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

A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 227 posts

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#191

Post by tomjen3 »

alexashka wrote: post #128
enraged_camel wrote: post #6

I envision a future where the default mode is silence, and all advertising is opt-in. If I need to buy a t-shirt, I press a button that temporarily subscribes me to a "channel" of advertisements from t-shirt brands, along with whatever relevant preferences I decide to filter the ads by. In other words, I give companies explicit permission to advertise to me. Once I buy a t-shirt and fulfill the need, I unsubscribe fr…

Advertising for a loooot of products works based on CREATING demand that was not intrinsically there. Would we really know who Justin Bieber and what his mediocre music is if it wasn't for advertising? Who'd opt in to discover Kim Kardashian? It'd be status-suicide to admit you are looking for stupidity. But when it's spontaneously there, well then... That's what TV advertising banging you over the head over and over…

>It'd be status-suicide to admit you are looking for stupidity.

In our tribe yes, but in general no. Otherwise "normal" people wouldn't be talking about it on Facebook.

>apple watch anyone Status symbol: nobody needs a 10k gold watch, which is why it allows you to show that you can afford to throw 10k away.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#192

Post by tomjen3 »

eropple wrote: post #84
enraged_camel wrote: post #6

I envision a future where the default mode is silence, and all advertising is opt-in. If I need to buy a t-shirt, I press a button that temporarily subscribes me to a "channel" of advertisements from t-shirt brands, along with whatever relevant preferences I decide to filter the ads by. In other words, I give companies explicit permission to advertise to me. Once I buy a t-shirt and fulfill the need, I unsubscribe fr…

Unless the people who use ad-blockers get in the habit of paying for content--and they won't, because why pay for what you can free-ride for?--this would be a disaster. Immediately actionable ads are only a slice of the advertising market; the point of advertising is not to sell you something now . It is to eventually sell you something. Both brand and market reinforcement advertising are major players. Advertising c…

But brand awareness is waste: you put money in, your competitor put money in and the two cancel each other out.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#193

Post by na85 »

calbear81 wrote: post #18

I think the anger is quite misplaced here by the author as it has never been the ad industry that has done "everything that was within their technical capabilities to spy on people and shovel ads on top of them" as the ad networks are simply a platform for which there are buyers of ads/eyeballs (advertisers) and sites/apps that display said advertising. It's the sites that you use that have chosen to include the code…

>It's the sites that you use that have chosen to include the code snippets needed to display ads or track you (not withstanding those terrible ad injector add-ons).

Facebook tracks me and builds a shadow profile whether I use their shitty site or not.

>In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today.

And yet if I pay for something, it invariably still shoves ads at me. Paying TV subscribers have to watch commercials. If I pay a subscription to the Economist I still see ads in print and online.

>Paywalls largely don't work for many types of content

Content isn't worth as much these days.

>When you block an ad, the network doesn't pay the site. Simple as that.

And that's why I love ad blockers. I don't want anyone to get money for forcing me to watch ads I don't want.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#194

Post by felipeerias »

calbear81 wrote: post #18

I think the anger is quite misplaced here by the author as it has never been the ad industry that has done "everything that was within their technical capabilities to spy on people and shovel ads on top of them" as the ad networks are simply a platform for which there are buyers of ads/eyeballs (advertisers) and sites/apps that display said advertising. It's the sites that you use that have chosen to include the code…

In most cases, a website will not get paid unless the visitor actually clicks on the ad (or carries out the action that the ad points to). In those cases, using Adblock and simply ignoring the ads would produce the same amount of revenue for the site: zero.

The problem here is that the trade-off is not "I tell you a story and you see this ad in return". The real trade-off is "I tell you a story and you have to allow these other shady companies to track you and run their code on your computer". Ads demand too much in terms of attention, performance, privacy and security.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#195

Post by __david__ »

buzzworth wrote: post #87

A lot of misplaced anger here. The most beloved services and content exist because of advertisers. Put yourself in the shoes of somebody trying to create a new Internet publication, casual video game, search engine, social network, or most any other online business. What do you imagine a successful business plan will be? Paywalls? Good luck with that :-p The rant is written as though advertisers snuck into the media,…

> The rant is written as though advertisers snuck into the media, as though they infiltrated, they used subterfuge to penetrate an otherwise non-commercial, innocent world of dollar-free self-expression.

