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

“We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 259 posts

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#61

Post by gedrap »

awinter-py wrote: post #51

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.

In theory, it would work pretty well and there are startups in this space. The problem is that there is a number of different publishers and maintaining account with each of them doesn't sound very convenient. Unified payments system/interface might be better but it's a tough achievement to make.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#62

Post by _lce0 »

GhotiFish wrote: post #46
bemmu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to ads, people install ad blockers. In response to ad blockers, sites install ad blocker blockers. In response to ad blocker blockers, Reddit adds ad blocker blocker blocker.

Personally, I place my bets that if enough content providers start deploying ad blocker blocking, then clients should be able to respond. I think in a war between ad's trying to assert a user has seen an ad, and clients trying to view content, so long as the client owns the computer, the client will win. That's why I hate walled gardens so much. I'm convinced it was a preemptive shot in this war.

> so long as the client owns the computer

Is Moore law against this?

A possible future scenario could be one were technology becomes so cheap that Apple/Google/Facebook .et all, starts "lending" their own hardware for free so people can access their _open_ walled-garden flavored internet.

Projects like of RPi/Arduino bring me hope that this wont ever happen, at least to us.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#63

Post by gedrap »

jcoffland wrote: post #12

I think HN should automatically penalize the scores of paywalled sites. Although I'm not sure HN's pro-corporate politics would ever allow it.

I just disagree. It's up for the community to decide what's useful and what's not by voting on it.

If you don't like the link - don't vote. If enough people like it, then it's fair for others to see it. That's how communities work, you can't change rules to please everyone because you never will.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#64

Post by gedrap »

HappyTypist wrote: post #13
return0 wrote: post #7

Anything that expedites the process of moving from ads to paying "somehow else" for good content is good. But it falls on the technologists side to come up with something that replaces ads. Redditors are only curing a symptom.

Ads have been fine for years until they started tracking you around, flashing annoying animations, auto playing sound or video or taking up the whole page. I'm perfectly content with banner and text ads, as long as they're not animated.

I don't think that ads were fine for the past decade (I'd even say that they got better but that's just based on my memory).

What has changed is that adblocking reached mainstream.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#66

Post by FussyZeus »

tomp wrote: post #15
econnors wrote: post #6

As 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…

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.

I don't think most ad networks are intentionally serving ads like that. Occam's razor, etc.

Doesn't make them less culpable for the damage they cause, I'm just saying I don't think it's something they make additional money on, I think it's something that gets slipped under the radar by a few bad actors.

They obviously aren't incentivized enough to stop it though so why not implement a more direct compensation? If a user gets a malware program on their machine and it can be traced back to a given provider, that provider should be billed accordingly for the cost of the removal (including if the user can do it themselves, they should get paid for that anyway) as well as lost productivity time.

Currently any ad network serving malware just gets to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and keep on making money, and considering how damaging some of this shit can be I'd say that's the first point that needs addressing.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#67

Post by tunap »

wslh wrote: post #29
willvarfar wrote: post #28

Tangentially, 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.

The problem with Google is that they are labeling as malware a lot of software that is not malware just because they have an .exe. Source: it is happening at my company. It seems like just signing the software is enough to remove this labelling but their policies are not transparent. At the end Google is behaving like a vigilante.

When the IP for a shared hosting server is flagged, the result in search for all sites residing under that IP are saddled with an alt URL titled "This site may be hacked". Their solution to fix it for the dozens/hundreds of benign sites co-hosted on said server? Sign up for more Google services(Google Search Console).

In that way, they are behving like a typical corporation.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#69

Post by Angostura »

xrisk wrote: post #65

You should really post np.reddit links to prevent non-users of said reddit community from voting. It's the standard practice -- https://www.reddit.com/r/NoParticipation/wiki/intro

Since non-users would have to create an account anyway in order to vote, I'm not sure that this is an issue.

Re: “We're considering banning domains that require users to disable ad blockers”

#70

Post by coldpie »

Strom wrote: post #58
Zelmor wrote: post #22

Same 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.

I don't think you understand what censorship is.
Post reply on HN