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

We’re dropping Google Ads

groundup.org.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 617 posts

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#451

Post by qazwse_ »

coldpie wrote: post #381
NLips wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, if the restaurant only accepts payment by credit card, you are free to not pay. That's the concept of legal tender - if they want to demand payment of a debt (i.e. after you finish the meal) from you with backing by law, they _must_ accept legal tender. If they only accept credit card payments, they can't use the law to make you pay.

I would be surprised if this is true.

So I started looking into this, because it's interesting.

So, merchants can reject cash for purchases[1] because cash is legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues, and a purchase is not one of these.

The Wikipedia page [2] for dining and dashing states that ordering a meal is a contract debt, since you are given the food before the transaction occurs, with the understanding that you'll pay for it afterwards. Thus, if the merchant, after giving you the food, informed you that they only accept credit card, that would not be allowed.

Also some good discussion on this SE post [3]

1. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine_and_dash 3. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7701/is-it-illeg...

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#452

Post by bad_user »

bluGill wrote: post #435
bad_user wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app. Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course). The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modif…

Fortunately, Facebook seems to have some standards for ads: I don't see the porn/Russian brides/make money fast ads on Facebook like I see elsewhere. (except for a few real world friends involved in some MMF scam who use their personal status to advertise - not Facebooks' fault there though) I do judge publishers by the quality of ads they accept. You cannot advertise a borderline illegal MMF scam and be considered l…

Sure, I agree about quality, but if we continue blocking ads, then how are we going to end up rewarding the good actors?

I mean, this GroundUp site decided to drop Google's ads in order to improve usability for users and because the gains aren't worth it.

But this change won't get noticed by users having ad-blockers installed.

And if they'll decide to push high-quality in-house ads in order to survive, all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination.

Again, because of the status quo I too have ad-blockers installed everywhere, phone included. But it's not a win-win situation and that bothers me.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#453

Post by clubm8 »

scrps wrote: post #337
paulcole wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'd be wrong to hire a dude to clip out all the ads before I open the paper in the morning. I think it'd be wrong to mod my TV and car radio to change the channel when an ad starts playing.

The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free. Newspapers have just struggled to find and adopt a similar model, I hope they find it. The common thread is that we live in an advertising saturated world and a lot of people are tir…

>The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free.

Not ad free - different types of ads. Services like Netflix have product placement.

(Which troubles me a bit since while traditional ads were irritating, at least there was disclosure.)

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#454

Post by tomjen3 »

paulcole wrote: post #62
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

Give me two examples of unwritten agreements that are not laws and will get me in more trouble than "some segment of the population will think less of me".

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#455

Post by nso »

bazillion wrote: post #254

I've been saying that the ad model is broken for a while, and prescribing a real fix for it: a new form of native advertising that actually benefits the user. My company, PLEENQ[1], makes it so users can hover over an image and click on the individual products within it to go where they can buy the product. Here's a demo video: https://youtu.be/V_oTtDUV0yI My solution is to basically build features around the content…

While cool as a tech (hello again , i did not miss you) , most sites do not have large pictures of sellable items -- and far from every country has amazon as a reasonable choice due the cost of shipping and import tax.

Maybe it is cool for pink bloggers ( https://goo.gl/OFWwmp ), but I don't see the use case for the masses like you do with adsense.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#456

Post by jdormit »

dheera wrote: post #20
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user.

Brendan Eich is trying to do exactly this with the Brave browser [0]. Although it is a ways away, he wants to cut out the adware middlemen and give users a portion of the revenue for ads which they view, perhaps with some sort of opt-in "watch this video and earn $x" model in which the video content is tailored to you through (local, private) browsing history analysis.

If you are interested, Software Engineering Daily recently did an interview with him about the topic:

https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2017/03/31/webassembly-...

[0] https://www.brave.com

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#457

Post by Karunamon »

paulcole wrote: post #62
mikestew wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement. C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server d…

Society has many unwritten agreements. You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."

Does your site take responsibility for the ads it displays? Will you compensate me for the time and expense in the event one of your unvetted ads infects a user at my company with some kind of drive-by malware?

No?

Then I guess this "agreement" isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#458

Post by tomjen3 »

matt4077 wrote: post #191
mitchty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on. What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of a…

The ethical problem isn't ethical, but existential. If everyone acted on only their immediate self-interest, ad-supported business models would fold. Then, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls. Even if you decide to pay for a few sources of information, you will never again have access to the breath of journalism you have now. If paywalls don't catch on, it's game ov…

>hen, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls.

Fallacy of the excluded middle: among the choices you did not accept we have the option of returning the internet back to the laws that originally governed it, that is nothing commercial.

I don't personally want this across the board, but I am not convinced that the world wouldn't be better if that rule held for non fictional content.

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#459

Post by bandrami »

chongli wrote: post #296
jacquesm wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's easy to solve by the publisher: serve up the ads directly, ad blocking problem goes away. And that's exactly how this will end.

There are other comments (including one by me) discussing this. I'm totally fine with it. Others have said that most advertisers won't pay for these ads due to an inability to audit and track users.

Funny, advertisers seem willing to pay for billboards and television ads. Remind me what the auditing and tracking capabilities there are?

Re: We’re dropping Google Ads

#460

Post by lettergram »

dheera wrote: post #20
phantom_oracle wrote: post #12

For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker. Then you see all those shitty ads for: - finding a russian bride - getting rich through some millionaires secret - anti-aging remedies - adware and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is los…

My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish. Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses sh…

> That will incentivize people to unblock ads.

But then they will likely start clicking on ads to increase their own revenue. Or just visit various websites in an automated way to make money.

I don't know if that would work.

Post reply on HN