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

181–190 of 226 posts

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#181

Post by kuschku »

frik wrote: post #128
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…

We need better ads, e.g. a comeback of the traditional banner ads where ads where just a single picture with a link. If you really need a video ad, create a small size mp4 movie and add a link, e.g. 70KB for 30s video. But nowadays ads are too overblown with huge JS code, invasive behaviors, and still a lot of flash animations and videos. Basically the current situation is the fault of many advertisement networks tha…

And we need relevant ads.

If I’m watching a let's play on YouTube, I don't care about buying crayola crayons. If you’d present me an ad for the game the player plays, on the other hand, I’d probably buy it. Maybe even give the youtuber like a 2% cut of the sales.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#182

Post by kuschku »

jordigh wrote: post #60
JulianMorrison wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are, it's called Patreon. Which would be a good model, too, for "free but we need our salary paid" content.

There's also Google Contributor. https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ I'd be fine with websites requiring a Google Contributor login for unlimited access.

Can we PLEASE stop posting stuff that is US-only? Solving an issue only in the US does NOT help the world.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#183

Post by stevesearer »

briHass wrote: post #168
bambax wrote: post #165

This article, like all the ones before it complaining about AdBlock, seem to conflate all kinds of contents like they're all the same. Yet, they aren't. People gladly pay for content: books, mp3 (streamed or downloaded), going to the theater, subscribing to Netflix and/or cable, etc. etc. The article argues that with the advent of adblocking all content will hide behind a paywall; but that will not happen... or not f…

Well said. Maybe some of these individuals forget that many of us were on the Internet well before it became as "commercial" as it is now. The bulk of the content came from users that didn't expect or receive any payment for their writing...much like many of the biggest sites today: Reddit, etc. What wasn't around was shitty, click-bait junk written for no reason other than to drive ad impressions. If 70% of what's o…

> if people don't want to pay for it, the content isn't worth anything to begin with

That isn't entirely true as the content is technically worth whatever the sponsors are willing to pay to make it happen. The university in my town puts on a summer series of movies in the park and Lynda.com has sponsored a number of the seasons. There is even a short ad played on the screen before the movie.

I wouldn't pay to go to the event, but am 100% happy letting Lynda.com pay for me.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#184

Post by kuschku »

sbov wrote: post #35
JulianMorrison wrote: post #20

This article assumes that advertisers can get more sophisticated than blockers - I don't agree. With good enough technology, any logo can be snipped out or scribbled over. Any inline, self hosted image can be recognized and removed. Perhaps in future, adblockers will comb through the text of pages and the frames of video and your hero will be drinking "soda" instead of . Heck, one of these days, I want ad blocking gl…

Ads tend to be in private spaces though. You can just see it from public space. Another way to achieve your goal is for the glasses to render giant walls around all private spaces. All cities would look like Manhattan then.

You can still ban ads in private spaces. Many cities did that. Sao Paolo is just one example

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#185

Post by akiselev »

stevesearer wrote: post #179
bambax wrote: post #165

This article, like all the ones before it complaining about AdBlock, seem to conflate all kinds of contents like they're all the same. Yet, they aren't. People gladly pay for content: books, mp3 (streamed or downloaded), going to the theater, subscribing to Netflix and/or cable, etc. etc. The article argues that with the advent of adblocking all content will hide behind a paywall; but that will not happen... or not f…

There are a few podcasts I enjoy which are supported by companies like Mailchimp or even shows on NPR which are supported by non-profits and foundations. Even high quality shows on PBS have sponsors supporting them. How does your view consider high quality content which is supported by advertising?

What are examples of high quality content that is supported by advertising?

All of the examples I can think of, like radio, YouTube and other video sites, and television, happen to make their money from high quality advertisements: ones that were curated and have higher production values, not random ads from dubious ad networks (except for the YouTube text based ads).

