Live data from Hacker News

Adblocking: How about Nah?

eff.org

401–410 of 549 posts

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#401
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blendle has stopped pay-per-article, moving to subscriptions entirely.

Are you sure about that? I literally received their daily digest which has the price-per-article, as expected, just a few hours ago. Maybe they are now offering both?

Yes, they're stopping micropayments on August 1st: https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/06/micropayments-for-news-pio...

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one big difference with DRM for PC games, is that piracy of PC games is normally not a money making activity for the pirates. It might prevent companies from selling a game to certain people, but there is no clear cut evidence that person would have otherwise bought it. For advertising however, you can first of all incur a cost to an advertiser (since costs are calculated per click, view, etc), but furthermor…

Ha, please have a little trip to any of the open air electronic markets of Eastern Europe(even of those countries that are within the EU) and every other stall has DVDs of almost any PC game/software you can think of. Signs like "newest game releases here!", "Windows 10 all versions no key one dvd!", "Blu-ray movies - 10 per disc!" Are still common. They are not even trying to hide this even though the police are mea…

> that is making people money

the people buying the pirated software would not have otherwise spent the money on the official/real version. This is the stickler - counting "loss" from this kind of sale is at best immaterial and at worst fraudulent.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#403
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the advertiser ID and the bare minimum. How would fraud detection work in this model? How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Without assurance there, advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less. (Disclosure: I work on ads at…

Honestly, I don’t care. It worked in print, it can work in digital. Adverts would bother me less if advertisers hadn’t proven again and again that they can’t be trusted and that they don’t care about my privacy. I also believe that advertisement is a cop out for a real business model and the lowest form of business. Besides, as Banksy said: “You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe t…

Content creators make plenty of Youtube, but it's spread out among millions of them which is why very few actually make any serious money. Also most content you wouldn't pay for, but will likely watch because it's free.

On the flip side, many creators have tried to go towards the subscription/patronage angle and far fewer are ever successful at that, with many making what amounts to a tiny trickle of supporting income while being burdened with much more responsibility to deliver. It's a hard bargain.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#404
post #295
post #67

I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…

This sounds like such a rational comment, but it is based on the naive idea that ads can be effectively targeted simply based on content. You're never going to have ads that people are willing to pay for (i.e. a certain threshold click-through rate) without some sort of direct targeting. For example, you can't tell if your article on basic car maintenance is being read by a 30 year old male who might be interested in…

Ads existed long before "direct targeting" of " 30 year old male who might be interested in a beer ad" has.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#405
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I’d go as far as forbidding embedded JS altogether which removes the attack vector for malware within advertising networks. The networks have proved time and time again they are not able to prevent distribution of malware, and this is the primary reason I use an adblocker. Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the adver…

One issue I’ve run into with blocking JS at the browser level is that it also ends up blocking extensions that use JS from working. I would block JS on websites much more if my extensions that use JS could still run. I don’t suppose there’s a config setting in Chrome that discriminates between the website’s JS and the JS from my extensions?

You can use NoScript to control which domains you want content loaded from and what type.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#406
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want to block ads. I hate advertising in all its forms. I despise the psychological games that advertisers play with our minds. If I could wear a pair of contact lenses that blocked out billboards and other kinds of non-digital advertising, I would do so in a heartbeat.

There are certain pieces of classical music I cannot hear without immediately thinking of the product it was used to advertise. It's maddening that advertisers can be allowed to destroy culture like that.

I found it astonishing that the song "Look What They've Done to My Song, Ma" (which is seemingly about corruption of art) was later licensed for commercials for oatmeal and a hotel chain... complete with modified lyrics!

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

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#407
The EFF very directly is trying to blame Do Not Track being useless on browser vendors and media companies when the reality is that it was a dumb idea whose existence likely does more harm than good (as it makes people think they can avoid tracking by using it, when they have done literally nothing to people who are tracking them by turning it on except provide one more bit of browser setting variation that can be used to differentiate--and thereby track--users). What the hell, EFF?

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#408
post #295
post #67

I don't actually want to block ads. If you want to put a small text or image blurb anywhere on the page... Good for you. I'll gladly accept those on a webpage so that the content creator can make a bit of cash. But these companies are intentionally blurring the lines between advertisement and digital surveillance. You don't need to collect everything about my operating system, browser, monitors, GPU, every click I ma…

This sounds like such a rational comment, but it is based on the naive idea that ads can be effectively targeted simply based on content. You're never going to have ads that people are willing to pay for (i.e. a certain threshold click-through rate) without some sort of direct targeting. For example, you can't tell if your article on basic car maintenance is being read by a 30 year old male who might be interested in…

Seems to be working for the New York Times – “The publisher blocked all open-exchange ad buying on its European pages, followed swiftly by behavioral targeting. Instead, NYT International focused on contextual and geographical targeting for programmatic guaranteed and private marketplace deals and has not seen ad revenues drop as a result“ (source: https://digiday.com/media/gumgumtest-new-york-times-gdpr-cut...)

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#409
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe a new tag which points to a resource which can only serve an image, video or text. Absolutely no scripting. Pass along only the advertiser ID and the bare minimum. How would fraud detection work in this model? How do advertisers know the requests are coming from real users and not bots? Without assurance there, advertisers would pay much less, and publishers would earn much less. (Disclosure: I work on ads at…

How does fraud detection work on newspaper sales figures, or television viewer numbers? The internet has seemingly decided that without tracking ads don't work. No. Serve your static ad or I will continue to see nothing. :)

There are rating agencies that verify both print and TV numbers with as much accuracy as possible, and Connected TV (streaming, smart tvs, netflix, etc) now have comparable metrics to website ads.

Those older mediums were also just inefficient and create a lot of wasted spend, whereas the internet has allowed far more businesses to start and thrive by lowering their customer acquisition costs. These companies would never survive if they had to still rely on older ad models.

Re: Adblocking: How about Nah?

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? I literally received their daily digest which has the price-per-article, as expected, just a few hours ago. Maybe they are now offering both?

Yes, they're stopping micropayments on August 1st: https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/06/micropayments-for-news-pio...

Bummer. Guess that's the end of Blendle use for me. Thanks for letting me know.
Post reply on HN