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

Pay Google to stop seeing ads

contributor.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#41

Post by mmanfrin »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #29
pajtai wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. But ads are more targeted not to make it less annoying for you, but because people who sell stuff think they'll get a higher conversion rate the more targeted they get.... and that's hard to argue with. But I do think legislation to make you be tracked less would be awesome, but it'd be fighting money.

> people who sell stuff think they'll get a higher conversion rate the more targeted they get.... and that's hard to argue with. Is it really? For me, targeted ads come up for either a) products I have already purchased or b) products I've looked at and then decided not to buy. I got my wife an espresso grinder for Christmas, ordered on Dec. 10, but AdSense is still showing me ads for grinders. There is exactly 0.00%…

Your anecdote is not emblematic of the whole. Many people do not immediately buy big ticket items they look at online; but there is data that shows repeated marketing of a product works, and works especially well when the merchant already knows you were looking at a specific product.

Yes, this means they end up wasting ads on people who already purchased, but that is outweighed by the other portion of people who didnt already purchase the product.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#43

Post by ariwilson »

rdancer wrote: post #5

They should have negotiated a contract with all the ad networks that have a name, and licensed an adblocker for the rest. They should aggressively support the adblock detection => annoying reminder that has been slowly gaining traction lately. "Fewer ads on million of sites" (there is ~ 1 billion sites worldwide[1]) is not a selling point. "No more ads, ever" is. [1] http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-w…

I don't think Google licensing an ad blocker for ad networks that won't sign a contract with them would have gone over well with, say, the Department of Justice.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#44

Post by nevir »

ymse wrote: post #23

Given that Google Ads are mostly used on third-party sites, does this mean they will be sharing some of that revenue with the sites that now loses their ads? If not, why should we give Google money to take potential income from smaller companies?

You're effectively bidding on our own ads. If you outbid the advertiser that would have otherwise won, the ad is removed

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#45

Post by tlrobinson »

rdancer wrote: post #5

They should have negotiated a contract with all the ad networks that have a name, and licensed an adblocker for the rest. They should aggressively support the adblock detection => annoying reminder that has been slowly gaining traction lately. "Fewer ads on million of sites" (there is ~ 1 billion sites worldwide[1]) is not a selling point. "No more ads, ever" is. [1] http://www.internetlivestats.com/total-number-of-w…

Heh, can you imagine the uproar over Google selling an adblocker that blocks competitors' ads?

I imagine the FTC/DOJ might have something to say about that too.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#46

Post by LeoPanthera »

bratsche wrote: post #13
LeoPanthera wrote: post #7

You're paying the site hosting the ad, at least indirectly. They get a portion of your money. If this is popular, it will probably increase ad revenue, so more sites are likely to want to show Google ads, which means people not paying into this scheme will see even more ads as a result.

I don't really get how it would cause that to happen. Right now sites are being paid by advertisers. Under this scheme they're being paid by users. It doesn't say they're being paid more (or less), so I don't see why this would have any effect on whether sites use ads or not.

Well, YouTube was the same way. Video creators being paid by advertisers. Then YouTube Red came along - pay a free, see no ads, and your money goes to the video creators.

But under YouTube Red, revenue for creators went up. I would imagine the same thing would happen here.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#47

Post by bduerst »

cm2187 wrote: post #40
dogma1138 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad network will only have to comply with that for websites that operate out of said country, a US website doesn't have to comply with EU cookie policy for example unless it's operated by a company from within the EU.

Yes right now the website will serve a script from a third party ad network, which itself serves a script from a fourth party ad network, etc, etc. When you visit a US website you would be lucky that all the companies that help themselves on your browser are all US based.

What you're describing is typically considered publisher fraud and not unique to this situation. Ad networks will revoke that website or any of the parties in between that serves their ads fraudulently.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#48

Post by bambax »

Harhsjen wrote: post #24

Why do I get the impression that I'm paying protection money to the mob? These ads wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for Google.

So true!!

I would pay Google to use search, if it came to this, because I find immense and irreplaceable value in Google Search that no other company seems to be able to replicate.

But paying anyone to not see ads on websites? That's absurd. I'll use adblocking while I can, and when/if those websites find a way to reliably block adblocking-using visitors, I'll just stop visiting.

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#49

Post by graeham »

mschuster91 wrote: post #38
graeham wrote: post #21

I think they're on the right track with a wide pay-for-content subscription, but I think they're missing that what people don't like is being tracked, not ads themselves. Ads can be ignored easily enough, especially with a blocker. Why pay for a service that you can get with an ad blocker? What's needed is a Spotify premium-style model, where a monthly subscription is paid by the user, which is distributed to the con…

> What's needed is a Spotify premium-style model, where a monthly subscription is paid by the user, which is distributed to the content producers. Remember flattr? IIRC it failed because a lack of adoption and because micropayments are expensive (fuck banks for this one).

Hadn't heard of them before to be honest. With a quick look on their Wikipedia page, perhaps they were too early for post-Wikileaks concern around privacy?

Bank payments may be better now too, with more competition and greater use of non-traditional currency (ie Bitcoin).

Re: Pay Google to stop seeing ads

#50

Post by dajonker »

sandworm101 wrote: post #17

Pay Google? Pay a billion-dollar company to not do something? So, going forward, it will be in Google's interest to make ads ever more annoying and creepy so that people are pushed into paying to end the pain. That is not a world in which I want to live. How about this: Google pays me for watching their annoying ads. Given that I have the upper hand on the tech front (adblockers) and am the one buying the products, s…

Don't forget that Google is a billion-dollar company primarily because they sell a lot of ads. Why do you think Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, etc. are free to use? Because they make a lot of money (from ads), so they can hire the best developers to build awesome tools that (almost) everybody loves. They could stop doing ads altogether and instead just ask money for using all Google products directly, but it'd just be really expensive, and people usually don't like to pay for stuff they think should be free.
Post reply on HN