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

Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 486 posts

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#451

Post by nfriedly »

asadotzler wrote: post #446
nfriedly wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I mentioned this in another comment: it's really a shame that Mozilla spends the majority of that money (often poorly IMO), instead of putting it into an endowment fund or something similar that would leave them in a much better position for the long run.

It actually takes a lot of people to build and maintain a modern competitive browser. Not paying those people and instead investing the revenue would end the project in short order. Mozilla is already outgunned on staff by the other major browser makers and you want us to cut staff to save more? That's not realistic, IMO.

I don't disagree with you, but Mozilla takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year and I don't think they spend all of that on Firefox - possibly not even the majority of it!

I think that if they cut back on some of the other projects in the short-term, they could ensure the foundation was funded for the long-term - to support Firefox and anything else they deem valuable.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#452

Post by OkayPhysicist »

systems_glitch wrote: post #414
rationalist wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people get by fine with less-than-FAANG pay. (FAANG salaries are not an "order of magnitude" higher than salaries at other U.S.-based companies for similar jobs.) FAANG salaries are just at the level at which those companies discovered people are willing to sell their souls, or that is high enough to attract naive people who won't question why it pays more.

Speaking as someone "getting by" on lesser money, yeah, that's certainly true. Maybe I'm just really bad at marketing/promoting myself or I gasp have to take work "below my pay grade" because it's still work and I've got bills, but I'm not netting six figures doing highly technical work (embedded development, electromechanical development, board layout and design, etc.). In the last five years I've had one in which I…

There are plenty of 6 figure jobs outside of FAANG, and the lowest pay I'd even fathom taking for a software development role isn't far below that (maybe 85-90k for a straight-out-of-school junior dev). If you're making less than that, with enough experience to be talking about "the last five years", then you probably should start looking for roles at other companies.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#453

Post by [deleted] »

rovr138 wrote: post #76
watwut wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but you know what? Many of us do have choices and many actively do make those choices. Lets not pretend that we are struggling low paid workers whose families would starved if we changed the job or asked for reassignment. Also, many unethical choices are made or advocated for by engineers themselves.

Yes, there's some that just want to work on different problems and want to just fix the puzzles. But blanket blaming all of them and saying they all have a choice is not real. Any of them on visas? How would you feel about risking not just your job but also the ability to live somewhere. You can't blanket blame all engineers and say they all have a choice.

[deleted]

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#454

Post by detourdog »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #450
detourdog wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is never about how much one makes it is always a matter of how much one spends.

That is... a gross simplification. There is a cost of living. If you include people giving you stuff for free in the "how much one makes" category, then you need shelter, food, healthcare, etc. There are plenty of people who struggle to make enough to pay for these necessities. We call this "poverty", and it absolutely is a matter of "how much one makes".

Even in poverty having to spend more than one makes is a problem. Therefore my statement maybe simple but true.

The best kind of truth in my book. I have lots of ideas about poverty but I was actually responding to the trap of high-earners. Careful spending is more critical in impoverished situations.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#455

Post by r00fus »

liendolucas wrote: post #116

Do you know what puzzles me most? How can software engineers work on something like this? Don't those paid engineers or involved ones have the balls or dignity to walk away? I'm just wondering how they would feel about this (if they feel anything at all). I mean, if I'd be in such a position and asked to push something like this I'd have walked away on the spot, no matter what you offer me. No one at Google is standi…

Those with conscience get filtered out of these kinds of projects.

I mean, we are in a climate crisis and massive worldwide inequality and some really competent people both made this happen and prevented the general public from being able to avoid this - because that happens to profit the few.

Most of the worldwide economy is predicated on this (capitalism). It's a logical outcome.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#456

Post by systems_glitch »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #452
systems_glitch wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone "getting by" on lesser money, yeah, that's certainly true. Maybe I'm just really bad at marketing/promoting myself or I gasp have to take work "below my pay grade" because it's still work and I've got bills, but I'm not netting six figures doing highly technical work (embedded development, electromechanical development, board layout and design, etc.). In the last five years I've had one in which I…

There are plenty of 6 figure jobs outside of FAANG, and the lowest pay I'd even fathom taking for a software development role isn't far below that (maybe 85-90k for a straight-out-of-school junior dev). If you're making less than that, with enough experience to be talking about "the last five years", then you probably should start looking for roles at other companies.

