Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#311

Post by jonahx » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #51

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #27

Its by the same guy who donated to causes doing their best to make sure two people in love can't get married due to their gender. Sociopathy has many forms and its obvious to me that Eich is just an untrustworthy guy with a lot of bad ideas. Low-rent projects like these is just further evidence that you need a founder/leader you can trust. Its clear he's exhausted his social capital and at age 54 is far away from his…

Diversity, I think, is really important. Diversity of thought as well as all the other kinds of diversity. It's important to be able to work with people who come from different backgrounds, who have different beliefs. I see this on both sides (I see it more often on the left, but that's just because my filter bubble is a somewhat leftish one.. when I step out of that bubble, I see plenty examples of people on the rig…

I hear this argument a lot, and since you seem sincere in making it I have a serious question. I'd honestly like to hear the answer from you or anyone who agrees with your sentiment.

Is it also important to be accepting of those who think black people should never marry white people? What about those who think black people shouldn't have the right reproduce? Or live in the same neighborhoods as white people? Or live? How about when they start taking action to make their views reality?

Is there a line where you stop being accepting of "diverse" views and instead oppose them to stand up for the people those views oppress? If so, where is the line? If not, why do you prioritize someone's "right" to oppress others because of their beliefs over the rights of the victims?

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#312

Post by joosters » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #222

joosters wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. You think for yourself. It's only other people that fall for advertising. It's amazing how many people think this is true.

All the data I have, is consistent with people having different levels of susceptibility to ads. It wouldn't surprise me if there are in fact people who aren't influenced by them. Do you have data which is inconsistent with this?

I have no data, only the observation that whenever this kind of discussion takes place, there are always people who claim to be unaffected by advertising. I don't think that people are a good judge of their own biases, and that we tend to over-rate ourselves.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#313

Post by cgag » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

taurath wrote: post #304

rorykoehler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fall into the camp of blocking all ads because frankly I don't like them. They are visual pollution. I also doubt I would pay for written content (maybe on a very rare occasion I might) if given a micro-payments solution because it doesn't seem worth paying for. I write blog posts from time to time and I do it for pleasure because I enjoy writing about things that interest me and sharing it with others. Honestly I…

Isn't it interesting the level of monetary value we put on most written content on the web (nothing) vs the time we spend reading said valueless content? Is it truly so valueless, or is it only valueless because similar content isn't worth anything? I click on the links I click on because I think they'll have more value to me than the rest of them, but I'm still not to the threshold of reaching any monetary value, on…

A lot of value comes from being written our of passion or a desire to share and not a desire to have me click on ads.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#314

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target), I do respond a lot to efficiency arguments a lot. I felt delighted to find better adblockers (less lag, less heat, more battery).

The ad problem won't go away, unless you're top tier brand your business rely on it. You may tame it but it's like weed, it comes back.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#315

Post by manigandham » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

Unless you have another way to subsidize content or are willing to pay directly (= micropayments, subscriptions, donations, taxes, purchases), then yes, it would be a massive problem for universally accessible internet content.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#316

Post by pdkl95 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

caskance wrote: post #288

nitrogen wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information like "products X, Y, and Z from these manufacturers now solve these problems" or "band Q is visiting your city soon" can be presented in a non-manipulative manner, but current ads go beyond information into manipulation using emotion, repetition, ear worms, and social pressure.

If information by itself worked, I can guarantee you nobody would waste time using all these other techniques.

> If information by itself worked

There are two lessons we can learn form "information by itself doesn't sell $WIDGET". One is that properly informed people don't actually want that product, and the product should be changed or replaced to meet their actual needs.

The alternative lesson - which is unfortunately very popular - is that if people that are properly informed won't buy the product, then they should be kept ignorant and scammed into buying it.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#317

Post by morgante » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #70

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe…

If you don't want to see ads, don't use ad-supported content. Simple as that.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#318

Post by Doctor_Fegg » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #157

logingone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That works both ways. In the UK, presumably elsewhere too, there are long running themed adverts - they drive me nuts on the occasions that I don't hit the mute button soon enough. Brits will know the mongooses, and the two marathon runners, supposedly humorous - incessant, for years on end. Never, ever will I use those services.

Ugh, I'm right with you. When I renewed my car insurance recently, I avoided using either of the 2 comparison sites for exactly that reason. I wonder if brands ever do market research on the number of people actively repelled by their adverts.

BT. The combination of "bad boy" and overpaid UEFA thugs is enough to stop me buying any of their services.

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#319

Post by oldmanjay » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #67

lsc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity, I think, is really important. Diversity of thought as well as all the other kinds of diversity. It's important to be able to work with people who come from different backgrounds, who have different beliefs. I see this on both sides (I see it more often on the left, but that's just because my filter bubble is a somewhat leftish one.. when I step out of that bubble, I see plenty examples of people on the rig…

It's perfectly consistent. Enforcing one's religious views through threats of violence[1] is not the kind of diversity that the left wants. [1] This is what it means to pass and enforce a law.

The left is perfectly happy to enforce their views using the same mechanism. Absent a claim that there is a scientific basis for the institutionalized racism of affirmative action, for instance, it seems no less religious. Being the "correct" opinion isn't a saving grace here.

This isn't my attempt to scuttle affirmative action, by the way. If you believe it is, you've missed my point

Re: Brave: Brendan Eich's clean-ads browser startup

#320

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #62

jacquesm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Times have changed since then and it definitely would not be the first time that something that fell flat out of the gate the first time became a success the second time around. Lots of current successes are actually just warmed over past failures. That's not proof in any way that this might succeed now but there is something to be said or giving that a shot with the number of eyeballs available today (and the harder…

huh. See, I thought the reason it failed last time,besides fraud[1], was a broader reason - it's the same reason paid surveys aren't worth very much. the idea is that the people you want to advertise to are precisely the people who are willing to trade money for their time; the opposite of the people you get when you pay folks to watch advertising. [1], in 1998, I seem to remember that one of my co-workers had instal…

Of the old ad networks only doubleclick survives and they only do so because of google massive anti-fraud measures.

Anybody that gets into ads these days will have to take abuse as their #1 priority to be able to compete so if this is to work at all you can bet that anti-fraud measures would make up a very large component of the package.

Tying the end-user and one of the primary beneficiaries to the same chair is a risky thing but not all forms of advertising are equally susceptible to this kind of risk. For instance, performance based advertising and to a lesser extent branding are not all that much at risk.

On another note fraud is present in all forms of online advertising at the moment (with the same qualifications listed above) and it is simply priced into the ad rates.