Content is dead • Hacker News Board

Re: Content is dead

#101

Post by manigandham » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:03 AM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #22

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"

This is completely false.

99% of adblockers use rules that block anything that looks like an ad, regardless of where it comes from.

Also publishers running their own ads is an immense amount of work that requires a sales and adops team and does not guarantee any improvements in quality. The reason ad networks exist is because of the scale of the web and the challenge of trying to do direct deals between every website and advertiser.

Re: Content is dead

#102

Post by manigandham » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:04 AM UTC

lifeformed wrote: post #25

kukx wrote: post #18

Let's be honest, why they shouldn't block adblock? The ads bring them money. And they need money to survive and, if they lucky, develop. The writers have families or plan to have ones, they need to be rewarded for their work. It may be their main or only source of income. Now, if they also provide a valuable information for you, I think that trying to trick them into giving it for free (ad free) is wrong. I think and…

I don't understand exactly how ads work, but would the people that use Adblock click on ads anyways though? Or do people make money without clicks?

Most of online advertising is paid on an impression/view basis, not clicks.

Re: Content is dead

#103

Post by intrasight » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:11 AM UTC

noam87 wrote: post #75

intrasight wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really sad about The Guardian. But truth be told, one only needs two or three news sources. They are no longer one of mine.

> one only needs two or three news sources. But society as a whole needs more. If the available pool of profitable resources for quality journalism keeps getting smaller, then a) the number of stories that fall through the cracks get larger, b) the surface area for corruption gets smaller: now all I need is to influence one editor/journalist to get story x pulled.

That is a valid and excellent point. Shame on me for taking a narrow perspective. But how can I as an individual support more than a few new publications?

Re: Content is dead

#104

Post by intrasight » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:14 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #101

intrasight wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"

This is completely false. 99% of adblockers use rules that block anything that looks like an ad, regardless of where it comes from. Also publishers running their own ads is an immense amount of work that requires a sales and adops team and does not guarantee any improvements in quality. The reason ad networks exist is because of the scale of the web and the challenge of trying to do direct deals between every website…

You are completely off the mark there, buddy. Ad blockers don't use AI image recognition - and besides, that technology doesn't exist yet.

Re: Content is dead

#105

Post by intrasight » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:20 AM UTC

jamie_ca wrote: post #42

seizethecheese wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

c) targeted more poorly (albeit without the privacy concerns.) d) expensive for the publisher (they have to do their own sales.) And therefore only feasible for very large sites.

If the ads were targeted to the content on the page (remember when that was top-of-the-line tech?) rather than 3rd-party ads relevant to my assumed demographic, that'd solve for (c) nicely. I wonder if (d) could be a business idea - broker ads just like a regular ad network, but have the site itself host/deliver the ads. CPM is out due to needing to trust the site with accurate reporting, but you could definitely do…

Thank you for getting my point. Clearly the traditional ad broker is going come back to have a role - built-in ad blockers will see to that. CPM is out no matter what.

Re: Content is dead

#106

Post by intrasight » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:32 AM UTC

misterbwong wrote: post #46

intrasight wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that "adblock" doesn't block ads - it blocks ad networks. If publications ran their own ads (like they do in print) the ads would likely a)be of much higher quality, and b) not be blocked by "adblock"

Adblock can (and does) block ads that are not a part of an ad network. If you're thinking making publishers handle ads will bring them back to the "good ol' days" of static print ads, you're mistaken. The only reason we haven't had these types of ads in the past is because the medium (print) didn't support it. 1. Most times, bad ads aren't written by the publishers at all-they are written by the advertiser. The flash…

The medium (print) did support it. Why do screens not? One word - pornography. Porn invented the banner ad and introduced the paradigm of ads that link to other sites. Clearly that is a failed paradigm. Traditional advertising will make a comeback. Digital media will look like traditional media. We will look back on the current mess as an aberration instigated by pornographers. "First-party" ads are back to the future. Explain how they could possibly be worse for privacy?

Re: Content is dead

#107

Post by manigandham » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #104

manigandham wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely false. 99% of adblockers use rules that block anything that looks like an ad, regardless of where it comes from. Also publishers running their own ads is an immense amount of work that requires a sales and adops team and does not guarantee any improvements in quality. The reason ad networks exist is because of the scale of the web and the challenge of trying to do direct deals between every website…

You are completely off the mark there, buddy. Ad blockers don't use AI image recognition - and besides, that technology doesn't exist yet.

I said rules as in basic network, HTML, CSS filtering rules that are created by people, and these filters are shared by all the major adblockers.

If you ever look at these filters, you'll notice that domains aren't the only thing they block but rather things like checking the dimensions of images for standard ad banner sizes, etc. - so even if that banner was run by the same site, it would still be blocked.

Re: Content is dead

#108

Post by leereeves » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 8:58 AM UTC

narrowrail wrote: post #93

leereeves wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of fraud would be roughly the same as browsing with an adblocker now. But probably the hardest part of creating any system like this is getting everyone on board at once. There's a big incentive not to join the system. (People who don't want to or can't be bothered to join will visit your site instead.)

I think it would be quite straight forward to develop an extension that does client-side analytics of your browsing history, just to show you which sites you visit and how much time you spend per url/ TLD. It would be on your honor to choose to give 'patronage' and the code is auditable as a browser extension.

If it's "on your honor", why not just ask for donations?

Re: Content is dead

#109

Post by tragic » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 9:28 AM UTC

derriz wrote: post #66

takno wrote: post #12

This +1000. The guardian, a paper I used to buy regularly, has transformed itself comprehensively into a hell of lazy ill informed clickbait, uncritically repeating unsupported conclusions from nonsense science and refusing to differentiate their serious analysis from crappy user generated content. Now I can't even bring myself to pay the 3 quid a month subscription even though the crossword alone would probably be w…

It's gotten to stage where I go straight to the comments on HN rather than to the story when I see that the source is the Gaurdian. You know it's going to be some ill informed opinion piece rather than any actual journalism. Like you, I used to buy the physical paper back in the day - and felt the paper represented a continuation of the institution so admired by Orwell. I'm not sure which is more depressing - that it…

> become so commercially successful

Wut? They're bleeding money like a stuck pig.

Re: Content is dead

#110

Post by logicallee » Sat, Apr 09, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

pcmaffey wrote: post #86

logicallee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

again it's rather nuanced. (Personally, I think it is.) I mean, it's not "transactional" if you say to a person (of either gender, and you can be of either gender) at a bar "Hey can I buy you a drink?" and they say "sure", wait for you to buy them the drink, then take it walk away without another glance at you. Where is the TOS that they agreed to share at least a second or two of your company? That said, it's still…

There is no such agreement to click. If there were, then yes you'd be breaking an agreement. But there isn't, so it's not part of the transaction.

thanks. You could be completely correct. If this is the case then it's a legal technicality. (i.e. a single line added to the TOS or a clickthrough would change it.)

However, I think most HN contributors would not agree with you that "if there were, then yes, you'd be breaking an agreement" - I would think most HN contributors would argue that the agreement would not really be binding legally or at least morally/ethically.

I'm okay with the position you take today, as long as it's clear this is a legal technicality as opposed to some moral imperative and right to view the content on servers, that applies regardless of any agreement in place, even explicit.