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

Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

dhowe.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 253 posts

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#101

Post by vonmoltke »

tomp wrote: post #30
androidb wrote: post #8

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will cli…

There's a big difference between Google's AdWords and other advertising (including Google's AdSense). I universally oppose all advertisements (in the seconds sense), I even think that billboards in public should be banned. Advertisement like that is just pollution of the mind. However, However, I don't consider AdWords or bulletin board ads "advertisement" in the same sense of the word, because it's just showing you…

So, in other words advertising you like should be allowed but advertising you don't like should not be.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#102

Post by ganeumann »

forca wrote: post #63
carrier_lost wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!

Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If th…

You are free to ignore or block their ads. Sites may complain about blocking, but (almost?) none prevent it. But the sites are also free to put ads on their sites, why wouldn't they be, and how do you feel that this is "beyond the pale"? The people who run those sites are just trying to make a living in the same way that most popular media has tried to make a living for the past century.

But actively trying to disrupt how they make a living goes beyond that. Imagine a museum that has a donation box but where you can go in for free if you want. You don't have to donate, but gumming up the slot so no one else can donate either goes beyond being not thinking the museum is worth paying for (although, for some reason, you're in it) to not thinking it should be in business at all.

By arguing that instead of taking donations they should just charge admission, you're just rationalizing bad behavior.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#103

Post by Nursie »

vdaniuk wrote: post #82
Nursie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, this is designed to actively disrupt (and not in the usual constructive sense) the ad-supported site model AFAICT. It'll do this by making the data useless, by getting sites thrown off ad-networks and (in less well monitored cases) by draining the coffers of the ad networks for ads never seen. I like the idea of an ad-free 'net, but it's not really up to me to dictate to site owners what they can do, which…

Do you also like the idea of ad-free net that is controlled by megacorps, because only large entities will be able to monetize their content in ways that are not ad supported?

I don't have a positive proposal as to how we might get there or what it would look like, sorry.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#104

Post by greyman »

joopxiv wrote: post #33
forca wrote: post #19

I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…

... since I've paid to access the Interwebs You're paying for data transport, you're not paying for the content.

Yes, I am not paying for the content, but the content creator also doesn't pay for the right to present his website publicly. It only pays for the webserver space and bandwidth. (I am following your logic).

World Wide Web works in a way, that I can create a http request, and then do what I want with it, for example I can only take the text and throw away anything else. I paid for the data transport, as you said, and then I don't have any other obligations after downloading those data.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#105

Post by pavel_lishin »

forca wrote: post #44
eamonncarey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. There's something quite mean spirited about this.

There is something also mean-spirited about tracking users. Yeah, yeah, I've heard it's all anonymous, but I've been in the IT industry for a very long time, and I know for a fact they can identify the users with enough time. Because all of this is bought and sold behind the scenes. I would be OK with ads that went straight to the site selling an item with no tracking other than click-thru stats but not using the IP…

Auto-clicking bots will punish the people who run sites, not the people who run ads. They'll get shut down for fraudulent use.

Meanwhile, unless this has something like >50% adoption, ad networks won't even notice.

Edit: When I say "people who run ads", I mean the ad networks, ad suppliers, etc.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#107

Post by vdaniuk »

HN is so oblivious about ad industry, it isn't even funny. The ad industry is moving towards action-based model of payment, where advertisers pay for the purchase, lead or download. This ad blocker will just provide more data about users to advertisers.

Also if this succeeds, many small publishers will die and large publishers will accelerate the introduction of native ads.

Also if this succeeds and most sites switch to paywalls, most poor people(billions of them) won't have access to quality content.

The short-sightedness is so strong, I doubt the general ability of the HN community to reach an educated consensus on the topic of ad supported business models.

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#108

Post by showsover »

randunel wrote: post #76
randunel wrote: post #48

The only reason I have installed ABP is google's youtube ads. All the other websites are suffering because of google's politics with youtube, since I encouraged all of my friends to do the same thing, just to watch youtube quietly. I would really like to use this project, though, on websites with paywalled articles, not on others, but I would never bother creating or maintaining a black/white list. So I might just go…

Done, installed. While my ABP motivation is youtube, my AdNauseam motivation is paywalled revenge. I know all the other websites are suffering because of this, but as a user, I don't really care, unless I get more problems than benefits.

>my AdNauseam motivation is paywalled revenge. So instead of paying for access (which is a decent way to earn something) you are mad that you don't get everything for free?

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#109

Post by easytiger »

jackmaney wrote: post #41
chrisBob wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does that make it better or worse than just blocking adds?

Worse, as ad networks can--and do--block publishers for click fraud.

well they will be able to identify that the user is responsible, not the host. hopefully

Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads

#110

Post by column »

forca wrote: post #44
eamonncarey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. There's something quite mean spirited about this.

There is something also mean-spirited about tracking users. Yeah, yeah, I've heard it's all anonymous, but I've been in the IT industry for a very long time, and I know for a fact they can identify the users with enough time. Because all of this is bought and sold behind the scenes. I would be OK with ads that went straight to the site selling an item with no tracking other than click-thru stats but not using the IP…

> It's sick that sites show one price to mobile users and another to desktop users.

Out of curiosity, which is cheaper?

Post reply on HN