Mediocre.
Just doesn’t feel good
111–120 of 315 posts
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. This move makes sense without any conspiracy theories. Just look at his other recent blog post about Peace: http://www.marco.org/2015/09/17/why-peace-blocks-deck-ads It looks like he just felt uncomfortable making money off of his friends' and colleagues' loss. Makes sense, really, even if some posters can't seem to fathom giving up money to sleep soundly at night.
>It looks like he just felt uncomfortable making money off of his friends' and colleagues' loss. Anytime you sell a product in a competitive market, you do this. Those ad companies are happy to steal costumers' attention from other companies.
I think people are fine losing money to competition but this isn't losing to competition. An ad blocker actually destroys potential value because sites that used to generate money no longer do. These sites aren't losing money to other sites making more money, the money just isn't made at all.
You could potentially argue that the intended viewer of those ads is now capturing that value, however real world examples of paywalls and various other business models suggest that general web users don't value not being shown ads as much as advertisers value showing them ads.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#113Although I have no direct knowledge, it feels like there is something going on behind the scenes forcing this reaction. If I had to guess, I would point the finger at Ghostery causing this. Lifehacker wrote¹ that Ghostery sells some data to marketers, so perhaps the approach taken with the app interferes with Ghostery's model and they were not willing to continue allowing access to their rule list. Alternatively Ghos…
It did occur to me that he might have been threatened by a lawsuit (or more than one). I suspect he would have been direct about that, if in a position to, but a large corporation is in a position to put tremendous pressure on a small/indie business, even if they don't have the legal high ground.
IIRC, there was a lot of drama between tv networks and Tivo, once upon a time, over the ad-skipping issue, which netted out in a pretty lame detente (Tivo pulling the 30-second-skip button out of standard UI).
At the end of the day, the issues are similar (30-second-skip == going the bathroom during the commercial break, but someone productizing it was not). Over a longer period of time, we all started time-shifting tv content and commercials took a big hit anyway (due to Netflix and to Tivo clones and licensees).
If anyone thinks a developer like Marco is somehow complicit in the death of traditional, ad-supported media, I hope they're having similar introspection over using spotify instead of buying records.
The world doesn't owe a living to people who can steal content, write clickbait headlines, and convert paragraphs into multi-page galleries the most effectively. They will have to adapt.
And some will die.
And ad-blockers are forever a thing on mobile now.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can go to a store, I don't like how they make money, I'll just take away whatever I want for free? If you don't like how they make money, do not patronize them.
If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.
The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#115I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? Annoying advertisements are, in practice, the result of people failing to be creative in monetization. Ars Technica, for instance, has done a great job of integrating ads in…
When advertisers have the ability to masquerade their for-hire opinion manipulation as journalism, the public can no longer be in any meaningful way begin to hold government and corporate interests accountable. Native advertising is an existential threat to democracy and its profiteers belong in prison. I'd much rather pay journalists to tell me the truth than read what people with money are paying them to tell me.
While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that people not wanting intrusive advertising in their blogs and acting to avoid it is going to effect this problem one way or another. What you're asking for is a BBC-style news service in America which is something I would love. If you had that, every few links on hackernews would still try to autoplay some sort of sound in a flash ad.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. This move makes sense without any conspiracy theories. Just look at his other recent blog post about Peace: http://www.marco.org/2015/09/17/why-peace-blocks-deck-ads It looks like he just felt uncomfortable making money off of his friends' and colleagues' loss. Makes sense, really, even if some posters can't seem to fathom giving up money to sleep soundly at night.
>It looks like he just felt uncomfortable making money off of his friends' and colleagues' loss. Anytime you sell a product in a competitive market, you do this. Those ad companies are happy to steal costumers' attention from other companies.
Right, we've heard that rationalization before. It's not about that. He (and we) are aware of it not being personal but being business. He's saying, even if he's completely justified by that rationalization, he doesn't feel right doing it, and since he's in a place to turn down huge money on principles, why not do it?
That's basically the position a lot of us hope to see ourselves in.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#117* I don't want ads * I don't want native advertising or sponsored content * I don't want to pay for content * I don't want my tax goes to government sponsored content * I want free independent content That's me nowadays... I don't even know what's the answer!
I have absolutely no problem with sponsored ads, the kind John Gruber run on his blog, for example.
On the same page, the sponsorships on Marco's podcasts I think are absolutely fine. I found them even useful (which SHOULD be the objective of advertising)
I think that the main problem with ads are crappy, annoying, low-value ads. I'd love to see more interesting and relevant ads, I may, you know, BUY something from time to time...
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#118I hate this supposition that everyone should bend over backwards to allow people who make money in a certain way continue making money in that way. Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else? Annoying advertisements are, in practice, the result of people failing to be creative in monetization. Ars Technica, for instance, has done a great job of integrating ads in…
>Am I the only one thinks that the user's experience should be more important than everything else?
No. I value UX over almost everything, but you have to realize that your values don't exist in a vacuum. Without something to keep the lights on and the AC blowing air on the servers, UX is pointless and doesn't amount to anything.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#119Lots of people here trying to infer motives. Why not just believe what he says? He's a guy who has enough money, wants to do what he loves, and doesn't enjoy controversy. He's hacker enough to want to muck about with how to make a blocker, but it's not his joy. Basically, he's what many of us aspire to be.
I think it's extremely simple that someone he had a business relationship with put pressure on him in private and he caved. This is a far more common occurrence than people acting against their own financial best interest in the name of a vague morality. Especially when that morality is almost directly opposed to something they _just did publicly_ several days ago.
Re: Just doesn’t feel good
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you are responding to me primarily. This is the issue- Him having 'fuck you' money makes no difference to me. Plenty of rich people do things with a hidden agenda. Personally I feel like the reason he gave seems far fetched and much less likely then another causation point. So, with Occam's razor in mind I default to my viewpoint that this was likely a issue induced by Ghostery. For what its worth, I also fe…
> Personally I feel like the reason he gave seems far fetched and much less likely then another causation point. Perhaps an understandable (though not very charitable) reaction if you cannot see yourself having the same viewpoint. But I think the existence of other people who believe they would have the same viewpoint means you should view it as less far fetched, or not far fetched at all. You might discount some of…
The reason I dont see that viewpoint is I feel it doesnt make sense- See this comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10240696