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

Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

contributor.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 269 posts

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#251

Post by resf »

majewsky wrote: post #93
resf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just buy a games console. Articles on the internet exist primarily as free entertainment. If I am going to spend money on entertainment, there are much more fulfilling options.

That's dismissing all the genuinely insightful articles that I discover through my subscription [1] to HN. [1] Read: Addiction. :)

Perhaps read a book. Just visit your local real or virtual library.

My point is not that articles on the internet are useless. But there is a certain tunnel vision in these discussions where we forget there are other _even better_ ways to spend our time.

Whether you want education or entertainment, paying $x/month to Google is not the right way to achieve it. Go paintballing instead.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#252

Post by Sir_Substance »

zero_shift wrote: post #217
Sir_Substance wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't expect every industry to be reduced to what can be produced by hobbyists working for free in their spare time. You're implying that it's in some fashion my job to care about those industries. I don't care what happens to buzzfeed, and I don't care what happens to the wallstreet journal. /My life/ and /my needs/ and met regardless of their existence, so I really don't give a shit whether they are sustainabl…

Do you care what happens to your newspaper? Because it's not the Buzzfeeds of the world who are suffering because people like you feel entitled to free content. It's the publishers who can actually hold our institutions and leaders to account.

>Do you care what happens to your newspaper?

Not really, they're owned by long serving members of one of the major parties. Their impartiality is directly proportional to the time until the next Icelandic election.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#253

Post by spullara »

My idea in this space is to launch the no-ad-network. Basically you would pay them to bid on your behalf across all exchanges for your cookie. It would either display nothing, nice photos or maybe even some customized data about the site you are on. Everyone wins.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#254

Post by thxaoe7oiu »

eevilspock wrote: post #243
Eridrus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any payments to avoid ads served by these companies would require compensating all of these companies I think you misunderstood how this iteration of Contributor would work; the publisher integrates Google's contributor code in such a way that if you pay them, they don't show you any ads, no need to worry about the ad ecosystem. > People want to maintain their privacy I will start believing this when people start a…

>> People want to maintain their privacy > I will start believing this when people start acting like it rather than just saying it. I would be surprised if the group of people who care enough about their privacy to do anything about it is above 1% of internet users in the US. That's like saying, "I will start believing people don't want viruses when they stop opening attachments, start carefully examining every URL b…

Thank you for saying this. I sometimes feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people bring up arguments about how users don't care about privacy, yet when polled, polls tend to show that they care very much about it but are just helpless to do anything about it. [1]

[1] http://boingboing.net/2015/06/08/internet-users-care-about-t...

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#255

Post by sornars »

zigzigzag wrote: post #189
SamBam wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why it doesn't work for all Google Ads. The content creator would just like the money. They don't actually want to display the ads. If they could get the money without displaying the ads, they'd be over the moon. Why doesn't Google make it work across all sites, and pay the sites using Google Ads the average revenue they were already getting per page view?

They did that. It was the first iteration. The problem is that - as described above - many websites use ads from multiple networks, so actually even if you paid, most ads did not disappear. It was more or less random. Also, it turns out ads make sites a lot of money (who knew), so to get even that sketchy coverage required you to pay a LOT.

I feel like your second point was a missed educational opportunity for users. Ad views are worth a lot more to advertisers (and consequently, publishers) than what you are willing to pay - 'free content' isn't free and if you as a user aren't willing to pay for it then it's probably not fair to complain about the ads. The thing that upsets me is when I am willing to pay for content (Washington Post, The Economist, FT, etc.) and I still get served ads.

Online advertising reminds me of airline travel in the sense that people complain about the low quality service but are only willing to purchase the cheapest flights. The industry has shifted to accomodate what people actually want, not what they say they want.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#256

Post by therealdrag0 »

Eridrus wrote: post #140
r3bl wrote: post #37

Maybe if Google went with "Pay us $10 per month for us not to show you any AdSense anywhere on the web", this would be successful. In this form, I highly doubt it.

This is exactly what the first version of contributor was, clearly it was not popular enough to keep around.

I had never heard of it. Wish I had; I've been wanting something like this :(

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#257

Post by marssaxman »

jevgeni wrote: post #118
Sir_Substance wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A model like this is necessary to support quality content online. It's totally not. People essentially enjoy creating and sharing, and love putting up quality content about things they truly give a shit about. The internet was built on people writing massive forums posts about completely stripping down Kawasaki motorbike engines, and hosting their own websites where they ramble about conditional probability. Wikiped…

So who pays for the servers?

Same people who currently pay for Bittorrent's servers, I imagine.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#258

Post by marssaxman »

zero_shift wrote: post #218
bjl wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree that contributors aren't providing content 'for free'. I request a stream of bytes from them, they provide a stream of bytes free of charge. Its up to me how I want to display those bytes, and I'm not stealing anything or breaking any contract by choosing not to render every single one.

They are providing content for free on the assumption that you will not block adverts. To imagine otherwise is disingenuous at best.

They can hope for anything they like; this does not obligate me to indulge their wishes.

Re: Google Contributor: Buy an ad removal pass for the web

#259

Post by sundvor »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #204
fkooman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.brave.com/

Brave is the first real solution to this issue. Big fan of Brave. Once they get the extensions more compatible then the user base will grow rapidly.

The Android version is great in that all ads are blocked. I will see if I can get my single LTC transferred into it.
Post reply on HN