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

Apparently Google hates us now

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 272 posts

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#161

Post by snovv_crash »

danaris wrote: post #122
hungryhobbit wrote: post #18

They're a wiki. Wiki spammers are relentless now. Source: a small wiki I help manage, for an obscure game with On a popular wiki, and it sounds like this one was fairly popular, I imagine even CAPTCHA's won't be enough to stop wiki spammers. If those spammers were posting more than just "buy my penis pill" garbage (e.g. they were putting links to malware sites), Google probably, and somewhat legitimately, saw them as…

How old a version? I've been running a much more obscure game (<150 players, down from ~1k in 2010) for some time, and it was using QuestyCaptcha back in...2008 or so, I think? Certainly at least 15 years ago. It's almost always been sufficient: just put in a couple of questions based on knowledge of the game itself.

Also running a wiki. Similar. Had a sign-up based on in-game knowledge. LLMs now crack it and I had to turn off signups about a year ago. Now people email me directly if they want an account.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#162

Post by aleqs »

WarmWash wrote: post #117
Forgeties79 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The edits are likely why you’re getting downvoted so much tbh.

Trust me, the downvotes were instant. People really hate it when you hold up a mirror to illustrate a problem. They tend to reflexively punch the mirror

Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. And whether having content being monetized through and relying on ads is even a good thing overall (it's not). Advertising and marketing is fundamentally a negative for society in most cases.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#163

Post by WarmWash »

aleqs wrote: post #159
WarmWash wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What bizarre and absurd line of reasoning. Users who care about their privacy and opt out of downloading ads and malware are 'denying creators revenue'? Are you denying creators revenue by not reading reading/observing every ad that comes your way and making purchases based on them? Maybe you should read/comment on HN less and focus on consuming more ads instead? What at an incredibly stupid thing to say.

When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website. There are still honestly free things on the internet one can enjoy.

Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid response. You get the game and creator gets nothing. You can just stick to playing honestly free games, there are plenty out there.

This idea that digital data is worthless is stupid child logic born from when kids ruled the internet. Obviously it has value, as evidence by the very top level post I responded to.

(Also, as an aside, it's only heavy ad-block/privacy tool users who get malware and scam ads, because they have no profile and only bottom feeders bid on their views. Regular users get Tide and Chevy ads.)

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#164

Post by WarmWash »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #157
WarmWash wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creators don't get compensation when people ad-block. Creators don't get compensation when LLMs scrape. It's totally, and completely, unambiguous. The internet just has collective brain damage from the grassroots morals of it being formed 30 years ago by teenagers. How surprising that a bunch of kids decided that the way to save the internet was to make it better for themselves, and worse for the people who make the…

There are ways to get paid without ads and you can do on-air reads like I said. adblockers don’t impact them. You also don’t have to play Google and YouTube’s games. I’m sorry folks are caught in that arm’s race between users and Google but Google has made browsing so miserable it’s just reality. Adblocking is basic security now. I am not compromising on it. I say this as a “content creator”

Please ping me when you figure out how to do on-air reads on a website.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#165

Post by seviu »

RankingMember wrote: post #149
f4stjack wrote: post #127

Google does not hate us... it is worse than that - it is indifferent to us. Hate requires some sort of recognition. I mean this single incident may not mean anything but overall google is heading to an _interesting_ place. In short, it was state of the art but in 20 years it became just another conglomerate sacrificing quality for shareholder gain, I think? As a search engine, it does not work for me. I see promoted…

I feel like a crazy person, but I've been using Yandex as the last resort and having positive results in finding stuff that I know is out there but Google has decided to stop letting me see. (I tried DDG but for my use it's been worse than Google).

