Live data from Hacker News

Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

lifehacker.com

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#51

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

I don't do it, as I occasionally find ads relevant and useful - maybe once a month at most. On the other hand, I avoid sites where there are lots of intrusive ads. The harder it is for me to read the content I came to read, the less likely I am to return. In fact, I wish I had a bookmarklet to produce a form message saying 'the ads on your page at [URL] are so obnoxious that I have auto-blocked myself from your site…

You should write that bookmarklet. As a site owner, I can tell you I'd probably ignore it if it's only one person, but if several people are complaining, I'd look into it and discuss the problem with one or a few of them. And I would be grateful for the feedback.

Constructive feedback is always good. "Your ad in location XY is loading very slowly." "The ad for product Z is misbehaving and causing a redirect/hang/whatever." As long as it isn't annoying comments like "I don't like ads, you should remove them" or "It moves. Can't you just use ads that I don't notice?" Those are pointless, because they hinge on the concept that ads are fine as long as nobody sees them, which goes against the whole point of ads.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not the internet. If nobody clicked on those ads, they certainly wouldn't exist.

I explicitly said "there are people that click on those ads". Those people don't have Ad Blockers. I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker. All I was saying was that it doesn't present an ethical problem.

> I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker.

It's probably the other way around: You have an Ad Blocker, so you don't click on ads.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#54

On a related topic: what do people think about ad blocking technology from an ethical viewpoint? For me, I think I use the same screwy morality that I use when I'm downloading music...I don't mind stealing from wildly successful artists/businesses, but I'll gladly pay full price for a CD or click on an ad for someone who's just trying to pay the bills.

I've never seen an ad and felt better afterwords.

Ever.

To the extent that I'm freeloading by continuing to patronize sites after blocking ads, I justify by directing other people to those sites when I see interesting content.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's obviously trying to be sensitive in not displaying ads to people who might be in mourning and this "hack" exploits that. It's like hitting on women at a funeral.

The thing that bothers me most is that Google's [..] trying to be sensitive.

Obviously I was being unclear. My point is that Google's behaviour is already like 'hitting at women at a funeral'. Do you honestly believe they are taking trouble to 'respect sensitivities' out of sheer goodness? Hell no, the budget for that was approved by the PR department. It's already a case of exploiting cultural sensitivities.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#57
Good for lifehacker readers. I use Gmail for it's simplicity (even with ads). I won't ever block those non-intrusive text as an honor to the good service.

When I 'm satisfied of your service I won't to give back something. Maybe I don't have money, but something I can contribute.

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#58
post #38
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is an interesting ethics question. if you never click on ads, then why not disable them?

Because you can't know that you'll never ever click on the ads for sure. The ads change, and people change too.

Google ads are actually very good. I admit I've clicked on a couple of them:

Want a job programming OCaml?

Faster than FFTW

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#59
First we find out we've been living in a world where most people will give away their privacy freely because they don't think it's worth anything. Then a few large companies finding a way to capitalize on it are not just tolerated but admired. Now one guy treats one of them with the contempt it deserves and is criticized as unethical or ungenerous. WTF?

Re: Massacre Gmail Ads with These Two Sentences (and Some Tragic Words)

#60
post #57

Good for lifehacker readers. I use Gmail for it's simplicity (even with ads). I won't ever block those non-intrusive text as an honor to the good service. When I 'm satisfied of your service I won't to give back something. Maybe I don't have money, but something I can contribute.

Oops s/won\'t/want
Post reply on HN