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

It’s OK to block ads (2015)

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 114 posts

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#101

Post by ndriscoll »

maximus_01 wrote: post #99
ndriscoll wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. Generally "content" from people trying to monetize their writing online (or who describe it as such) is not worth the time spent reading it, so in fact you're already in the hole before being asked to compensate them somehow. That I read/watched the stuff at all is often more a reflection of poor time management on my part than some high value of theirs (the OP essay mentions a similar point, and it's capt…

Sure but that's what happens when you cut distribution costs to zero (i.e. the internet). It's pretty indisputable that most content online is garbage. But there is also a lot of super high quality information out there in all sorts of fields, more than there was when distribution costs were high. There is a prevailing attitude amongst some that they aren't willing to pay for any info - and they hold that as basicall…

It's that distribution costs are zero, and there's more extremely high quality "content" out there offered entirely for free than anyone has time to digest. Interested in physics? You can read Feynman for free. Interested in chemistry? MIT OCW has you covered with a dozen courses, probably 450 hours of lectures. Or if you want computer science, you can watch lectures from people like Sipser! Want to really get serious about a science? There's the arXiv.

I've also already got dozens of hardcover books that I'll probably never even get through as it is. Mostly acquired from thrift stores while I was in university.

Then there's the classics. It'd take years to get through just the very best highlights of the public domain literature, religious texts, and philosophy. Project Gutenberg has 75,000 books. My wife spent at least months (maybe years? I don't remember) just reading Proust (at the end she said it wasn't worth it).

This is without even needing to get into the fact that frankly I don't see copyright on things older than me or especially older than my parents as valid at this point. Most modern works I'd be interested in qualifies for that treatment. The authors are retired or dead.

This is all also speaking to pure consumerism as ways to pass idle time. I've got instruments to play, a computer to program/tinker with, an endless list of possible home improvements, and a family to spend time with.

I don't think I'm the only one who ends up in this state. There's a whole meme about people having hundreds of games in their steam backlog.

The best piece of content ever written is just not a compelling hook. Nothing in the content industry is. First of all it's an entirely generic description: the best X ever written is not going to be described as "content". That's like calling it "copy", and immediately betrays its low value/the way the author thinks of it.

So yeah generic "content" is going to be a very hard if not impossible sell.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#102

Post by maximus_01 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #101
maximus_01 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that's what happens when you cut distribution costs to zero (i.e. the internet). It's pretty indisputable that most content online is garbage. But there is also a lot of super high quality information out there in all sorts of fields, more than there was when distribution costs were high. There is a prevailing attitude amongst some that they aren't willing to pay for any info - and they hold that as basicall…

It's that distribution costs are zero, and there's more extremely high quality "content" out there offered entirely for free than anyone has time to digest. Interested in physics? You can read Feynman for free. Interested in chemistry? MIT OCW has you covered with a dozen courses, probably 450 hours of lectures. Or if you want computer science, you can watch lectures from people like Sipser! Want to really get seriou…

I get all that. Still doesn't mean there isn't some things worth paying for that are created in real time and aren't out of copyright. Something like Stratechery, as an example most people would be familiar with.

Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#103

Post by ndriscoll »

maximus_01 wrote: post #102
ndriscoll wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that distribution costs are zero, and there's more extremely high quality "content" out there offered entirely for free than anyone has time to digest. Interested in physics? You can read Feynman for free. Interested in chemistry? MIT OCW has you covered with a dozen courses, probably 450 hours of lectures. Or if you want computer science, you can watch lectures from people like Sipser! Want to really get seriou…

I get all that. Still doesn't mean there isn't some things worth paying for that are created in real time and aren't out of copyright. Something like Stratechery, as an example most people would be familiar with. Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.

I'm not really sure what to think of Stratechery. It's got lots of words that are difficult for me to quickly skim the overall gist of to gauge whether they might be interesting, including paradigm 33 times, disrupt 58 times, and of course AI 247 times on the front page. From my angle it reads like a Dilbert comic so I guess I can't answer why the intended audience would or wouldn't pay $0.10.

Another observation though is that he literally describes his own site as having a "content business model" and his own posts as "content", so I think the word choice is more telling than you realize. I see it and just think "ok..." and hit back. I guess it pays his bills though so it seems to work. Apparently someone's giving him the $0.10. Other people in the content industry looking for tips like some giant ouroboros?

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#104

Post by maximus_01 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #103
maximus_01 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get all that. Still doesn't mean there isn't some things worth paying for that are created in real time and aren't out of copyright. Something like Stratechery, as an example most people would be familiar with. Picking on my use of the word content is a bit silly. I think you know what I meant. Use whatever word you want there - best book, best textbook, whatever.

I'm not really sure what to think of Stratechery. It's got lots of words that are difficult for me to quickly skim the overall gist of to gauge whether they might be interesting, including paradigm 33 times, disrupt 58 times, and of course AI 247 times on the front page. From my angle it reads like a Dilbert comic so I guess I can't answer why the intended audience would or wouldn't pay $0.10. Another observation tho…

I don't know how I can be more clear about this. It was a thought experiment. Take the very best piece of writing from [BOOK/ARTICLE/TEXTBOOK/JOURNAL] you could ever imagine. Would you or should you be willing to pay 10c for it? I'm not asking about Stratechery in particular (although there are many, many people that happily pay Ben Thompson $15/month that I'm sure most people would describe as intelligent).

