Live data from Hacker News

You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

bearbin.net

571–580 of 633 posts

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#571
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A while back I built an ad/not-an-ad classifier for TV frames based purely on pixels (i.e. not prior knowledge of specific ads). One of the interesting findings -- perhaps obvious in retrospect -- was that ad frames were on average brighter than content frames.

I’m sure it’s out there, but I had a similar idea to make an audio device plugin like soundflower to pipe audio through and automatically mute when it detects an ad. We really need an OpenWrt-like project for smart TVs so that you could run something like what you created to mute the sound and display art during ad breaks.

how about we use a pi-hole to send a webhook whenever a url is blocked and then we can use that hook to do the display art thing? that would be nice

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#572
post #7

But ads in real life do not prevent me from going on about my day. There is no analogy to interstitial pages with ads like in Forbes some time ago with the button Continue to your article: it would be infuriating if you had to view an ad before being able to use the subway ticketing system. You also don’t have ads on at the airport timetable screen. You don’t have pinkertons following you to learn your habits and sho…

Advertising is mind rape. Not a single person who looks at ads has consented to giving corporations their attention, much less have their minds violated when they insert their little brands and offers. They are not entitled to our attention. Advertising should be illegal no matter what. Disruptiveness just makes this unacceptable practice even worse.

They should be illegal no matter what? How would commerce function? How would one make a new business known? I hate ads too, but I don't think your extreme stance stands a chance at popularity.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * At multiple points in the McDonald's self-order touchscreen kiosk flow. And they've only added (most of) these recently. What they've done for me is is increased the time it takes to check out by at least a third. They're paying for the ads with lengthened lines, which is a little shocking when talking about the automated option, because customers choose the automated option to save time. It might be a bad expect…

Who uses those ridiculous kiosks? Most people I see still just go to the counter, order, and pay. It's much faster.

They don't have ads where I live, and as a result they're about as fast as the counter.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then why is Coca Cola allowed to promote their proven harmful sugar juices in that space, but am I not allowed to oppose that promotion in the same space? You are certainly allowed to. Pony up for the ad space if you want to promote the opposite, or advertise something else entirely.

Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense.

> Selling harmful things is profitable. Opposing harmful things is expensive. Because of this asymmetric warfare, and because we are human beings more concerned about other human beings than concepts like brand awareness, it seems like regulating the messaging in pubic spaces makes sense.

Nothing I stated made any sort of judgement about whether or not something should or should not be advertised. The original statement (quoted in my previous response) was that someone opposed to an advertisement was "not allowed" to oppose that promotion.

Quite frankly, nobody should be in charge of regulating the messaging. That sounds like top-down control which does nothing but solidify the positions of people/organizations that are already in power and can afford to lobby for such regulations. It's often known as regulatory capture.

There are clearly groups of people that "oppose harmful things" (which is quite vague, but I digress), and have carved out parts of the market that agree with them (e.g., organic foods) and are quite profitable.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#576
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is you best argument "what about cars"? Scooters are a problem because they go fast among pedestrians. Cars usually don't, and when they donit is usually labelled terrorism. I think a good comparison is a bike: Bikers usually stay either on the road or on a bike path. When they go in pedestrian zones, their rather bad manouverability make bikers go slow or get off. Just one week ago I was hit by a scooter going over…

Yes, because cars and scooters occupy and compete for the same space and the difference between them is so large that anybody who thinks scooters are the bigger issue is in my view either totally blind to the problems with automobiles or lying. I don’t acknowledge a third possibility. Cars are orders of magnitude more problematic in cities than scooters. That’s not hyperbole. They are literally orders of magnitude mo…

Of course cars are more problematic. That doesn't diminish any problems with scooters. The thing is they are regulated. A car driver has obligations written in law.

In my home country they can't even decide what to classify e-scooters as.

If I were to try to ride a bike as people do with scooters I would be stopped - not unlikely by the police. Would I park it the same way some responsible (and presumably drunk) citizen would throw it in the river.

I think the reason why this space is unregulated in my home country is because bikers use their common sense, because biking is a lot harder than using a scooter. I wouldn't go 25km/h in a pedestrian zone because sooner or later I would probably hit someone. When I am on a scooter I have to really think before I drive.

I don't think cars and scooters compete for the same space. Pedestrians, bikes and scooters compete. The vast majority of people going on scooters do so instead of walking, biking or going on public transport.

