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

Advertising is devastating to my well-being

briancarper.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#131

Post by vannevar »

dandelany wrote: post #43
Tichy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? How about by watching ads I screw the people who paid for the ads, as there is no way those ads would affect me in a positive way? I don't see how one is worse than the other. If a web site asks people who hate ads to watch ads, they are screwing the people who pay for the ads. They should be thankful for ad blockers, because at least they preve…

> This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? Yes. As Ars said explicitly in their post, every time you choose to block the rendering of an ad on their page, their ad provider does not count the impression, and they do not get paid anything. So yes, you're directly screwing Ars by costing them money, denying them revenue, and nullifying their business model. > If a web site asks people wh…

The effects you cite are not independent: 'costing them money' and 'denying them revenue' are the same thing, and both flow from 'nullifying their business model.' But lots of companies have their business model nullified (ask BlockBuster). They either find another one or they go out of business and a smarter outfit with a better model takes their place.

If everyone blocked ads, no one would serve them. They would charge for content. This is probably the fairest model for everyone. But content providers like Ars want to mislead their customers into thinking they are getting something for free, so they make their money from advertising: that is, they don't sell content, they use content as 'bait' to attract attention and then sell that attention to advertisers. An ad-blocker is acting perfectly ethically and rationally by refusing to give their attention---after all, Ars is pretending to be free, you can hardly blame the viewers who take them up on the offer. The only ones being screwed by this are the non-blocking viewers, who are forced to give more of their attention to compensate for the blockers.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#132

Post by moron4hire »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #126
moron4hire wrote: post #47

Profit is not wrong. Profit is not screwing someone. Any freely contracted trade results in a net benefit for both parties. It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. When someone says ads are "screwing them over", I have to laugh and wonder what kind of life that person leads that annoying ads are considered an atrocity. If you want to see being "screwed over", look no further than our tax code. Our ta…

> It has to by definition, or else it wouldn't be entered. This is Econ 101 dogma. I'm surprised you can write this without examining it further. People are not rational actors. That's why advertising works. What's particularly interesting about your using this argument is that advertising exists precisely to manipulate the non-rational decision making of consumers. Once we realize that humans in general are wired su…

Wow, I had no idea that human beings were such simple creatures that they could be compelled to purchase goods and services against their best interests by a simple flashing picture.

While advertising is primarily persuasive (there is still a significant informative portion of advertising), there's nothing wrong with being persuasive. You're attempting to be persuasive with your replies in this thread. If being persuasive is being unethically manipulative, then we had better stop all debate right now.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#133

Post by yters »

pook wrote: post #121
yters wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why society didn't evolve, it was designed. Only design can create global states which are contrary to local conditions.

What do you mean? "Design" as in the memetic evolution has an unnaturally recursive feedback system compared to our biological evolution, thus producing patterns of regularity determined by initial tiny quirks? Or what the people who downmodded you seem to think you meant?

I've no idea what's controversial about what I said. I write my comments using design, not random variation and natural selection. It's pretty obvious we do the same with societal institutions.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#134

Post by dandelany »

vannevar wrote: post #131
dandelany wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a little bit silly. By not watching ads, I am screwing somebody? Yes. As Ars said explicitly in their post, every time you choose to block the rendering of an ad on their page, their ad provider does not count the impression, and they do not get paid anything. So yes, you're directly screwing Ars by costing them money, denying them revenue, and nullifying their business model. > If a web site asks people wh…

The effects you cite are not independent: 'costing them money' and 'denying them revenue' are the same thing, and both flow from 'nullifying their business model.' But lots of companies have their business model nullified (ask BlockBuster). They either find another one or they go out of business and a smarter outfit with a better model takes their place. If everyone blocked ads, no one would serve them. They would ch…

> 'costing them money' and 'denying them revenue' are the same thing

No they're not. The point I was making is that you necessarily cost them money every time you visit a page, but by blocking the ad, you're also denying them the revenue that would balance out that cost.

