111–120 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there really that much money in online advertising? My impression was that they're all scrambling to protect their piece of a rapidly shrinking pie.
The market is still growing rapidly, while Google and Facebook are increasing their share there's still plenty of money to go around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how would websites earn money? Is everyone going to pay 3$ / month every website? Apple should have fixed that first, but is now blocking everyone because their own iAd failed. I think a lot is going to blow up, eg. Apple users requiring membership for websites + a subscription. What if those companies suddenly require an email to read more content, then their backend syncs all the required data. ( yes, we will su…
Most of HN is probably too young to remember the old brokerage ad, but websites can earn money the old-fashioned way: they EARN it. And there are plenty of websites that earn my money: NYT, The Economist, some music-related websites, a podcast or two. Whatever shall I do should, say, Buzzfeed go away? Probably make more productive use of my time. I mean let's face it, if a web page has stuff from Taboola at the botto…
I don't have cable also and OutBrain / Taboola really suck. Don't visit buzzfeed and don't pay currently for articles. Because i pay them with ads.
I'd like to see numbers of how much people actually pay for content, before i believe that "the old way" works on the web 15 years later and with a lot more competition... I already hate the paywalled gardens that sometimes show up on HN. The problem will only get worse
The Law of Unintended Consequences may yet have the next laugh.
You aren't safe from tracking unless you disable javascript entirely. The only winning move is not to play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how would websites earn money? Is everyone going to pay 3$ / month every website? Apple should have fixed that first, but is now blocking everyone because their own iAd failed. I think a lot is going to blow up, eg. Apple users requiring membership for websites + a subscription. What if those companies suddenly require an email to read more content, then their backend syncs all the required data. ( yes, we will su…
This doesn't block advertising, it specifically blocks the cookies used to track users, even then it doesn't completely block them, it just partitions them off such that you can't correlate between multiple sites, and introduces a shorter time out so that an advertiser can't remember you for longer than is reasonable. People aren't unhappy that ads exist, they are unhappy that ads (and ad networks in general) run rou…
None the less, i think it's usefull to know the age, sex and interests of readers ( small client websites with some blogs).
Religion, political affiliation, your living arrangements, your relationship with your family, ... are none of the concern.
But i'm not sure that people are unhappy that ads are there. They just don't want to see them, without knowing why they are there or that it's privacy related ... ( subjective opinion of working with a lot of consumers)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If i currently look at the frontpage of HN i see bloomberg, tomshardware, nytimes, nextplatform, theconversation, washingtonpost, ... That's only the 10 first articles. All of these are ad-supported for the content. I think most people don't have a correct interpretation of what it is to have money to pay journalists for articles and then get paid for content through ads, because 99,9% of the people won't pay a subsc…
Removing spying ads for everyone changes the entire landscape, though. What if spying ads weren't an option? Print versions of many of these get by with non-tracking ads (well, subscribers are a little, but nothing like web tracking) and have basically forever. Absent spying ads, they'll adopt non-spying ads, or charge money. Or somehow not find a way to make that work even though it did before spying ads were a thin…
The change, cookies can't track users. Will probably be a loss of ad revenue per user, more companies that will have paid subscriptions and a lot of knowledge / news / interesting stories will be behind a paywall --> Personal opinion.
If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia.
I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies.
hahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahaha
(It would be funnier if there was no warning!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't block advertising, it specifically blocks the cookies used to track users, even then it doesn't completely block them, it just partitions them off such that you can't correlate between multiple sites, and introduces a shorter time out so that an advertiser can't remember you for longer than is reasonable. People aren't unhappy that ads exist, they are unhappy that ads (and ad networks in general) run rou…
Good arguments. None the less, i think it's usefull to know the age, sex and interests of readers ( small client websites with some blogs). Religion, political affiliation, your living arrangements, your relationship with your family, ... are none of the concern. But i'm not sure that people are unhappy that ads are there. They just don't want to see them, without knowing why they are there or that it's privacy relat…
A user doesn't want site A knowing that they went to site B, and that is what tracking based ads appear to be to the user. In reality it's even worse because while sites A & B, which the user does trust, don't know it is in fact a separate business they've never seen or heard of that know about you visiting A and B. and also C, D, E....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good arguments. None the less, i think it's usefull to know the age, sex and interests of readers ( small client websites with some blogs). Religion, political affiliation, your living arrangements, your relationship with your family, ... are none of the concern. But i'm not sure that people are unhappy that ads are there. They just don't want to see them, without knowing why they are there or that it's privacy relat…
I'm not even saying people don't want to see ad, I'm saying that users don't want you tracking them across other sites. A user doesn't want site A knowing that they went to site B, and that is what tracking based ads appear to be to the user. In reality it's even worse because while sites A & B, which the user does trust, don't know it is in fact a separate business they've never seen or heard of that know about you…
Yes, we ( HN readers), don't want them tracking us. So that is what you think it is. But we are only a "small" percentage.
Non-HN readers ( mostly non-technical readers), just don't want to see ads and don't want to pay. They also don't know how the tracking works and mostly don't care ( in my experience)
hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahaha (It would be funnier if there was no warning!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing spying ads for everyone changes the entire landscape, though. What if spying ads weren't an option? Print versions of many of these get by with non-tracking ads (well, subscribers are a little, but nothing like web tracking) and have basically forever. Absent spying ads, they'll adopt non-spying ads, or charge money. Or somehow not find a way to make that work even though it did before spying ads were a thin…
One site ( a non profit, where donators also complain about how much money they spend on servers and wages), can't be a reference for an online business. The chance to duplicate this is minimal + it has thousands of free employees / volunteers that don't need to be paid. The change, cookies can't track users. Will probably be a loss of ad revenue per user, more companies that will have paid subscriptions and a lot of…
It was one example, not every single free thing on the Internet that I find highly valuable. Open source would be another, which is mostly supported by volunteers and straight-up paying customers.
> If you only need a encyclopedia, then you don't need to pay anywhere or "free payment through ads". If you sometimes scroll HN and read content for free, then i'm not sure if the content, that you want to read, is only available on Wikipedia.
HN is mostly a replacement for playing Minesweeper or is displacing doing something actually valuable. Or hanging out on IRC. If I actually need news I'd be fine with paying for it (I mostly don't, though).
> I think a lot of that content is actually produced by paid journalists, that work for big media companies.
We had those (journalists, big media companies) before spying ads were a thing. We'd have them after. You think that, for some reason, if no one can use spying ads anymore, that'll mean the end of online media? Or even just online news? Or that Internet advertising would even do more than hiccup for a moment and keep going? Think about it: you're responsible for advertising at Coca Cola. Tracking ads go away, everywhere, for everyone. Do you stop spending ad dollars online? No, obviously not.
My guess is the result would be a concentration of ad dollars on bigger sites, with little or no reduction in total spending. Probably more shitty "native advertising" too, especially for smaller players, which sucks, but we already have tons of that so oh well. Point is, we've all been pining for the days when news orgs had actual money to spend on reporters, and I'd not be a bit surprised if eliminating tracking gave bigger players enough of an advantage that those days came back.