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

611–617 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#611

Post by dTal »

victorhooi wrote: post #377
arthurfm wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past? Yes. http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/y...

I read the article - it's an interesting read. The claim is that a YouTube ad was serving malware. However, upon reading the article, it seems that: 1. Somebody purchased legitimate YouTube ad space. 2. They then redirected that traffic twice through two other legitimate ad networks. 3. They then broke into a Polish government website, and funnelled the traffic there, to serve up malware. That certainly doesn't seem…

In other words: a YouTube ad was serving malware.

All that backend obscurantism is completely irrelevant to the hapless viewer.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#612

Post by victorhooi »

dTal wrote: post #611
victorhooi wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article - it's an interesting read. The claim is that a YouTube ad was serving malware. However, upon reading the article, it seems that: 1. Somebody purchased legitimate YouTube ad space. 2. They then redirected that traffic twice through two other legitimate ad networks. 3. They then broke into a Polish government website, and funnelled the traffic there, to serve up malware. That certainly doesn't seem…

In other words: a YouTube ad was serving malware. All that backend obscurantism is completely irrelevant to the hapless viewer.

So if somebody sends you spam to your GMail account - you'd say "Gmail is sending you spam?"

Or if somebody posts a bomb in your postbox - you'd say "US Postal Service is building and sending bombs"?

There's a fairly clear distinction there...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#613

Post by builditand »

austinjp wrote: post #354
builditand wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one. Best idea today, thanks! I pirate it.

Although this is itself a form of advertising..?

I guess it is, but it feels more like defense so I'm ok with it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#614

Post by Retra »

mthoms wrote: post #572
Retra wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but those billboards and carnival barkers are standing on someone else's property. They're not taking up space on the screen in front of me, which I personally own and administer. If someone wants to buy their own screens and show ads on them, it's fine by me. But you don't have any right to do it on my screens.

The counter argument is that by visiting a website you are then on "their property", or at the very least using their resources. You went there on your own free will and can leave when you want. No one is "forcing" anything on your screen. (not saying I agree with this notion necessarily - just that your physical "property" analogy isn't very good).

Yes, and they can kick me (or any of my code) off of their property, just as I can kick them and theirs off of mine. They can refuse to accept any part of any message I send them at their wish, just as I will refuse to accept any part of any message they send me at mine.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#615

Post by sgc »

vacri wrote: post #530
sgc wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 price…

The entire newspaper is not of value to me, and I read a newspaper worth of articles total, so I think it is fair to pay a newspaper's worth of subscription prices and have that revenue spread around to the business whose articles I read. Any subscription model can have a quantified limit to my access. Like I said, this isn't hard to think about or do.

There are movies that cost hundreds of millions to make which make up just one more item in the Netflix catalogue, and Hollywood is far from hurting. It may cost enormous amounts to produce good news, but this is true of the business model I am pointing out as well.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#616

Post by janekm »

tripzilch wrote: post #591
redm wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer or mobile operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising. Before the term malware was coined by Yisrael Radai in 1990, malicious software was referred to as computer viruses." [1] [2] I don't think most people would consider Google's purposeful display ads, which site ow…

> disrupt computer or mobile operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising "Google Ads" is injected third-party code that literally does all of these things (and goes through quite some trouble to obfuscate it) (even if us techies are aware). And they pay people to serve it to you. I would like to consider my Android phone to be a "private computer…

Well... You do have the choice to buy a phone with an OS from a company who's business is to sell phones, rather than ads, don't you? Seems a bit absurd to claim a lack of real choice in this instance.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#617

Post by tjalfi »

mancerayder wrote: post #486
ballenf wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You probably won't see this but here is a source.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-surveilla...

Post reply on HN