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

What the ad blocker debate reveals

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#151

Post by waterlesscloud »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #77
austenallred wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment rubs me in the wrong way. Content creators aren't "putting it up for free" - they're putting it up with ads attached. They're certainly not "throwing it over your fence." They're not injecting their articles into your browser, you're going to a URL to request them. You seek the content out. So, you go to a site, and download all of the content. That is what the company offered. Some of that is what allow…

> The reason they're not on a subscription business model is probably because that wouldn't be sustainable for 99% of the sites you use. I say, let them die then. It's not that we need those sites but don't want to pay. It's that various "enterprising" folks figure that they can make some "content", fill them with ads and get passive income. If those 99% of sites disappeared overnight, everyone would likely be better…

Great. If you're better off without them, just stop consuming their content.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#152

Post by tdkl »

coldpie wrote: post #91
tdkl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where ad blocking was always possible and widespread. Majority of people don't root.

Hmm? Firefox and ublock origin don't require root. It won't block in-app ads, but that's not what is being discussed here.

What if I want to use Chrome or default Browser ?

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#153

Post by karmakaze »

Donzo wrote: post #5

Publishers have done this to themselves with obstrusive intersitals; slow, over-the-content pop-ups; autoplaying video and audio ads; and other extremely annoying and degrading ad implementations. They have destroyed the browsing experience. If publishers were more ethical with their implementations of advertising technologies, fewer people would be driven to use ad-blocking.

I too don't mind ads, even targeted ones, if it's in moderation and secondary to the content. If it intrudes on the experience, performance, or security, I will filter or avoid it. Unfortunately the prevalence makes it much easier to filter all than just the majority.

If someone knows of something like uBlock with default whitelists, I want to know and try it.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#154

Post by yoz-y »

bigbugbag wrote: post #100
yoz-y wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

1) The current world of abundance has reached its peak. 2) Advertising is not crucial to producers, though for commercial producers enough customers to make money is. 3) Advertising in principle is pure evil.

Advertising is also the force that makes the current web free. There are lot of articles, especially on HN, about keeping the web decentralised, keeping it open etc. So far there has been _no_ other way to finance a website than advertising.

Granted, some blogs (stratechery comes into mind) can go behind a paywall but that is because their articles have high value. Personally I like strategies like sponsored posts and similar, however these are not scalable for small producers thus available only for high-traffic websites. I wonder how would sites like Facebook, Blogger, Disqus work if there was no advertising. Also, people clearly want these sites to exist and clearly do not want to pay to use them, what other option there might be?

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#155

Post by ionised »

yoz-y wrote: post #53
JulianMorrison wrote: post #30

I want the advertising industry to die. And I honestly don't care what it takes down with it. If it hurts, we'll find ways around it, Patreon being a good example.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

I can't say I agree.

Advertising is psychological manipulation and in 99% of cases all it does is create a need for something where there was none and where there need not be one.

As a society the West is driven by an obscene need for perpetual and ever-increasing consumption and advertising is primarily responsible for this.

It's a psychological attack on millions, even billions of people that uses their fears, their neuroses and their insecurities against them to generate profits.

They say advertising affects everying whether they know it or not and I do agree with this. The simple act of being exposed to say a Coca-Cola advert is enough to put that brand in your mind.

Here's the kicker though; for many people this is having the opposite effect as intended. I see an advert, for pretty much anything and all it does it make me want to avoid that company's products.

Anything from obnoxious internet ads to cringe-worthy TV ads full of happy care-free dancing actors singing headache inducing jingles. I'll avoid the products they advertise out of pure annoyance and spite.

It seems like more and more people are starting to react this way to advertising and it's a good thing.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#156

Post by JulianMorrison »

yoz-y wrote: post #154
bigbugbag wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) The current world of abundance has reached its peak. 2) Advertising is not crucial to producers, though for commercial producers enough customers to make money is. 3) Advertising in principle is pure evil.

Advertising is also the force that makes the current web free. There are lot of articles, especially on HN, about keeping the web decentralised, keeping it open etc. So far there has been _no_ other way to finance a website than advertising. Granted, some blogs (stratechery comes into mind) can go behind a paywall but that is because their articles have high value. Personally I like strategies like sponsored posts an…

Patreon is the answer, or things like it.

Potentially, that sort of funding of creators or institutions could permit them to be truly free to create as they please - with no need to answer to corporate advertisers, or anybody else except their most dedicated fan base.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#157

Post by JulianMorrison »

ionised wrote: post #155
yoz-y wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the current world of abundance, advertising is crucial to content and product producers. Let's say you make an application, how do you sell it if nobody knows about it? You make a nifty product, how do you make people know it exists? Advertising, in principle, is good, the way it is done currently on the Web is awful.

I can't say I agree. Advertising is psychological manipulation and in 99% of cases all it does is create a need for something where there was none and where there need not be one. As a society the West is driven by an obscene need for perpetual and ever-increasing consumption and advertising is primarily responsible for this. It's a psychological attack on millions, even billions of people that uses their fears, thei…

As I understand it, they aren't trying to be liked, they are trying to hack your mental PageRank. Name five soft drinks?

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#158

Post by ionised »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #157
ionised wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say I agree. Advertising is psychological manipulation and in 99% of cases all it does is create a need for something where there was none and where there need not be one. As a society the West is driven by an obscene need for perpetual and ever-increasing consumption and advertising is primarily responsible for this. It's a psychological attack on millions, even billions of people that uses their fears, thei…

As I understand it, they aren't trying to be liked, they are trying to hack your mental PageRank. Name five soft drinks?

Seems pointless when all I do is avoid the ones that are in the forefront of my mind because I saw them in adverts.

I'm not going to buy them either way (I don't drink soda or sugary drinks anyway), so they're not achieving anything other than my disdain.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#159

Post by forthefuture »

hamax wrote: post #124
anc84 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there were not actually valuable to the visitors?

If you open the discussion section of any article on HN that is behind a paywall you'll find a link that bypasses the paywall and a discussion about how paywalled content shouldn't even be allowed on HN. So even though they created something of value (otherwise it wouldn't be on the front page) but most people still won't pay for the content.

Why doesn't that seem reasonable? On Twitch.tv people stream for free and ask for donations or subscriptions. Most people just watch, and the few people that donate or subscribe so vastly overfund the stream that they can afford to never run ads.

Patreon works the same way. You make money when you produce content that people want to pay for even if they don't have to. If you can't do that, ads are a fine plan B, but you have to go into that knowing that many people will be ad blocking (and even more if you're producing any kind of technical content).

Post reply on HN