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

We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

ted.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 285 posts

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#231

Post by gruez »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #145
dilyevsky wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the point of showing an ad to someone without disposable income?

Some examples, with varying levels of predation: An ad for Pampers shown to a family with a toddler; an ad for Tidy Cats shown to a cat owner; an ad for Reese’s shown to someone who exhibits poor impulse control; an ad for McDonald’s shown to someone who works two jobs and doesn’t have time to cook food for themselves; an ad for a gambling app shown to someone using a gambling app.

>an ad for McDonald’s shown to someone who works two jobs and doesn’t have time to cook food for themselves

You're presumably trying to imply it's predatory, but if the premise is that the person "doesn't have time to cook food", how is the ad making things worse? What's the person supposed to do? starve?

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#232

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

gruez wrote: post #231
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some examples, with varying levels of predation: An ad for Pampers shown to a family with a toddler; an ad for Tidy Cats shown to a cat owner; an ad for Reese’s shown to someone who exhibits poor impulse control; an ad for McDonald’s shown to someone who works two jobs and doesn’t have time to cook food for themselves; an ad for a gambling app shown to someone using a gambling app.

>an ad for McDonald’s shown to someone who works two jobs and doesn’t have time to cook food for themselves You're presumably trying to imply it's predatory, but if the premise is that the person "doesn't have time to cook food", how is the ad making things worse? What's the person supposed to do? starve?

Not really trying to make a point about predatory ads here, though I probably should have left out the bit about predation to that point. I just didn’t want people to think they were all intended to be as bad as the gambling example. I agree the fast food example is not any more predatory than, say, Factor but it (and that, actually) is an example of an advertisement intended to capture someone’s regular spending.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#233

Post by kyboren »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #45
bigyabai wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bought an extension called UnTrap for YouTube I will never understand this. My ex bought tons of extensions to do stuff with Safari that other browsers do for free. He paid for a PiP extention for some websites, password managers, Tomagachi pets... dozens of trinket apps that would be depreciated in 2 or 3 major updates. I'm continually wowed by Mac users that insist on paying for a native solution to a problem tha…

In a capitalist society, paying for software is good, actually.

I am not entirely convinced that capitalism is the best system for producing software, especially established "infrastructure" software like OSes, web browsers, office suites, etc.

I'm open to the idea, and recognize there are problems with non-commercial software, too. But the critical difference between software and physical commodities is that replication of software, once written, has a marginal cost approaching zero.

I suspect that this difference significantly changes the calculus.

My personal feeling is we should really think outside the box here. I like some sort of hybrid system with government-funded software bureaus producing FOSS code to replicate successful and important "infrastructure" commercial products after five to ten years or so. People get cutting-edge software created by the market, and exploitative rent seeking on critical software is minimized.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#234

Post by lightedman »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #225
antfarm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with paying for a commercial service. I rather pay with money than indirectly by losing time and being annoyed in the best case and manipulated in the worst case. With the sites that I choose to not visit (Facebook, X, TikTok, Instagram) this is not possible, as the attempted manipulation of users is an integral part of the business model. Also, your attempt of being funny is not working, neither is you…

> not working No, my friend, what is reprehensible to me is freeloaders who believe that they can just play cat-and-mouse wars by installing software and then scrape whatever web content they want, without giving the company their due expected revenue. This is cheating of the cheapest cheapskate order. It's dishonest, it's disingenuous to say "please send me your web content but only the stuff I like". Perhaps you fe…

||It's dishonest, it's disingenuous to say "please send me your web content but only the stuff I like"||

It's MY metered bandwidth that I'm paying for - that a site loads 50MB of trash javascript when I merely clicked on a link for a 300kB PNG is an absolutely outrageous strain on my resources, not to mention a total waste for that site whose devs obviously know nothing about optimization.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#235

Post by int_19h »

grugagag wrote: post #76
skygazer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm like the parent, on Safari – apparently also using an "inferior" way to block ads that, somehow, inexplicably, works 100% of the time and has never let an ad slip through. Is it supposed to be inferior because it's brittle and requires constant work on the side of the developer? Is it blocking too much and I'm just not aware of it? Is there some new ad tech that it's not prepared for, and can't adapt to, and will…

Me too but expect this to stop working though.

