Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Insane state of today's advertising part 3

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 435 posts

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#91

Post by hasenj »

exikyut wrote: post #64

IMO the way to solve this is a single-click "pay this tiny amount to keep reading" UI. Now that Amazon's one-click checkout patent has expired this is actually legally viable. But it won't happen until Chrome is overturned by a new browser because Google will never let such a model succeed :( It's possible Firefox may successfully do the "phoenix re-viral" thing, in spite of the fact that it would be a literal miracl…

I really think for this to work well, the payment system needs to be tightly integrated into the browser, something like Steam.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#92

Post by alphapapa »

jdangu wrote: post #76

Awesome to see that subject #1 on HN. At my startup Confiant [1], we block bad ads in stream on behalf of publishers. Cedato aka Algovid aka TLVMedia is one of our prime targets, we block millions of their ad impressions daily. They are essentially buying cheap display ad placements to resell them as fake video preroll ad placements. They sell on video exchanges like AOL's AdapTV and others. To maximize their yield,…

Good grief, it's like an invisible war going on inside your browser.

> We're on a mission to drive them out of business

But if you succeed, won't you go out of business? It's like antivirus vendors: if there were no malware, there'd be no need for AV software. How do you remain ethical? If you win, will you close up shop?

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#93

Post by jasonkostempski »

Cursuviam wrote: post #23
baron816 wrote: post #19

A bit off topic, but something I'm interested in: would it be possible for a website to generate revenue by using client machines to mine crypto currencies? I would rather go to a website that uses up my CPU and network resources doing that than use up my CPU and network resources AND spam me with intrusive ads. Edit: solid answers to my question. Thanks everyone.

It's been done, but they ran into trouble with New Jersey for a bit. https://www.eff.org/cases/rubin-v-new-jersey-tidbit

"And the state itself echoed the comments of Judge Furnari, noting in its press release announcing the consent order "we do not believe Tidbit was created for the purpose of invading privacy.""

What about every other ad network in existence? They are specifically designed to invade privacy. Why isn't NJ going after them?

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#94

Post by ChuckMcM »

kakarot wrote: post #43
rahimnathwani wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ads were static (e.g. advertiser A bought a specific place on one of publisher B's pages, for a month), and advertiser A didn't want independent verification that the ads were seen, then your proposal could be simply implemented. "What am I missing?" Many ads are served after real-time auction: whilst your browser is loading and rendering the page, an auction is going between advertisers for the ad spot(s) on…

Would you mind expanding a bit on this real-time auction thing, like how common it is and what the process looks like, or could you point me in the direction of the sources you used to make that claim? Thanks!

There used to be a great article on Searchengineland about it but I can't find it now. And it was originally patented by GoTo[1] and Google was sued by Overture[2] with mixed results[3]. It did give Yahoo! which owned Overture at the time some Google stock (2.7M shares).[4] (Which, interestingly enough, if they had held would be worth more than $2B today)

[1] https://www.google.com/patents/US6269361

[2] https://www.cnet.com/news/overture-sues-google-over-search-p...

[3] http://www.waltmire.com/2014/06/02/inventor-of-pay-per-click...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/business/technology-google...

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#95

Post by shpx »

uuoc wrote: post #61
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #24

I had to install an ad-blocker today because I got an ad trying to scam me served by Microsoft's news website. If they're not going to take any responsibility for what they're attaching to their pages, then I'm not going to load their random bag of crap.

I'm actually surprised it took you this long. I have had an ad blocker in one form or another continuously installed since the first ad blockers appeared on the scene. And I'll always have an ad blocker installed.

The first ad blocker (that I know of) was Interenet Fast Forward which was a Netscape Navigator plugin made around 1996 by PrivNet.

https://youtu.be/pvzR_bON9qM?t=3m46s

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#98

Post by joombaga »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #81
joombaga wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but they usually have a DNS record. Which, encona.com does. text and MX, just no A or CNAME.

If I understand correctly, I don't think an A record is necessary if you're just using the domain for email. I only use mine for email. I have an A record but that just results in a 'No page found' page hosted by my DNS provider. Without the A record my email would still work but browsing to k45j.com would give a 'This site can’t be reached' the same way encona.com

Yep, that's correct.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#99

Post by JeremyHerrman »

I didn't see any ad blocker recommendations in the comments, so I searched and came across a list on Tom's Hardware of the best ad blockers of 2017. The funny part is that Tom's Hardware was FILLED with these exact kind of ads from algovid and adaptv. Even worse, the list is in a carousel / slideshow format so you have to keep clicking if you didn't GTFO like I did.

Re: Insane state of today's advertising part 3

#100

Post by iainmerrick »

Spivak wrote: post #82
loeg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Native content can be really difficult for humans to distinguish.

Surely there will be an eventual crackdown of sponsored content that isn't marked as such.

Crackdown by whom?

Advertisers and publishers are generally in favor of it, consumers don't care, watchdogs are toothless.

Post reply on HN