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

251–260 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#251

Post by prmoustache »

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.

I have google accounts that I created a decade ago but I can't remember the last time I logged on one, except to log on gmail and clean the box in private browsing.

I basically only keep them because I used my real name and don't want anyone to steal an account/personnal info I might have created with that gmail address and impersonate me.

I don't really see what is difficult in operating without a google account.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#252

Post by ale42 »

Varqu wrote: post #238

While I agree with the post author on the "if I pay the subscription then there should be no ads" part, there is a bit that comes fairly often in such posts which I find rather funny: "sell my data to your advertisers" Sorry, that's not how 90% of digital advertising works. The company doesn't sell your data, they just offer some other companies to put an ad in front of your screen based on some specific profiling. B…

> The company doesn't sell your data, they just offer some other companies to put an ad in front of your screen

True, but the result is the same. I would have nothing against _some_ static ads (like in newspapers) even if I'm paying to read articles, but they should be served directly by the website, not by an external ad aggregator. Just check with how many companies data is shared on the cookie banner details: on the newspaper I'm paying for, it's "us and our 105 partners". So I feel totally justified to run an adblocker here. It's not ok that other companies should know which articles I'm reading, for how long, or things like that, so they can better target me with ads, especially that it's not limited to the website of the newspaper. In addition, you often get very annoying ads, with fast animations that are very distracting if you are reading text nearby.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#253

Post by Timwi »

jamespo wrote: post #88
imiric wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defending this practice because it's the status quo is ludicrous. All of these things happen not because people approve of them, but because they have no choice. Every company in those industries is doing this because they want more profits. Companies do have the choice, but they would flood your eyeballs with ads 24/7 if it was socially acceptable. So they push that line as far as they can take it before people star…

You have plenty of choice to not visit a website

That is indeed what I do when I see a subscription pop-up or some other annoyance my adblocker missed. Despite, by that time I've already clicked on it, and sometimes even read some of the content, before I'm rudely ejected from the experience. This is simply not pleasant and doesn't help anyone.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#254

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

refulgentis wrote: post #143
HeatrayEnjoyer wrote: post #121

Advertising is fundamentally corrosive to society and should be outlawed with few and carefully tailored exceptions. Any business models that consequently fail, fail because their externalities to collective society are now priced in.

> Advertising is fundamentally corrosive to society Interesting, why?

You just need to ask yourself: would/do advertisers lie if they could/can get away with it? And the answer is "faster than you can blink".

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#255

Post by prmoustache »

Aerroon wrote: post #139
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?

They aren't all ads, because the situation gets really muddy. If a website talks about an upcoming movie is that an ad? What if they were shown the movie before its release?

Well most hollywood movie productions are just 1h30 ads nowadays. You can usually see ton of product placement with closeup on logos and products that do not make any sense for the storytelling.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#256

Post by quectophoton »

greazy wrote: post #16
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…

I think this is where fine grained terminology is required. The articles/interview you describe could be described as 'paid content'. What the article is discussing is most likely banner ads for what will usually be non related products. One is designed to keep you on the site (paid content) while the other is attempting to go else where. The effect of paid content can not be discounted. It's important to recognize t…

> What the article is discussing is most likely banner ads for what will usually be non related products.

This here is key.

If I'm reading the synopsis for an anime series on a website whose main topic is anime/manga/novels/etc, and I see an ad in an unobstrusive and non-annoying location talking about this one new anime figurine or plushie or some other merch, you bet I'm going to check it out.

These ads don't require cross-site tracking or third-party resources. They can even be shown with the strictest Content-Security-Policy. Even if they send you to a different website.

If I'm logged in, and you give me a way to tell you "I don't like this shit, stop showing me stuff related to this series/artist/etc" (i.e. a clearly tagged blocklist, not a vague "I don't like this" and you guessing what I mean by "this"), I'll even help you refine your ads for me.

But that's only because I care about this content.

And because it's done in a respectful way. For example, I don't mind those classic 88x31 "affiliate links" (ads) or blog rolls (also ads, at least in my eyes), or self-promotion sections (ads) in some communities, or when someone I follow on Bluesky posts about how they're selling a thing (also ad). If one of those gets through my adblocker, I won't go out of my way to add a rule for those.

But the moment a third-party script is involved, or data selling begins, or there's annoyances like putting random shit between paragraphs I'm reading, or popups, or "subscribe to the newsletter"-style popups, I'm out. I'm either blocking your whole site on uBlock Origin, or at DNS level if it was bad enough.

TL;DR: I don't care about ads. I care about things that piss me off.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#257

Post by sofixa »

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…

And also, all of their ads are THE BEST something. Even if it's showing some greasy microwaved slop billed as food.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#258

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

lousken wrote: post #245

15 years ago regular site used to have a nice banner ad that was related to the topic of the site, maybe some small logo here and there on the right side and that was about it I did not think about blocking it, did not mind, did not care. That's how ads should have stayed instead of this giant annoying/spyware/loud/popup/... mess. Nowadays I would not use anything without ublock and i am considering storing everythin…

> a nice banner ad

It's amusing to hear this phrase, but I totally agree with you! Probably the best ads I've ever come across are on Daring Fireball [0]. They're so unobtrusive and privacy-respecting, they're in the source of the page!

[0] https://daringfireball.net/

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#259

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

ale42 wrote: post #252
Varqu wrote: post #238

While I agree with the post author on the "if I pay the subscription then there should be no ads" part, there is a bit that comes fairly often in such posts which I find rather funny: "sell my data to your advertisers" Sorry, that's not how 90% of digital advertising works. The company doesn't sell your data, they just offer some other companies to put an ad in front of your screen based on some specific profiling. B…

> The company doesn't sell your data, they just offer some other companies to put an ad in front of your screen True, but the result is the same. I would have nothing against _some_ static ads (like in newspapers) even if I'm paying to read articles, but they should be served directly by the website, not by an external ad aggregator. Just check with how many companies data is shared on the cookie banner details: on t…

This is absolutely the most reasonable compromise. I don't really understand how advertising survives as it is, but static ads feel like a win-win.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#260

Post by freeAgent »

lousken wrote: post #245

15 years ago regular site used to have a nice banner ad that was related to the topic of the site, maybe some small logo here and there on the right side and that was about it I did not think about blocking it, did not mind, did not care. That's how ads should have stayed instead of this giant annoying/spyware/loud/popup/... mess. Nowadays I would not use anything without ublock and i am considering storing everythin…

There were absolutely obnoxious ads, including pop-ups and pop-unders 15 years ago, but at least they were generally contextual rather than targeted to your ad profile.
Post reply on HN