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

Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

imlefthanded.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 844 posts

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#811

Post by Nextgrid »

armchairhacker wrote: post #215
skummetmaelk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash This cannot be overstated. Everything today is a battle for eye-balls and ad money. The corruption is insane. You can't even buy appliances designed perform their function well. Instead you can buy cheap junk for less than cogs because they make money selling your data to ad companies instead of making money by making products that…

I have a theory most ads (especially invasive ones) don't actually target most people, not just tech-savvy users but anyone. They target "dumb", very-manipulable people who see these crazy ads and actually spend loads of money on them, out of impulse or whatever reason. I feel cruel saying this but I really think it's true. Just like how most games have microtransactions because a minority of people who will spend an…

Targeting potential marks absolutely makes sense and avoids scrutiny from savvy people who might call it out as a scam and potentially blow up the entire operation. This is also why web advertising is so much more dangerous than print advertising - at least with the latter, everyone can see what's being advertised and blow the whistle if necessary.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#812

Post by npteljes »

iso1631 wrote: post #793
npteljes wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you know, pay for it a little bit? It's there, it makes the ads go away, and it's cheap.

Does it get rid of the inline sponsors too?

We both know it can't. It does the same as using an ad blocker on YouTube. In case of inline ads, right now you can use SponsorBlock.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#813

Post by stonecharioteer »

xemdetia wrote: post #558
notapenny wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube is the reason I installed an adblocker in the first place. I don't mind watching an ad, but at some point they went from an ad every other video, to unskippable ads in-front of every video (love a 1m ad on every 10s video when I'm just browsing clips) and mid-content ads that literally just cut in and disrupt what I'm watching.

I think the other thing that pushed me to put it back on after experimenting with it off was the absolute dearth of inventory Youtube apparently thought was appropriate to show me. I watch a lot of content of various lengths in a lot of various fields but I would get the same one or two ads for days. Then I started getting the 10m+ ads that seem to be randomly OK for some reason? I don't think I could stomach another…

Vanced even has SponsorBlock, which is insanely good

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#815

Post by lolinder »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #797
lolinder wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time I used AdBlock Plus, I was horrified to discover that they considered Taboola (the clickbait network that, at least at the time, used shocking images to draw attention) to be "acceptable". I was browsing the web with AdBlock Plus and found myself assaulted by an image of someone's fungus-infected toenail or something similarly nauseating. I went to report it as a mistake on their forums only to find the…

> The only way I can imagine ads like that made it onto their list was by paying really good money. So it is just your imagination. Their definition of "acceptable" is here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#criteria > Whatever definition of "acceptable" they were using, I wanted no part of it. You did not even read it, but just immediately jumped to "shady"/bribery.... > I wanted no part of it. Me neither, but…

I never said they didn't have a definition. I read it at the time and again yesterday. When I said "whatever definition ... they were using", I was saying that they were not using their own published definition. If they were, Taboola would never have been allowed through.

The policy on images is the one that is relevant to my complaint, so let's look at that one:

> Static image ads may qualify as acceptable, according to an evaluation of their unobtrusiveness based on their integration on the webpage.

The policy was stricter back in 2015 (http://web.archive.org/web/20150613035152/https://adblockplu...):

> Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images

It changed to the one with more wiggle room in February 2016, in the middle of a backlash against AdBlock Plus's continued tolerance for Taboola's antics. Here's that thread for context: https://forum.adblockplus.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25991

Under either definition, it's hard to argue that Taboola's images were "acceptable". They were explicitly designed to grab attention, bore no relation to the text content of the ad, and frequently were disgusting specifically because gross images draw the eye. Adblock Plus kept insisting that Taboola was cooperating, but users (including myself) kept reporting over and over again that their garbage was getting through. After years of violations that get dismissed as "mistakes" (documented in part on the thread linked above), it's reasonable to assume that the only reason they weren't dropped like a hot potato was because they were paying to not be dropped.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#816

Post by teddyh »

lapetitejort wrote: post #464
teddyh wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My current peeve is when going to a restaurant and they have "the game" on full blast. Get a TV-B-Gone.

I've bought the standalone keychain and the DIY TV-B-Gone. They're great but clunky. I bought a USB C IR blaster keychain hoping there'd be a TV-B-Gone app that could utilize it. No such luck.

There was an app for the Nokia N900 (I.e. the Maemo platform): https://www.my-maemo.com/software/applications_name_TV-B-Gon...

