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

131–140 of 278 posts

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

#131

Post by mantap »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #104
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's perfectly fine to block them. I think there were some legal rulings IIRC in the UK regarding software to auto mute/block/skip ads on TV/Radio, but for the life of my can't find them. If it was ruled illegal, then it being "perfectly fine to block them" might be correct ethically but not legally, although I suspect the details of implementation might be the important point.

If it's illegal to mute ads automatically, is it therefore illegal to mute them manually? How can automating a human function be illegal? Computers don't have legal capacity they simply do what humans tell them to. All computer actions are ultimately human actions, I don't see how they can draw a distinction between the two cases.

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

#132

Post by iamstupidsimple »

Kaiyou wrote: post #108
iamstupidsimple wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is necessary (paid or not it's the same shit) for small businesses to get off the ground, at all. Cut off ads and you'll strangle thousands of startups/SMBs. Physical ads haven't lost their effectiveness. If they had then we'd be in real trouble. I don't like ads either but remember there are multiple perspectives here. We should focus on purging bad actors than the entire practice. For now though, I see…

Maybe we don't need yet another penis enlargement startup?

I'm not talking about that garbage. I'm talking about the mom and pop stores. The catering service, the stationery shop, etc.. These services are competing with shit (other ads) right now. Wouldn't it be nice if we could clean up the ecosystem and have these companies benefit?

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

#133

Post by iamstupidsimple »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #105
iamstupidsimple wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is necessary (paid or not it's the same shit) for small businesses to get off the ground, at all. Cut off ads and you'll strangle thousands of startups/SMBs. Physical ads haven't lost their effectiveness. If they had then we'd be in real trouble. I don't like ads either but remember there are multiple perspectives here. We should focus on purging bad actors than the entire practice. For now though, I see…

There is nothing wrong with simple ads. The problem is that at least a century of research into persuasion techniques have morphed ads into objects that can seriously compromise your beliefs and emotions in ways that you did not consent to. Modern ads are the equivalent of refined sugar products we have today compared to the relatively tame fruits. Eating fruits is great, eating refined sugar products is terrible for…

100% there on the analogy. It's incredibly difficult to define but I think we can put some boundaries on it straight away - flashing ads, usage of audio for static ads.

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

#134

Post by josefresco »

fiblye wrote: post #100
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 block ads because I don't want to be conditioned to buy things I don't need or legitimately want. I don't want the mega rich to gradually chip away at my mind day by day, hour by hour in order to make themselves another fat pile of cash. If a site shows me some sad puppy image about me stealing their money by blocking their brainwashing, I just add their whole site to my filter. Content on the internet powered by a…

My clients are small business owners. They run ads. They are not "mega rich" and are not building a "fat pile of cash". You need to step outside your bubble, and consider the broader ad landscape.

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

#136

Post by abdullahkhalids »

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #133
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing wrong with simple ads. The problem is that at least a century of research into persuasion techniques have morphed ads into objects that can seriously compromise your beliefs and emotions in ways that you did not consent to. Modern ads are the equivalent of refined sugar products we have today compared to the relatively tame fruits. Eating fruits is great, eating refined sugar products is terrible for…

100% there on the analogy. It's incredibly difficult to define but I think we can put some boundaries on it straight away - flashing ads, usage of audio for static ads.

Those things are just annoying. They are not even remotely the most dangerous tactics. See the discussion here [1] on Google Fi's advertisement for medium level tactics. Things like font sizes, colors, placement of text have already primed your mind to think 50 dollars. It will take a huge amount of rational thought to overturn the good gut feeling one has developed toward Google's offering based on the false 50 dollars statement.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21011175

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

#137

Post by ahje »

rgallagher27 wrote: post #49
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…

`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 lo…

> If _you_ don't want ads don't consume the content, you're not entitled to it.

The vast majority of on-line marketing is outright hostile towards the people it targets; it's a constant battle for attention, PII, and bandwidth and it comes with side effects like actual malware spreading through ad networks. Until that changes, ads should be considered as threats, and they should be blocked at the door regardless of what the content creator thinks about it.

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

#138

Post by justforfunhere »

I have mostly given up on Radio when I am driving my car ( Thanks Bluetooth and Amazon music). It has gotten worse over the past few years. I live in Delhi, India, and we have our fair share of Radio channels here.

Over the last ten years, I have noticed a pretty interesting ( disturbing ? ) trend in the Ads that are streamed across all the Radio channels. Back when the whole Radio scene was just starting up, the ads were few, the RJs used to talk a lot more ( and made sense ) and songs were played in entirety.

Slowly they have changed to a point where RJs are just meant to be show pieces who are there to say not more than four-five lines of jokes/sarcasms during a two hour period.

The Songs are not played in their entirety. They are stripped at both ends.

The Ads have gotten louder, more offensive, aggressive etc.

And now some Radio Channels tend have small sound bites that are played repeatedly all day, that justify the streaming of Ads. This I really don't understand.

Edit: Typos

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

#139

Post by h4waii »

AlexandrB wrote: post #114
willis936 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, $1 for a podcast episode is egregious. Almost no one would pay that. Piracy has gone down a lot in the past 15 years because content owners made reasonable decisions.

It's really not egregious. Just like $1/song is not egregious. $1/podcast episode (often 60 minutes or more) is some of the best time/$ value among a-la-carte entertainment products.

A song, ostensibly has a high level of repeatability.

How often does one re-listen to a podcast within, say, 6 to 12 months? Maybe a year after, if it had a real impact?

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

#140

Post by KevinEldon »

willis936 wrote: post #123
pavel_lishin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay $5/month for a podcast that releases weekly. But you're right, I'm just an anecdote drop in a fairly small bucket.

It’s a market thing. A few are willing to pay more and not everyone has to pay. As soon as everyone has to pay the price becomes very important and it should be reasonable for the content. If a podcast that takes 40 man hours a month to produce and has 10,000 listeners and charged $1 per episode... idk it doesn’t add up to me.

Why does it matter if everyone has to pay the price or not? Why does it matter to an individual consumer how many people pay for the podcast episode? The consumer's choice is about paying $1 for the episode in hopes that they will receive value from the episode such that they consider it to have been worth the $1.
Post reply on HN