Live data from Hacker News

uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

digitalescapetools.com

371–380 of 953 posts

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#371

Controversial but honest question: How do anti-ads people propose the free open internet monetizes itself?

Volunteer basis or charge users. Optional subscriptions keep small webforums alive, like HN would probably be fine with some kind of 10/mo thing. Maybe charge a small fee for new accounts? For things that need to scale past that like very large social media, the question is if that's worth those sites existing.

First, regarding the idea of charging people to access websites:

This notion is a very Silicon Valley / coastal elite mentality IMO. A significant majority of people on the internet do not and will not pay for anything - largely because most people around the world just don't have the money for stuff like that.

The data on this is pretty consistent - take Netflix for example. A majority of Netflix users choose the cheaper ad supported tier, even though it is very easy and only marginally more expensive to switch to the non-ad supported tier. And this is already filtering to the subset of people who are willing and able to pay for a streaming subscription to begin with. The same case exists for Reddit -> you can pay to have ads removed, but only 1% of users do.

I see what you mean by Hacker News, but it's not a great example, since there are currently no ads and it's free. It's provided by Y Combinator, which monetizes via investing in startups (not something all internet businesses can reliably just start doing). For example - how would Reddit monetize? You cannot really expect people on Reddit all to be willing to pay to use it. And if some were - the whole value of a network is its scale -> so the drop in users would effectively kill the site. That's why there are no subscription only forums out there (at least none that I know of).

With regards to your second point of if these social media sites should even exist in the first place -> that's where you the consumer get to decide. If you don't get value from it, just don't use it. People who do get value from it -> use it. If enough people collectively decide it's not valuable, then the website becomes irrelevant (see Google+ and MySpace).

This is where I get very confused by anti ads people - show me a reliable alternative that is proven to work. Show me that people across the world, not just in San Francisco or London, can and will pay to access these websites/apps. And I'm not just talking about Meta - what about every random small website you have ever accessed that is ad supported? What about news websites like BBC? Or independent content creators who monetize via Instagram / YouTube ads? What about that wiki for that favorite video game of yours? Or that cooking blog? Don't get me wrong - I hate seeing ads as much as the next guy - but I can't really picture a realistic alternative.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#372
post #218

Controversial opinion: This entire thread reads like a game of cat-and-mouse. People trying to block intrusive ads, and FB reaching into the depths of code and making it nearly impossible for anyone to do so en masse. I've been there. Tried to uncheck all the boxes on their ad platform; used all manners of ad blockers, etc; used incognito mode; used Tor; etc. etc. etc. At some point, you realize that the only way to…

> At some point, you realize that the only way to not get served ads on Facebook -- and thereby not benefit the company itself -- is to get rid of it completely. Delete your account, get off that blasted site, and enjoy some moments of peace IRL.

Exactly. Not only do I blocklist every known Meta domain at my DNS (I run the unbound DNS server at home) I also took all the IP blocks from Meta's ASNs and have automatically blocked them at the firewall level.

And I did that before doing so was, like now, just one LLM prompt away.

1 billion people are on Telegram: they may not be much better than WhatsApp but Telegram does not have Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp and is not worth 1.5 trillion.

Really: just fuck the Zuck and his PHP/JavaScript ecosystem. Just get off, entirely off, that crappy abusive ad-ridden, surveillance ecosystem.

Delete your accounts today.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#373
post #329

Eventually, this arms race ends with a computer vision model that looks at the screen, classifies visual elements as ads, and draws a rectangle over anything that looks like an ad. I am significantly less tolerant of ads than average people seem to be. (I think average people are making a horrible mistake about this, and are badly cognitively damaged by ads in ways they don't realize). If my choices are to look at ad…

This browser extension is so inimical to online advertising Google (world's largest advertising corporation) banned it from the Chrome web store. https://adnauseam.io/ It loads every ad, and clicks them without display them. So the advertiser still pays for the click but the user never sees ads.

