Live data from Hacker News

Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

plausible.io

241–250 of 710 posts

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#241

It amazes me that over the last 10-20 years an astonishing amount of money and intellectual capital have been invested in adtech and crypto but nothing in micropayments. Ads are evil, but it will remain a moot point until we have working micropayments. We have (and will have) ads with all their downsides exactly because we don't have micropayments, because ads basically work as a substitute to micropayments.

I feel like most on the producer side are coming at this from a totally wrong angle. A better web isn't a web in which content is monetized in a different way. Consumers don't want to pay because most content on the web is not worth paying for. Not with ads, not with micropayments, not with anything. There's the saying about five web sites consisting of screenshots of the other four, but even with news, the vast bulk of it that isn't legitimately old media like Al Jazeera or Reuters is 22 year-olds being paid with exposure to summarize Reddit threads. Much of it isn't even that at this point and is probably just programmatically generated with no writer at all. When all you have to go on is a link, you can't possibly know whether something is worth paying for until after clicking, reading it, and finding out. But if the first thing you see is some pop up begging you to subscribe to content you've not even read yet, turn off an ad blocker to a server you don't trust, or even some gate requiring a micropayment, a whole lot of people are just going to go elsewhere for what is likely to be identical information content at a less annoying source.

If content producers are willing to put in the hard work of developing a reputation for quality output slowly, disseminated through trusted sources, surely augmented by some form of paid marketing but not by just spamming the web with links in the hopes that they can get clicks and then use dark patterns to keep people on the site long enough to monetize 20 seconds of their eyeball time, then maybe they can get people to willingly pay them. This is sort of what Substack is proving. The tiny number of writers worth reading are actually being paid by willing readers. But it's a tiny number. Micropayments can never solve that most web content is worth 0 dollars and 0 cents.

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#242

There is a German movie about the system that is used to gather TV ratings. It's a special box that some users get which reports what they are watching. Small sample size goes into a big statistic (not sure how accurate the portrayal of the system in the movie is). These boxes are given to the people who pay the German public TV fee, which excludes i.e. students (they don't have to pay) and some other groups. This gr…

> They faked the ratings away from stupid trash TV towards some higher quality stuff, documentaries, culture, ... Obviously in the movie then the country saw a renaissance, everyone got smarter, yadda yadda, you get it.

> I feel like this is similar. All tech savvy people block ads and analytics and at least the known tricks they use against us. So the internet only tracks the defenseless people and is then built to serve them (and or exploit them).

I think this is right - ad-traffic is manipulative and actually I don't think it is a societal 'good' at all.

A few personal examples:

* On Youtube almost all my adverts are encouraging me to start Forex / Stock / Property investment and trading, and sign up for courses on these. These courses are scams (or at best, 'half-scams' and poor/generic advice repackaged and sold for thousands), and in general provide poor financial advice (either through extortionate courses, recommending you become too heavily leveraged or advising you to day-trade high-volatility stocks by just looking at charts). Presumably it does this because I am 32 and male, so I am considered 'prime' for this marketing.

* One of the friends I know is a girl, and she has never seen the above adverts. We were talking and she says every single advert is just about pregnancy and fertility. I wonder how many of these adverts are just reinforcing gender-stereotypes in a wider sense, i.e. while google claims to be progressive and care about 'equality' really is their business model at it's core really just targeting women and telling them that they should be getting pregnant, while telling guys that they should be the bread-winners and earn money via stocks/shares?

* While my adverts are for forex, and my apparently fertile friend is getting adverts for pregnancy tests, my older parents just get targeted adverts for pre-paid funerals. One or two are probably be fine, but they are just on constant repeat - and I can't help but think that I wouldn't the constant reminder of death before every youtube video.

* My laptop is convinced that I want to go camping. It's only my laptop, every advert is camping related. Sleeping bags, tents... and the strange thing is that when it started I didn't want to go camping, but it's been so consistent across the last few months now that I kinda wanna go camping. Like it's sold me this romantic vision which I know wasn't there before, so even though I would usually like to say I can't be manipulated through marketing, it's really made me realise I can be.

Is the above really making society better? And if it's not, why should we put up with it? IMO the biggest lie we have been told by Google is that 'personalised ads' are a good thing.

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#244

The remaining 42% of users work in adtech and need to monitor their own product, are stuck on some platform where an adblocker is not possible, or are they just masochistic ?

Or they put their money where their mouth is and stop going to websites that are ad ridden to the point of unusability.

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#245
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know a connected TV / set-top box is on a channel but you don't know how many / which persons in the house is in front of it.

How long until they start putting cameras in them and doing facial recognition?

Put tape over it?

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#247
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On our website we have no analytics or trackers installed at all. The app usage statistics come via the Apple App Store. App Store users can opt out of these stats via an OS-level setting.

Opt out? It should be an opt in system in a for-privacy app.

> Opt out? It should be an opt in system in a for-privacy app.

I think it's pretty clear that they are discussing an App Store policy, not analytics collected by their app.

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#248
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add Blokada + Newpipe to the mix as well.

I don't recall ever having heard about Blokada before, but looking it up now it doesn't seem recommended: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroiddata/-/merge_requests/8536

(I created that merge request)

Blokada's UI is without peer and so it makes for a very good "just works" for the majority (in fact, from what I know, it is the most downloaded DNS-based content blocker on Android by far).

However, it is disappointing that some of their decision-making is found wanting: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/papgeq/any_...

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#249
This is highly inaccurate. The author is using Plausible via a proxy but Google Analytics directly (a very biased way to do things).

Secondly, PiHole, uBlock origin and most other adblockers also block Plausible analytics (there are discussions on their own Github Issues regarding it). If you are proxying Plausible to get accurate readings, same should be done with GA.

Re: Tech-savvy audiences block Google Analytics

#250
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the fee you have to pay even if you are blind or deaf, or do not have a Radio or TV? Gives you the most boring TV News in the world, plus 600 movies per year nobody wants to watch, because they are horrible? But they collected the tax and they have to spend it, as the German actors guild is worst than a cartel? :-) https://www.german-way.com/germanys-tv-tax-the-debate-over-t...

> Is this the fee you have to pay even if you are blind or deaf [...] That's not correct. If you are deaf, you get a reduction - if you are blind, you get a reduction. If you are deaf-blind, you don't pay at all. If you are already receiving financial help because of your blindness, you don't pay at all.

You are right about it, did that change recently? According to the reference below it depends on the degree of deafness or blindness...if you can still hear or see something still have to pay...

https://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/buergerinnen_und_buerger/info...

Post reply on HN