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

The adblocking revolution is months away

theoverspill.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 355 posts

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#301

Post by keithpeter »

s73v3r wrote: post #291
Mahn wrote: post #129

The question that I always wonder is, is it really that devastating if people who don't want ads and wouldn't click on them hide them? I can't help but think that the kind of person that uses adblock-like software is also not likely to be the target group for most ads. It's only a tiny minority those who do click on ads after all.

I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled bullshit.

Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#302

Post by Steko »

ethbro wrote: post #249
Steko wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple....

>> Come on, Apple didn't want DRM, labels insisted on it. https://web.archive.org/web/20080107121341/http://www.apple.... > The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly…

I'm not sure what you think this timeline says but it absolutely doesn't say that doing away with DRM on ITMS was something Apple resisted.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#303

Post by nine_k »

cousin_it wrote: post #211
nine_k wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all my respect to quality media like NYT, I don't want a full-scale subscription. What I'd like is paying a few cents for a specific article in a hassle-free way. Micropayments are hard because of the transaction costs, but this seems to slowly change (see e.g. flattr). I wish more sites offered a per-view zero-setup one-click micropayment solution. What's more interesting is what Google will do if their ads rev…

I don't think micropayments are the future. Flattr has been around since 2010 and I don't think even a single person has made a living wage from it. The main problem when charging for content is justifying to the user why the price is "fair" before they've actually seen the content. If you can get around that problem, e.g. by using teasers or word of mouth to instill a need, then you can get away with charging much m…

Well, I'm not a representative sample of the general public, but for me NYT's paywall is mostly about the hassle, not the money. I totally won't mind losing 10¢ on an article that was not worth reading, as long as getting to the content was just one paid click, without a monthly subscription or entering details.

What I'd like is a PayPal one-click payment sort of system for that, with limitation of e.g. 50¢ per transaction without authentication (with limits per hour and per domain, etc, preventing money-bleeding exploits).

A huge selling point for me would be an ability to come to a previously unvisited site supporting this system and pay with one click.

The thing is that I don't browse media sites from their home pages, I mostly follow links found in social media. This gives the links some level of trust, because I can assess the poster's credibility before clicking the link.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#304

Post by nine_k »

smsm42 wrote: post #210
nine_k wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all my respect to quality media like NYT, I don't want a full-scale subscription. What I'd like is paying a few cents for a specific article in a hassle-free way. Micropayments are hard because of the transaction costs, but this seems to slowly change (see e.g. flattr). I wish more sites offered a per-view zero-setup one-click micropayment solution. What's more interesting is what Google will do if their ads rev…

There's more problem with per-article payments than transaction costs. E.g., how I know if I want to pay for particular article - maybe it's a useless crap that isn't even worth my time, let alone money? I could pay _after_ reading, but then the publisher has no guarantee I would bother to, after all I've already got what I wanted. You'd say "well, NYT is so good you would want to pay for _any_ article published ther…

A hassle-free after-reading tipping jar would be welcome!

It could even say "If you liked this article, pay $0.nn and the next article you open on our site will be ads-free for you."

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#305

Post by emergentcypher »

danielweber wrote: post #191
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both. If people find the ad supported web unpleasant, doing the right thing for the user experience is also something that benefits their bottom line.

If people incorrectly assume that the alternative to "free with ads" is "free with no ads" then we will have a market failure.

Aren't people already paying out the ass just for the privilege of having an i-device or being in Apple's ecosystem?

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#306

Post by s73v3r »

keithpeter wrote: post #301
s73v3r wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this argument has never been anything more than entitled bullshit.

Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.

My rejection of the argument is based on the entitlement of people who make it. "I never would have paid for something, therefore I deserve it for free!"

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#307

Post by s73v3r »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #287
s73v3r wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently just like you feel entitled to enjoy the content others have made for free.

When a webpage is served to you, you are under no obligation to not modify that webpage in any way. They gave the bytes to you for free. You can do whatever you want to them once you get them. If my modification of that content is depriving them of income, then that's a flaw in their business model, not my ethics.

No, it's entirely a violation of your ethics. You are explicitly modifying them for the express purpose of denying them income.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#308

Post by kinghajj »

hsod wrote: post #270
kinghajj wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you still block ads on the site? Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.

But aren't you entering into an implicit agreement with the site owners? Is it not wrong to intentionally violate an agreement you entered into willingly? Lets take advertisement out of it, since people feel strongly about it. What if the site asked you to donate one dollar to a particular charity? And if you are unwilling or unable, please simply stop using the site, thanks and have a nice day. Again, no enforcement…

So long as their HTTP server responds to requests received from me, then it is "right" for me to perform whichever operations I choose with their response. Once data is on my machine, I get to decide how to process it, not them. If they don't want me to have their data, it is well within their rights not to provide it to me.

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#309

Post by keithpeter »

s73v3r wrote: post #306
keithpeter wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your rejection of the argument based on the value of data generated by the tracking cookies? Is there some other reason behind your response? Just interested.

My rejection of the argument is based on the entitlement of people who make it. "I never would have paid for something, therefore I deserve it for free!"

I was hoping that you had some insight into the relative revenue generated by tracking and by clicks on the advert.

The tracking I find onerous because of privacy and bandwidth concerns and I imagine will be regulated soon.

The click-able adverts I have less objection to as I do not in fact click on adverts on Web pages - mainly because the products advertised are usually laughably irrelevant to my concerns and the subject of the article I am attempting to read (a point made by OP).

Re: The adblocking revolution is months away

#310

Post by kinghajj »

s73v3r wrote: post #283
kinghajj wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you still block ads on the site? Yes. Even the "non-obtrusive" ones. My computer, my browser, choice; I'm under no obligation to interpret their content as they intended.

And you would still visit their site? So basically you're an ass.

What if a TV station were concerned about people looking away during commercials, and decided to air a message stating "If you are not comfortable watching our ads, all we ask is that you please do not tune to our channel." Would you think that someone who continued to close their eyes is an "ass"?
Post reply on HN