You might quibble that you would only pay for a physical book or whatever. I say why? Are you paying for the content (that word again) of that book or the paper? I'd argue the former. So why does it really matter if it was online or not? In the future it seems reasonably likely that there will be a higher proportion of the best writing online vs in books. Sure, a lot may be willing to write for free, but do you think it absolutely impossible that some percentage of them charge?

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#105

Post by ndriscoll »

maximus_01 wrote: post #104
ndriscoll wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really sure what to think of Stratechery. It's got lots of words that are difficult for me to quickly skim the overall gist of to gauge whether they might be interesting, including paradigm 33 times, disrupt 58 times, and of course AI 247 times on the front page. From my angle it reads like a Dilbert comic so I guess I can't answer why the intended audience would or wouldn't pay $0.10. Another observation tho…

I don't know how I can be more clear about this. It was a thought experiment. Take the very best piece of writing from [BOOK/ARTICLE/TEXTBOOK/JOURNAL] you could ever imagine. Would you or should you be willing to pay 10c for it? I'm not asking about Stratechery in particular (although there are many, many people that happily pay Ben Thompson $15/month that I'm sure most people would describe as intelligent). You migh…

Realistically, like I said, I already doubt I will get through all of the physical books I have, so apparently I bought them as decor. I suppose deep down I knew that at the time which is why I got them for $0.50/ea at a thrift store.

So I suppose no, I can't think of any content I've thought to pay for recently, and have trouble picturing what I would pay for going forward. I already don't even take the time to read all of the writings of nobel laureates, fields medalists, etc. when they're already giving it to me for free. Not just old works but current blogs. There's more than a lifetime of the best works out there from world renowned experts. Thousands of years of the very best writing and I can't be bothered. And that's just writing. The list of things to occupy my time is endless. Acquiring something to read/watch is just not a problem I have. It doesn't make sense to pay for more. I have too much of it.

The content industry is competing with the entirety of recorded human history even before gen ai. A nearly impossible task unless someone destroys it all out of spite.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#106

Post by maximus_01 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #105
maximus_01 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how I can be more clear about this. It was a thought experiment. Take the very best piece of writing from [BOOK/ARTICLE/TEXTBOOK/JOURNAL] you could ever imagine. Would you or should you be willing to pay 10c for it? I'm not asking about Stratechery in particular (although there are many, many people that happily pay Ben Thompson $15/month that I'm sure most people would describe as intelligent). You migh…

Realistically, like I said, I already doubt I will get through all of the physical books I have, so apparently I bought them as decor. I suppose deep down I knew that at the time which is why I got them for $0.50/ea at a thrift store. So I suppose no, I can't think of any content I've thought to pay for recently, and have trouble picturing what I would pay for going forward. I already don't even take the time to read…

Ok then. I wish you well in your quest.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#107

Post by charcircuit »

martin-t wrote: post #92
charcircuit wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would OK with advertisements which push the whole category, that is positive-sum. This doesn't get rid of people buying what is most well known. In fact without the possibility of being exposed to more niche options people will just go with the incumbents. Advertising allows new competitors in a space to be able to acquire customers based off their value for customers instead of being a wellknown thing.

They'd still be exposed to other options, through friends, reviewers, comparisons websites, etc. Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost. You can in theory get investors to fund ads for a new brand but it just increases the upfront cost. Organic growth is no longer possible. And who benefits most are the already rich.

Popular options will have more words of mouth, more reviews, appear on more comparison websites, etc. The incubants have a massive advantage through those paths.

>Ads mean the brand with more money wins. It is completely orthogonal to value/cost.

Why? A better product will be able to achieve a better ROI on ad spend. This means that they can afford to spend more per ad than their competitors meaning they will win all of the ad auctions compared to the brand with the most money.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#108

Post by juliangmp »

npc_anon wrote: post #71

People block ads and/or not pay for content because they can. Simply because it's possible. People have been conditioned to consider any and all digital content to be worth zero. Yet continue to consume it for hours on end every day. When not paying at all is an option people will reliably pick that option. They'll even go into extremes to avoid paying. I know somebody that plays a particular mobile game about an hou…

I think there's a divide between how we view the people that create the digital media we consume vs. the platforms they're stuck on.

Like, I've donated to certain creators through for example patreon, but I'd never even consider paying for YouTube premium or twitch prime.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#109

Post by immibis »

al_borland wrote: post #6
roscas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very very sad that some people will even say "I like to see ads, it might have something I want...". They are not just dumb, they are dangerous. This ads companies have been online for too much time. It is time to bring them down. Fast. And with them all those parasites of ads associations and marketing. We do need to bring the level of ads to 0. Then start new.

To take this a step further, I have had people argue with me that tracking and profiling online is a good thing, because it provides more relevant ads for things they want to buy. There are people who actively want ads that can better target and manipulate them into giving up their money. I would like to say I've only run into one person like this, but no. I've lost count of how many of these people I've run into. I…

I can think of one thing I've bought because of ads. I've bought fiber-optic networking bits from fs.com because I saw ads for them. They also have the cheapest prices. But if not for ads I wouldn't know that.

Re: It’s OK to block ads (2015)

#110

Post by immibis »

charcircuit wrote: post #30
martin-t wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel working on something that is zero-sum (does not produce positive value for society, only changes where the money goes)? Would you change jobs if a positive-sum job became available? And to risk being seen as preaching, have you read https://drewdevault.com/2025/04/20/2025-04-20-Tech-sector-re... ?

Connecting people with goods or services they may find valuable provides a positive value to society.

These ads don't do that. They primarily connect scammers with victims.
Post reply on HN