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

551–560 of 835 posts

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#551

Post by consp »

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #499
kube-system wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whoever came up with that type of progress bar must hate people in general. My first thought is that the person has a strong grasp of their profession and they love money. A hack like that has to have a really high value/effort ratio.

I was forced to do this as a developer of Flash websites in the early 00's. I loved making custom progress bars really fun so people didn't mind watching the huge sites download. I HATED when they had me mess with the time so that it got to 90% really fast and then spent AGES finishing the last 10%.

We all know the Microsoft progress bars reached 99% easily and had an infinite last % in the '90s. I'm still not convinced that was by accident.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#552

Post by blibble »

Aerroon wrote: post #364
blibble wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or install ublock origin and keep your money and the time! while depriving google of revenue AND costing them money win, win, win and WIN

Also decreasing the likelihood of content that you like watching gets made? The creator is being paid from that ad revenue too.

if my viewing actively cost the video creators money from me watching I'd probably feel guilty and stop

but this isn't the case, I'm completely cost neutral to them

but it does directly cost Google money... and I'm perfectly fine with that

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#553

Post by adrr »

_jab wrote: post #13

I've often wondered whether the world would be better without ads. The incentive to create services (especially in social media) that strive to addict their users feels toxic to society. Often, it feels uncertain whether these services are providing actual value, and I suspect that whether a user would pay for a service in lieu of watching ads is incidentally a good barometer for whether real value is present. Don't…

People don't care. Youtube has an option to watch it without ads, most people don't. I refuse to watch ads and pay for the ad-free versions of the streamers. Lots people won't pay. Would the average person pay $10/m for ad free social media? Or pay for add free search? Pretty sure there are search engines that you can pay that are ad free.

What needs to be regulated is ads that you can't avoid. You can avoid online ads by paying ad free versions or not browsing certain sites(eg: instagram, FB). Billboards need to go away, and some cities have outlawed them.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#554

Post by Aerroon »

olyjohn wrote: post #500
Aerroon wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also decreasing the likelihood of content that you like watching gets made? The creator is being paid from that ad revenue too.

Or maybe they will move to a platform that respects them. Gotta start somewhere.

They're on YouTube because it's the platform that gives them the greatest chance of success. What other popular video platforms do you know that give you 55% of the ad revenue?

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#555

Post by tpmoney »

haritha-j wrote: post #101
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 wonder if there's a middle ground, where you only have statement based, textual ads. Amusing ourselves to Death (great book btw), discusses how until the 19th century, ads were basically just information dense textual statements. The invention of slogans and jingles was the start of the slow downfall in ads. I interned at an ad agency once, and I really enjoy creative advertising, but frankly there's just way too m…

> until the 19th century, ads were basically just information dense textual statements.

I'm curious how does this account for "town criers" and the like? And there seems to be quite a few examples of less "information dense textual statement" in some of the articles on Wikipedia about advertising [1] [2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_card

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#556

Post by gpm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #541
gpm wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd interpret this as a proposal for two new laws: 1. No non-invited display of paid messaging, period. If you go to a directory and ask for a list of people who paid to be part of that directory, it can show it. If you play a game, watch a movie, take the bus, or search a non-paid directory of sites they simply cannot show you things they were paid to show you. I think I'd call this making attention-theft a crime. 2…

> No non-invited display of paid messaging, period. If you go to a directory and ask for a list of people who paid to be part of that directory, it can show it How would you distinguish someone asking for the directory versus asking for something else with said directory (which are totally not ads, pinky promise) displayed alongside? > I'd call this making attention-theft a crime Someone standing up to make a politic…

> How would you distinguish someone asking for the directory versus asking for something else with said directory (which are totally not ads, pinky promise) displayed alongside?

You making sending the directory with something else unconditionally illegal, you either get the directory or the something else, not both at once. This is also necessary for the second part where you require everything in the directory paid the same amount.

> Someone standing up to make a political speech in a public square is now a criminal?

Only if they were paid to do so.