Yeah, probably, but I'm stuck with the current situation for now.

Wages for developer work are not consistent, though. I was making around $45K out of college in upstate NY in 2011 or so. I left that job around $55K in 2015 when we moved from the area. Those were entirely normal salaries in the NY capital district for developers with a four-year degree and proven skills in a given language.

I'm now in central VA and am friends with the owner of a local media/web development shop. Their average pay is around $20/hour. Remote work levels the field a bit now, but that's what folks who want to work locally at a desk are offered. They have people actually working there, so I guess folks think that's a reasonable pay "for the area."

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#457

Post by systems_glitch »

asadotzler wrote: post #445
systems_glitch wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you're kind of a little wrong. Sure, there are options. They don't pay like FAANG, like order of magnitude difference.

It is not an order of magnitude. I work at a software non-profit and am paid reasonably compared to my FAANG friends. Sure, they make more, but not an order of magnitude more, not even double, and I can sleep at night knowing I'm trying to make the world better for humans rather than trying to enrich a few mega-corporations.

It's certainly double or more in many cases for rank-and-file developer jobs, in my personal experience, meaning "jobs I've worked or gotten offers on." Again, maybe I just suck, but then so do a lot of folks I know.

I mean "order of magnitude" in the sense that a 6-figure salary is an order of magnitude more than a 5-figure salary.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#458

Post by dahwolf »

I have a counter proposal. Us humans should fully embrace this and then work to become even more useless than a bot. We're going to maximize watching and clicking ads without every buying a damn thing again.

We never convert, making online advertising pointless.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#459

Post by m000 »

yreg wrote: post #294
m000 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were quite ok with the ads when they were not as obnoxious as today. Apart from techies, few people would put the effort to block them. But these days, you want to watch a 2' video on YouTube you are subjected to 20-30" of unskippable ads. Discounting the privacy (and even security) concerns, this alone pushed a lot more people to start ad-blocking were they can.

I hate it as well, but you have the option to pay for the service instead. If Netflix introduced a freemium mode where you can watch their content with injected ads for free, would that be evil as well?

Big differences between the two platforms.

People pay for Netflix because they want to watch the specific content, for which the platform has already invested money. It feels natural and fair to pay them. For the same reason, if they had a perhaps limited in content, but not obnoxiously annoying ad-supported options, people would be more likely to respect it.

On the other hand, YouTube wants you to pay to get rid of the annoyance they intentionally planted in their platform, while they have invested 0 of their money on content. Also, most creators don't seem to be paid enough from YouTube, and appear to make their living off of 3rd party sponsors, sales, referrals, etc. With this model, it is not surprising that people aren't very keen in having a YouTube subscription.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#460

Post by Terretta »

hospitalJail wrote: post #400
Terretta wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few reasons: 1. Native integration across devices: Safari integrates seamlessly with Apple's ecosystem due to proprietary features like iCloud, Handoff, and universal clipboard, allowing for a consistent user experience across all Apple devices, with seamless transition among them to stay in your flow across devices. 2. iCloud Private Relay: This is a recent security tool from Apple and participating CDNs that encr…

All but #4 make sense. Apple has a pretty terrible record on security given the Pegasus spyware and 0 clicks. Although most are related to iMessage and hardware exploits. I still have a hard time believing the Privacy stuff since PRISM and Apple's openness to give data to China and Russia. But if you believe them, don't mind the government's access, and don't want to use other software, I can see where you are coming…

So here's the thing. Apple's moves on #4 moved adtech stock prices down.

You don't need to believe me, info on the authenticity of their effort is priced into the markets.

Or, you can believe those lined up to fight Apple on these capabilities.

This is really outdated: https://images.apple.com/safari/docs/Safari_White_Paper_Nov_...

But boy did it get Meta mad:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/facebook-warns-about-apple-i...

But they did more:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/06/07/apple-beefing-up-...

And now more:

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/ios-17-will-stop-websites-fro...

Every time generating letters to Washington and Brussels how Apple's taking food out of the mouths of data and ad brokers.

I'd have run out of tiny violins if I didn't have GarageBand to make me a loop.

Post reply on HN