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

Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#41

Post by amrrs »

dest wrote: post #3

Hello, author of Adblock Radio here. Thanks for posting this. I can answer questions if you have any. You can read more on the context of this project in this article: https://www.adblockradio.com/blog/2018/11/15/designing-audio...

I know we don't want to see / hear ads. But at the same time, these ads on the podcast are making livelihoods/income for those content creators and If we strip that off of them, saying I don't like ads but hey I do like your content. Where do you think we can have the line?

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#42

Post by smhost »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #15

Neat software, but I think this is less defensible than other ad blockers. With web ad blockers you protect against tracking, privacy violations and potentially malware and thus don't see "unacceptable ads". In contrast this seems to be about blocking ads just for the sake of blocking ads.

it's about users being able to control information flow on their own devices in whatever way they want. the privacy concerns are secondary.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#43

Post by TeMPOraL »

smhost wrote: post #39
sambe wrote: post #13

There's something deeply satisfying about the idea that the annoying tone and shoutiness (and volume increase) of most ads could be used against them for filtering.

at the same time, i don't know how comfortable i feel about incentivizing ad distribution companies to become more stealthy.

Take a closer look at that feeling. If you're not comfortable with what they're trying to do, but also not comfortable with trying to mitigate it, as it'll only incentivize them to do worse - then how comfortable are you with them existing?

The problem is ad distribution companies here and now. The problem won't be gone until they're gone.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#45

Post by nickjj »

jordanpg wrote: post #16

Right now, there's teams of people at companies like Spotify and Stitcher, frantic in front of whiteboards, trying to plan a future for podcasts wherein it will be harder/impossible to skip the ads. First, they have to control the distribution. Then, they have to build the tech, which will obviously involve some kind of DRM. To say that I hope they fail is an understatement. But I know they'll try because in the inte…

> trying to plan a future for podcasts wherein it will be harder/impossible to skip the ads.

Aren't most podcasts selling flat rate slots to run ads?

Example: Company A gives podcast author $X amount of dollars to run a 30-60 second ad in their 1 hour podcast.

If all 10,000 listeners don't listen to the ad then the podcast author still gets the same amount of ad revenue.

My thought process on that is, if I begin to hear an ad on a podcast and it's for something I didn't plan to buy anyways, then I will skip the ad by fast forwarding within 3 seconds. But if a solution existed where I couldn't do that then I wouldn't end up making the purchase by listening to the ad. I'd probably switch the podcast off for something else until the ad played out and that comes with the risk of me not going back to the podcast because I found something more interesting.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#46

Post by TeMPOraL »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #15

Neat software, but I think this is less defensible than other ad blockers. With web ad blockers you protect against tracking, privacy violations and potentially malware and thus don't see "unacceptable ads". In contrast this seems to be about blocking ads just for the sake of blocking ads.

There is a reason ad blockers are called "ad blockers", and not "tracking protectors" or "privacy protectors" or "malware protectors" (the latter three being their own category of software). It's because they exist precisely for blocking ads "just for the sake of blocking ads".

Ads are malicious. It's perfectly fine to block them. Privacy protection is just a convenient side effect.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#47

Post by Nextgrid »

harel wrote: post #34
throwawawathrow wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'What about my business model' is not a valid argument. You are not in fact entitled to one. Personally I'd rather see 95% less 'content' on the Internet if it meant it were ad free. I'd rather have no Facebook than one that serves you personalized ads. I'd rather have no online news media than news websites that serve ads. I'd rather have no television programs than watch programs with commercials. 'Content creators…

You do, and that's fine for you. But I rather have a reasonable amount of ads to support content, than have no content at all. I do use Facebook as a means to communicate with a lot of people and catch up with friends and family. I consume content form sites that do have ads. I agree the situation is not balanced at the moment, but cutting out 95% of the internet is not a solution. There has to be a balanced middle g…

Maybe 10% or less of Facebook's current per-user ad viewing time would be enough to sustain a service that allows to keep in touch with people (thanks to economies of scale) but the problem is, once you introduce ads, greed comes along for a ride and that's why we can't have nice things. Since "being reasonable" isn't a thing that ad people understand, I'm happy for their entire shitty industry to die and burn in hell.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#48

Post by Siemer »

detuur wrote: post #21
diffeomorphism wrote: post #15

Neat software, but I think this is less defensible than other ad blockers. With web ad blockers you protect against tracking, privacy violations and potentially malware and thus don't see "unacceptable ads". In contrast this seems to be about blocking ads just for the sake of blocking ads.

I can't be the only one who literally can't stand the sound of radio advertising. They make a point of using as many annoying and attention-grabbing sounds as possible, not to mention the cheap and cheesy jingles. I'll often find myself turning the radio down to the second-lowest volume it goes, so I can turn it back up when there's actual music. Equally often I turn it down and then forget about it for the rest of t…

Ever since raising the volume on ads was banned they simply switched to using using limiters, that basically boost all frequencies to achieve the same effect. They'll even use common ring tones or the buzz of a silenced phone to draw your attention.

Personally I mute or switch channels as soon as the commercials start and I've actually turned down at least one job offer because they had radio on the office floor.

Re: Adblock Radio: An adblocker for live radio streams and podcasts

#49

Post by rgallagher27 »

throwawawathrow wrote: post #30
harel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lack of balance is why we can't have nice things. There has to be a middle ground where publishers make money to keep publishing and consumers of those publishing keep consuming the content without being annoyed to the point of wanting to abolish all ads. The result of extremism here is that it wouldn't be viable financially to produce content. Paid subscription models don't seem to work leaving advertising the onl…

'What about my business model' is not a valid argument. You are not in fact entitled to one. Personally I'd rather see 95% less 'content' on the Internet if it meant it were ad free. I'd rather have no Facebook than one that serves you personalized ads. I'd rather have no online news media than news websites that serve ads. I'd rather have no television programs than watch programs with commercials. 'Content creators…

`content creators who really care would find a way to make it work` is a terrible way to think.

All that means is the barrier to entry increases from anyone, from any background and means to people who can afford to produce content already. You lose the young kids starting out, you loose those from poorer backgrounds, you loose the creatives working on their side projects while working a 9 to 5 because they can no longer afford to make content.

If _you_ don't want ads don't consume the content, you're not entitled to it. Quality might not be quantity but quantity (being able to continue to produce content without a huge financial burden) develops quality.

Post reply on HN