If I could decide all city centres would be void of cars and people could bike and scooter on the old car roads to their hearts delight. Until then I would prefer scooters to be driven responisbly, either through regulation or common sense.

In my 34 years alive I have never been hit by a bike, yet in the last 3.4 months I have been hit by a acooter twice. Once in the back on a pedestrian street when the driver turned a corner and wasn't expecting me to stand at a bus stop. The other time on a bike because the scooter driver did not follow the most basic traffic regulations ("the rule of right" - the obligation to let someone coming from the right to pass if no other instructions are given).

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is mind rape. Not a single person who looks at ads has consented to giving corporations their attention, much less have their minds violated when they insert their little brands and offers. They are not entitled to our attention. Advertising should be illegal no matter what. Disruptiveness just makes this unacceptable practice even worse.

They should be illegal no matter what? How would commerce function? How would one make a new business known? I hate ads too, but I don't think your extreme stance stands a chance at popularity.

Word of mouth? Designated market places? Who knows? In the end it doesn't really matter. As long as it's not advertising.

Businesses aren't entitled to attention. They aren't entitled to being known. They aren't entitled to success. They aren't even entitled to existence. I simply don't understand how some business's concerns can possibly override everything else. Are we supposed to live in some cyberpunk hell with noise as far as the eye can see just so a bunch of corporations can make themselves known? If resisting this makes me extreme, then so be it.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At multiple points in the McDonald's self-order touchscreen kiosk flow. Sounds like just one more reason in a long long long list of reasons not to go to McDonalds

It's amazing really. There has to be a business school case study there in how you go from being the trail-blazer and biggest success story in fast food, to one of the worst and getting worse with everything you do.

I disagree.

McDonald's hamburgers and fries are way less greasy than most fast food joints, and the kiosk allows easily reducing the quantity of sauce in the burgers and salt in the fries. As such, it can be relatively healthy from a macronutrients perspective, while satisfying fast food cravings.

The vegetable salads are very fresh and pretty good, which can accommodate people on strict diets.

The kiosks also free workers to clean up tables more frequently and assist customers in various ways.

Of course this can vary from location to location, especially as so many McDonald's are franchised. But the actual experience at my local spots is enjoyable nowadays.

Re: You block ads in your browser, why not in your city?

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a pretty disingenuous comparison. You aren't just charging your users "ad views". You are also facilitating 3rd parties tracking their online behaviour, and they certainly aren't agreeing to those terms when they first land on your site.

Could you be more specific? What "3rd parties" are tracking what "behaviour" of yours, and why exactly is it worth so much? And what do you mean by "you" in "tracking you"? Do they know your name?

In the case of photopea - as soon as I land on the homepage and before i consent to ANYTHING:

  github
  google analytics
  facebook
  stackpath
  wikimedia
  google adwords
  google fonts
  amazon ads
  (a few others I dont recognise)
  and, of course, the companies that you use to collect "consent"...
Even if i disable ALL the options on the "consent" module and reload the page, it STILL loads ALL of these. In fact, it seems to load even more! For example, I create a document, then it loads (in ADDITION to the above):

  criteo
  33across
  openx
  adxpremium
  setupad
  4dex
  adnxs
  casalemedia
  pubmatic
  emxdgt
  rubiconproject
  districtm
  lijit
They are at the very least tracking that i visited your site. They are tracking the URLs that are active. As I click around and use the app, it is triggering more interaction with those services - so clearly they are monitoring actions/events too. This is just on YOUR site.

These networks are able to identify me by a cookie (and other techniques), so they can compile my activity on YOUR site into a log of my activities across multiple sites which they "provide their ads" on. They can absolutely identify you as an individual - google, facebook, etc, are ones that people have INTENTIONALLY given their names too, and many of these other networks sell/lease the data to others to allow them to provide their own identity link.

Furthermore, these 3rd party "scripts" have access to the entire page content too. They can read my email address should I register. They can even capture my password if they were so configured (or were in themselves hacked to do so).

Bear in mind i did NOT consent to any of this when I landed on your site, and even when i specifically removed "consent" via the form on your landing page, i was STILL being tracked by ALL those I mention above.

THIS is why people have blockers, etc. I dont mind if you have an image with a link to some advertisers product/service/whatever. What I care about it that my every action on your site is providing additional data for these companies to mine and build a secret profile of my browsing habits.

EDIT: I browsed without an ad blocker to compile this behaviour. I feel dirty.

Post reply on HN