Why? Apple has a vested interest in keeping ad blocking working in Safari - it hurts Google, which is their primary competitor.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#236

Post by sershe »

ethbr1 wrote: post #199
sershe wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, I think it was a net negative by a large margin. 1) html only Gmail shows that pretty advanced, well made apps are possible without scripting; 2) There are very few web apps that without JavaScript wouldn't just be implemented as native without loss of convenience; 3) OTOH for simple apps and sites JavaScript adds inconvenience (non standard links breaking browser features etc), security risks, compatibility…

You can't think about alternate web evolution without considering (1) the early browser wars (specifically Netscape vs IE) & (2) the need to decouple data transfer and re-rendering that led to AJAX (for network and compute performance reasons). Folks forget that before js was front-end frameworks and libaries, it was enabling (as in, making impossible possible) async data requests and page updates without requiring a…

I wrote JavaScript before libraries, I remember when prototype.js came out and was a cool new thing and actually useful after "client side validation and snowflakes chasing mouse cursor" era. I think there was a short period when it was a positive development.

It seemed so at the time but I think it didn't work out... Why is interesting to speculate about... My pet theory that convenient frameworks lowering the barriers were part of the problem.

I think if at it's time JavaScript went the way of java applets and ActiveX controls (and yes I understand part of the reason these could be driven out is availability of JavaScript), web would be in a much better shape right now. 90% of the apps (banking, email, forums, travel, etc) and 100% of the pages would just be plain better. For the remainder you'd just install an app, something they nag you about anyway.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#237

Post by int_19h »

antfarm wrote: post #34
_cenw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using the inferior way to block ads, which will continue to degrade as advertisers take advantage of Google killing synchronous blocking of web requests with Manifest v2. https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the superior way? Pi-Hole?

Use a third-party browser with integrated ad blocker - then all this Manifest v3 stuff doesn't matter even if the browser is Blink-based. One example is Vivaldi.

Pi-Hole (or better yet AdGuard) is still desirable because it will block ads for other apps and devices. Defense in depth.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#238

Post by int_19h »

AStonesThrow wrote: post #225
antfarm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with paying for a commercial service. I rather pay with money than indirectly by losing time and being annoyed in the best case and manipulated in the worst case. With the sites that I choose to not visit (Facebook, X, TikTok, Instagram) this is not possible, as the attempted manipulation of users is an integral part of the business model. Also, your attempt of being funny is not working, neither is you…

> not working No, my friend, what is reprehensible to me is freeloaders who believe that they can just play cat-and-mouse wars by installing software and then scrape whatever web content they want, without giving the company their due expected revenue. This is cheating of the cheapest cheapskate order. It's dishonest, it's disingenuous to say "please send me your web content but only the stuff I like". Perhaps you fe…

Me personally, I think it's hilarious. It's only unfortunate that it doesn't translate to any significant economic harm to those companies, but every little bit helps, so do your part and help your neighbor block ads, as well.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#239

Post by int_19h »

rambambram wrote: post #176
sssilver wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because when you're the sole owner and provider of goods, advertisement loses all meaning. I grew up in the Soviet Union. There was one type of milk on the shelf, it was called "Milk", and I don't remember the label saying anything else. Compare with "HORIZON ORGANIC DHA Omega-3 Supports the Brain Health organic Whole Milk" dressed in bright red and contrasting yellow, with typography that begs "please look at me, I'…

> There was one type of milk on the shelf, it was called "Milk" I love this. And for me - as a 40 year old western european - it's so unthinkable, so unreal. I usually don't look at the milk packaging at home, but I remember reading on the packaging all kinds of stupid sh!te like names of the farmers where the cow grazes (which might be true, but I guess it's b0ll0cks) with some feel-good illustrations, all kinds of…

Milk was alright. Many other products, not so much.

Re: We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads [video]

#240

Post by BobbyTables2 »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #189

I think the problem is, I feel like most ads are so empty,hollow & fraudful on the internet... I am okay with ads, if they aren't all the above. But I don't know what the Algorithm overlord serves me as an Ad, so I use Ublock Origin. I actually think ads should probably be changed from paid promotion to actually use that money on such a good level of ad that even if you release it as a standalone video for example, p…

You aren’t reversing type 2 diabetes and erectile dysfunction by drinking warm salt water? /s
Post reply on HN