I feel that could easily backfire if your account or IP gets marked as an agent for malicious click-fraud.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#374
post #295

Eventually, this arms race ends with a computer vision model that looks at the screen, classifies visual elements as ads, and draws a rectangle over anything that looks like an ad. I am significantly less tolerant of ads than average people seem to be. (I think average people are making a horrible mistake about this, and are badly cognitively damaged by ads in ways they don't realize). If my choices are to look at ad…

I think my brain developed that as a defense mechanism. The web cultivated a certain kind of blindness where I literally don't look at certain parts of pages because my brain has learned that there is never anything useful there. Sometimes I just cannot see things unless I force my eyes to move across the page linearly, top to bottom. This is pathological. Like I find myself not ever looking at the top result in a se…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness

The term is 28 years old.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#375

Controversial but honest question: How do anti-ads people propose the free open internet monetizes itself?

You make things that cost money cost money? I don't think I really understand the premise of the question.

See my response to the other guy who replied -> remove the free ad supported tier and people will not pay and the network will cease to exist.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Volunteer basis or charge users. Optional subscriptions keep small webforums alive, like HN would probably be fine with some kind of 10/mo thing. Maybe charge a small fee for new accounts? For things that need to scale past that like very large social media, the question is if that's worth those sites existing.

First, regarding the idea of charging people to access websites: This notion is a very Silicon Valley / coastal elite mentality IMO. A significant majority of people on the internet do not and will not pay for anything - largely because most people around the world just don't have the money for stuff like that. The data on this is pretty consistent - take Netflix for example. A majority of Netflix users choose the ch…

I do some volunteer time on a small web forum, and we have subscription options on there. It pays for server costs reasonably fine, if not dev time for new features or anything. Users come from lots of places around the world, although the discussion is still mostly in English. It is optional, but the number of power users willing to pay for it covers the rest. You could also look at SomethingAwful as a reasonable strategy?

If people love a community and like spending time on it, they'll be willing to help keep it running and avoid shutting down. You don't get any real profit, but do you need that to run a website? And if people don't love it enough to pay for it, you do have to wonder if it really needs to exist.

I think Reddit could get away with their reddit pro and paying for awards deal, honestly. They would need to rely more on volunteer labor and volunteer development, but a site could exist like that. I assume it's how Lemmy and Lobsters run?

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, regarding the idea of charging people to access websites: This notion is a very Silicon Valley / coastal elite mentality IMO. A significant majority of people on the internet do not and will not pay for anything - largely because most people around the world just don't have the money for stuff like that. The data on this is pretty consistent - take Netflix for example. A majority of Netflix users choose the ch…

I do some volunteer time on a small web forum, and we have subscription options on there. It pays for server costs reasonably fine, if not dev time for new features or anything. Users come from lots of places around the world, although the discussion is still mostly in English. It is optional, but the number of power users willing to pay for it covers the rest. You could also look at SomethingAwful as a reasonable st…

This sounds great, but can you lay out for me how people on Facebook and Instagram are going to volunteer to get access to it for free? What are the mechanics of this?

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do some volunteer time on a small web forum, and we have subscription options on there. It pays for server costs reasonably fine, if not dev time for new features or anything. Users come from lots of places around the world, although the discussion is still mostly in English. It is optional, but the number of power users willing to pay for it covers the rest. You could also look at SomethingAwful as a reasonable st…

This sounds great, but can you lay out for me how people on Facebook and Instagram are going to volunteer to get access to it for free? What are the mechanics of this?

What I mean is something like those sites could be developed and moderated by volunteers, to be clear, to cut down on operating costs. The users would be a good pool to draw from for this and if you like, the site can dole out subscription features to them in exchange for that?

In my view the problems are that we scale past the point of volunteer moderation being practical, we want to pay for full time devs and so on for the sites, and we want the operation to somehow also make a profit. If you view it more as a hobby that you sink some money into to keep it alive, the economics on a small site can be much more reasonable. Think of an individual blogger and their comment section - the blogger might naturally pay some hundreds a year for hosting on their own, as part of that hobby impulse.

Re: uBlock Origin is giving up the fight to keep ads off Facebook

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make things that cost money cost money? I don't think I really understand the premise of the question.

See my response to the other guy who replied -> remove the free ad supported tier and people will not pay and the network will cease to exist.

Thats pretty silly. It existed before ads.

I think at best your perspective is “threatening me with a good time.” There’s really nothing online I value that can only exist because of millions of free users.

Post reply on HN