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

21–30 of 159 posts

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#21

Post by jacquesm »

[deleted] wrote: post #17
aikah wrote: post #3

> We also have no ability to screen ad exchange ads ahead of time; we get what they give us. We can and have set policies, for example, to disallow autoplay video or audio ads. But we get them anyway, even from Google. Whether advertisers make mistakes or try to sneak around the restrictions and don’t get caught, we can’t tell. It happens, though, all the time.” Something's fishy here. Is there any googler here that…

[deleted]

> what is to stop the ad being switched to something else (video, pr0n eptc) on the 3rd party server?

That's when you're lucky. If you're unlucky it's malware injected via ad networks.

Browsing the web without an adblocker is like sex with multiple partners every day without a condom.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#22

Post by tdkl »

alkonaut wrote: post #11

I understand why it's a genius strategy from Apple to make mobile browsing free from ads (Googles lifeblood), but I don't see why it's such a huge deal to Google; they already have a mobile platform of their own where ad blocking was always possible and widespread. You could see this step from Apple as an aggressive one towards Google, or just as reaching feature parity with Android on ad-blocking. What will be inter…

> where ad blocking was always possible and widespread.

Majority of people don't root.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#23

Post by eli »

moron4hire wrote: post #19
eli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with removing ads for paying subscribers is that it greatly devalues the remaining ad impressions -- who would want to reach just the people too disengaged or cheap to buy a subscription? It also incentivizes the site owner to have increasingly obtrusive and annoying ads for non-paying members.

So how does Reddit manage to have ad-less subscriptions and yet still restrain themselves from creating obtrusive interstitial ads? Superhuman strength? Immortality? Some other heretofore unknown super power? The truth is, there is nothing on the NY Times or WaPo that is worth paying twice for.

Reddit has its users create all the content for free. And AFAIK they still aren't profitable.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#24

Post by vegabook »

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.

arguably HTML 5 is a co-culprit here - it is the new Flash and has massively worsened the situation. Try running a modern home page on anything other than a fast Intel chip or ARM chip and it's basically unusable (Rpi, low end Arm phones). Browsers are the new bloatware and make Microsoft Office look like vi.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#25

Post by eli »

rbinv wrote: post #20
eli wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with removing ads for paying subscribers is that it greatly devalues the remaining ad impressions -- who would want to reach just the people too disengaged or cheap to buy a subscription? It also incentivizes the site owner to have increasingly obtrusive and annoying ads for non-paying members.

Although true, wouldn't an efficient advertiser try not to pay for ads that target those "cheap people" anyway? Seems like they would be a waste of ad budget in any case.

Yes, exactly: most advertisers would want to reach the sort of paying subscribers who no longer see ads. By removing all ad impressions from that segment of the audience, you disproportionately decrease ad revenue.

(Also, digital advertising is still very far from efficient)

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#26

Post by kawsper »

moron4hire wrote: post #10
danr4 wrote: post #2

It's rather simple in my mind. Putting your content up for free is the same as standing by my fence, waiting for me to ask you to throw your magazine over so I could read it. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Don't want me to cut out the ads? tough luck, my reading experience, my choice. Want to make money? try a subscription model. Why can't you have both? Welcome to…

I would pay for the NY Times or Washington Post if I knew having a paid subscription would remove the ads and give me a reasonable reading experience.

I tried to subscribe to a danish newspaper online (their online version), and I couldn't even pay by creditcard. These companies really live in the past.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#27

Post by pjc50 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #18
danr4 wrote: post #2

It's rather simple in my mind. Putting your content up for free is the same as standing by my fence, waiting for me to ask you to throw your magazine over so I could read it. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Don't want me to cut out the ads? tough luck, my reading experience, my choice. Want to make money? try a subscription model. Why can't you have both? Welcome to…

> Putting your content up for free is the same as throwing your magazine over my fence for free. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Uh ? To cut the ads out you need to see them. Adblock hide them as if they never existed in the first place. Analogies, these days...

You can (and I do) from time to time cut out ads manually from the web with the DOM inspector. It's particularly good for screen-filling modals. Of course I can then make the cutout permanent with a hosts file or user-configurable adblocker ...

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#28

Post by danr4 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #18
danr4 wrote: post #2

It's rather simple in my mind. Putting your content up for free is the same as standing by my fence, waiting for me to ask you to throw your magazine over so I could read it. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Don't want me to cut out the ads? tough luck, my reading experience, my choice. Want to make money? try a subscription model. Why can't you have both? Welcome to…

> Putting your content up for free is the same as throwing your magazine over my fence for free. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Uh ? To cut the ads out you need to see them. Adblock hide them as if they never existed in the first place. Analogies, these days...

Alright i'll bite.

"I can cut them out" can be, as stated in another comment, an ad cutting physical machine.

Your move.

Re: What the ad blocker debate reveals

#29

Post by Nursie »

danr4 wrote: post #2

It's rather simple in my mind. Putting your content up for free is the same as standing by my fence, waiting for me to ask you to throw your magazine over so I could read it. You can put ads, but I can cut them out if I want for a better reading experience. Don't want me to cut out the ads? tough luck, my reading experience, my choice. Want to make money? try a subscription model. Why can't you have both? Welcome to…

I think it's simple too, but doesn't need a meatspace analogy like that.

I request some data, you send me some data. My computing device (yes MY computing device) then renders it in accordance with my wishes.

That's it.

(oh, and no, I have no obligation to play ball with your trackers)

Post reply on HN