> But content providers like Ars want to mislead their customers into thinking they are getting something for free

I think that even the least savvy of Internet users understand the advertising model. No one is "misled" to believe that running a site like Ars costs nothing. They're not "pretending to be free" any more than a newspaper full of ads is.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#135

Post by dandelany »

swombat wrote: post #117
dandelany wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ars has no right to demand your attention on their ads, so fuck'em. Ars isn't demanding that you pay attention to the ads, they're asking you to simply render them, so that their ad provider counts the impression and pays them the tenth of a cent that covers the bandwidth you just used to load the page. That doesn't seem like much to ask.

First, if that's the case, then Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em. Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host! Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it. In any case, fuck'em. It's a wil…

> Ars is being dishonest with their advertisers, who are paying for attention, not rendering processes. So, once again, fuck'em.

No they're not. Advertisers understand perfectly well that only a fraction of rendered ads actually gain a reader's attention.

> Second, if they're paying a tenth of a cent to render a page, they need a better host!

This was very obviously a made up number, not the thrust of my argument. Whether it's a tenth of a cent or a thousandth doesnt matter.

> Third, I would imagine that the cost they might be trying to cover is the cost of writing the article, not the negligible cost of serving it.

Again, probably true, but not the point of my argument. They have to cover costs with revenue, whether those costs are hosting or paying their staff.

> In any case, fuck'em.

I actually enjoy reading Ars, and therefore, would prefer not to, thanks. Especially when not fucking 'em is as easy as letting their ads render.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#136

Post by rick888 »

philk wrote: post #118
natrius wrote: post #26

It's painful to see so many intelligent people unable or unwilling to analyze the effects their actions cause. If you block ads on sites you enjoy without communicating with the producers of that site, you are lowering the probability that sites you enjoy will continue to be produced. There are several ways to mitigate this effect if you don't like ads: 1) Pay for a subscription. 2) If no subscription is offered, ask…

Taking actions that in sum lower the probability of things you like being produced in the future is incredibly stupid. I don't think it's particularly stupid because the actions of an individual choosing to block ads will have a negligible impact on a site, whereas viewing the site without annoying advertisements will provide a more favorable experience for that user. Hence, from the position of the individual ad blo…

"I don't think it's particularly stupid because the actions of an individual choosing to block ads will have a negligible impact on a site, whereas viewing the site without annoying advertisements will provide a more favorable experience for that user."

Adblock plus gets almost 1,000,000 downloads per week (you can check this out on the Mozilla website). This is no longer just a few individuals blocking ads.

It takes no effort for you to view an advertisement. Viewing something that may only take a few seconds of your time will help the site you are visiting and keep them running. Now that you are blocking it, the site will never know if you like or hate a particular ad and will continue to show bad ads.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#137

Post by rick888 »

Willie_Dynamite wrote: post #18
scrod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs

Wait, are you arguing that violent crimes are the only ones people should go to prison for? What about say, Bernie Madoff?

"Imprisoning people for nonviolent crimes = Jobs"

No. He is saying that pot should be legalized.

It's funny because I have heard so many pro-pot legalization people that our prisons shouldn't be filled with people that do drugs. I have not heard of one person that is in prison for personal consumption of drugs. Most cops won't even bother.

The people in prison are the dealers.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#138

Post by petercooper »

briancarper wrote: post #55
petercooper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked at the ads on Ars briefly, both animated Flash ads, one for razor blades and the other I couldn't even tell what it was selling. I admit to being very emotional about this !?? Is this April 1st or will you next claim that the letters "g" and "x" upset you too? What about the number 283?

