What we break when we fix ad blocking • Hacker News Board

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#201

Post by AJ007 » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:11 PM UTC

goldfeld wrote: post #129

AJ007 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing is for certain, publishers aren't using cohorts for how browser-breaking advertising is influencing their user retention and overall revenue. Fuck, some of the JS just for news site UI makes it clear no one is even testing their mobile sites on an actual mobile device. If the ad block rate gets high enough, and if the CPMs do not increase in the face of dwindling supply, publishers will just make content av…

I think they're ok with the clicks it brings from naive/confused smartphone users, which is exactly how wicked it is.

It depends if the visitor is both interested and prepared to purchase whatever is being advertised. Someone who doesn't own a vehicle can click on auto insurance ads all day. Now matter how optimized the ads and insurance product is they will never buy. Because of the way ad buys & targeting works you really do not want unrelated users clicking through.

Do the publishers want more clicks to ads? If they look at a short period of revenue, yes, they will see a boost in their CPMs. Over the long term, as more and more advertisers block the publishers domain due to receiving worthless clicks the publisher's advertising auction prices will begin to collapse. If all of their outgoing clicks are bad eventually they will be left with advertisers who measure nothing (or measure the wrong thing, like if a video ad plays to completion) and advertisers pushing junk like adware/spyware.

Like I said before, we are talking about publishers who are not even testing out their own site on a real mobile device. Why not? May be they are still drunk on the typhoon of free traffic they've been getting from Facebook for the past couple of years.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#202

Post by Mz » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:15 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175

ForHackernews wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing (like music, acting, art, fashion, etc.) has always been a lottery economy. A very very tiny fraction (JK Rowling, Dan Brown, EL James) of writers will become staggeringly successful, spurring millions to dream of matching their success and working for free in the meantime. It's the same reason that thousands of naive 20-somethings move to LA every year.

I'd consider the SFBA startup scene in those same categories.

Thank you for saying that. This is very true. And, yet, somehow, we don't argue that any startup should just give their product away for free.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#203

Post by powertower » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:17 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #182

jordigh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "either help everyone or help no one" mentality helps --> no one.

Also consider that usually a problem has to be solved in your garage before it's solved globally.

Other times the situation is that there are external barriers (such massive fraud, incompatible laws, etc) and issues (such as the market not being developed enough yet, little to no demand, etc) that prevent the local solution getting scaled out to a global solution.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#204

Post by look_lookatme » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:27 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170

look_lookatme wrote: post #169

If you use an ad blocker and consume content supported by ads, you are a thief. It may be the best case scenario for your security, time, etc and there are cases where thievery is justified, but you are a thief nonetheless.

That's foolishness. There's nothing in the world that compels me to use your content the way you intended. I can read it or not, store it on my backup drive, print it out and use it for the bottom of my birdcage. I understand that content providers are frustrated. But lashing out and calling names is pointless and silly.

I'm not calling names. I'm classifying the act of deliberately circumventing the method of revenue generation baked into the presentation of content by publishers.

It boggles my mind that people cannot understand this. Of course time is your to do with as you see fit. If you want to download the ads and bypass them after the content is presented, in the spirit of TiVo, by all means do, but don't selectively choose to download what you want. Instead you should just not visit the site.

Alternatively if you'd like to install an extension (if one were to exist) that warns you that ads are attempting to load before you are given a chance to consume the content and then gives you an option to return to where you came from, that is fine too.

But to deliberately reject the advertising adjacent to content is an act of thievery.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#205

Post by copsarebastards » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #199

copsarebastards wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, slavery is defined by ownership, not abuse. I disagree, slavery is about force against consent. I agree that abuse isn't necessary for slavery to be bad, but force is. Nobody is forcing content creators to create content without their consent. > But all did labor for the benefit of another without recompense, which is heinous enough without added abuse on top of it. I do plenty of labor for the benefit of othe…

This has nothing to do with assuming that anyone is automatically owed compensation, regardless of the value of what is produced. As I said before: Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed. People doing things that are actually valued by others, where the site gets substantial traffic and ads previously paid for staff. This is not an argument that anyone who slaps somethin…

> Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed.

This is true, but I posit that those businesses can easily move to a pay model. If they can't, they aren't legitimate businesses.

> It is an argument that THIS model is failing when it once worked, so we need a new model to pay for the things we do value online.