> This is just ads with a uniform, "small, nominal" fee. Uniformity is objectively measurable. Smallness and nominalness is not. Presumably you mean these directories have to be published at cost?

Personally I think uniform is more important than either small or nominal. It means that the person creating the directory can't be bribed to direct your attention to certain parts of the directory - i.e. steal it. Rather it's your choice to get the directory in the first place and pay attention to it, and everything inside it is at an equal playing level. I don't really care if it's at cost or if making directories is a profit making venture.

I'm not entirely sure what the original proposers intent was with the "small and nominal" part though. They might have wanted something more like "at cost".

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#557

Post by mmh0000 »

BeetleB wrote: post #548
mmh0000 wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PiHole is fine, I guess. I'm not a huge fan of it personally because: - It's local network only, and while I can VPN home, I don't always want to - It has a high maintenance overhead, at least for me. It would block too much, then my wife would complain, and I'd have to spend time figuring out the magic rule that was breaking. - It's DNS-level blocking only, which is helpful but doesn't cover nearly as much ground as…

But doesn't uBlock only block stuff via the browser? I want to block ads from most apps.

A hosts file will do the same as pihole, but locally.

Buttttt, this goes back to my original post. DO NOT INSTALL MALWARE.

Because that's my first rule, I don't use apps with ads.

Generally, if I can't do a thing from a standard website, I probably don't need to be doing it. Otherwise, I have nothing against paying for a good app. For example, I LOVE AutoSleep.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#558

Post by everdrive »

transcriptase wrote: post #489
xoxxala wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr. Beast on youtube is guilty of that. Matt Parker of Standup Maths fame did an in-depth look at how that works. Whoever came up with that type of progress bar must hate people in general. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc0OU1yJD-c

If you watch him on Joe Rogan’s podcast he gives a full overview of how every single tiny detail down to colors, length of scene cuts, facial expressions, language, total length of videos, time of day for release, thumbnails, sound effects, music is extensively A/B tested to not only optimize for the algorithm but for hijacking people’s attention as well. That weird creepy face with the outline and uncanny smoothing…

>That weird creepy face with the outline and uncanny smoothing aren’t by accident.

I take your point, but I am still baffled why people find this appealing.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#559

Post by Natfan »

mbirth wrote: post #383
socalgal2 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I uninstall all games with any ad usage. The latest was "I Love Hue". It let me play 10 levels (nice) and then put ads in. If they had just asked for $1 before showing the first ad I might have paid but as soon as I saw the ads I just uninstalled. Note: IMO "I Love Hue" is a $1 game. I'm happy to pay $$ for bigger games and often do though on Switch/Steam, less on mobile.

My wife played one of those unscrew games which showed lots of ads in between runs. I convinced her to buy the ad-free package for $5, so she doesn’t have to endure those ads. While the game indeed was ad-free after that, there was no progress possible anymore as everything suddenly cost 3x the virtual coins than before. Basically forcing you to shell out even more money to buy their stupid coins. We’ve refunded the…

i don't understand why more tech savvy people don't use on-device DNS blocking like with RethinkDNS

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#560

Post by tossaway0 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #538
tossaway0 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t given it enough thought, but would a ban on selling ad space do the trick? You can self promote, but you can’t pay third parties to do it for you and you can’t sell it as a service.

> would a ban on selling ad space do the trick? How would you define ad space? > You can self promote, but you can’t pay third parties to do it for you and you can’t sell it as a service An acid test I've found surprisingly powerful is that of the founders promoting the Constitution through pamphleteering. They wrote the pamphlets themselves. The historical record is silent on whether they paid for their printing or…

Someone who prints something for a third party isn’t selling ad space.

Everyone could self promote, they just couldn’t contract someone to do it for them. Employees could promote for their employer, but it couldn’t be subcontracted out. And you can’t pay a company to put up your ad on their billboard or their website, etc.

Ignoring how this might be enforced, would it be enough to let people express themselves while cutting out the impact of negative externalities of advertising?

Post reply on HN