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

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#251

Post by type0 »

dispose13432 wrote: post #222
literallycancer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

>Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how. You own your machine but not the text. Right now it's still somewhat hypothetical, but what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content. Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"? H…

> You own your machine but not the text.

You don't get to own the text just because you can read it, see if you read this - it is still my text (because I wrote it!).

>what would be your opinion if the major websites would put a T&C that you have to enable (Let's say it was safe JS) ads to view content.

And how would I know it's safe? I don't even let the closest friends on the wifi because they don't run adblockers on their phone and I don't want my router to get pwned [1] just because someone like Forbes is making a buck using Ads.

> Would you still say "it's my machine and I view what I want when I want"?

It is still my machine, so long as I physically own it. If I run a virtual machine in the cloud it's not mine you see, because then I'm just renting it. If ad networks want to remove the ability to block ads they would have to own the machines and rent out those computers to users, they are free to do this.

[1] https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-insight/post/home-route...

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#252

Post by belorn »

lqdc13 wrote: post #211
belorn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ever publisher that do so hopefully live in a country which doesn't have advertisement laws (and tax laws, if they try to be sneaky with the source of this new revenue). There is currently several cases in Sweden, and I heard similar tales in several other countries including the U.S. I would say that for once, the law is actually catching up with Internet activity that would clearly be illegal if done on a phy…

How can it possibly be illegal? I can understand if it's a public newspaper, but private media companies can do whatever they want. Like are you going to fine a movie studio for having an actor in a movie drinking Coca-Cola or driving a Volvo? Which specific laws are banning this practice in Sweden for private entities?

> are you going to fine a movie studio for having an actor in a movie drinking Coca-Cola or driving a Volvo?

Just a few months ago a case was started in Sweden based on such situation. The movie studio got hit by breach of contract by the publisher along with charges of illegal advertisement.

> Which specific laws are banning this practice in Sweden for private entities?

Marknadsföringslagen (2008:486) is the primary source for laws that regulate advertisement for private entities, however there is actually more. The European Advertising Standards Alliance has a local representation called Reklamombudsmannen, which is a self-regulating entity for advertisement. This one has some support by law, and some support by other means such as black-lists, and can issue fines. Last there is also the International Chamber of Commerce. Publishers in any form of media can also loose the right to publish, which is an automatic granted right which the court can take away. Since TV and radio is attached to spectrum allocation, there is also additional conditions on them in regard to advertisement (which is the reason why the movie studio got hit by a breach of contract in the above case).

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#253

Post by TeMPOraL »

dispose13432 wrote: post #223
235951 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the advertisers are choosing not to pay the content creators. By blocking or using auto clickers the users are only choosing to not reveal the personal information that is sold by the content creator to the advertisers(even if the content creators don't get to see it, or cant make use of it). On tv and in movies the prestige was what advertisers where getting from ads, they would pay to have the ads carried on th…

No, when you artificially click on a link, the original website pays the hosting website a bit and Google a bit. So now when you run this program, the two entities you're most against (Google for not having safe-ads) and the content website (for not working for free) are actually getting payed! If you want to hurt Google, just block ads.

But but but! The entity that had created / placed the ad loses money! That's good, because it raises the costs for them, incentivizing rethinking of the marketing strategy. It also, over time, makes the hosting website get less money, as the quality of clicks is worse.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#256

Post by TeMPOraL »

Smaug123 wrote: post #233
literallycancer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to imply there is something questionable about blocking ads. The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker. It's a lower cost than the attention spent on ads, so I block them. Your analogy doesn't work, because this is about ownership. I own my machine, so I get to decide what will run and how.

"The cost of not seeing ads is the time I spend setting up and configuring the ad-blocker." - there is also the externalised cost that the sites which rely on ads will eventually go bust if everyone does the same thing as you do. Given the current state of things, you are defecting on a massive Prisoners' Dilemma.

It can be argued that those sites going bust is actually a good thing. So the payoff matrix favors ad blocking both short and long-term.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#257

Post by TeMPOraL »

BuuQu9hu wrote: post #217
TeMPOraL wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I for one would pay YouTube for an ad-free, smooth and offline-cacheable experience. At least now, that I have spare cash. There is a rarely discussed topic of access for people who don't have funds or means to obtain it - like myself 10 years ago. It's tangential to ad blocking discussion, but a reason why I'm not sure if a pay-per-view Internet would be a good idea in general. Oh, and if it helps me look better - I…

Check out youtube-dl, get-flash-videos or one of the other video downloader tools.

Well, I know them, but they belong to the same category as ad blockers - external tools you use because the service is not good enough :).

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#258

Post by belorn »

eli wrote: post #146
1propionyl wrote: post #56

Good. I'm done being nice to advertisers. They are actively poisoning the internet in more ways than one. They had their chance to work out better ways to advertise, and they instead redoubled assaults on attention. This is getting installed on all of my browsers on all of my PCs. If your startup is advertising based, find a different model, or do without my business. I have no obligation to help you fund yourself or…

How do you feel about paywalls?

Paywalls has a very drastic effect on companies that depend on their articles and videos to get shared on social networks and news aggregates. If they wall in their content then they will also only reach people within that wall.

If they are small enough, niche enough, or entrenched enough, then it sometimes seems to work for a limited time. Personally I don't find it a major threat.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#260

Post by imagist »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #14

I'm out on this. 1. They say it's legally not click fraud. To me it sounds like regular fraud: "deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right". I'm not concerned with breaking the law I just don't want to act in the spirit of it. 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take…

> 2. This could hurt small startups that are very carefully managing an ad budget. They say the market will adjust, but until it does small startups take a hit. People we know.

There isn't a god-given right to make money via your chosen business model. Ads are a sleazy way to make money, and if you choose that, you should pay the consequences. Appealing to "people we know" as if that makes their behavior better? Ugh.

> 3. I dislike activism without clear objectives. I see no list of guidelines here or good behavior that companies could adopt to immediately place them on the side of the good guys.

I can't speak to the goals of everyone who is anti-advertising, but my goals here are:

1. Users should be customers, not products, so that companies act in the interest of users, not in the interest of other companies.

2. Users' attention should be respected, only giving users content they ask for.

3. Companies should create products users value enough to pay for, and compete on quality, rather than competing on how many users they can shove idealized presentations of their product (often outright lies) in front of.

Post reply on HN