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

201–210 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#201

Post by amaurose »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

Who defines what is culturally OK? I ask because in my book, using an ad blocker regularily is worse then skipping the occasional public transport ticket. I don't even know why. But I definitely dont give ad blcoker people that much slack. If you want the ads gone, PAY or stop using the service. Hiring a virtual bodyguard to bully your way through cyberspace is somehow weird to me.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#202

Post by Liquix »

arrowsmith wrote: post #162
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get why you might not want to create a Google account, but how is it even possible to operate without one? I'm genuinely astonished by people who are able to get by in 2024 without having ever created an account on Google.

the more it becomes "genuinely astonishing" that people can use the internet without $ProprietaryThing, the more important it is to resist using $ProprietaryThing wherever possible and at all costs. they have been pulling out all the stops for 10+ years to make it seem like you're required to have a google/icloud account to participate in society. it's slimy and endangers the neutrality of the internet.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#203

Post by mgraczyk »

Timwi wrote: post #199
mgraczyk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads aren't money, they are a thing you spend money on. What you're describing is leveling the playing field. Without Ads you'd have 10 entrepreneurs. With it you have 10000

I'd rather have 10 entrepreneurs passionately engaged in their genuine interest to improve lives, than 10,000 entrepreneurs racing and competing with each other to see who can exploit more people and extract more wealth for themselves.

The 10 will all be born rich

And almost no startups extract or exploit. The reason Europe is so poor and not growing is because of this dark turn toward zero sum thinking. Startups literally create new wealth, it's not taken from somewhere (except rare cases of fraud or scams)

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#204

Post by account42 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #75
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.

Only if they didn't issue that as new Ts & Cs. If they just changed the service he should get his money back for an unagreed change of service.

My personal T&Cs say websites don't get to show me any ads. Websites continue to agree to those T&Cs by sending me content.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#205

Post by hoveringhen »

dim13 wrote: post #178
mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

> with zero ads the internet would be a smaller, darker place Yes, please! Once a while I turn off ad-blocker to remind myself how bad it got. And OMG! It is bad, Bad, BAD! Unusable. Sometimes is less more.

> Once a while I turn off ad-blocker to remind myself how bad it got

It's pretty obvious that this is not what the person you're replying to's talking about

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#206

Post by k__ »

amaurose wrote: post #201
miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

Who defines what is culturally OK? I ask because in my book, using an ad blocker regularily is worse then skipping the occasional public transport ticket. I don't even know why. But I definitely dont give ad blcoker people that much slack. If you want the ads gone, PAY or stop using the service. Hiring a virtual bodyguard to bully your way through cyberspace is somehow weird to me.

Because privacy

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#207

Post by ratherbefuddled »

arrowsmith wrote: post #181
tossandthrow wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are ads and in many jurisdictions Also treated like ads. Weird that This is not the case in the US?

If you grew up in Europe, I promise that when you visit the US for the first time, you will be SHOCKED by America's advertising standards (or lack of them.) Advertising is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, to an extent far beyond what you're used to from home. Posters, billboards, fliers, TV commercials, product placement, celebrity endorsements - you can barely step outside without being bombarded by y…

Sometimes I end up watching US TV with US ads on some stream. They are horrifying and amusing all at once.

The idea that prescription medication is marketed to the general public on TV is entirely foreign to me, the descriptions of conditions that 99% of people wouldn't have heard of make me wonder just who they are connecting with.

Then you get to the "side affects may include headaches, vomiting, diarrhoea, haemorrhaging, spontaneous combustion, exploding eyeballs, bubonic plague and instant death - do not take this drug if you are a living breathing human being" bit and you can't help but laugh. Who goes to their doctor after watching one of these?

And "Dude Wipes" - I mean is that a spoof?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#208

Post by mgraczyk »

executesorder66 wrote: post #185
mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

> You're complaining that a product is offering you something, and you don't like the offer? No, the complaint is about the "offering" in the first place. People don't want your shit forced in front of them. The fact that you are incapable of realizing this on your own is hilarious.

Nothing is being forced on you. Just don't buy the product. We're not talking about your church or your kids school, it's a website you can choose not to visit

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#209

Post by gambiting »

mgraczyk wrote: post #172
amelius wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following this argument all political propaganda is OK too? And I can distract you when you are working? And I can pollute your view? Or track you around the internet?

No, those are different things. Tracking me around the Internet is fine though, I don't mind and it has never harmed anyone. If you show me an office full of distractions and say, "would you like to work here? It comes with distractions" then of course that's fine (I would say no). But in fact most people prefer the tradeoffs that come with the distractions

>> Tracking me around the Internet is fine though, I don't mind and it has never harmed anyone

So if you had someone follow you around in your day to day life writing down your every activity, then sold the log of your comings and goings to hundreds of companies for cash - that wouldn't be a "harm" by your definition then, would it? Because that's effectively what's happening on the internet, but because people don't see immediate negative impact on their lives they don't see it as "harm".

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#210

Post by Timwi »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

> The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor

This is technically true, but it leaves out the entire flipside of the coin. The rich wouldn't do that at the scale that they do if it didn't benefit them more than it does the poor. The services you speak of are offered at a high, but invisible, price (in the form of lost privacy, hijacked attention, manipulated will, etc.).

If you really want to help the poor, UBI does it better. It doesn't require charity from self-centered rich psychopaths. We should tax them whether they want to or not.

Post reply on HN