We need legal controls on web advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#131

Post by lordnacho » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #61

lordnacho wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we gotta call it something, kinda like communism and democracy. It means a lot of things to different people, but those things still vaguely refer to similar ideas. I tend not to support stringent definitions on things ("The US is a republic, not a democracy") because basically it ends up being word games. If you look at economics, the idea is that people are rational agents. At least the orthodox idea which peo…

>So of course if people aren't so free thinking, doesn't that change something? [...] So then if actually we think government should intervene in some situations, why not in this one? Since the majority of your reply is about justifying more positive government intervention, I've done a poor job explaining what I was talking about. I already agree with government intervention to limit bad effects of advertising. That…

I guess you are getting at the whole Marxist false consciousness idea?

Because while false consciousness is one of those convenient thought-ending "explanations" that seem to explain everything and nothing, we actually do have evidence that people can't do rational very well. So how do we square that circle?

> If we want to recommend more positive government intervention

My instinct is normally against intervention, so I do feel a bit quesy about finding problems all over the place that need fixes that are potentially themselves wrong.

It's an issue for sure. I don't know how to resolve it either, just looking for people's perspectives.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#132

Post by sli » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

SimeVidas wrote: post #128

marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

I’m completely fine with ads on YouTube. They can sometimes get annoying, but it’s a very small price to pay for the hours of free entertainment that I get from YouTube.

This gets frequently undercut when fair use content is claimed by a corporation, redirecting the ad revenue away from the creator.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#133

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

samoa42 wrote: post #116

marcus_holmes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. That's a broadcast medium, though. In the UK, Australia and Germany (amongst others - these are only the countries I've lived in that do this) there is a public broadcaster supported by a tax. It's not popular - irrelevant and annoying in the internet age. But it clearly solved the "how do you get broadcast media without adverts" problem.

> It's not popular relatively speaking, no >irrelevant and annoying in the internet age disagree strongly

I meant the business model, not the content. German collection of the tax is incredibly unpopular, especially for those of us who don't even have a television.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#134

Post by zentiggr » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:51 PM UTC

IvanK_net wrote: post #34

jakubp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a different idea, which was that governments of the future could ban advertising altogether. I know it's a... stretch, but imagine this: - you can't put billboards in the city - you can't place any images, text, etc. banners anywhere (except for tightly controlled, single-design descriptions of businesses in buildings, decided by each municipality like it's already done in some cities to maintain consistent loo…

I wish you could think a bit before writing such thing. How do you decide what is an ad and what is not an ad? What if I tell my friend, that my new TV is really good? What if I tell it to 10 of my friends? What if I send an email to everyone I know, saying, that my new TV is great? Would you investigate, if the TV manufacturer paid me or not? How exactly would you do it? Or did they gave me a discount on the TV? I w…

Well, you're not a billboard, or any other fixed sign broadcasting to everyone that walks by, or pushing your opinion at literally everyone you meet, so while you may have an opinion, it's not being forced on everyone who comes in proximity to you.

As opposed to the billboards, building side adverts, and web site ads that are just splatting out at anyone that happens by.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#135

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #121

marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

I disagree substantially. Advertising, especially web advertising, allows us to pay for services not with money but our attention. When the Economist polled people how much they would pay to forego search engines, the result was over $17,000 [1]. It'd be simplistic to say that this is what Google could charge in a subscription model, but the point is that the value is very high. Is a world where poorer students who c…

I would love a paid search service that excluded all the crap and just gave me the good stuff with no ads, let me set my own filter preferences for what I call "the good stuff".

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#136

Post by zentiggr » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

mwexler wrote: post #32

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of price comparison websites that one can use right now that allow one to search for a specific product and compare price offers. One would search for a massage chair on there and find that some are cheaper than others and read the reviews to make an educated guess about whether the extra price is worth it.

So, still ads but different name. These price engines (every one I've seen) are all affiliate hubs; they list only products that pay for the click. Any reviews on such sites are biased in similar ways to the gaming in reviews in major sites like Amazon. Now, one could say, "so what? Most folks know that, useful info still, and it's better than ads!". But is it? At least the ad is an overt block of color, but affiliat…

I still say that there should be a .adv TLD, and any paid advertising goes on either the manufacturer's site or in a .adv page, nowhere else.