Apparently you never used the web in the old days? It was a "non-commercial innocent world of dollar-free self-expression".

> Advertisers and the advertising industry were the parents and premise of this world.

They absolutely were not. Web sites existed without ads and without sponsorship and they still can.

It's as if you are claiming that record studios invented music.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#196

Post by redwall_hp »

josephagoss wrote: post #129
alecdbrooks wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... At no point, as a consumer of this content, did I get presented with so much as a simple "In return for consuming this content, you agree that you will look at the ads being shown here". Isn't it common knowledge that many sites rely on ads for their revenue? Sit-down restaurants in the U.S. don't tell you as you walk in that you're expected to tip, but it's common knowledge that wait staff aren't paid minimum w…

Every cafe and restaurant in Australia is upfront about the cost of their service and food. I don't think that your example of tipping is a very good one because the rest of the world doesn't operate like that, it's a very American centric view. I agree with the OP. The content creator was not upfront about wanting money and used adverts, and we are within our right to say no, I'm not lowering myself to watch this ad…

I'm in Australia at the moment. Just a couple things I find refreshing, besides a generally more laid back attitude about a lot of trivialities:

* No tipping. Employers are required to pay a living wage. ($17-21/hour, depending on some factor)

* Sales tax is included in the price. No "add x% at the register" crap.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#197

Post by dingaling »

RodericDay wrote: post #8

"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the wo…

> They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

Correct, Banksy never asked permission before shoving his advertising in my face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45894000/jpg/_45894102_un...

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/music2/BV_Screening_Invite....

Happy enough to use the system when it makes him money.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#198

Post by punee »

na85 wrote: post #9

Could not agree more. And it doesn't just cover display ads, but marketing emails and social media posts too. All equally odious. An entire industry predicated on the idea of getting me to pay for something I don't want, and using my bandwidth to do it. Every advertiser tries to justify it, too. "We only send emails to people who want them" or other such tripe. Nobody wants to be part of a sales funnel. If the produc…

Yes, that's why every successful company in the world spends 0 dollar on marketing and advertising. Right? They're just that dumb. If only they knew their products could sell themselves!

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#199

Post by qt7 »

Potando wrote: post #117
trimbo wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, our reluctance to pay for any type of content has led to the state we are in today Then how come, every time I pay for content, that content still has ads? The paywalled newspaper sites I frequent do this. Or, notice how they do this in every movie theater in America now -- you can't sit there in peace before a movie. Instead, before the trailers start, you're subjected to a barrage of loud ads. Even on th…

The newspaper used to cost $1 (each! every day!) and it was full of ads. Probably about as much percentage of area as a typical news site today. There must be a balance between "no payment" and "no ads" - the optimum profit doesn't necessarily happen at one of the extremes. Do you think you'd choose a higher priced subscription if it offered no ads?

Maybe? Probably? I would surely consider it.

Re: A note on the argument about the 'morality' of adblockers

#200

Post by tomjen3 »

na85 wrote: post #189
tomjen3 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody wants to be part of a sales funnel. Maybe not, but lots and lots of people are wanting to buy things. I my case it is a car - if I go to a car dealer I become part of a sales funnel (a particular unprofitable one, but that is a side issue). >If the product is actually good and useful, it will sell itself by word of mouth. The cure for cancer will sell itself that way, yes. But even things that should sell, su…

>But even things that should sell, such as cheaper cellphone plans, don't Source? Anyone who's specifically shopping around for cell phone plans doesn't need to be force-fed advertisements. If anyone's unhappy with their cellular plan, they'll be shopping around. The hassle of switching cell phone plans greatly outweighs my dissatisfaction with my carrier at present. Therefore even if there are cheaper plans, they ar…

As it turns out people don't tend to talk about which cellphone plan they use, unless actively asked.

And you are totally right that people will be asking around if they are unhappy, but how could they know they should be unhappy with their current plan if they don't know yours is so much better?

Post reply on HN