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

No adblocker detected

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 388 posts

Re: No adblocker detected

#201

Post by dspillett »

toastercat wrote: post #41

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeload…

> I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly.

This is why I don't go as far as running sponsorblock. Yes the sponsored segments can be irritatingly repetative¹ but at least they don't result in direct commercial stalking, popups, surprise audio/video, etc, and they more directly benefit the content makers.

--------

[1] sponsor segments are actually useful for juding creators: if one I would otherwise trust starts parroting the smae script as others but trying to make it sound like they wrote it themselves ("my favourite feature is …") then I know to tone my level of trust down a notch as it is then clear their opinions have a price.

Re: No adblocker detected

#202

Post by animuchan »

fragmede wrote: post #138
discomrobertul8 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder why anyone has to fight for an ad free YouTube. 90% of my YouTube use is on my smart TV. There's not really a straightforward way to block ads there. Used to be many years ago that a PiHole or similar would work, but they clued onto that years ago.

The straightforwards way is to give Google money to get rid of them.

Paid YouTube still shows some ads, so no, it's just a way to give Google some money.

Re: No adblocker detected

#203

Post by brador »

spaqin wrote: post #176
brador wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on. Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month. Life changing.

Are you sure you needed them? What was stopping you from doing the research without a third party shoving whatever they will make money on?

Attention. The ads sent it to the front and kickstarted the research phase which led to purchase.

I didn’t need them. But it’s like walking on a cloud and the fit is perfect. Mostly chance, but that ad started the push.

Re: No adblocker detected

#204

Post by brador »

Diti wrote: post #195
brador wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on. Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month. Life changing.

Equally life-changing would be to keep the ads blocked, and visit the “Buy it for life” subreddit, which has recommendations for the best products and services that will last you a lifetime.

ADHD means I’m not maintaining anything and everything on that reddit is maximised for maintenance.

Nice Reddit if that lifestyle appeals, but not for me.

Re: No adblocker detected

#205

Post by Dban1 »

pwdisswordfishz wrote: post #92
toastercat wrote: post #41

I'm torn. I'm not a huge fan of ads and I don't have a lot of respect for the modern ad networks. However this culture of expecting websites to host the data then freeloading off it by blocking the tracking and ads is also a bit ugly. There is an unwritten social contract here. Websites are willing to host and organise a vast number of content because that'll attract an audience for ads. If there are too may freeload…

If I am allowed not to look at the screen when an advert is playing, then I should be allowed not to play it in the first place. There is no moral obligation on the part of the viewer here. An advert is an investment: someone pays money to broadcast something and hopes that will generate awareness. Any investment is allowed to fail.

Wait till they roll out advert quizzes. Answer the 3 questions correctly about the advert you watched before you're allowed to continue.

Re: No adblocker detected

#206

Post by brador »

nemomarx wrote: post #200
brador wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on. Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month. Life changing.

If you really needed those things, you would have thought of getting them on your own time. Being tempted into it is consumerism and kinda why we're in this mess

The ads apply focus to a problem and suggest a possible solution.

That focusing is the key to the benefit of letting them through the keyhole irregularly.

Re: No adblocker detected

#207

Post by dspillett »

DocTomoe wrote: post #105

It's bad enough we got extra work for those who use adblockers. Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach. It's also deeply paternalistic: Even if it is meant well - and I assume that's the case here - it implies the site operator knows better than the user what is good for them. Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for…

> Wasting peoples' time and attention for not using one (out of personal choice or necessity) feels like overreach.

This is far from the same as the overreach of many (most?) ads. From the description: “It’s shown off to the side, and never covers content. It won’t be shown if there isn’t enough space.”. In fact the space issue is overly careful, on my protrait 1080p monitor it doesn't show because 1080 pixels is just a little too thin for its test.

And someone who is used to how things are without a blocker, is unlikely to notice this extra little (non-animated, soundless, out-of-the-way) message in the general melée!

> Finally, this will also lower the guards of less technical users for installing random plug-ins on website demand.

That is a fair point (though those guards seem so low enough already in general that this will make litle real world difference). Instead of pointing to a particular thing to install, when I do this on my output I'll point to a page listing common options and a warning about installing random stuff without at least minimal research.

Re: No adblocker detected

#208

Post by _9ptr »

Y_Y wrote: post #181
brador wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flick the bean once a month to see which products and services you’re missing out on. Picked up a nice cleaner and hiking boots that my ad blockers were denying me last month. Life changing.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flick%20the%... Interesting choice of phrase

A real donkey punch of a metaphore

Re: No adblocker detected

#209

Post by rs186 »

ksynwa wrote: post #36

I am extremely insulated from ads online and have been for about a decade. Once in a while I have to browse on a device that does not have an ad blocker or most of the times does not even let you install one. Seeing a website that is SEoptimised and heavily ad supported feels like walking into a crack den. That this is the normal experience for the vast majority of users is sad.

I have DNS based adblocking on home router, plus adblock extension.

Every time I use the web using 5G data or public wifi, I regret the experience. Then I immediately turn on an adblocking VPN.

Re: No adblocker detected

#210

Post by ninkendo »

soganess wrote: post #199
Kiro wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you don't just pay for YouTube Premium makes me think something is wrong with you. A Premium view gives much more money to the creator but I guess "just let me pay" is only relevant when you can't.

> ...something is wrong with you. Are ad hominems back in vogue? (that is partially snide and partially serious. I feel like I've also/unconsciously been doing more of them recently.) Regardless, your argument surrounding the insult was well worn 20 years ago. And so was the first response; why would I pay into some nebulous system where I don't know how much is really going to whom? One of the nicer things about the…

> > ...something is wrong with you.

> Are ad hominems back in vogue?

GP was simply mirroring the language of its parent post:

> Whenever someone just doesn't seem to care i'm concerned something is wrong with them.

Which IMO is indeed way out of line.

Speaking for myself, no, nothings “wrong” with me. I watch YouTube enough that I consider it a valuable service. So do what you may think is insane: I pay for it. And it gives me no ads.

Post reply on HN