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

521–530 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#521

Post by scrps »

clubm8 wrote: post #453
scrps wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free. Newspapers have just struggled to find and adopt a similar model, I hope they find it. The common thread is that we live in an advertising saturated world and a lot of people are tir…

>The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free. Not ad free - different types of ads. Services like Netflix have product placement. (Which troubles me a bit since while traditional ads were irritating, at least there was disclosu…

Yeah, that is true with Netflix... It was a pre-coffee post so the gears weren't fully turning yet.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#522

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #300
bad_user wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modif…

> 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'…

[deleted]

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#523

Post by lucasmullens »

jes5199 wrote: post #442
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.

Why would so many companies advertise if it provided such little value?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#524

Post by michaelmrose »

threatofrain wrote: post #339
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,…

My view is that if the population is watching ads, and somehow that is enough to float a business, then the population is actually paying for the business already, but through an indirect middleman. The population pays for it by buying more or paying more of some products -- in a time and manner that provides evidence to networks, content vendors, and advertisers of business justification. If we drill down further in…

Your argument sounds either as if people are obligated not only to watch ads but to change purchasing decisions based on them or the less gullible people ought to pay more.

I'm not even sure how to effect the latter without making the current fish bowl infinitly more invasive.

Even your choice of words is revelatory of a profoundly scewed perspective full of imaginary obligations. Of course those whose livelihood depends on a particular arrangement often seem to feel that the current state of affairs is necessary to the world at large as if the current good effects are both essential and couldn't be achieved any other way.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#525

Post by MaulingMonkey »

bad_user wrote: post #174
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement No. By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no…

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modif…

> You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app.

One of the many reasons I don't install every dick and jane's mobile app. In this context, I don't even have a Facebook account.

> Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course).

It's trivial to proxy your own HTTPS traffic even on unrooted phones for e.g. debugging or corporate MITM. Short of cert pinning - which is going to block some corporate users as well - it's not going to be a problem. Facebook would be able to detect I'm not consuming their ads, of course.

> So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked

You'll want a working website if only for the search traffic. I also consume most of my content on desktops or laptops - native apps are barely a thing here (anymore.) Even for phones, Google has a powerful incentive not to let apps break the web (which would deprive Google of all that juicy search traffic) and are already penalizing e.g. "intrusive interstitals". And even for phones, I will go without sooner than I will go with people's terrible native apps.

> or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement.

Has that stopped pirates? And reminding consumers that adtech can be regulated might not be the smartest move as well... that goes both ways after all.

It's also giving ad blockers powerful incentive to obfuscate their tracks. Right now, adtech has the option to detect and request you disable your ad blocker, or refuse to serve you content if you don't. They lose that option if ad blockers have to obfuscate their tracks as a matter of routine, just to continue operating.

> But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with

Agreed.

> by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.

That doesn't follow. Several blockers have e.g. "acceptable ads" policies. Those that don't can still whitelist sites (either because they asked nicely, or because the website breaks without doing so), and you will likely not remain whitelisted unless you and your advertisers are good actors. If anything, ad blockers are about only rewarding good actors.

There's also native advertising, doing a bit for one's sponsors in a podcast or video stream, etc. which tends to be of infinitely better quality, impossible to embed malware into, actually vetted by the content producers, and which generally nobody bothers to even try blocking.

And for all GroundUp's good intentions, part of the reason they seem to be ditching google ads is because they were not being good actors by running said ads. Are you sure this is an example of a darkening future instead of a brightening one?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#526

Post by alexbeloi »

matt4077 wrote: post #191
mitchty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

The ethical problem isn't ethical, but existential. If everyone acted on only their immediate self-interest, ad-supported business models would fold. Then, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls. Even if you decide to pay for a few sources of information, you will never again have access to the breath of journalism you have now. If paywalls don't catch on, it's game ov…

> people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls

I don't think this claim can be made on the basis of site traffic. You would have to compare how many people actively support the ad system vs actively support the paywall system.

Assuming people that use adblocking software, support the paywall system as a default alternative, ~22% of internet users use adblockers[0] and (let's say) support a paywall system.

I would guess that of the 78% of people that don't use an adblocker, the majority of them don't know about them, rather than make a conscious decision to not use them.

Ad revenue model is winning on traffic because of three reasons

* lots of people don't know about adblockers

* the default configuration for browsers is to not do adblocking

* most people don't change defaults

I couldn't find any studies that have specific estimates of how many people dont know about adblocking software or know and don't use.

[0]https://iabuk.net/about/press/archive/iab-uk-reveals-latest-...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#527

Post by Mz »

joshuamorton wrote: post #512
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…

My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon. Or in other words, if "a $1 charge…

I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off.

It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills.

If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.

It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#528

Post by abritinthebay »

phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

> this industry and its ad-model isn't very "old" in historical terms.

It dates back to the 1700s-era newspapers. That's... pretty old in terms of the medium.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#529

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#530

Post by vacri »

sgc wrote: post #401
dhimes wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Washington Post offered me an online subscription (I live in Boston now but grew up and started my family in the Washington DC area) for $20 it was a no-brainer. The next year they wanted $100 and I worked them down to $50 so I took it. This year they wanted $100 so they got $0. If they charged $20 or $30 a year I bet they would get subscribers if the ad-revenue model died. But it's a winner-take-all operati…

Or news outlets could adopt the academic publishers / netflix / steam(?) model, and aggregate their subscriptions. I too would not pay $100 / year for WaPo. But I would pay $100/year for access to a quality selection of international news organizations. It is a blindingly obvious solution which I suspect is only hindered by pride and unrealistic expectations. There are a myriad of ways the profit could be split inter…

Interesting isn't it. Upthread there's someone saying to just use the newspaper model as it worked for decades, and here are two people saying they won't pay a fraction of the newspaper model (~27c/day).

Instead you want an immense pool of content generation for that 27c per day. Good journalism isn't cheap - that's why paper newspapers cost what they do and are full of adverts - but you want to pay rock-bottom prices to individual sources whilst still pretending that you're paying a 'reasonable amount'.

Post reply on HN