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

Vietnam bans unskippable ads

saigoneer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 835 posts

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#301

Post by meindnoch »

Panoramix wrote: post #235
al_borland wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I hate ads, I don’t know that it’s so simple. There are products that do solve legitimate problems people have. Maybe there is less of that now, but in this past this was very true, and advertising helped make people aware that solutions to their problems have been developed. The first washing machine, for example. The problem comes when the advertisement manufacturers problems that didn’t previously exist…

I have never in my several decades of life seen and ad for anything and thought "I need to get that".

I remember having that experience as a kid - seeing an ad for Action Man™ during my Saturday morning cartoon block, and feeling that I need that toy right now. My dad then explained to me that these advertisements are carefully crafted to elicit this response from kids, and that I should always think critically about the messaging in ads.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#302

Post by kube-system »

i_am_jl wrote: post #82
sandworm101 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have fallen asleep watching youtube many times. I swear i have woken up in the middle of 20+ minute ads. I thought it was a news article about china when it was an ad. Who knows when the skip button appeared. The few times i have seen these, it has always been a literal fake news show about china.

I've seen these advertisements too, also only when my phone had been playing unattended for some time. I have a (unsupported, unsubstantiated) theory that YT detects phones of "sleepers" and pushes more profitable content with the understanding it won't be skipped. I've got a few spare phones, maybe I'll run an experiment.

I'm not sure why it would specifically be targeting "sleepers"... there are a lot of reasons why someone might not skip ads... people who are sleeping are probably the least valuable of them.

It could just as well be something super valuable -- like an unattended kiosk device playing youtube to a crowd of people.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#303

Post by triceratops »

xoxxala wrote: post #93
datadrivenangel wrote: post #29

Requiring skip is good, but the part about focusing on illegal ads is better. If all ads were for soda, cars, and other legitimate products, that would be one thing, but so many ads are for straight up scams these days.

Considering how unhealthy soda is to consume, I'd ban those ads in a heartbeat right along side tobacco and alchohol. The UK just banned all TV and online junk food ads and I'm alright with that.

> The UK just banned all TV and online junk food ads

Unbelievable, when you consider the sheer volume of betting ads they have.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#304

Post by amelius »

vladms wrote: post #77
master-lincoln wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would have been a better world without ads. There would be more competition which would improve products and thus outcome for customers. Also most of the demand of goods is artificially created by ads, so there would be less production of crap and thus less resources wasted. It would also mean a whole industry of people would do something else that is potentially not as detrimental to society. The money sp…

While I agree that the world would be better without ads in their current form, we should think why are ads required and what are the benefits. The main issue is how you discover a new product. The main benefit to society is/could be faster progress. The main downside to society could be unhappy people that consume crap. I think smart people should think about alternative solutions, not just think "ads are the proble…

> The main issue is how you discover a new product.

We live in the information age.

How did you learn about your programming languages? Ads?

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#306

Post by rjh29 »

lifetimerubyist wrote: post #78

I always wondered about traditional television. People like my dad still have it. It still has a shitload of ads. They're unskippable. People don't really seam to care about those for some reason though.

My mum has a DVR so she tends to watch things later and skip the ads. For this reason our TV provider is pushing a new box which has no DVR capability and can only access things from streaming... they bill this as an advantage since you don't have to explicitly record anything. But it's all about adverts.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#307

Post by pluralmonad »

wvenable wrote: post #205
jason_s wrote: post #42

I just uninstalled a game from my mobile phone this morning that had heavy ad usage. It was interesting to note the different ad display strategies. From least to most annoying: - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display an animated ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear after 20-30 seconds - display an animated a…

I have a turn-based game that I play with remote family and after I play my turn, I swipe the app off (force close) so I don't have to see the ads. It used to be that I could just switch away to skip the ads but they must have gotten wise to that because one day it stopped working.

I know plenty of folks here make lots of money off it, but ad tech is straight up malware. I got lucky and found uBlock Origin many years ago so I did not get slowly boiled in worsening ad tech. I can't believe what people put up with just to not pay a few dollars for software they use daily. Not to even mention that the worst part of it all is ad tech has ruined the internet beyond repair.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#308

Post by btown »

DrewADesign wrote: post #64
jason_s wrote: post #42

I just uninstalled a game from my mobile phone this morning that had heavy ad usage. It was interesting to note the different ad display strategies. From least to most annoying: - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display an animated ad, have the "x" to close appear soon (3-10 seconds) - display a static ad, have the "x" to close appear after 20-30 seconds - display an animated a…

My favorite most annoying ad tactic is the trick slowing down progress bar. It starts off fast making it seem like it’s going to be, say, a ten-second ad so you decide to suffer through it… but progressively slows so you notice at like the 20 second mark you’re only 2/3 of the way through the progress bar, so probably less than halfway done. Murderous rage.

As a full mea culpa, I once implemented this years ago for an open-source project (non-ad-related) that could have an unpredictable number of steps with unpredictable timing. We went with an algorithm that would add a % of the remaining progress on each status tick, so, while it would inevitably decelerate, at least users would know that the processing wasn't just frozen.

It was a compromise that let us focus our limited attention on the things our project could uniquely do, without needing to refactor or do fast-and-slow-passes to provide subtask-count estimates to the UI. I'd make those same choices again, in that context. But in an ad context, it's inexcusable.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#309

Post by anigbrowl »

stevewodil wrote: post #137
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #68

Title should be "Vietnam", not "Vienam". I would downvote the submitter just for the reason that he posted this without correting it first.

The article title reflects the typo, it's an issue with the original publication.

So what? If something is obviously wrong it should be fixed.
Post reply on HN