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

The correct amount of ads is zero

manuelmoreale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 611 posts

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#581

Post by account42 »

next_xibalba wrote: post #498
adamc wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want any content enough to tolerate ads.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

You are ignoring the reality that ethical producers must grapple with: it's impossible to compete ethically when your competitors don't have that limit.

Note that this also goes for genuinely free content - if tons of ad-supported businesses just dominate the search results because they can afford to spend time on SEO then free alternatives (individuals sharing their passions, non-profit organizations, etc.) will be discouraged.

The reality is also that we simply have much more content than needed. Having every single of currently ad supported businesses cease to exist would not be a real problem.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#582

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

jnsie wrote: post #435
bogwog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

> Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? You presumably want access to the Verge's content. This is unsustainable without some revenue. You're compromising to continue to get what you want, not to make some MBA's life easier.

I don't. I can't remember anything from there which I've found noteworthy. And I have been pushed there from here, because someone found it postworthy, and I clicked because of boredom. Skimmed. Maybe scrolled. Still bored. Learned nothing. Closed tab. YAWN. I won't miss it.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#583

Post by account42 »

bogwog wrote: post #431
knorker wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it…

The fake news situation, like all (well, most at least) failures of the free market are solvable with regulations. I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies. We banned selling cigarettes to minors, we banned drugs, we (theoretically) banned monopolies, and we should be able to ban fake news. But it is currently a political weapon being wi…

> I don't think any rational person would disagree that it should be illegal to deliberately spread misinformation and lies.

I would rather not let the goivernment decide what is the truth. A free and independent press as well as free speech in general is a very important check on government corruption that we should not get rid of even if it means tolerating some comparatively minor issues.

"Fake news" is much better solved by teaching people to think critically and ensuring that they have the ability and will to deal with being subjected to deliberately wrong information no matter who it comes from. Unfortunately most school systems do the opposite of that, teaching instead to blindly follow authority and to accept whatever information is provided as fact. Same with current progressive culture in general, if you even dare question any of its dogma you are shunned. No individual though allowed.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#584

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

knorker wrote: post #419
bogwog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. Why would I, as a consumer, compromise on what I want to make some MBA's life easier? That almost sounds like corporate welfare. Businesses sign up to take risks the moment they're created. A news organization doesn't need to be in business. There is nothing unjust or morally wrong with letting a business shutdown becau…

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it…

There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines, that I DO NOT WANT to pay even 1$/€ for every single one. Maybe 1 to 10ct, via legal microtransactions, not some cryptocurrencyshit.

If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might, maybe they aren't that important, and never were to begin with? Let them all burn in a bonfire of their very own.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#585

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

gizmo wrote: post #392
shortformblog wrote: post #265

Stances like this probably feel good to write out, but they miss the reality that when running a media business, relying on one revenue stream is dangerous. That’s why newspapers had classified ads, even though they charged a nominal fee to subscribe. People won’t pay $5 a day to subscribe to a newspaper, but the ads subsidize enough of it to make it so that a paid subscription is accessible to more people. On the in…

One way to describe reality is to argue that media organizations like Vox can't survive if they don't show ads to their paid subscribers. Another way to describe reality is that people can choose to subscribe to various substacks or newsletters instead. On those platforms subscribers get zero ads, they get more in depth and more thoughtful articles, and because the system has much less overhead modest subscription re…

Well put. Though I couldn't care less about 'Fox noise', I'm doing that subscription of individuals, sometimes, though reluctantly because the methods of payment suck from my POV.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#586

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

WickyNilliams wrote: post #506
fragmede wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> What am I losing..? An ever increasing amount of privacy. The ad industry will never be satisfied with the amount of data they collect now. They will always want more. This insatiable appetite for tracking and data represents a slow erosion of our privacy. Building unimaginable surveillance machinery for what? So that I might buy something online once every few years? It's casting an extremely large net to catch ex…

> If I'm trying to sell men's shampoo I wouldn't want to waste money putting ads for it in a women's magazine.

Maybe women want to groom their men really good? Including hairs?

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#587

Post by knorker »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #584
knorker wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting with our wallets got us infowars and two major fake news groups of media (mainstream and not). Why should you want some MBA's life to be easy? So that it's feasible to keep producing what you actually want. I just wish it were possible to pay $1 for an article whose headline sounds interesting, or someone recommended. Subscribe, even with a free trial? Pass. The free market is great. But we should not deny it…

There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines, that I DO NOT WANT to pay even 1$/€ for every single one. Maybe 1 to 10ct, via legal microtransactions, not some cryptocurrencyshit. If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might, maybe they aren't that important, and never were to begin with? Let them all burn in a bonfire of their ver…

> There are so many articles which have 'interesting' clickbaity headlines

Sure. But there are many good ones too. Not just random ones, but take FT or Economist. Several times a month I see a headline I'm interested in, and I do trust them to not bait-and-switch the article. Maybe I'd read it and conclude it was not worth it, but that's not the same thing.

But they both want to sign me up for a subscription. No. I'll pay $1 to read this article if and only if this is the end of the interaction.

So I end up paying them nothing, and not reading the article. (or someone with a subscription copy-pastes the content for me)

> If they don't get that, and are too stupid to push for that, with all their journalistic force and might

Maybe they're stupid. Maybe "I'm not the typical user". Maybe it's just not feasible for FT/Economist alone to implement what I'm asking for, because the micro payment infrastructure doesn't exist.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#588

Post by lobsterthief »

adamc wrote: post #512
next_xibalba wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

We have the full right to assert any moral stance. Whether others find it "condescending" is really not my problem. The reality is that the internet is not a good publication venue. There are lots of eyeballs and distribution is cheap, but getting people to pay is hard. That doesn't mean serving up advertisement is a moral response. Advertisement is met with ad-blockers and will continue to be. When that is too painf…

Honestly, most people don’t use an ad blocker. We’re all in a tech bubble here. Most people just see ads and that’s it. Some complain, most don’t.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#589

Post by johnnyanmac »

adamc wrote: post #512
next_xibalba wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

We have the full right to assert any moral stance. Whether others find it "condescending" is really not my problem. The reality is that the internet is not a good publication venue. There are lots of eyeballs and distribution is cheap, but getting people to pay is hard. That doesn't mean serving up advertisement is a moral response. Advertisement is met with ad-blockers and will continue to be. When that is too painf…

>We have the full right to assert any moral stance.

people are free to ignore it as well.

Has his kind of blowhardy stance ever convinced anyone?

>When that is too painful, people do skip the content.

not enough that non-mainstream news sites haven't stopped serving ads. That's the point. You can only control you, not someone clicking a result off google or reddit, nor a million dollar website that has paid employees.

Re: The correct amount of ads is zero

#590

Post by johnnyanmac »

flashgordon wrote: post #518
next_xibalba wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t consume it. You have full control over that. We all do. What we don’t have is the right to assert a condescending “moral” stance that ignores the economic realities that producers must grapple with.

So the problem is not just black and white - consume ads or dont. It is when my data is being sold without my consent or visibility, when an accidental visiting a page installs tracking cookies and shows annoying opt-out screens, when ad/malware gets installed in every piece of hardware I own (eg "Smart TVs") that is the problem. No business "needs" to exist - that too vampirically. Incentivize the customer to opt-in…

>Dollar costs are visible - why are ads sneakier?

because of lack of regulations? or corrections to regulation. there's GDPR but of course there will be loopholes to make the browsing annoying. That's the cat and mouse of law.

Post reply on HN