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

Vietnam bans unskippable ads

saigoneer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 835 posts

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#521

Post by thfuran »

strogonoff wrote: post #257
thfuran wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a fundamental problem with an ad-subsidized service. Even ignoring the privacy issues inherent to the way modern advertising works in practice (which you probably shouldn’t ignore), the mere presence of an advertiser as a third party whose interests the service provider must consider creates malign incentives. I also think providing a service for free is fundamentally anti-competitive. It’s like the…

Arguably, the advertiser is not merely a third party whose interests the service provider must consider, but rather the actual paying customer (and much more of the second party) whose interests the service provider must satisfy to make revenue. That to me puts into perspective the absurdity of this business model: the user is not the customer, the product or service itself is not the product but only a means to keep…

Yes, I mean from the consumer perspective. You're right that the user of an entirely ad-funded service isn't the real customer. They're still at least somewhat the customer when they're still providing some of the revenue though.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#522

Post by BeetleB »

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…

> Root your damn phone!

I did for many years, and finally gave up. With recent Androids, life in the rooted world is much more difficult:

Netflix automatically drops to a lower quality tier.

Many apps now just refuse to work on a rooted phone.

But the worst thing: If I want to update the ROM to get the latest security benefits, I have to wipe my data.

Surprised you didn't mention something like PiHole.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#523

Post by tpmoney »

layer8 wrote: post #421
Auracle wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is maintaining and paying for this directory?

Those who are interested in knowing what services exist.

They won't. Notice that Angies list doesn't operate on the "customer pays for the list" model. That's because any directory service that depends on the searcher paying suffers from the problem that once you've found what you're looking for, you have no reason to keep paying for the directory. If I need a lawn guy, I only need to find one, and then I have their number. Why am I going to keep paying the "Lawn Guy Directory" $5 a month after I found someone?

And if you're going to charge on a per-query basis, I note that Kagi isn't nearly as well funded or well known as Google, and that's with them offering an "unlimited" tier. And a per-query model disincentivizes me from using the service in the first place. The more digging I do, the more it costs me, so the more likely I am to take the first result I get back.

Even the most classic "direct to the people who are most interested" advertising model where the consumer pays money for the ads (magazine ads) still is almost entirely subsidized by the advertisers, not the consumer.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#524

Post by BeetleB »

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 the author/artist wanted it to be free, the ads wouldn't be there.

That's a logical leap. The artist can want both things.

There are two payments involved:

1. The user pays with his time/attention

2. The ad company pays the site

In most cases, the author doesn't mind getting the payments from number 2 even if you skip 1. Many, many sites explicitly point out they don't find a it a problem if you install an ad blocker.

I don't have ads on my site. I'm OK with you consuming it for free. If I put ads one day, I'll still be OK with it, because I know I'll get some money regardless. It's practically free money.

I will not miss the vast majority of sites I go to that serve ads if they all decided to shut down and/or go paid only. I should be spending a lot less time on the Internet/phone to begin with!

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#526

Post by tossaway0 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #427
_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…

> often wondered whether the world would be better without ads You’d probably have to compromise on free speech, since the line between ads and public persuasion is ambiguous to the point of non-existence. Better middle steps: ban on public advertising ( e.g. no billboards, first-party-only signage). Ban on targeted digital advertising. Ban on bulk unsolicited mail or e-mail.

I haven’t given it enough thought, but would a ban on selling ad space do the trick?

You can self promote, but you can’t pay third parties to do it for you and you can’t sell it as a service.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#527

Post by tpmoney »

phantasmish wrote: post #494
layer8 wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who are interested in knowing what services exist.

It's absolutely wild to me that people can have experienced any amount of the Internet and not think "word of mouth" will absolutely wholly suffice to fill the role of informing people about products. Of course many, many people would create and maintain all kinds of lists and review all kinds of products without being paid to. We know this would happen because it has, and it does, even with the noise of advertising…

The early web very quickly gave rise to curated directories of information and stopped working on word of mouth. Yahoo was a directory before it was a "search engine". AOL was a curated walled garden. Web rings were a thing, great for playful discovery, terrible for finding a specific thing. Heck for that matter, web ring banners are arguably just interactive "banners ads".

Word of mouth also requires a high degree of trust in the person spreading the word. Otherwise you get things like youtube "review" channels that are just paid reviews. Or the reddit bot farms where suddenly everyone in a given part of the web is suddenly dropping references to their new Bachelor Chow™ recipes. You can't even trust the news. We all know about submarine ads, but even without that, you can't ever be sure if you're hearing about some new thing on the news because it's really the best/popular, or because they just happen to know a lot of the reporters.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#528

Post by Groxx »

DrewADesign wrote: post #486
nemomarx wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean they leave a 1 star review on the app that was displaying the ad, who probably didn't directly do any of that. They did work with a bad ad network though so it's a valid enough reason to complain imo.

Yeah, good call, but I honestly have no problem with that 1-star either. They can’t say “well we just opened the garbage conduit and pointed it at your face… we didn’t actually MAKE the garbage.” Those ads are part of their app experience, now. They published it, so they’re ’re responsible for it. If it sucks I give it a sucky rating.

Yep. There's no other way to maybe-convince them to get a different ad provider, because they're the ones that chose it (probably because it paid the most).

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#529

Post by tpmoney »

master-lincoln wrote: post #188
kyralis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the niche, really. I despise ads, but I can also admit to having learned about products from them that I have subsequently purchased and been pleased with. Sometimes the ad lets me know about an entire type of product that I didn't know existed but found very useful, and I probably didn't even by the actual brand that was advertised. If you consider the general concept of "letting people know what products…

There are still tests and reviews and content where people can show products without being paid by the people producing these products.

Even without being paid, unless someone is advertising the product somewhere the reviewer won't know it exists to review. And if the reviewer is being sent free product or solicited directly by the producer, that's still advertising. It may be more trustworthy if the reviewer is strict about not letting the producer have editorial control, but you better believe that the company is sending out free products to reviewers because that gets the product in front of eye-balls just like any other ad. The cost of the free review product is the price of the ad.

Re: Vietnam bans unskippable ads

#530

Post by throwawayk7h »

_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…

Instead of ads, we could have websites mine bitcoin in javascript. I feel like this would be better for everyone, especially in a world of AI agents.
Post reply on HN