"Worked" is not what I would say about the current state of ads on the internet. It certainly doesn't work for me.

> And if this model fails and no other emerges, then either people work for free, whatever terminology you want to use for that,

Volunteering? Play? Definitely not slavery. If you don't want to labor for free, just don't do it. This isn't a complicated situation, you're smart enough to figure this out.

> or things we value simply disappear, something I have already seen more than enough of over the years -- and compared to many here, I got online relatively recently.

Well, I was on the internet in the 90s, and there was some great content back then. I'll actually posit that the signal-to-noise ratio was much higher then.

Also, funded content disappears all the time. If that's the effect you're concerned about, this isn't the cause you're looking for.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#206

Post by Mz » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 7:59 PM UTC

copsarebastards wrote: post #205

Mz wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with assuming that anyone is automatically owed compensation, regardless of the value of what is produced. As I said before: Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed. People doing things that are actually valued by others, where the site gets substantial traffic and ads previously paid for staff. This is not an argument that anyone who slaps somethin…

> Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed. This is true, but I posit that those businesses can easily move to a pay model. If they can't, they aren't legitimate businesses. > It is an argument that THIS model is failing when it once worked, so we need a new model to pay for the things we do value online. "Worked" is not what I would say about the current state of ads on t…

> Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed.

This is true, but I posit that those businesses can easily move to a pay model. If they can't, they aren't legitimate businesses.

One last comment: Not all businesses are conducive to a pay per use or pay per user model. For some things, that simply does not work. This is exactly why advertising has been used for decades by content providers, even before there was an Internet.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#207

Post by copsarebastards » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #206

copsarebastards wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed. This is true, but I posit that those businesses can easily move to a pay model. If they can't, they aren't legitimate businesses. > It is an argument that THIS model is failing when it once worked, so we need a new model to pay for the things we do value online. "Worked" is not what I would say about the current state of ads on t…

> Lots of previously successful, legitimate businesses are finding their income slashed. This is true, but I posit that those businesses can easily move to a pay model. If they can't, they aren't legitimate businesses. One last comment: Not all businesses are conducive to a pay per use or pay per user model. For some things, that simply does not work. This is exactly why advertising has been used for decades by conte…

> One last comment: Not all businesses are conducive to a pay per use or pay per user model. For some things, that simply does not work. This is exactly why advertising has been used for decades by content providers, even before there was an Internet.

I'm not sure why anyone would care that these businesses don't work. Why are we expected to prop up businesses that don't work?

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#208

Post by anonred » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #167

nl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but arguably there is more financial motivation for the publishers. You end up in an arms race.

More like cat and mouse. The publishers are at an extreme technical disadvantage.

How so? It's extremely trivial to make an inline script that detects if the client is blocking ad network requests, then act accordingly. Possible actions range from blowing up the page to redirecting the user away.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#209

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

look_lookatme wrote: post #204

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's foolishness. There's nothing in the world that compels me to use your content the way you intended. I can read it or not, store it on my backup drive, print it out and use it for the bottom of my birdcage. I understand that content providers are frustrated. But lashing out and calling names is pointless and silly.

I'm not calling names. I'm classifying the act of deliberately circumventing the method of revenue generation baked into the presentation of content by publishers. It boggles my mind that people cannot understand this. Of course time is your to do with as you see fit. If you want to download the ads and bypass them after the content is presented, in the spirit of TiVo, by all means do, but don't selectively choose to…

On my machine, in my home, with my electricity and bandwidth, I'll do anything I like with the bytes that are delivered to me. Don't pretend to tell me what I must do or not do. That's like the salesman with his foot in the door as I try to close it. I have a shotgun at home for that particular problem. I have ad-blockers for the other one.

I buy the sunday paper at the local mart, I dump the ads in the trash before I go out the door. Nobody jumps out and tries to arrest me for that - its my paper, I'll do as I please.

And yes its simple name-calling to say 'thievery' without proving the case, or even attempting to justify it. That word has meaning, and it isn't what's happening. Not going to just take anybody's word for that.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#210

Post by GnarfGnarf » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 10:11 PM UTC

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…

If you work for a living, what type of company do you work for? Do they sell something? Do they advertise? Would your salary be reduced if they stopped advertising and their sales declined?

If their sales would not be affected by cutting out advertising, march into the Marketing department right now, and tell them; they need to know this.