Live data from Hacker News

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

601–610 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#601
post #489

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,…

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

Listen up, we're trying to think of the poor starving content industry, here.

It's not like they have prosthetics for blocked ads and lost revenue.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#602

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), then hey, you have a sale. Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.

And we do, since 1886 (and being kept more or less up to date, ever since)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyri...

Whether this means that everyone loses ... I'm not directly disagreeing with that either (I don't like copyright/intellectual property rights in their current form at all), but let's get the facts straight first :)

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#603
post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've known several people on the abuse teams for ad revenue at Google and I can tell you they work very hard and care deeply at preventing malware. It is, however, an extremely non-trivial task.

To be clear, I don't really fault those people specifically, I'm sure they do the absolute best at the jobs they are given. But this is a systemic issue with Google and the sort of solution that would actually fix it would cost more profits than they intend to spend on unimportant issues like protecting consumers from fraud.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#604
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, if the restaurant only accepts payment by credit card, you are free to not pay. That's the concept of legal tender - if they want to demand payment of a debt (i.e. after you finish the meal) from you with backing by law, they _must_ accept legal tender. If they only accept credit card payments, they can't use the law to make you pay.

> ... they _must_ accept legal tender That is a myth; even the US Treasury Department outright says so. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...

> This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.

Emphasis added is mine. US coins and currency are valid offers of payment for debts, but for most other purposes a vendor can choose what to accept. The uniform commercial code, §3-603, then states:

> If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

Unless there are other statutes that apply (I'm not any kind of expert in this area), it sure sounds like if I make a valid offer of legal tender to an authorized agent of a creditor, and they refuse, I have satisfied the terms of the debt. So, if I owe someone $10,000 I can legally offer them one million pennies, which are legal tender under the Coinage Act of 1965 (perhaps I also should provide some form of proof that there are one million pennies in the truck so there's no dispute about that). They can also legally choose to reject it, but if they do then I no longer owe them anything.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#605
post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically not. They don't initialize the scripts that are required to track and log the impression. It's pretty well known that techies don't click on ads, but they're only a smaller segment of the internet population.

..until your site has them as your core audience..

I was implying that ads isn't a good way to monetize that audience. Sponsored content or affiliate networks is better.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that was the point of the thread I replied to. But sure, when you reduce distribution cost to zero, you remove a lot of local advantage. And this isn't new. Improvements in music distribution, starting with the wax cylinder, have been slowly killing the local market for musicians. Why wait until the evening go a few blocks and pay to hear a so-so local band when you can play an amazing one in your hou…

A summary of the thread, from my perspective: 1. Advertising is the wrong way to monetize, paywalls are the right way, 2. Paywalls don't work because they make people go elsewhere and sites still have expenses, 3. (you) Paywalls do work, NYT and WSJ make lots of money on digital, 4. (me) Yes but that's only because they are the winners in a winners-take-all market. I don't really disagree with you, my point was just…

Ah, got it. Yes, I agree entirely. I was only disagreeing with #2's notion that paywalls never work. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#607
If google would simply charge a "review fee" for new adverts, or when a target for an advert changes (via detection), that could cover the cost of manual review. Another fee to "challenge" review, etc...

This would allow good advertisers to pay once or twice a month for reviews on new ad campaigns and the spammy throw it all at the wall campaigns less likely. But google isn't interested in quality... but quantity, so they can charge higher rates per view/click.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#608
post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I'm blocked from a news site because of my blocker, I just get context from comments and move on with my life. It's so rare that there's important information beyond what's in the headline anyways. I respect paywalls much more.

"I'll whitelist you, as soon as you stop using a third party ad network" "But then what's the point", we both said in unison.

"Because ad tech is a sucking leech", per the article this post is about.

* Everything is worse for users (tracking and malware)

* Everything is worse for advertisers (ineffective ads)

* Everything is worse for publishers (pays way too little)

* But adtech gets paid well

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#609
post #103

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…

> Then you see all those shitty ads Still somewhat better than creepy targeted advertising. I bought a new garbage can a few weeks ago now many sites are full of ads for garbage cans. Although this may be one example where the targeting is working. Most of the sites showing those ads are garbage.

I do not understand this behavior at all. You just bought a garbage can. Why would you need another one right away? If you did you presumably would've bought multiple at the time you made the original purchase. To me thats just the marketer or advertising platform being tone deaf.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#610
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…

Sounds like the start of cable: pay a monthly fee, and get the programming without ads. That lasted, what? Months? And we got the ads anyway.
Post reply on HN