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

Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

adbeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#11

Post by kalleboo »

damian_ wrote: post #6
pferde wrote: post #5

Reading this article just makes me want to rent a bunch of cloud instances or something and set up a bunch of bots to contribute to more "ad fraud". Burn those ad money, as fast and as much as possible.

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

I'm fine with any of the Flattr, Spotify or Patreon models. But the newspapers still think they're competing against each other rather than their general obsolescence and so each one is charging like $10/mo for access to only their own content. If I wanted to pay for all the news sites I visit through Hacker News links alone I'd be paying over $100/mo

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#12

Post by xaedes » 

    The facts are sobering: 86% of consumers 
    suffer from banner blindness and only 14%
    of users are able to recall the last display
    ad they saw.
Poor fellows... They suffer so hard.

No for real, I think banner blindness is an automatic attempt to solve the real problem: intrusive unwanted and even dangerous ads.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#13

Post by pferde »

no1youknowz wrote: post #8
pferde wrote: post #5

Reading this article just makes me want to rent a bunch of cloud instances or something and set up a bunch of bots to contribute to more "ad fraud". Burn those ad money, as fast and as much as possible.

I want to tell you that it's pretty much useless for the much bigger guys. There are a few services that help track IPs that view and click ads on a global basis. They are backed by ML algos that can determine with a high rate of accuracy whether it's fraud or not. Using some of the reputable services, the advertiser can go back to the network and request refunds due to the fraudulent clicks. So if you did do this, y…

Yes, I fully realize that, and in the end, I'm still just going to stick to my adblock/umatrix&friends solution, without doing anything more. :/ It's just an idle urge to somehow hasten the demise of the "Age of the Ad".

An article I read sometimes last week made an unflattering, but rather astute comparison that a site which relies on ad networks for their income is like a streetwalker - selling out integrity integrity for money, competing with or against shady people (the scammy porn sites, the automated link-farms with Markov-generated pseudo content, etc.). And if one has to "interact" with sites like that, it is smart to use protection (adblock&friends).

I wish I could find the article. I'm quite certain it was linked here on HN one or two weeks ago.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#14

Post by pferde »

kalleboo wrote: post #10
pferde wrote: post #5

Reading this article just makes me want to rent a bunch of cloud instances or something and set up a bunch of bots to contribute to more "ad fraud". Burn those ad money, as fast and as much as possible.

You can start by installing the AdNauseam browser plugin https://adnauseam.io

AdNauseam is nice, but only in certain conditions - for example, I would never activate it on my work laptop, for fear of triggering web content filters my employer uses. I do not want to get into trouble when AdNauseam "clicks" on some unsavoury, or flat out illegal ad - those sometimes get through the screening on all ad networks, no matter how well they try.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#16

Post by pferde »

arpa wrote: post #7
damian_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

Subscription. Paper copies. Can't compete? Not my problem.

Pretty much this. It is their problem to figure out a way to deliver content in an acceptable and profitable way. The current way is clearly (starting to) being rejected by the Internet users.

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#17

Post by keldaris »

Assuming the article is to be trusted, I see two insights here. First, even today only 30% of users use adblockers. Helping educate people is still the best way we can fight against this parasite of an industry. Every time a friend asks me to help set up their computer, every time I see a browser without an adblocker, I do what I can to fix it. Even on purely security grounds, there's no excuse to run a browser without at least uBlock Origin.

Secondly, it seems click fraud still has some growth potential. I've used AdNauseam before, but perhaps there are more efficient ways out there?

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#18

Post by krylon »

> I am concerned — very, very concerned — that costs of ads will go up and up and up from this unethical obstruction

"unethical obstruction"? UNETHICAL OBSTRUCTION?!?!?!?! You have got to be ____ing kidding me!

First of all, that is like saying switching to a different channel during a commercial break is unethical. It's like saying the use a spam filter is unethical.

Secondly, and most importantly, in an age where ad networks are used to spread malware, it takes a lot of nerve (or ignorance) to call an act of legitimate self-defense "unethical".

Not to speak of the negative impact ads have on website performance, battery usage and waste of bandwidth.

Unethical? Un-____ing-believable!

[Just to be clear, it seems the article itself is trying to make a different point, but that quote just blew a fuse for me.]

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#19

Post by gammagoblin »

>The facts are sobering: 86% of consumers suffer from banner blindness and only 14% of users are able to recall the last display ad they saw.

Ah, yeah, we suffer from banner blindness. It's such a bad thing for those consumers, they don't care about our useless ads anymore!

Re: Things That Are Trying To Kill Display Ads

#20

Post by tomjen3 »

damian_ wrote: post #6
pferde wrote: post #5

Reading this article just makes me want to rent a bunch of cloud instances or something and set up a bunch of bots to contribute to more "ad fraud". Burn those ad money, as fast and as much as possible.

That's fine, but don't forget it pays for the bulk of journalism globally. What's your alternative revenue model?

That assumes there is a revenue model - which there probably isn't; ads can't be that business because it biases the news[fn:1], when I read a newspaper I read it through some aggregator[fn:2], which means I am not going to pay for any particular newspaper (because I would need twenty such subscriptions) and I can't buy a bundle (because it does not exist and probably doesn't contain the particular newspaper the link is to).

Ultimately I think the next newspaper will probably come from Google, and be AI.

[fn:1] Old newspapers may be excepted, as they have a long time to deal with this. I assume that buying ads in NYT can't change their editorial stances, but they are an exception.

[fn:2] HN, reddit, facebook, twitter, etc.

Post reply on HN