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

The Bullshit Web

pxlnv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–568 of 568 posts

Re: The Bullshit Web

#561

Post by thegayngler »

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #467
TeMPOraL wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, there is a tipping point, beyond which the ad blends too well and becomes plain deception. This is even more of a problem for journalistic publications. See also: native advertising.

Indeed. In print, you had dedicated pages to advertisement. Not optimal, but much easier to ignore. Nowadays, you never know if an “article” is simply a marketing agenda.

Yes because the signs people put around the "native ads" literally stating that it's an "ad" or "sponsored content" are easily ignorable. Get real. People pay for a newspaper with ads in it. You still have to sift through it. Ignore it? You literally have to turn the page or spend 5 minutes pulling the ads out of the newspaper if you don't want them and in some cases there isn't a way to escape the ad with print because part of the article is there with the ad. Ad block won't save you then.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#562

Post by SilasX »

themacguffinman wrote: post #554
smolder wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a viable solution to the trust issue. They don't need to respond to the requests, just see copies they can be sure are real requests.

For advertisers to trust this proxy server, the NYT cannot control this proxy server to preserve its integrity. So now you're asking the NYT to base their business on an advertiser-controlled server? What happens when the proxy goes down? What happens when there are bugs? Do you think publishers can really trust advertisers to be good stewards of the publisher's business? Think for a moment about publishers that are…

Those are issues, but not insurmountable, especially when the benefit is "obviate any adblocker".

They can use a trusted third party to run the proxy and use industry standards/SLAs for site reliability/uptime. And they can still use different subdomains with no obvious pattern (web1.nytimes.com vs web2.nytimes.com -- which is the ad server?) or audit the scripts sent through the proxy for malice.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#563

Post by c22 »

MrEldritch wrote: post #314
MrEldritch wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "You actually don't need all that crap to serve adverts, or really even to do tracking: people managed without it in the 90s. It's just that it's more work to get the same effect without a buttload of JS in this day and age" While I sympathize with this sentiment, this is also the entire history of computing in a nutshell. Moore's Law has driven us orders of magnitude beyond where we were when personal computers fi…

(All that being said, I'm also fairly salty about having 8 GB of RAM and a mechanical hard drive rendering my computer incredibly painful to use as technology has marched on. Discord - which I use almost exclusively as an IRC chatroom with persistent while-you-were-gone chat history, embedded media, and fun custom emotes - is an entire Electron app that eats over 100 MB minimum; Firefox is eating 750 MB just keeping…

I'm also on a system with 8Gb of ram at the moment. Firefox is using up a hilarious 4.6Gb keeping a few dozen web pages open, but the entire rest of my Linux system, including Inkscape, qCAD, and SketchUp under Wine are using only a combined 907 megabytes. So it's possible part of your problem is just Windows 10.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#564

Post by c22 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #546
birksherty wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't need paid subscribers. Physical papers and tv have been supported by ads without tracking for decades. Companies pay for space or time. Internet allowed advertisers to track so now we have this BS. They had many years to fix this. But tracking is the business of many companies like google and facebook. Now lot of people uses ad blocker and it's increasing.

The price an advertiser pays to be a full page ad in the NYTimes and printed with the paper is on the order of $150,000, the price an advertiser pays to obscure your entire screen with an ad is as little as $1.00. What you're missing is that advertising rates for television and print are several decimal orders higher than the rates for internet advertising. Why that is is more complicated than you might guess, but th…

If 600,000 [0] people see that $150,000 ad, the advertiser has paid $4 per impression. At $1 CPM, 600k impressions is $60,000, but as you said this cost is at the lowest end. An ad that obscures your entire screen might cost as much as $8 CPM or more [1] and now buying the newspaper ad is sounding like a better deal.

[0] https://www.nytco.com/the-times-sees-circulation-growth-in-f...

[1] https://www.buysellads.com/buy/leaderboard/id/17/soldout/1/c...

Re: The Bullshit Web

#565

Post by ChuckMcM »

c22 wrote: post #564
ChuckMcM wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price an advertiser pays to be a full page ad in the NYTimes and printed with the paper is on the order of $150,000, the price an advertiser pays to obscure your entire screen with an ad is as little as $1.00. What you're missing is that advertising rates for television and print are several decimal orders higher than the rates for internet advertising. Why that is is more complicated than you might guess, but th…

If 600,000 [0] people see that $150,000 ad, the advertiser has paid $4 per impression. At $1 CPM, 600k impressions is $60,000, but as you said this cost is at the lowest end. An ad that obscures your entire screen might cost as much as $8 CPM or more [1] and now buying the newspaper ad is sounding like a better deal. [0] https://www.nytco.com/the-times-sees-circulation-growth-in-f... [1] https://www.buysellads.com/bu…

Consider the fate of Dr. Dobbs journal - print magazine (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8758915)

Re: The Bullshit Web

#566

Post by fwip »

ubernostrum wrote: post #549
sixstringtheory wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s nothing more than marketing. Do you ride more because it’s unlimited? When you get to your stop for your office or dinner or whatever, do you go back home and then back again before getting off? Do you go all the way to the end of the line to minimize your cost per mile, then walk back to your actual destination? Of course not, you use it as efficiently as possible to do the thing you used public transit to ac…

Of course not, you use it as efficiently as possible to do the thing you used public transit to actually _get to_. The comment I replied to claimed transit systems don't sell unlimited-ride passes. I was pointing out that some of them do. What you're arguing is they wouldn't have the capacity to handle it if every person bought such a pass and immediately ceased all activities other than riding transit 24/7, which ma…

I did not claim that, please read more carefully.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#567

Post by jshevek »

noch wrote: post #558
jshevek wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are interested in rat poison, you may also enjoy xmonad. I've used both and much preferred xmonad

Load the entire GHC garbage collected runtime just for my window manager? Isn't this the same philosophy that causes people to use Electron? And that results in unnecessarily large memory footprints and runtime performance penalties?

Xmonad is rock solid, lightening fast, and perfect for many who prefer to minimize their reliance on a mouse
Post reply on HN