Not crazy, I always resort to yandex when I know google is not showing me the results I am looking for

DDG doesn’t click for me sadly, and I cannot point my finger to where or why

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#166

Post by nitwit005 »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #19

To be honest it's probably just jank on Google's end. There's a lot of delayed cause and effect in search, and it's much easier to make a minor mistake that excludes 0.1% of websites from crawling or indexing than it is to detect that it's happened except from affected websites telling you about it. Like in marginalia I've had a bug that affected websites in the condition that if the root path didn't support HEAD, bu…

Or just some AI flagging it as some sort of content they don't want to show. There's no way they can be perfect at that.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#167

Post by aleqs »

WarmWash wrote: post #163
aleqs wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bizarre and absurd line of reasoning. Users who care about their privacy and opt out of downloading ads and malware are 'denying creators revenue'? Are you denying creators revenue by not reading reading/observing every ad that comes your way and making purchases based on them? Maybe you should read/comment on HN less and focus on consuming more ads instead? What at an incredibly stupid thing to say.

When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website. There are still honestly free things on the internet one can enjoy. Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid response. You get the game and creator gets nothing. You can just stick to playing honestly free games, there are plenty out there. This idea that digital d…

> When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website.

First of all, I can and will visit any website I want, and I will use an ad blocker while doing so. Second - how do you know what ads and privacy invasion a website might have before you visit it? Makes no sense.

> Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid response

In either case the creator gets zero $. It could be argued that pirating might actually benefit the creator more - since it would increase overall usage/adoption/prevalence of the product/game. So your argument is kinda backwards.

> This idea that digital data is worthless is stupid child logic born from when kids ruled the internet.

You keep mentioning 'kids' and 'teenagers' across your comments seemingly as a way to imply that you have some kind of greybeard wisdom and special knowledge. You don't and your arguments don't make sense - your own realization of that is probably what triggers you to call everyone who disagrees with your kids and teenagers LMAO.

And for the record - intellectual property is a made up scam, the only purpose of which is to stifle competition.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#168

Post by Forgeties79 »

WarmWash wrote: post #164
Forgeties79 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways to get paid without ads and you can do on-air reads like I said. adblockers don’t impact them. You also don’t have to play Google and YouTube’s games. I’m sorry folks are caught in that arm’s race between users and Google but Google has made browsing so miserable it’s just reality. Adblocking is basic security now. I am not compromising on it. I say this as a “content creator”

Please ping me when you figure out how to do on-air reads on a website.

You don’t need to get sarcastic with me over this.

Content creation comes in many forms. You can also promote things in your copy. People do it all the time. Adblockers aren’t going to somehow remove your words. People disclose their sponsorships at the top/bottom of their written content all the time and frequently use affiliate links.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#169

Post by WarmWash »

aleqs wrote: post #162
WarmWash wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust me, the downvotes were instant. People really hate it when you hold up a mirror to illustrate a problem. They tend to reflexively punch the mirror

Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place. And whether having content being monetized through and relying on ads is even a good thing overall (it's not). Advertising and marketing is fundamentally a negative for society in most cases.

>Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place.

So they can get content without compensating for it.

I've been on this train since the beginning. I was there when ad-block-plus read the writing on the wall 15 years ago and decided to make a truce with advertisers. It was clearly unsustainable for 50% of web users to be effectively parasites, so maybe we can negotiate on acceptable ad practices. But to the users, a truce with advertisers!?!? Ublock Origin was born days later.

Re: Apparently Google hates us now

#170

Post by WarmWash »

aleqs wrote: post #167
WarmWash wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website. There are still honestly free things on the internet one can enjoy. Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid response. You get the game and creator gets nothing. You can just stick to playing honestly free games, there are plenty out there. This idea that digital d…

> When you don't want the ads and privacy invasion, you don't visit the website. First of all, I can and will visit any website I want, and I will use an ad blocker while doing so. Second - how do you know what ads and privacy invasion a website might have before you visit it? Makes no sense. > Like if a video game is too expensive for your liking, you simply don't buy it. Going and pirating it is not a valid respons…

>First of all, I can and will visit any website I want, and I will use an ad blocker while doing so.

And so can LLMs, so I don't see why anyone should be upset about "stealing content"

>In either case the creator gets zero $. It could be argued that pirating might actually benefit the creator more - since it would increase overall usage/adoption/prevalence of the product/game. So your argument is kinda backwards.

So how do you decide (I'm asking you), who are the suckers who pay, and who are the ones that get it free? I say child a lot because it's really only kids who cannot see how a system like that plays out.

Just a heads up, with donation systems, typically ~1% of people convert to a donation.

Post reply on HN