Content paid for with advertising is paid for by advertisers (brands). Quality brands want quality content that will be watched by as many people in their target demographic as possible so they're willing to pay for it.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#186

Post by [deleted] »

bambax wrote: post #165

This article, like all the ones before it complaining about AdBlock, seem to conflate all kinds of contents like they're all the same. Yet, they aren't. People gladly pay for content: books, mp3 (streamed or downloaded), going to the theater, subscribing to Netflix and/or cable, etc. etc. The article argues that with the advent of adblocking all content will hide behind a paywall; but that will not happen... or not f…

[deleted]

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#187

Post by stevesearer »

akiselev wrote: post #185
stevesearer wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few podcasts I enjoy which are supported by companies like Mailchimp or even shows on NPR which are supported by non-profits and foundations. Even high quality shows on PBS have sponsors supporting them. How does your view consider high quality content which is supported by advertising?

What are examples of high quality content that is supported by advertising? All of the examples I can think of, like radio, YouTube and other video sites, and television, happen to make their money from high quality advertisements: ones that were curated and have higher production values, not random ads from dubious ad networks (except for the YouTube text based ads). Content paid for with advertising is paid for by…

That's exactly what I'm wondering and thinking about. Are people fine with ad supported content as long as the ads are high quality?

I ask because I run an ad-supported site and try to use good practices and sell all of my own ads to brands that are highly relevant to my content (office furniture brand ads on an office design website).

Anyway, I have tried to keep up with what people are thinking on this topic because I want to make sure I'm staying ahead of the curve so I can stay in business :)

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#188

Post by copsarebastards »

amelius wrote: post #50
JulianMorrison wrote: post #34

There is an alternative to adverts. Its real, it's here, it works. That alternative is Patreon. In the Patreon model, you can support the creator directly, and their ability to produce content scales with that support. It's like a subscription, except you allow anyone else to free ride. A Patreon supported site could run no ads at all and still make a stable income. It would no longer be fighting its readers to force…

It seems that in the Patreon model, the creator is the central element, and not the content itself. This seems a bit weird, because it is the content I'm after, not the artist. It may be nice for fans who will buy anything from a particular artist, even if it is worthless when considering just the content. Also, this seems a lot like "branding & marketing" version 2.0. I don't like branding. And I don't want to like…

Are you really making the argument that content creators are uncorrelated with your enjoyment of the content they create? Really?

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#189

Post by copsarebastards »

GhotiFish wrote: post #84
amelius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that in the Patreon model, the creator is the central element, and not the content itself. This seems a bit weird, because it is the content I'm after, not the artist. It may be nice for fans who will buy anything from a particular artist, even if it is worthless when considering just the content. Also, this seems a lot like "branding & marketing" version 2.0. I don't like branding. And I don't want to like…

I'm paying for creation, that is what is valuable, not content, content is worthless. Content has infinite supply. Creation is what is limited. This dissonance has been, and (it seems) will always be, the primary stumbling block in the discussion of the information economy. Why are pirates immoral? Why are they not immoral? Why is DRM immoral? Why is DRM not immoral? Who owns the copyright? what is fair use? All to d…

I hadn't thought about things in this way, that's very interesting. I guess this applies to software too.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#190

Post by copsarebastards »

Mz wrote: post #80
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not slavery; it's volunteerism. No one is forced to produce content for the web. Will there be more and better content if people can make money by producing content? Probably. However, comparing people who voluntarily produce free content to slavery is ludicrous.

Let me put that another way: People currently try to monetize by putting ads on their sites. Other people use adblockers, denying them payment but benefitting from their labor. If you want the ads to stop but the labor to continue, you basically desire slave labor from people. I posit that if you are using ad blockers and not also promoting another form of valid monetization, you are, in fact, taking advantage of peo…

> If you want the ads to stop but the labor to continue, you basically desire slave labor from people.

No, I desire the business model to change.

> I posit that if you are using ad blockers and not also promoting another form of valid monetization, you are, in fact, taking advantage of people in a manner that is essentially slave labor.

My ancestors were literally kidnapped out of their homes and forced to do backbreaking work for little pay in intolerable conditions, often while being raped and beaten daily. You have a shitty business model and you want to compare your business failure due to incompetence to that? No, fuck that. Your comparison is outright offensive. Your failure to monetize your labor is not equivalent to slavery and it's disgusting for you to claim it is.

Post reply on HN