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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#441

Post by montroser »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #44

It's why I use Firefox and avoid situations where I might get exposed to annoying ads. I was watching some Amazon Prime recently (the new rings of power season). Pretty OK and completely ad free experience. Except I noticed these weird cuts every few minutes. It took me quite a while to realize that Amazon introduced ads some time ago for Amazon prime and uBlock origin was doing a great job of simply blocking them. H…

It's a funny anecdote and cool hack to be able to skip streaming video ads, but it's also kinda entitled to leech the content and shift the burden onto everyone else.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#442

Post by TomWhitwell »

conductr wrote: post #432
bogwog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

> its the free market working as intended. As is the verge’s pricing and ad strategy, you think they didn’t expect some churn by making a pricing change? The author is free to shout it from their soapbox but chances are the verge already expected some of this sentiment and is totally ok with a “ok losing these customers” approach

I worked at The Times in London when we did this - we lost ~98.7% of our free audience, retained a smaller ad business, turned a £20mn / year loss into a £20mn / year profit over a few years.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#443

Post by Kon5ole »

miki123211 wrote: post #192

To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. The advertising model makes the rich subsidize services for the poor, and I think that's a very good thing, and many people underappreciate the extend to which it happens. On that note, I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tic…

>I'm somewhat annoyed that we're culturally ok with people who use online services and block ads, and yet we're not ok with people who ride on public transit and don't buy tickets, even though it's basically the same thing and a very similar business model.

That's clearly wrong. The equivalent of not buying a ticket would be to use a paywall bypass service to read content that's not free.

Using an ad blocker is instead equivalent to reading a book on the subway instead of looking at the ad posters. Which I hope you will agree is entirely acceptable.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#444

Post by subjectsigma »

ksec wrote: post #381

>you don’t get to double dip and also sell my data to your advertisers and earn more on the side. 1. Placing an Ad on the page has absolutely nothing to do with selling your data. Just like a magazine decide to place a print ad. 2. Ad can sometimes function as news. New Product launch, marketing notes. etc. 3. Even an internet targeting Ad, which the author is likely referring to, does not necessarily sell your data…

I’m convinced you have no idea what common terms like “double dipping”, “absolutely nothing”, or “news” mean. Which honestly seems pretty on brand for someone supporting advertising

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#445

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

arrowsmith wrote: post #181
tossandthrow wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are ads and in many jurisdictions Also treated like ads. Weird that This is not the case in the US?

If you grew up in Europe, I promise that when you visit the US for the first time, you will be SHOCKED by America's advertising standards (or lack of them.) Advertising is everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, to an extent far beyond what you're used to from home. Posters, billboards, fliers, TV commercials, product placement, celebrity endorsements - you can barely step outside without being bombarded by y…

> American adverts are noticeably more loud, garish, cheesy, repetitive and attention-grabbing.

I take it that you have not been to Tokyo or Seoul, then?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#446

Post by yunwal »

passwordoops wrote: post #283
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

True. And from what I understood, the Verge is offering two tiers - less ads and no ads. You can pay for the one you think is worthwhile. As a consumer I definitely lean on the "if I'm paying a subscription, I expect zero ads" side of the fence. It just has to be worth the additional price for me (The Verge is not)

The no ad tier being use an adblocker?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#447

Post by lambdaba »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #342
lambdaba wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really can't imagine someone with CTO title doesn't have $15/month to pay for YouTube when you're a regular user. People with far fewer resources pay. This goes to content creators, if you're not even seeing ads, they don't get paid.

I'm pretty sure, that by this logic, if you combine all the "$15/month" things that someone should have money for, they'll eventually be left without any of that money. Every goddamn website wants $15 per month, and even after they get it, they still show you ads. Even youtube, if nothing else, there are the in-video ads ("this video is sponsored by,...") that an adblock skips.

This person likely can afford it and some others without any noticeable impact, I just don't find it appropriate in that circumstance. If you get $15 worth, and can afford it, pay $15, plain and simple.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#448

Post by sotix »

XCSme wrote: post #303
Sammi wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to make you do stuff that is not in your best interest. They want to create a need that you don't actually have, and they do so by applying psychological pressure. They are a festival of fomo. They're pollution for your mind and distort your sense of reality. In a knowledge economy your attention is your highest commodity, and ads want to take all of it. One of the strongest rules I have for my hous…

How else do you find out about new stuff, or recommendations, or things you never considered before? How do you find out about new movies, concerts, etc.? Most customers don't know themselves that a solution to their problem (which they might not even notice) exists. Manipulative ads are bad, yes. But ads that expand your knowledge of what's available in the world are good in my opinion.

> How else do you find out about new stuff, or recommendations, or things you never considered before?

Personally, I chat with friends over a beer and talk about new things. More often than not, my friends have great recommendations on things to try — both old and new.

> How do you find out about new movies, concerts, etc.?

I go check the movie listings / concert venues’ schedules. Or look up the schedule for a band I like. I don’t constantly browse the lineup; only when I get the itch to go to a show.

Normally I’m the one engaging research into new experiences, and it seems to be going fine. The other month I was reading Troy by Stephen Fry. When I finished, I thought it would be nice if he covered the Odyssey, so I looked it up and saw he is releasing an ebook for it in the Spring. In the meantime, I decided to read the Iliad. I wasn’t sure which translation would be good, so I searched online and found that Emily Wilson has a great translation. And now hopefully a reader has benefited from m y suggestion here.

Most ads related to these fields seem to me that they are designed to sell me something I don’t necessarily want or need. I feel capable of taking action and looking up things that do interest me. It may be different for areas outside of entertainment, but I’d have to think on that more.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#449

Post by frotaur »

sfn42 wrote: post #270
boo-ga-ga wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share how you do this? For example, you've listened to a song on YT a few times, liked it. Do you try to find the artist on Bandcamp or iTunes and buy their album? Or order their merch? How much do you spend on this monthly on average?

I always find these conversations strange. If you offer content for free I'm not going to pay for it. I don't tip, I don't buy micro transactions in games, I don't pay for discord nitro or buy "collector's edition" versions of games or twitch subscriptions or anything like that. Simply, if I don't have to pay I don't. And I certainly won't waste my life watching ads just so someone can earn a fraction of a cent. I do…

I hate ads as much as the next guy, but this way of thinking feels the most unsustainable of them all. You said it yourself; the only reason you get to watch content ad-free is because other people are either watching ads, or paying for the content.

You justify with 'if you offer content for free, I'm not going to pay for it'. Agreed with microtransactions and stuff. But with youtube videos? The content is not actually offered for free. It precisely relies on ads to exist. So the content is offered with ads/with subscription (i.e. not free), and you are using an adblocker to bypass this. So you are just leeching out of the other users, and is not sustainable.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#450

Post by knorker »

bogwog wrote: post #431
knorker wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it…

The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news. But it is currently a political weapon being wi…

> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies.

It's actually a very common opinion, because it always gets weaponized.

It's not a new phenomenon. It's the reason for the whole idea of freedom of speech.

It's not just R doing this (though they are... prolific users of it). Remember covid? Lab leak was politically incorrect as a lie, and banned, but has since been downgraded to "maybe".

> But I don't want ad supported journalism!

Me neither. But the choice may be between ad supported or none at all. But I hope we can find a viable third way.

Post reply on HN