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#817

Post by Atlas667 »

somethingAlex wrote: post #509
Atlas667 wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas! Your question reveals how capitalist production is both for the consumers but at the same time must contradict the interests of the consumers. I'm waiting for the day when we can solve these ills of private property with technology.

People seem to invoke the word capitalism whenever things aren't a utopia for everyone involved. Still, even without capitalism, you'll have to contend with the issue of how to cover operational expenses. Say some, more centralized, agent decides YouTube is worthwhile - how would it get paid for? A state sponsorship made possible by a tax of some sort? Perhaps it would transition to be completely pay-to-play? The emp…

The contradiction of the capitalist mode of production is not that it tries to cover its costs. That is necessary in any system of trade/production.

The problem is using social services to generate capital. A public good for private interests is wrought with contradictions. And, as you can see, covering costs =/= generating capital.

Not even mentioning that the mode continuously works to undermine itself in making production more efficient by developing technology and driving down prices but profits as a whole too.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#818

Post by HWR_14 »

onemoresoop wrote: post #81
idatum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far does YouTube Premium go as far as privacy? I never took a look at it carefully. My fear is I would pay the fee for no ads, but Google would still collect data on what I view and monetize that by selling me ads somewhere else.

I suspect that since you're a paying user, a more valuable customer, they'd want to mine your data more thoroughly to derive more profits in other ways.

Why wouldn't they mine the data of all their users super thoroughly (to their technical limits)? It only costs a bit of computer time.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#819

Post by HWR_14 »

no1lives4ever wrote: post #794
Scoundreller wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t expect (and didn’t get) subscribers because I just solve the problem. I’m not entertaining enough for you to continue watching the next video on a thing you probably don’t own. Most likely outcome will be me posting videos on some alternative video platform. Looking at rumble.com (I wish Amazon got into hosting videos like this, being at the place to buy seems the best place if you fail to fix).

IMO youtube is the primary platform where those looking for videos will search first up. Thing is that if you have a large number of videos, you never know when one of them will get you a large number of views and subscribers. Or maybe in future google will have different goalposts for monetization. Overall, it is always good to have videos on youtube even if you are not monetizing them.

Good for who? good for Google. But how is giving free content to Google good for the poster?

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#820

Post by robomartin »

commoner wrote: post #776
robomartin wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. You have no idea what it means to respect someone's property and livelihood. Hence a creative interpretation that allows you to take while explicitly blocking their ability to generate revenue.

If a site owner publishes content and makes it available free of charge, it is available for visitors to consume free of charge. Your argument shows a lack of respect for the autonomy of internet users, who are not obligated to consume ads just because they are presented alongside other site content, just as TV viewers are not obligated to watch the ads during commercial breaks. Site owners have alternative means of…

I don't like ads. Yet I respect the fact that the product supplier needs them to pay the bills.

You don't like ads. You have zero respect for the product supplier. You consume their work product and delete the ads, using an artificially-constructed moral high ground to justify it.

The web would not exist if your world view had been dominant from the early days. Few people are interested in paying for anything directly. Gmail has 1.5 billion users. Care to guess how many pay for the service? Nobody is going to pay for search, and yet it is one of the most valuable tools on the internet, arguably the one thing that makes it work. A service like YouTube is incredibly valuable, not just from an entertainment perspective but also for learning and more. Once again, nobody wants to pay for it.

I could go on. There are millions of excellent sites beyond what Google has to offer. What's more important is that none of these services would have been built to where they are today were it not for the use of advertising as a revenue generation channel.

At a higher philosophical level, the question might be:

What future valuable service or product would we not allow to germinate if nobody wants to pay for anything and everyone uses ad blockers. Like it or not, this is one of the easiest ways for entrepreneurs to finance their dreams and ideas on the web. Given the vast majority of people will not pay for anything, the options become very few. This is certainly true at inception. Later on, as a business matures, other potential revenue streams surface.

Go try and start something like Facebook (about 3 billion users) and ask people to pay you just $1 per year. Aside from the fact that it would be impossible to support the infrastructure and people needed to run such a beast, well, nobody is going to hand you even $1 per year for the service. I don't care what features and privacy enhancements you might offer, nobody is going to pay. What's left? Well, initially, advertising. That's the only way. Sad, but true.

We don't have to like reality, but we should understand it.

Post reply on HN