.adv would be the internet catalog (good or bad, awesome shopping resource or godawful bag of crap, as may be) and all other TLDs (even .com) will be free of ads. Period.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#137

Post by rolph » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

stevesearer wrote: post #66

marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

I’d be interested in knowing what qualifies as advertising in this hypothetical. Web banners? Sponsored content? Trade shows? Sales rep stopping by and buying lunch and talking about a product? Clothing with logos? Hacker News? There are lots of ways to capture people’s attention to build awareness of your business that probably technically fall under advertising but would be quite difficult to regulate in any meanin…

I dont know why it continues, but when someone says or does something that says "im not interested in ads" the response is to hook around that and force it upon them.

This is how you create hostility toward your product, not desirability.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#138

Post by manfredo » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #135

manfredo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree substantially. Advertising, especially web advertising, allows us to pay for services not with money but our attention. When the Economist polled people how much they would pay to forego search engines, the result was over $17,000 [1]. It'd be simplistic to say that this is what Google could charge in a subscription model, but the point is that the value is very high. Is a world where poorer students who c…

I would love a paid search service that excluded all the crap and just gave me the good stuff with no ads, let me set my own filter preferences for what I call "the good stuff".

And would you be willing to spend $17,500 a year on said service? That's the figure cited in the Economist. And even if you were willing to spend that sum, it'd be far beyond the means of most people. Heck, almost the average global income of $18,000.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#139

Post by ev1 » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

mrloba wrote: post #127

tehwebguy wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait who is the org that will pay websites and services based on how much time I use them?

Hopefully not a single org, or any org. But like I said, it's not easy to solve socially. The main point is to somehow get paid without advertising (Which already exists, it's just that people won't pay individually for every service on the internet. At least that's my assumption).

The hardest part is probably how you would handle payments.

I'm happy to pay for things like newspaper site subscriptions - I just don't want to give my card or any identifying information to known spammers, 30-days-to-unsubscribe data-sellers, and hostile companies that refuse to allow you to cancel subscriptions other than calling them during a 1 hour timespan once a week.

I'd be happy to throw $0.25 at a single article with no advertising or tracking and without leaking any identifying information at all - that means I have balance stored somehow, and I do not want to give even an email address [they've already shown that they cannot be trusted with it, much less anything else].

For example, NYT allows Californians purely because of the law that requires you to be able to sign up online -> cancel online only has this turned on if you have a CA billing address and CA geoip.

This is hostile, asshole design. The code is there already, the implementation is there already, they just require everyone in every other state to call in during tight hours if not absolutely forced to via regulation.

Blizzard/EA: Call of Duty has an option to opt out of selling your personal information. This option is only visible to be modified at all (not disabled - just gone entirely) if you are on a CA IP. If you ever log in once from another machine or another location, it's reset to retroactively sell all information and also not shown on the options menu.

Excessively heavy handed legal controls are needed because nobody can fucking behave.

Re: We need legal controls on web advertising

#140

Post by Jakobeha » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #46

I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.

Advertising itself is good. Knowing about different products that can help you is actually really good. Sure you can get this information from friends and word-of-mouth, but it's not always accurate, and there is nothing wrong with using advertisements too. Plus, there are some advertisements that are genuinely works of art.

Even personalized ads are good if they're done in a way that ensures your privacy is safe. It would be awesome if Steam could find me some video games that are actually interesting.

The problem is a lot of current advertising is completely broken. It's been said a lot before, but: companies making you watch ad after ad that you're just not going to buy, ads encouraging me to ignore them because they're ugly and make it harder to see content, advertisers that are so obnoxious and bad at advertising their products that I'm less inclined to buy them. Idk how this kind of crap advertising actually gets companies more money, but I guarantee it's not "subtly influencing" me to buy "Slots Royale" or fake medicine, or even Geico - and I know I have human biases and distortions. Also, ad tracking which takes all of my data and doesn't even work.

Idk what the current trend is but I've heard that advertisements are generating less and less revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if, as population the gets more tech-savvy, ads will be forced to change / die out because so few people actually use them. Or at least get better at advertising.