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

311–320 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#311

Post by mortehu »

ballooney wrote: post #72
contrast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He does pay for prime. The fact that they have done a bait-n-switch and now _still_ show you adverts, despite you paying, is reprehensible.

Before that, they did a bait and switch and added free videos to their package delivery service.

Beyond that, there's no lock-in to a video service beyond any exclusive show you're currently watching, so your decision to continue paying is on you.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#312

Post by fastball »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #285
fastball wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly are you planning to adjust the situation so that someone in Liberia making $2.50/day can afford a YouTube subscription?

This is just a general point about globalisation and selling to different markets. Obviously, a YouTube subscription should cost a Liberian a proportional amount, not the same as a wealthy US citizen. Do YouTube advertisers make as much money from the average Liberian as they do from the average American?

YouTube is a US company with US costs. It might not be worth it to provide the service at a rate that Liberians can afford. The reason they do so now is because the ad-driven model allows them to extract a lot more value out of the US (or other more affluent) customers than those people would reasonably be willing to pay for.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#313

Post by quietbritishjim »

AdamN wrote: post #176
Aerroon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't all ads, because the situation gets really muddy. If a website talks about an upcoming movie is that an ad? What if they were shown the movie before its release?

It's not all that muddy under normal circumstances - if there are payments to the producers then it's an ad. There is the problem in extremis though - a person gets a cameo on a show and then uses that to sell other products and in return helps out the producer in some non-obvious way. It's an issue but I'd be happy with a 90% solution over a 0% solution.

Ok but what if you're allowed to watch the movie/game/etc. for free before general release? That might not seem like payment, after all it's just necessary to allow the review to happen. But what if review sites that give a few bad reviews are denied this access? And no one wants to read reviews after release?

In the end, on paper, the studio has no editorial oversight, but in practice you need to give them good reviews (essentially, adverts) if your business is to survive.

This is exactly how it works, by the way.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#314

Post by lajosbacs »

Agree fully. I got livid when traveling in a business class long haul flight with the Lufthansa Group, and was forced to watch ads on the screen in front of me. No option to turn the screen of (which was later enabled, during the flight).

It's several years and I still remember this.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#315

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

left-struck wrote: post #279
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They incentivize collecting sensitive data about people. They incentivize businesses to maximize for engagement which generally promotes harmful content over informational content. Empty informational calories.

To be fair advertising without collecting sensitive data does exist. I think the collection of sensitive data is a more serious issue so let’s not say all ads are abusive in that way. However, I agree with the position that all ads with some small exceptions are a negative thing. I think the incentives behind advertising are inherently perverse because of what they are at their core, an attempt to manipulate (if they…

Yes, I agree, and I also don't think that ads in printed newspapers and magazines are a problem, for example.

If I were to propose a general law to regulate advertisements, then it would be that if you serve content that qualifies as being an advertisement to a user, then the choice of advertisement must be independent of any data about that user. This includes the username and any details the user has entered or which has been collected as the user has been using the service, and also any ephemeral data associated with the session such as IP address. That is, the choice of ad is completely parametric in the user; if two users request the content from different locations, then they should in principle be served the same ad (ignoring other state such as ad impression counters which would still be allowed).

This would probably not be good for the ad-tech industry but I think it could remove many of the perverse incentives leading to excessive data collection.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#316

Post by bambax »

shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

Okay, and probably true, but the difference with newspaper is, it would be prohibitively expensive to produce different versions of the same newspaper for different subscription options, while it's trivial to do on the web.

Why not offer an ad-free tier?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#317

Post by quectophoton »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #274
nox101 wrote: post #11

Disagree. Would I like zero ads? Yes, do I think a company should be required to offer a zero ad service for money? No. If you don't like that they have ads even if you pay then don't use the service. People still subscribe to newspaper even though they are full of ads. They paid money, they got an ad full paper. People still subscribe to cable TV even though it's full of ads. People still buy magazines (paid for the…

> People still subscribe to newspaper even though they are full of ads. Those ads are far less egregious than the kinds of online ads we're discussing. If online ads were the equivalent—static, hosted on the same site, free of data collection—then not only would the experience be much more pleasant, we wouldn't even be able to block them.

Like those 88x31 ads^Waffiliate links. I have never been bothered by them. If anything, I actually stop to look at them and maybe click one or two. The funny gifs get a click just for being funny.

Nowadays they are rare outside places like Neocities, but it is true that I don't know of anyone who has gone out of their way to add an adblock rule to block those.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#318

Post by romanows »

shortformblog wrote: post #304
manuelmoreale wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll guarantee you that it doesn’t make me feel any better to write this type of posts. I’m just exhausted by the modern web. As for the other point you’re making, that’s complete nonsense. You don’t differentiate your revenue streams by serving a sub par product to your paying customers. Serve those stupid ads to free users, treat your paying customers with respect.

Gonna be straight up with you: I feel like you would have never thought about this had they not mentioned it, because so few media outlets are even thinking about reducing ad load for paid subscribers. As someone in media, I’m tired of well-intentioned media outlets try to strike a reasonable balance only to get yelled at for it like they aren’t already walking a tightrope. They have staffs of people to pay for, payr…

I've asked NYT, WaPo, and the non-profit Chicago Sun Times for an ad-free tier (no ads displayed in their apps) and they've all said "we don't offer an ad-free tier".

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#319

Post by Sammi »

XCSme wrote: post #303
Sammi wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to make you do stuff that is not in your best interest. They want to create a need that you don't actually have, and they do so by applying psychological pressure. They are a festival of fomo. They're pollution for your mind and distort your sense of reality. In a knowledge economy your attention is your highest commodity, and ads want to take all of it. One of the strongest rules I have for my hous…

How else do you find out about new stuff, or recommendations, or things you never considered before? How do you find out about new movies, concerts, etc.? Most customers don't know themselves that a solution to their problem (which they might not even notice) exists. Manipulative ads are bad, yes. But ads that expand your knowledge of what's available in the world are good in my opinion.

I wanted to know about headphones that have high sound quality yesterday and you know what I did to find out? I googled it.

I found out about ChatGPT and became a paying subscriber in january 2023, because it was all over hckrnews, youtube, twitter and tech media in general.

New stuff and recommendations are everywhere. They are even a form of entertainment themselves. I watch several tech channels on youtube just to see what cool new stuff there is. There are channels and websites for movies, books, home renovation, hobbies and anything really if you want to know more.

No ads needed.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#320

Post by RobotToaster »

tempestn wrote: post #29

People (at least used to) pay for magazines and newspapers, which have also been partially supported by ads forever. Perhaps a more sustainable balance would be only first-party ads (ie no individualized tracking) for paying subscribers?

I think the important part is that you could choose to look at those or not.

For all it's faults facebook advertising is similar, you can just scroll past an advert if it's of no interest. I don't find their adverts overly annoying.

Post reply on HN