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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#111

Post by boo-ga-ga »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #97
contrast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re making a very different point to the article. The article is about how to pay for content, your point is that you don’t want to pay for content at all.

You can use uBlock and pay your content creators via Patreon if they have one. I believe that the ad-based freemium business model is harmful to society and unfixable due to the incentives it creates to engage and enrage rather than entertain and inform. So, I use uBlock to use YouTube for free to explicitly drain it of resources without giving Google any ad income, and then I pay the creators that I like using other…

Can you share how you do this? For example, you've listened to a song on YT a few times, liked it. Do you try to find the artist on Bandcamp or iTunes and buy their album? Or order their merch? How much do you spend on this monthly on average?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#112

Post by smcin »

Raed667 wrote: post #101
danpalmer wrote: post #9

> The correct amount of ads for a publication that’s directly supported is zero. I basically agree with this sentiment, but one place where it can be a tricky balance (not saying that's the case here!) is "native advertising". For example, a new game is being released, the publisher collaborates with TheBrink, a hypothetical popular game news site, and for this they get a huge takeover banner advert for the week, inc…

> the publisher collaborates with TheBrink in some countries (France as an example), if there was payment in any form, it has to be disclosed otherwise that's an undisclosed ad and very much illegal

The US FTC also has rules requiring most (but not all) native advertising to have a disclosure (e.g. "ad”, “promoted by [X]”, “sponsored advertising content”, etc. but not terms such as “promoted” or “promoted stories")

Here's one overview: https://www.kevel.com/blog/ftc-compliant

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#113

Post by [deleted] »

HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #107
racecar789 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay for YouTube premium if you can afford it. The cost is pretty reasonable and 55% of the subscription goes to content creators. It's not a huge amount but probably similar to what a creator would make if ads were shown.

But it is not possible to use it without creating a Google account. I should not need to sign in to watch videos, especially when that makes all efforts at avoiding tracking null.

[deleted]

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#114

Post by raincole »

lambdaba wrote: post #105
jillesvangurp wrote: post #44

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

I really can't imagine someone with CTO title doesn't have $15/month to pay for YouTube when you're a regular user. People with far fewer resources pay. This goes to content creators, if you're not even seeing ads, they don't get paid.

Of course they have $15/mo. Whether they want to pay is another question.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#115

Post by [deleted] »

raincole wrote: post #114
lambdaba wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really can't imagine someone with CTO title doesn't have $15/month to pay for YouTube when you're a regular user. People with far fewer resources pay. This goes to content creators, if you're not even seeing ads, they don't get paid.

Of course they have $15/mo. Whether they want to pay is another question.

[deleted]

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#116

Post by 9o1d »

renegat0x0 wrote: post #89
9o1d wrote: post #80

Dear friends! I am a simple programmer. I had a website in 2009, where I posted useful articles. I had a small ad block, which allowed me to pay for my expenses. When users began to install ad blockers en masse, the number of ad views dropped significantly and I had to close the site. Now I have no job and I am very poor. I want to thank those people who not only do not want to pay for good service, but also install…

Some YouTubers scream in panic that you dare to install ad blocker. Well nobody told them to build their business around such ad-driven solution. There are thousands, and thousand of useful places, each for free. Take a look at awesome lists at github. These provide so much value to the society. It does not require any subscriptions, nor money. There are millions of people who share education, and knowledge for free.…

Did you know that YouTube does not make a profit, but only covers its own expenses? What if it becomes unprofitable because of ad blockers? What will remain? Paid cinemas? Do you want to pay money from your own pocket? And you will remember the times when you could pay by watching ads without money. Think about it! No one will do anything for you for free. Try to take a taxi or a train without money? Try to steal bread from a store without money? This is stealing and it is illegal. If something is free, it means that those who benefit from it have already paid for you, so that you receive the information they want. So that an independent site cannot distribute free information.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#117

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

boo-ga-ga wrote: post #111
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use uBlock and pay your content creators via Patreon if they have one. I believe that the ad-based freemium business model is harmful to society and unfixable due to the incentives it creates to engage and enrage rather than entertain and inform. So, I use uBlock to use YouTube for free to explicitly drain it of resources without giving Google any ad income, and then I pay the creators that I like using other…

Can you share how you do this? For example, you've listened to a song on YT a few times, liked it. Do you try to find the artist on Bandcamp or iTunes and buy their album? Or order their merch? How much do you spend on this monthly on average?

