Hmm; how about a +5 point boost instead for sites doing paywall innovation? Free content isn't the end goal. Don't we want people to make a living off content? I can't imagine anybody here wouldn't pay 1 or 5 pennies for the second half of a useful article.
“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
51–60 of 259 posts
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#52You would think, if they have the ability to detect that a user has an ad blocker in place, they could just as easily redirect them to a subscription form for an ad-free experience, rather than block people and lose revenue completely.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#53As noted other comments, this would only apply to the /r/technology subreddit. The general feedback is in favor of blocking these types of sites. I'm pretty amazed at the current state of ads. With multiple ad exchanges, private sellers, and static brand deals, the entire serving process is a mess and users are paying for it. I don't think publishing websites are being malicious; they're incentived to make money and…
I don't know about "only applies to /r/technology" - we've been there before. Remember when ad blockers were mostly prevalent among techies and visitors to tech sites? Yeah, well, that changed. It may start with /r/technology, but I'm pretty sure it won't end there...
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#54You would think, if they have the ability to detect that a user has an ad blocker in place, they could just as easily redirect them to a subscription form for an ad-free experience, rather than block people and lose revenue completely.
That works only in theory, subscription has a cost which is above and beyond whatever price listed: it's the mental cost tied to renewing, cancelling and tracking it.
Single subscription multiple website model may work, but as soon as buy-in ramps up for that model expect everyone jumping in with me-too services, killing it.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they are malicious. They're serving the high-profit ads, which obviously includes malware, where they could be serving low-profit, safe (but boring) ads. That's equivalent to pharmacists selling illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine) simply because they obviously make them more profits.
It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…
It absolutely is so black and white. If I buy a computer from you and you send me a parcel which explodes in my hands, no amount of hand-waving is going to get you out of this -- this even holds if you just distributed notes "Call this number to get your own personal computer free of charge!".
And just as a computer reseller/free-computers-for-everyone-distributor has an obligation not to send bombs to people who asked for computers, a website owner has an obligation not to serve malware to people who asked for content.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#56What consumers want is a combination of product or service (1) database, (2) curation by category + quality, (3) recommendation, and (4) discovery. As an odd category, there may also be product sponsorship, like with Kickstarter.
Advertisements suck at all of these.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it expanded to the rest of Reddit then it might be the impetuous for the news industry to clean up their act. And no, that's not a mistake. It's not advertisers I direct my ire but those who should know better and who apparently are meant to exist for the greater public good: The Press.
I think you mean impetus rather than impetuous ?
Oops. Dratted iPhone autocorrect. On another reply I was forced to hit edit because I told someone that most editors on HN "unstalk" uBlock Plus.
I have no idea under what context I made my iPhone learn that word.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#58Same should go for HN, really. Paywalls and adwalls are a great way to make me not even read the article and thread. Yet, they make frontpage due to buzz.
It may surprise you, but there are people here who don't mind these sites. It's already possible to flag links that you think have no place on HN. Please use that instead of trying to setup preemptive censorship.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#59Tangentially, I would like Google to put a warning on navigating to a site that has served malware any time in the past month. This will increase the penalty of serving malware so much that sites will suddenly push back on the ad networks and improve quality dramatically.
In the United States Google runs one of the biggest ad networks, which has occasionally served malware, and they run the biggest search engine. Penalizing in the later sites that use a competitor to the former might open them to an antitrust lawsuit. They could probably do this in a way that avoids antitrust liability, but I think they would have to tread very carefully.
Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”
#60Ive actually implemented this locally. I reached a breaking point with some of the intrusive ads, so I block ads. If a site(such as Wired) asks me to turn that off, I add it to simple blocker and dont go back. The funny thing is a) I have a print subscription to wired but I cant access the site without turning off ad blocking, and b) I dont miss the online version. If Im just being honest with myself, its doing me a favor by preventing procrastination.