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

What we break when we fix ad blocking

tonyhaile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#141

Post by msh »

dmayle wrote: post #117
jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

> I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. As it turns out, you're guilty of the same thing everyone else is, because you've absolutely missed the point of enabling ad blockers on iPhone For Apple, it serves two purposes, both of which are hugely anti-competitive. They'll most likely get away with it, due to the fact that they have a minority share of the global…

So desktop chrome and Firefox is also attacking the open web? They have had ad lockers in their app stores for a very long time.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#142

Post by simoncion »

stevenh wrote: post #138
jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

ISPs should be legally required to pay a fixed percentage of their profits per subscriber to the owners of the sites that those subscribers visited. No one seems to have a problem with 70/30 these days, so how about that? The 70% of former ISP profits could instead be distributed in a fair way to site owners based on total time the user spent interacting with their site in the frontmost tab, as calculated in an agree…

I assume that you're talking about residential ISPs.

1) Given that actual -non-maintenance- capex on the networks of the major ISPs appears to have been practically zero for decades, I suspect that the major ISPs will claim (and have the paperwork -however legitimate- [0] to back it up) that their per-customer profits are near-zero or negative.

2) Good ISPs are run like good utilities: any actual profits are either invested in the network, or returned to customers in one way or another. [1] This means that good ISPs actually have a near-zero per-customer profit.

So, all you're going to do with this plan is:

* Raise the -already high- barrier to entry for independent ISPs.

* Make a lot of paperwork.

* Make a lot of DPI hardware vendors very happy.

Noone will get more money, except for the DPI folks. :)

[0] Hollywood Accounting, anyone?

[1] Either through rate reductions, or one-off credits in a billing period.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#143

Post by ploxiln »

incarnate wrote: post #107
djur wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does one of those responses assume that you have to pay for an ad blocker? I've never heard of such a thing.

The poll is based around discussion of the new iOS 9 ad blocking browsers, the most popular of which aren't free (at the moment). The Verge is also no doubt trying to make the poll more divisive with this phrasing, given where their revenue comes from. http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/18/9351233/poll-ad-blocking-y...

If the best ad blocking options for iOS continue to be non-free, and grow in popularity, well that would be pretty eloquent, wouldn't it:

People will pay (a relatively small amount I guess) to see no ads on most sites.

(disclaimer: I use a free ad blocker for firefox on android)

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#144

Post by kalleboo »

shostack wrote: post #132
larrik wrote: post #2

Ad blocking is really a war between regular users and criminals, with ad networks as the battlefield (and sometimes the criminals themselves) and content producers/publishers as the civilians caught in the crossfire. It's not the users' fault that not running ad-blocking is outright dangerous and stupid, and it's not always the website operators fault that their "trusted" ad networks let terrible things through const…

Criminals? Really?

I think he's referring to the people distributing malware though ad networks.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#145

Post by JupiterMoon »

stevenh wrote: post #138
jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

ISPs should be legally required to pay a fixed percentage of their profits per subscriber to the owners of the sites that those subscribers visited. No one seems to have a problem with 70/30 these days, so how about that? The 70% of former ISP profits could instead be distributed in a fair way to site owners based on total time the user spent interacting with their site in the frontmost tab, as calculated in an agree…

What about people that use tor/VPNs? What about people using the free wifi in various cafes and restaurants? What about website that don't want to make money (this forum)? There are too many corner cases. This would result in a huge amount of regulation.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#146

Post by JupiterMoon »

jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

I disagree. I use an adblocker to take some control over what code executes on my computer. There have been numerous attacks contained in ads in recent years and I regard my blocker (and no script) as one essential part of my security process.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#147

Post by greggman »

MBCook wrote: post #11
jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

The Verge has a poll going today asking if you use an ad blocker: "Yes, I want free content and I'll pay the ad blockers" and "No, I want free content and I'll pay the publisher through ads". I'm with you. I didn't use an ad blocker for years. Then I installed a flash blocker because it kept my computer from trying to melt it's self and play video ads while I was trying to read. Then we started to get so many ads tha…

I just mostly avoid sites with crappy ads. If I go to a site with a non skippable video ad I just close the tab. It wasn't that important to begin with. That includes YouTube sometimes. Same with other types of annoying ads. No need for an ad blocker for me so far.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#148

Post by makomk »

msh wrote: post #141
dmayle wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. As it turns out, you're guilty of the same thing everyone else is, because you've absolutely missed the point of enabling ad blockers on iPhone For Apple, it serves two purposes, both of which are hugely anti-competitive. They'll most likely get away with it, due to the fact that they have a minority share of the global…

So desktop chrome and Firefox is also attacking the open web? They have had ad lockers in their app stores for a very long time.

Neither desktop Chrome nor desktop Firefox are pushing their own, competing method of distributing content that can't be adblocked and that they take a 30% cut on. Also, Firefox at least didn't intentionally add support for adblocking, they just had a powerful add-on system and didn't deliberately stop it.

Apple is deliberately adding support for it on the web whilst pushing people to distribution channels they control that they don't allow adblocking on, and that they get a cut of the revenue from.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#149

Post by greggman »

Animats wrote: post #137
civilian wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But ad blockers are a recent innovation in controlling advertising. Billboards... you can lobby your local city or state to pass laws against obnoxious billboards, but at some point it is someone else's property, and they'll be able to put some kind of advertisement there. Ad blockers let you edit your reality, immediately and easily. It's a big change and our historical acceptance doesn't carry over.

Five years ago, Sao Paulo, Brazil, banned all outdoor advertising. All. Not just billboards, large business signs had to go too. It worked out very well.[1] [1] https://www.newdream.org/resources/sao-paolo-ad-ban

Wow. Thanks for that link.

I'm not sure where the balance is. Too many is certainly bad for a city as well. LA has seen a big increase in strip club billboards. Not sure why that popped in my head.

I actually enjoy the ads on trains in Tokyo and learn about all kinds of stuff from them from products to events at museums. I noticed the lack of ads in the Paris subway (in the cars themselves) left me kind of bored. It doesn't help there's no mobile signals in the subways.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#150

Post by ianlevesque »

bradleyjg wrote: post #112
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you had a plugin that simply blanked the entire page if it contained advertising you'd be acting in a principled fashion aligned with your preferences. As it is you want to have your cake and eat it too. It may be legal and technically possible, but isn't ethical. What you're saying here is that, if you don't like advertising, your only ethical option is to never use the Web again. (Well, I suppose I can read th…

There were options. You could go to concerts, you could listen to the radio. You could go to free concerts in the park. What you couldn't do was listen to the latest Britney album when and wherever you wanted without going and buying the CD or unethically downloading it off of Napster. You could tell yourself that you were perfectly justified in doing so. In fact it was Britney's fault for not coming up with easy way…

Yeah I mean, iTunes Music Store never came into existence to fill the demand. You must be right.
Post reply on HN