I am emotional about advertising in general, not those ads in particular. I am not frothing at the mouth over a single ad, no. Are you OK with a bunch of marketing guys sitting in an office thinking "How can we manipulate people's sex drives to maximize profit this week?" Razor commercials: Hunky guy shaves; heavily-airbrushed, scantily-clad woman looks on longingly. Implication: Buy our razors, get laid. Flashing li…

Are you OK with a bunch of marketing guys sitting in an office thinking "How can we manipulate people's sex drives to maximize profit this week?" Razor commercials: Hunky guy shaves; heavily-airbrushed, scantily-clad woman looks on longingly. Implication: Buy our razors, get laid. Flashing lights and "power words". Repeat over and over until you can't forget it. What's the difference between commercials and any other form of propaganda? Commercials are more mundane, but use the same principles.

Totally fine with it. As long as I have the choice to ignore and not respond to something, it don't annoy me. It only annoys me if I have no choice.

There are some people who get upset and write letters to the TV company when a swear word or some blasphemy is uttered or a nipple shown.. sane people turn off the TV if they don't like it and do something else for a while.

Adverts are fine by me because I have a degree of free will to be influenced by them to the point of my choosing. Sure, a Coke ad in the middle of winter can make me feel nostalgic and want to grab a Coke. But I like Coke, so that's fine by me. This isn't upsetting.

Propaganda is everywhere and advertising is only a small part of it. Almost every word out of a person in power has a bias, a motivation, or an ulterior motive. Even regular people in our lives don't say what they really want to say. When one's wife sweet-talks them to get something she wants, that's propaganda. When one gives their wife a compliment but has sex on the brain, that's propaganda. This stuff isn't always bad - it's how life works and it won't go away.

I feel like I'm being treated like an animal.

You are. I am. We all are. And it's awesome to feel these rushes of emotions because it means we're unpredictable, unique, and alive.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#139

Post by vannevar »

dandelany wrote: post #134
vannevar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects you cite are not independent: 'costing them money' and 'denying them revenue' are the same thing, and both flow from 'nullifying their business model.' But lots of companies have their business model nullified (ask BlockBuster). They either find another one or they go out of business and a smarter outfit with a better model takes their place. If everyone blocked ads, no one would serve them. They would ch…

> 'costing them money' and 'denying them revenue' are the same thing No they're not. The point I was making is that you necessarily cost them money every time you visit a page, but by blocking the ad, you're also denying them the revenue that would balance out that cost. > But content providers like Ars want to mislead their customers into thinking they are getting something for free I think that even the least savvy…

You're correct that visiting the page does impose an infinitesimal marginal cost. The economics would remain the same, however, if there were no cost at all for viewing the site. The content still costs money to produce. The real issue here is the denial of revenue, which as I said flows logically from nullifying the business model.

Ars wants people to think that they are in the business of reporting tech news, when in fact they are in the business of selling individuals to advertisers. I don't see any notices on Ars explicitly asking people to view ads in exchange for viewing content. The reason is that doing so would confront people with the reality of the site and turn them off, even though many of them understand the ad model in principle. And yes, a newspaper full of ads is also pretending to be free.

If Ars won't explicitly require their users to view ads, then they can hardly complain when people skip them. I have no sympathy.

Re: Advertising is devastating to my well-being

#140

Post by skmurphy »

zaphar wrote: post #98
fexl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, then the human race would die out. Of course, a small portion of humans can and do live that way, but that is an aberration. If it ever becomes the norm, misery, illness, povert…

While cooperation makes logical sense. The statistics and study of human behaviour indicate that far from being an aberration "red in tooth and claw" is far more the norm. Don't mistake culture and societal norms for the norms of natrual human behavior.

One good book length counter-argument to "red in tooth and claw" is Robin Wright's "NonZero" (see summary site at http://www.nonzero.org/ for excerpts) that argues life's arrow is toward more complexity based on cooperation and that it's not a "zero sum game" where every gain is someone else's loss.

Wright's thesis for humanity is that people cooperate far more in the context of society than they did even 20,000 years ago, allowing for much larger populations. This larger population enables more diversity and further complexity.

Post reply on HN