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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#221

Post by LaGrange »

contrast wrote: post #68
jillesvangurp wrote: post #44

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

You’re making a very different point to the article. The article is about how to pay for content, your point is that you don’t want to pay for content at all.

I mean not the OP's point, but:

- Rent seeking is not behavior I care for, and so much of the subscription service stuff is exactly that.

- I'm more than happy to pay for quite a few patreon/similar things.

- But _ultimately_ I don't just want to "consume" content, I want to share it. In fact I believe sharing the cultural artifacts I engage with is an essential part of a culture, and that getting in the way of that is morally wrong. So if your paywall gets in the way of _that_, I _will_ work around it.

Edit: also, the other side of the problem is that there are too many websites now. When it was Netflix and nearly everything there, I payed for it. I no longer pay for shows and movies, because things got _completely_ nuts. Similar thing with news. Reality is I pay _way_ more for Patreon than most people I know - not because of any moral reasons, but because I can actually afford that. And a typical news site asks as much as what I give to some of my favorite writers and painters.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#222

Post by grishka »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

It's all about implicit vs explicit contracts. Blocking ads on your own device is a breach of an "implicit contract" that the website owner thinks you have with them, but that you've never entered into or even seen, because it's not written out anywhere, it's "assumed". Riding public transit without a ticket is breaching an explicit contract with the transit agency that you entered into when you physically entered their property, and that is usually printed out and posted somewhere. In some places it's a municipal law as well.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#223

Post by angrox »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

Yep, and if the ad industry would hold on to certain standards I would agree: No collection of personal data, no real-time brokering on ad content, no permanent tracking cookies. Further should the site which shows the ad take responsibility if something inappropriate is shown.

The ad industry needs users so ad-free content is unlikely to happen even if you pay.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#224

Post by nonrandomstring »

amelius wrote: post #156
mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

Following this argument all political propaganda is OK too? And I can distract you when you are working? And I can pollute your view? Or track you around the internet?

Just for laughs. here's something [0] that is an ad, and its political propaganda. They're distracting and disturbing. We put them in content just to mess with people's heads.. and make absolutely no money from them whatsoever :) And people write in saying they love them and want more! But then our show is weird.

[0] https://cybershow.uk/media/ads/cctv-ads.mp3

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#225

Post by account42 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

Ok, I won't buy it. I'll also block all the ads on the free version.

Perhaps the Internet would be smaller without ads but it would surely not be darker - all the darkness can be traced back to bad incentives from ad-based business models. Most likely it would be about the same size because the vast majority of content is created by users who never receive a single cent.

Adtech is parasitic. It provides zero value to society. All it does is force businesses to pay to get back the same visibility they'd receive if ads didn't exist.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#226

Post by executesorder66 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #208
executesorder66 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're complaining that a product is offering you something, and you don't like the offer? No, the complaint is about the "offering" in the first place. People don't want your shit forced in front of them. The fact that you are incapable of realizing this on your own is hilarious.

Nothing is being forced on you. Just don't buy the product. We're not talking about your church or your kids school, it's a website you can choose not to visit

Person surfing the web, clicks on link, ads blasted in face. (Just don't visit this random URL, nothing is forced on you!)

Person drives on road, billboards blast ads in face. (Just don't drive on this road, nothing is forced on you!)

Oh, and if you are going to argue that a website is not a public space like a road, then why the hell are you making it publicly accessible? Just lock that shit down behind a login if you are so private about it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#227

Post by Timwi »

amaurose wrote: post #201
miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

Who defines what is culturally OK? I ask because in my book, using an ad blocker regularily is worse then skipping the occasional public transport ticket. I don't even know why. But I definitely dont give ad blcoker people that much slack. If you want the ads gone, PAY or stop using the service. Hiring a virtual bodyguard to bully your way through cyberspace is somehow weird to me.

> Who defines what is culturally OK?

I define what's OK to me. I am able (and legally allowed) to choose what my browser displays to me, so I use browser extensions to control my (and only my) experience of the web. I do not hurt anybody and I do not impinge on anyone's rights. I resent attempts at moral preaching aimed to make me feel guilty, especially when it's in defense of powerful entities that I find reprehensible and who do impinge on my life in ways that I object to.

My local bus company does not do that.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#228

Post by mgraczyk »

account42 wrote: post #225
mgraczyk wrote: post #148

[flagged]

Ok, I won't buy it. I'll also block all the ads on the free version. Perhaps the Internet would be smaller without ads but it would surely not be darker - all the darkness can be traced back to bad incentives from ad-based business models. Most likely it would be about the same size because the vast majority of content is created by users who never receive a single cent. Adtech is parasitic. It provides zero value to…

How many businesses have you built? Have you thought about acquiring customers without ads? Have you ever talked to anyone who built a business before Internet advertising?

You don't know how good we have it

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#229

Post by account42 »

mgraczyk wrote: post #203
Timwi wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather have 10 entrepreneurs passionately engaged in their genuine interest to improve lives, than 10,000 entrepreneurs racing and competing with each other to see who can exploit more people and extract more wealth for themselves.

The 10 will all be born rich And almost no startups extract or exploit. The reason Europe is so poor and not growing is because of this dark turn toward zero sum thinking. Startups literally create new wealth, it's not taken from somewhere (except rare cases of fraud or scams)

Ads exist in Europe just as much as they do in the US (unfortunately). Even the restrictions on tracking are a very recent (and welcome) change.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#230

Post by BLKNSLVR »

amaurose wrote: post #201
miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

Who defines what is culturally OK? I ask because in my book, using an ad blocker regularily is worse then skipping the occasional public transport ticket. I don't even know why. But I definitely dont give ad blcoker people that much slack. If you want the ads gone, PAY or stop using the service. Hiring a virtual bodyguard to bully your way through cyberspace is somehow weird to me.

I use an ad-blocker for blocking the ads, but also blocking the potential feed of malware and viruses and various other electronic parasites that go along with the online advertising industry.

If it was clear cool water, I'd be much more OK with it. But it's a steaming, bubbling, toxic, green/brown lumpy sludge that I refuse to let near my network.

I also don't think the green/brown lumpy sludge should be foisted upon the poor, but there are some rich folk that seem to have decided that it's OK to do so, and, confusingly-but-maybe-obviously, there ain't no government that's even tried to say that maybe that's not OK.

The FBI has even recommended the use of ad blockers to improve online safety.

https://www.securityweek.com/fbi-recommends-ad-blockers-cybe...

And the NSA and CIA seem to agree

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-nsa-and-cia-use-ad-block...

Not using an ad-blocker is no longer an option for me. After experiencing the web with one, browsing without one makes me want to never browse again.

Post reply on HN