I buy on average 2-3 albums on Bandcamp every month. This month I've bought 4 already. If I like an artist enough that I want to listen to the full album more than once, then I generally buy it. If it's not available on Bandcamp I use Qobuz as a backup.

For videos and podcasts I subscribe to content creators on Patreon. I currently have four subscriptions for a total of around $12, and I give roughly the same amount to each.

I also avoid services that are monetized by ads elsewhere and pay for Kagi to get ad-free search. I will avoid all services that offer free tiers with ads and paid tiers without ads as I just fundamentally do not believe that the business model can work at scale without causing harm.

I also host my own email as I do not believe that it is possible to provide free email to people without somehow also doing things with their data or attention that goes against their interests.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#118

Post by 0xEF »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #95
ballooney wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does pay for prime. The fact that they have done a bait-n-switch and now _still_ show you adverts, despite you paying, is reprehensible.

But here's the thing: the subscription is not being cancelled. Amazon tries it, gets some people grumbling, but their bottom line is not affected and in fact goes up from this move because in addition to subscribers they also get ad revenue. A vocal minority doesn't outweigh hard numbers in this case. But that's one of the causes of enshittification, everything becoming metrics-driven.

Indeed, the market gives permission to the offense.

The funny part is we should have all learned our lesson from the cable television days. Perhaps it's been long enough that everyone forgot, or maybe most of the market is just too young now, but there was a time in the US when cable television was ad-free. Commercials started sneaking into that with some regularity even though part of the draw to paying for cable tv was that it was commercial free. My brain wants to say this happened around the late 1980's? I might be wrong on that time frame, but at some point, like a frog sitting in a pot of water, the heat slowly rose and we found ourselves boiled to death with more and more commercial interruptions in our paid cable tv channels.

Then we watched the same thing happen with the Internet in the mid-2000's. Needless to say, I am a heavy user of ad blockers and Pi Holes. I especially loath sites that want to detect my ad blocker, and throw up a message trying to to guilt me into turning it off. The thing is I am not just blocking the ads, but also trying to block all the tracking that comes with those ads.

It's not really just about being annoyed by ads this time around. It's also about the right to privacy.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#119

Post by EugeneOZ »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #95
ballooney wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does pay for prime. The fact that they have done a bait-n-switch and now _still_ show you adverts, despite you paying, is reprehensible.

But here's the thing: the subscription is not being cancelled. Amazon tries it, gets some people grumbling, but their bottom line is not affected and in fact goes up from this move because in addition to subscribers they also get ad revenue. A vocal minority doesn't outweigh hard numbers in this case. But that's one of the causes of enshittification, everything becoming metrics-driven.

I did cancel my subscription to Amazon Prime because of this exact reason.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#120

Post by 0wis »

altairprime wrote: post #83

I don’t get why advertisers still advertise. I select brands either by nearest retail box store or by dedicated research into comparative qualities. I don’t watch or listen to any advertising-supported video or audio media. I don’t use personalized or targeted promotion codes. I don’t ever knowingly click on banner/interstitial ads of any kind. Am I still in the minority or has my behavior become more prevalent? (Not…

Even if you do not use the ads you see to make your decision, they influence you.

I already knew this but got very conscious of it when I was surprised to go to McDonalds and then discovered that they had new ads on my full commute route.

Even without influencing you, brands may just make you aware of their products, which is already a big 0 to 1.

Post reply on HN