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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#221

Post by microtonal »

Ironchefpython wrote: post #146
Filligree wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

> the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware. My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but nec…

In Germany and The Netherlands, there is Blendle, which allows you to pay per article:

https://blendle.com/signup/kiosk

They also have a 9.99 per month subscription, where you get 20 articles daily (I think they are selected through a recommendation system + curation).

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#222

Post by michaelbrooks »

phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

I really tried to hold off on using an ad blocker as I want to support as many content creators as possible, but the minority spoil it for the majority. Websites like Mashable and Windows Central bombard you with ads to a point where it affects loading times. If it starts affecting speed, then there is definitely something wrong with how your site is designed and it should be looked at again.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#223

Post by ori_b »

nebabyte wrote: post #85
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me. My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale. I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some…

> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.

The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#224

Post by chongli »

matt4077 wrote: post #191
mitchty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

The ethical problem isn't ethical, but existential. If everyone acted on only their immediate self-interest, ad-supported business models would fold. Then, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls. Even if you decide to pay for a few sources of information, you will never again have access to the breath of journalism you have now. If paywalls don't catch on, it's game ov…

The public's attention span and patience is a commons, too. Advertisers have engaged in a vicious, scorched-earth campaign to target the most vulnerable (read: gullible) people out there. Needless to say, this has done catastrophic damage to the commons.

The media deserve their share of the blame. Besides participating in this unethical ad market, they've cranked up the emphasis on sensationalist, click bait garbage at the cost of real journalism.

To continue with the fishing/aquatic analogy: don't blame people for filtering their water or buying bottled water after all of the toxic waste that's been dumped into the river.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#225

Post by fmueller »

Confusion wrote: post #218
fmueller wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.

Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view. When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it. Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just beca…

It's a good point but I think it does not apply to my example.

Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.

And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#226

Post by metafunctor »

paulcole wrote: post #46
dheera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. Doesn't feel right to me.

You say "visiting a site" should be enough to "enter into an agreement" with a site to agree to view their ads.

Surely the same should extend to the site, such that "visiting a site" is enough to "enter into an agreement" with the visitor to agree to show only ads that are relevant, non-intrusive, and do not contain malware.

The main short-term incentive for ad networks is to show more ads, make them more intrusive, and sell them to whomever pays the most. It's simply not in the long-term interests of a website, or a website visitor, to be part of an ad network.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#227

Post by chongli »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #204
erikbigelow wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the ad model too, but you're stealing bandwidth and hosting. Delivering those pictures and text comes from somewhere, and ads are how they're hoping to pay for it. Justify it to yourself how you want, but it's true.

A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth. Should they download the ad and pretend to display it? Then the site still gets the impression and everybody wins.

A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth

The user uses less of her own bandwidth, but not the publisher's. Ads are served from third-party networks, not the publisher's servers.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#228

Post by Symbiote »

bad_user wrote: post #174
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement No. By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no…

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modif…

It would only be copyright infringement if you distributed your modified version of the Facebook app, or the modified content you've caused your browser to render.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#229

Post by metafunctor »

bad_user wrote: post #174
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement No. By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no…

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modif…

That's why I use m.facebook.com on iOS instead of the native app.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#230

Post by reitanqild »

Filligree wrote: post #129
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement. I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are. I started b…

I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount. It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.

people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount.

(You is to be read as Google, not you personally)

You didn't even give me a chance! I was actively looking and you denied me, I think because I was European and didn't want to lie or something.

And seriously: I only knew of it through HN. Was there ever any campaigns to inform about it? I can't remember seeing a single ad. Never heard about a single talkshow appearance from any of your bosses.

Post reply on HN