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

How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 390 posts

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#341

Post by DannyBee »

cyphar wrote: post #102
DannyBee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?

> So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. > Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade? Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade.

"Yes, if the content is good enough to warrant paying for a subscription. "

So if it's not, you just view it anyway?

"Nope, and there's no reason to muddy the waters with terms like crusade. "

It's pretty rich to make a moral argument the way the parent did and have a problem with a term like crusade, which is a precise and correct term to describe this.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#343

Post by DannyBee »

rosser wrote: post #99
DannyBee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?

When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely…

"crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue."

Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric.

Okay.

Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing.

"If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point."

Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than "

Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#344

Post by dhimes »

elorant wrote: post #123
isomorphic wrote: post #4

> So, in the coming weeks, we will restrict access to articles on WIRED.com if you are using an ad blocker. Good luck with that, Wired. The people-who-will-never-pay group will split into two: People who never visit your site again, and people who up the ante in the ad-blocking escalation. While you may think that you don't care about the people-who-will-never-pay group, the latter subgroup will release their improve…

$52 is way too much for a medium that occasionally publishes something good. OK, that’s just my opinion and it’s highly subjective. But I used to love Wired back in the days when Internet was booming. Nowadays they’re just too irrelevant. All that aside, I’d love a pay-per-article scheme. Give me a summary of the article and if I like it I can pay for it. Sounds much more reasonable than asking me to pay for everythi…

Yep. Facebook makes about $1 per user per month.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#345

Post by vanderZwan »

dexterdog wrote: post #261
vanderZwan wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Netherlands and Germany, there's Blendle, and it's very successful. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blendle https://medium.com/on-blendle

But it's still micropayments. They've done a good job of aggregating some quality content, but it's still pay per click to the consumer.

... with a one-click refund if you don't like the article.

In regular use, you don't go through the process of paying - opening an article automatically pays the price, so it's very easy to do. However, you can always get a refund.

It's a tiny detail, but it changes the whole flow. A nice side-effect is that clickbait is punished very harshly by the customers.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#346

Post by pc86 »

ljoshua wrote: post #238

As has been mentioned elsewhere, my exact problem with this/Forbes approach/elsewhere is that there is no way that I want to suddenly start managing several new monthly subscriptions for all these outlets. I enjoy Wired, but the thought of adding yet another subscription to my monthly credit card statement is too great a cognitive load for me to want to make the jump. Also, if you were to subscribe to the dead tree v…

I specifically remember the cries of "just let me pay you so I don't have to see ads!" once this started happening. Now it's "just let me pay some third party and have them handle the logistics of deciding who gets paid what and when but for the same price!"

This is pretty much exactly what the adblocking community has wanted since the beginning. You can get content for free and have ads. You can get content for almost nothing and have no ads.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#347

Post by vanderZwan »

chinathrow wrote: post #332
vanderZwan wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Netherlands and Germany, there's Blendle, and it's very successful. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Blendle https://medium.com/on-blendle

Why is it very successfully? Have you got any revenue figures to share? Content partnerships alone doesn't make it successful.

It's two years old and has half a million users in a country of 16 million people? Although it's recently expanded to Germany and growing really quickly there too, so that might skew the percentage a bit.

Back in 2014, when they had 100,000 users, roughly 20% was a paying customer.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#348

Post by spyder »

brightball wrote: post #337
ljoshua wrote: post #238

As has been mentioned elsewhere, my exact problem with this/Forbes approach/elsewhere is that there is no way that I want to suddenly start managing several new monthly subscriptions for all these outlets. I enjoy Wired, but the thought of adding yet another subscription to my monthly credit card statement is too great a cognitive load for me to want to make the jump. Also, if you were to subscribe to the dead tree v…

Couldn't you just disable ad-block on that site so they get paid without it coming out of your wallet?

He could if he is OK with the risk of malvertising.

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#349

Post by chinathrow »

vanderZwan wrote: post #347
chinathrow wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it very successfully? Have you got any revenue figures to share? Content partnerships alone doesn't make it successful.

It's two years old and has half a million users in a country of 16 million people? Although it's recently expanded to Germany and growing really quickly there too, so that might skew the percentage a bit. Back in 2014, when they had 100,000 users, roughly 20% was a paying customer.

So no figures for Germany then about paying customers?

Re: How Wired Is Going to Handle Ad Blocking

#350

Post by tristor »

hsod wrote: post #169
tristor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no war. It's simple. I choose what I allow to run on my computer. End of story. It's the height of arrogance that all of these companies, both the publishers and the ad tech firms, think they can do whatever they want to users with no recourse. I bought the computer to serve my needs, I have control over how it functions to do so.

But if your usage of your computer that you bought depends on their servers, it seems they would have some sort of say in how you use it. That is, they can negotiate with you using your desire to access their servers as leverage. You can refuse to negotiate, in which case they can take steps to block your access to their server. You can use technological means to get around that, but then they can adjust their own te…

There's a reason why protocols (such as HTTP) intended for use in the public space refer to a client connection as a "request". I am asking them for a specific set of data, they are welcome to choose whether to provide it or not. Once I've received it, and it's on my computer, I get to choose whether or not to let it run. In the case of advertisements, I have more security concerns than mere annoyance, so I choose to block them. If you don't wish to serve me content, go right ahead, just be aware that there is nothing you can do to force me to expose my system to your potentially malicious advertisements.
Post reply on HN