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

“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 259 posts

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#221

Post by Silhouette »

kd0amg wrote: post #218
Silhouette wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting to see an argument for why a content provider who is making something available to others for free and without obligation has any obligation in return, either legally or ethically, beyond the same basic decency that we all owe to each other. I think a site that is neither actively malicious nor grossly negligent has satisfied that basic decency requirement. Ultimately, it's just not realistic to exp…

an argument for why a content provider who is making something available to others for free and without obligation has any obligation in return, either legally or ethically, beyond the same basic decency that we all owe to each other. A grocery store handing out free samples still has an obligation to make sure it's not contaminated, and I really don't buy idea that "don't send people malware" is significantly less a…

If the malware was created by and distributed by the site hosts, that might be a reasonable argument.

But of course, it isn't. In fact, there is no way the site owner can guarantee to avoid the indirect distribution of malware without ceasing all use of third party resources on their site.

Given the usefulness of third party resources (not just ad networks) and the relative rarity of malware being distributed through those channels, I don't think the argument that the only decent choice is to eschew all the third party functionality of the modern web is reasonable here.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#222

Post by angry-hacker »

awinter-py wrote: post #51

Hmm; how about a +5 point boost instead for sites doing paywall innovation? Free content isn't the end goal. Don't we want people to make a living off content? I can't imagine anybody here wouldn't pay 1 or 5 pennies for the second half of a useful article.

Don't forget that the world does not only consist of rich Silicon Valley engineers.

How on earth should someone from Bangladesh use Reddit? They can't even access PayPal.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#223

Post by x0x0 »

dcposch wrote: post #220
x0x0 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So stop going to those sites. Really; you voluntarily visit those sites. To quote you, "It is absolutely that simple."

Some of those sites have good information that you'll miss out on. I think there's an even simpler and more realistic solution: someone needs to make a Chrome extension that is like uBlock Origin, but unblockable. It should be: * an adblocker that also blocks tracking scripts * ...with no "acceptable ads" whitelist like Adblock Plus * ...open source * ...with workarounds for ad-blocker-blockers Here's how I think we…

I already understand that you neither want to pay these publishers or see ads.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#224

Post by askldfhjkasfhd »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #24

I wonder if you could sue a website for serving you malware. Here's my idea for an ad company: * People who want to post ads have to provide their name, address, verified email, and a security deposit(say $500). Larger volumes of ad purchases require either a long history, insurance, or a bank letter to vouch for you. If you load malware anywhere into the system, you get fined and your information gets turned over to…

My understanding of Facebook advertising is that it's somewhat similar to this. I believe you are limited to $500/day budget until you prove yourself a trustworthy partner by building a reputation as such. You do this by running ads over a period of time to establish trustworthiness.

It seems to work decently well, for some definition of decent that Facebook has.

The point is that it removes the upside for a scammer: low friction entry point (good for scammers!) but limited ceiling: you're not gonna be able to do this to very many people.

Remove the incentive by capping the upside, rely on reputation until that point. Feels like a pretty good service.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#226

Post by dredmorbius »

DannyBee wrote: post #211
dredmorbius wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the trade is openly hostile to the intent of discussion sites: to exchange and discuss information. If users can't view the content, they cannot discuss it. And, as I've also mentioned at length (in the post and its links, as well as elsewhere) advertising itself is the problem in multiple aspects . The sooner we render it nonviable, the sooner we move to something that works.

"Because the trade is openly hostile to the intent of discussion sites: to exchange and discuss information. " This is an opinion. It sounds like your your mechanism of dealing with the opposing opinion is to censor it? That seems bad ... Why not say: "let them do what they want, and let me convince people they are wrong on the merits?"

Again, answered in OP and links.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#227

Post by Dylan16807 »

Silhouette wrote: post #213
Dylan16807 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have a system that makes malicious uploads impossible (outside of hacking, of course). They could implement such a system, without much trouble. They choose not to. Using a third party ad network is not inherently risky. But most specific third party ad networks are risky, because of bad practices. That most ads are harmless is enforced through social norms and after-the-fact takedowns. They could do bette…

OK, so let's be constructive. What reasonable, practical alternative do you suggest for someone who is just running a small site and wants to cover their hosting costs?

Look really hard for an ad network that either uses only jpg/png or puts at least half an effort into security, I guess.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#228

Post by DannyBee »

dredmorbius wrote: post #226
DannyBee wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because the trade is openly hostile to the intent of discussion sites: to exchange and discuss information. " This is an opinion. It sounds like your your mechanism of dealing with the opposing opinion is to censor it? That seems bad ... Why not say: "let them do what they want, and let me convince people they are wrong on the merits?"

Again, answered in OP and links.

Not in any convincing way .... It basically amounts to "because we think we are super right".

I gotta be frank, if this is the cure, it seems much worse than the disease.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#229

Post by devishard »

econnors wrote: post #182
devishard wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM prices. So, don't d…

But it's not the publishers process or business model that is causing the problem - it's the process of filling ad space that is broken. Sure, you could pick one ad network and micro monitor it, but you wouldn't make enough money to sustain quality content. CPM optimization is a requirement of the field if you'd like to profit enough to sustain quality journalism and not be the next you-wont-guess-the-top-10-craziest…

You're making 2 arguments here:

1. Publishers can't compete if they behave ethically. If this is true, then the solution is simple: if you can't run your business ethically then close your business. However, I believe that it's entirely possible for publishers to compete ethically; there are, for example, plenty of business models besides selling ad space.

2. Publishers are only accomplices in serving malware. We can't ignore publisher's role in serving malware and blame the ad networks. Both the ad networks AND the publishers are to blame.

Post reply on HN