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

Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 361 posts

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#321

Post by rhino369 »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #40
0xff00ffee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. HULU still shows ads, even with "No Ads" version. From their website: Hulu (No Ads) Get First Month Free then $11.99/month A few excluded shows play with ads. [from here https://signup.hulu.com/plans ] That last line kills me. It's like H2G2, you can't have Tea and No Tea unless you remove your common sense particle.

How is this not a false advertising lawsuit in the making? I mean, maybe the effect will be to make it "Hulu Silver", but that's better than blatantly claiming "No Ads" on an ad-containing product. edit: Incredibly, there seem to be multiple reasons why you can see ads when on the "No Ads" plan; and they have an entire page dedicated to these reasons: https://help.hulu.com/s/article/ads-no-commercials?language=...

>How is this not a false advertising lawsuit in the making?

Because it says "A few excluded shows play with ads." And its three shows out many hundreds.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#322

Post by rhino369 »

cure wrote: post #306
scarface74 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won’t use Hulu because three shows have ads - Greys Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder and Agents of Shield?

No, actually: because they started out as ad-only, then added paid subscriptions while still forcing their subscribers to watch ads , and that is when I decided it was not for me. Maybe they've been evolving in a more positive direction if there are only a few shows left with ads?

They've had an ad free* version for years. Six dollars extra and you don't get ads.

*Three shows still have ads since they signed a deal before they released an ad free tier, and the only alternative would removing those three shows from the ad free tier, which is lose-lose.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#323

Post by [deleted] »

mumblemumble wrote: post #275
umvi wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing devil's advocate... doctors are neither omniscient nor perfect. > Shouldn't my doctor morally and by default be suggesting the best treatment for what I have? Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand? In a perfect world, yes. But we live in an imperfect world where sub-optimal choices are made due to time constraints, lack o…

>Playing devil's advocate... doctors are neither omniscient nor perfect. There's been some research into this subject, and, in this case, it would seem that you are indeed advocating for the devil. I haven't read any of the papers myself, but the stories I've heard via channels such as the Science-Based Medicine blog or PusCast suggest that drug advertising - both to doctors and direct to consumers - tends to result…

[deleted]

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#324

Post by joshvm »

rhino369 wrote: post #313
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just use a Pi-hole server now. I don't have a problem paying for subs, I use Apple Music and used Spotify, I like Netflix or Prime. But Google/Youtube is unethical with their ads. Yesterday I saw an ad showing "the police kidnapping people in california" from a Russian account. No way to report it anymore, now way to prove it was true, a blatant example of trying to influence people negatively. I'll support the con…

Does pi-hole work for youtube, hulu, etc.?

It doesn't work for YouTube, at least on the mobile app. It's a bit hit or miss, for example it doesn't get rid of ads in Duolinguo, but it does stop the 30 second ones. On desktop you're better off using a plugin (I run both, but then you get leftover whitespace).

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#325

Post by LukeShu »

nolok wrote: post #186
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #157

Im enjoying Hulu/Netflix/Prime Video while I can. My kid has grown up in a household without commercials and where you get points for who can hit “skip” the fastest when one does pop up. Commercials were always annoying but when you aren’t used to seeing them then it really hits home that your seeing the exact same commercial for floor wax sixteen times an hour and the exact same commercial for anti-AIDS drugs sixtee…

> the exact same commercial for anti-AIDS drugs sixteen times per hour. European here, I will go over my surprise / weirdness about having ads for chronic disease medication like that, to ask : do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that? Does your opinion override that of the doctor? Is it not ultimately a moot choice both by you and the doctor because the one you w…

> ads for HIV treatment

To entirely ignore the broader point of your post: The HIV drug ads I see are about prevention, not treatment. Along the lines of "If you're at increased risk for HIV (you're a man who has sex with men), then you should take our new variety of PrEP, and reduce your risk of infection."

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#326

Post by nolok »

LukeShu wrote: post #325
nolok wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the exact same commercial for anti-AIDS drugs sixteen times per hour. European here, I will go over my surprise / weirdness about having ads for chronic disease medication like that, to ask : do you actually, you as the patient, choose which medication you receive for disease like that? Does your opinion override that of the doctor? Is it not ultimately a moot choice both by you and the doctor because the one you w…

> ads for HIV treatment To entirely ignore the broader point of your post: The HIV drug ads I see are about prevention, not treatment. Along the lines of "If you're at increased risk for HIV (you're a man who has sex with men), then you should take our new variety of PrEP, and reduce your risk of infection."

Thanks, that does give it some sense. It would still feel wrong if I saw that here, but at least I can get where its coming from.

For reference the only medicine ads you would see on tv here would be for every day things (paracetamol, eye drops, ...) or for BS like homeopathy.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#327

Post by 3xblah »

drdec wrote: post #303
3xblah wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct to consumer TV ads for pharmaceuticals were illegal in 1981. This did not change until 1997. As I remember it, in the few years after 1997 there were still relatively few drug ads on TV. It was nothing like today. It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times I would guess because many large pharmaceutical companies lack the pipelines they had in the 1990's and are under more…

> It seems like the number of ads has dramatically increased in more recent times Don't neglect to account that it may be that as you grow older, you are more likely to encounter these types of ads because the drug companies target older consumers as they are more likely to need the product.

I only meant TV ads. As for trying to guess about me, I watch almost no TV in recent times, though I did watch it back in the 80's and 90's. I am basing this opinion on only small periodic encounters with recent TV, random samples. I do not see internet advertising because I use a text-only browser except when doing commercial transactions. In any event, I use local DNS, no third-party "upstream" DNS provider. I never see ads. Away from home, I generally do not access the internet from mobile phones. It is a reasonable guess, though. No doubt Americans are being targeted by advertising like never before.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#328

Post by RandomBacon »

xnyan wrote: post #270
RandomBacon wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Capitalism is a way to describe market efficiency which is a good thing, but people are turning the word to mean a system where people hurt each other for profit. I agree people shouldn't hurt each other, but that doesn't mean we should redefine a word and abandon a system of marketplaces.

You see I disagree with your fundamental premise, capitalism is a means to amplify creation of money and wealth inequality which is a bad thing, but people sometimes use it for good to help each other.

The definition of capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

I wish I could edit my first comment to include the definition. I hate inequality and people hurting others through abusive practices too.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#329

Post by jimmaswell »

the_duke wrote: post #154
jimmaswell wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually want movies you're watching to have a distracting overlay taking you out of the moment? Before the start of the movie or something would be a lot better.

That's exactly the reason why I want it during the scene. Both to create awareness that you are being manipulated by this scene, and to discourage product placement in general.

I feel like most people don't care enough to want movies hampered like this.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#330

Post by intopieces »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #241
the_duke wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already plenty of product placement on Netflix. The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene. I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.

Plus all the Apple branded things too. It's especially interesting because only "good characters" can use Apple's devices on screens [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434315

This is not true, as pointed out by the top comment.
Post reply on HN