Vietnam bans unskippable ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#461

Post by keybored » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:34 PM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #439

keybored wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m at a loss as to what these abstract to the heavens responses even mean to reply to. What I commented on was the propaganda tactics of capitalism. The topic in itself wasn’t even about the merits of it (but see the last sentence). What you get in response though are these chin-stroking platitudes about but maybe all social systems have their faults , and ah but look at how full and bountiful my fridge is because o…

Cadre, I can't help you. If the guy says meta advertising works for him, I'd take his word for it.

Nobody is immune to propaganda.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#462

Post by Aerroon » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #426

rick_dalton wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of buying ad space we can now buy catalog space and reinvent the wheel.

The principle would be that companies aren’t allow to buy placement. It would be like a phonebook.

Yes, instead they register 1 million businesses that will all be listed in the phonebook.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#463

Post by MiddleEndian » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC

Anon1096 wrote: post #363

MiddleEndian wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I search for "Salesforce alternative" and something that isn't Salesforce shows up, great! That's what I want! If I search for Salesforce and something that isn't Salesforce shows up above Salesforce, the tool I'm using is wrong and I will assume that the promoted product is a scam. This happened to me yesterday when installing the mobile version of Brotato. Some other game appeared above Brotato in the Google Pla…

>Google already gets an unjustified cut of the money I'm paying for the game Brotato is free to distribute their game outside the Play Store as well, Android isn't locked down. If the cut was unjustified why would they give money away to Google for free? The reasons are actually extremely similar to the reasons ads benefit society.

They kinda created this fake locked down market that people expect to be able to be used, same as Apple, compared to say, just downloading apps normally like on a computer.

Also "sideloaded" apps cannot be automatically updated, although personally I think it would be better if nothing could automatically update lol

I'm also not the biggest fan of Steam. But at least on Steam if I search for Brotato it's the top result, Steam is not tied to the OS so if gamers and game makers decided they hate Steam they could jump to some other market (as opposed to, say, the built-in Microsoft store in Windows that thankfully seems to be failing), and Steam has helped drag Linux into the 21st century in a good way.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#464

Post by tcfhgj » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

suriya-ganesh wrote: post #256

mmh0000 wrote: post #251

I am shaken to my core (sorry, wife hates that phrase, so I have to use it everywhere) at how many posters here see ads. I'm of the opinion that if you're seeing ads on your hardware, which you paid for, your computer is broken. That advertisements are always evil, always wrong, and never morally just. And everything possible should be done to avoid, remove, or deface them. To that end: Andriod: - Root your damn phon…

I used to think this. and I do run some of your suggestions. But how is the internet economy supposed to function without these micro transactions, in the form of ads. A lot of the abundance in software and technology we've seen in the past decade is possible only through this mechanism.

Other types of micro transactions and payments are possible

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#465

Post by luxuryballs » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

*Vietnam mandates 5 second ads

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#466

Post by unleaded » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #341

ksaj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some "news" sites are so annoying about their ads, I just close the tab and google for someone else's version of the story. I block sites that show up in my news feed often but display more nag than content. I'm sure in their mind, they don't care about me leaving. Apparently more than enough people put up with it to keep the site viable.

lite.cnn.com is the best lightweight news site I know of, though it is still CNN and probably more US-focused.

impressive... let's see the page source

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#467

Post by tcfhgj » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

crims0n wrote: post #296

suriya-ganesh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this. and I do run some of your suggestions. But how is the internet economy supposed to function without these micro transactions, in the form of ads. A lot of the abundance in software and technology we've seen in the past decade is possible only through this mechanism.

I too struggle with this. It's not like people can't publish things on the web without ads. If the author/artist wanted it to be free, the ads wouldn't be there. So people who use ad blockers are either making a moral choice to consume a paid service for free, or are ignorant of how the internet economy works. There is an argument to be made that advertisements are so detrimental to the user experience and mental hea…

If a medium doesn't exist because of the lack of ads and you think it's a loss, you should have paid for it (which overall is cheaper than paying though ads).

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#468

Post by intrikate » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

i_am_jl wrote: post #397

kube-system wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why it would specifically be targeting "sleepers"... there are a lot of reasons why someone might not skip ads... people who are sleeping are probably the least valuable of them. It could just as well be something super valuable -- like an unattended kiosk device playing youtube to a crowd of people.

Regarding the kiosk, I wholly expect that an unattended device with YT on auto play will ratchet up the length/frequency of ads as long as they're never skipped. Someone who falls asleep watching YouTube will skip ads, unless they're asleep. The idea is that if YT can infer that someone is asleep (location, no movement, no sound, low light, night) that they can show the longest, most skip-inducing ads that they've go…

Sure, but why would I, as an entity buying advertising space, pay the same amount when YouTube is just going to try to show them to people who are asleep, that can't see the ads, and thus would have no effect anyway?

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#469

Post by Levitz » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

thenewnewguy wrote: post #253

iammjm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world would definitely be better without ads. All ads are poisonous. All of them first convince you that you and your life as it is is not good enough, and that in order to be happy again you need to spend money to buy a $product.

Obviously, if you could just delete the ads without changing anything else the world would be better, but that's not how it works. Lots of businesses sustain themselves on ad revenue - would the world be a better place if we had no ads, but - TV was twice the cost - Google, YouTube, etc. (insert your favorite ad-supported website here) didn't exist or cost a monthly subscription - All news was paywalled - Any ad-supp…

Yes. I'm not even sure it's a question anymore. Yes it would be a better world.

Not even because of the first order consequences of the ads, but because since there are ads, we have an entire media ecosystem based on grabbing your attention.

So that TV displays series and movies meant for people with the attention span of a goldfish. This applies to Netflix and Hollywood by the way. All of it. Even music changes for radio, meaning more ads.

Google, Youtube, etc, along with news, along with social networks, depend on ragebait, being the first to spout whatever factoid, true or false, polarization of thought and basically a good chunk of what is very evidently wrong in today's society.

I trust we could support a weather app with donations. For the rest? If I could remove either ads or cancer from this world I would sit a long time thinking about the decision, but gut feeling? Ads. The actual cost of the ad industry is enormous and incalculable, not even mentioning the actual purposes ads serve.

As for the rest, I'm very much a fan of the Bill Hicks standup bit regarding the subject.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#470

Post by shuntress » Tue, Jan 06, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

iammjm wrote: post #24

_jab wrote: post #13

I've often wondered whether the world would be better without ads. The incentive to create services (especially in social media) that strive to addict their users feels toxic to society. Often, it feels uncertain whether these services are providing actual value, and I suspect that whether a user would pay for a service in lieu of watching ads is incidentally a good barometer for whether real value is present. Don't…

The world would definitely be better without ads. All ads are poisonous. All of them first convince you that you and your life as it is is not good enough, and that in order to be happy again you need to spend money to buy a $product.

The problem is not ads. The problem is SPAM.

There are plenty of legitimately well-intentioned ads that can connect someone who needs a good/service with someone that supplies it and everyone wins.

The problem is that we use a nearly totally free unregulated market where anyone can advertise anything anywhere.

edit: I'm not saying we should necessarily try to optimize for good ads over bad ads or even assuming that is possible. I would settle for just somehow reducing the total volume of ads to help make email, snail main, voice mail, and other methods of communication more usable.