here can shed some light.

Don't worry. People on slashdot complain about HN mods.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#508

Post by nitwit005 »

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…

It works if you're someone like Amazon that can pay based on sales generated, but that's actually somewhat unusual. A lot of advertisers are hoping to also push their brand, and there fraud is the big problem. A lot of the JS served is just validating that the ads displayed properly, or was seen by the correct target audience.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#509

Post by abiox »

briandear wrote: post #488
kuschku wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

so-called "free market" media can turn to propaganda just the same, and just as easily.

this is evidenced by Trump's foolish missile strike being so thoroughly adored in mainstream press.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#510

Post by MichaelGG »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #477
MichaelGG wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On mobile, the ads I see are almost exclusively fake virus warnings, "clean your phone" and other crap like that. Complete with flashing yellow and red images.

Are those Google Ads though? Google is indeed a dominant player in the advertising market, but they're not the only one. You could be seeing ads from a different ad network. All of those things you described (fake virus warnings, "clean your phone", flashing yellow and red images) are against Google's policies for AdWords. See: https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6020954 https://support.google.com/adwords…

Definitely Google - AdMob, I think.
Post reply on HN