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

AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 282 posts

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#61

Post by _m7bj »

sanswork wrote: post #57
_m7bj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My attention is more valuable than that. It's /my/ attention, I get to set the price, and I don't accept their offer. They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable.

You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. It is your attention which you are agreeing to trade for information or entertainment. >They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable. This is more commonly happening now. Then we all have to deal with people complaining about that. Taking up /my/ attention which they are refusing to pay for. Pay me…

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads.

You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price".

The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model.

The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place alternative content where the ads would be, requesting that I disable my ad blocker, or like them on facebook as an alternative.

I think the "recommended price" of this "pay what you feel it is worth" model, which is usually watching advertising and allowing myself to be tracked, is too high.

I have once or twice directly sent the creator $5-10, when they offered a payment method that didn't require a paypal account. If it's good content, that's pretty reasonable. Dans Data[1] /is/ good content, even if it's getting a bit dated these days.

[1] http://www.dansdata.com

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#62

Post by sanswork »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #60
sanswork wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the ads just appear while you're sitting around doing nothing. You see the ads when you are receiving something with them. The ad companies are paying for your attention with the content you consume.

> It's not like the ads just appear while you're sitting around doing nothing. Yeah, it's literally like that . I open a random webpage, wait a few seconds, and here they are. I visit my aunt, and don't even get to open the browser before BAM, ads everywhere!

>I open a random webpage

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#63

Post by jalfresi »

have_faith wrote: post #24

If I'm already blocking the ads and their tracking scripts, why would I let it load them first, 'click' them and then block them afterwards? Doesn't it just re-open the attack vector?

I'd love for this to be inside some kind of proxy server - stripping ads for my browsing whilst simultaneously clicking every one of them under a fake profile of some kind...

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#64

Post by sanswork »

_m7bj wrote: post #61
sanswork wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. It is your attention which you are agreeing to trade for information or entertainment. >They're welcome to block me from their websites, if they feel that's not acceptable. This is more commonly happening now. Then we all have to deal with people complaining about that. Taking up /my/ attention which they are refusing to pay for. Pay me…

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…

Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts.

Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators?

You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#65

Post by TeMPOraL »

eloff wrote: post #32
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding #3, I'm personally 100% against any online advertising in any form. So this punishes those who support it. Ditto for #2. As for #1, I'm not gaining anything, and no one is being deprived for their rights. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there? If anything prosecutors should start with the rampant fraud being committed by companies in the online advertising space before they even think about lo…

Micropayments have never worked well on the internet, not for technical problems, but likely more that the market isn't really there. I know I just want free stuff and I'm not going to pay to read a news article or blog post no matter how well written or researched. So at the end of the day there is still no viable alternative to advertising supported content. Kill advertising and you'll take the content with it, bec…

> Kill advertising and you'll take the content with it

Good. Let it die.

There's enough better content available for free and without ads. Somehow, it so happens that people who have something interesting or meaningful to say tend to say it anyway, and either pay for it themselves or ask nicely for something in return.

I honestly do believe the content quality is inversely proportional to the amount and obtrusiveness of ads on the page.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#66

Post by UweSchmidt »

eloff wrote: post #32
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding #3, I'm personally 100% against any online advertising in any form. So this punishes those who support it. Ditto for #2. As for #1, I'm not gaining anything, and no one is being deprived for their rights. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there? If anything prosecutors should start with the rampant fraud being committed by companies in the online advertising space before they even think about lo…

Micropayments have never worked well on the internet, not for technical problems, but likely more that the market isn't really there. I know I just want free stuff and I'm not going to pay to read a news article or blog post no matter how well written or researched. So at the end of the day there is still no viable alternative to advertising supported content. Kill advertising and you'll take the content with it, bec…

Gaming streamers on Twitch seem to get quite a bit of donations. Streamers are personalities that connect with their audience and have a following. Surprisingly, movies and music are now available through subscription services, after many years of sharing for free. These services are successful because they are polished, convenient and legal. People are paying a lot for ebooks, in-game items and other virtual goods.

So, no reason why other content couldn't make money.

Kill advertising and you'll take a lot of lame, average content with it. Or even desirable, culturally meaningful content that doesn't quite do enough. Sports news? Forget it, people may find their favourite vlog-commentator and pay for comedy, mash-ups and creativity. A decent article that makes you think for a bit? Not good enough, chances are they'll follow a popular author and his movement and put some money down for the cause they believe in.

(Ok that last thing is a bit scary but it's where things are going anyway...)

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#67

Post by TeMPOraL »

sanswork wrote: post #64
_m7bj wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You set the price when you consume the content that you know is funded with ads. You're objectively wrong. If that were the case, I would be blocked from accessing the content without "paying the price". The situation is instead clearly analogous to a "pay what you feel it is worth" model. The creators of the content allow anyone to view it, regardless of whether they run an ad blocker or not. Sometimes, they place…

Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Maki…

> Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke.

It's not a joke. It's avoiding death by thousand cuts.

Time is literally the most valuable commodity we have. Anything you do to waste someone's time - like displaying obtrusive, annoying ads - is in my books an act of aggression.

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#68

Post by gfody »

They say it silently clicks all the ads in the background - doesn't that just help them? They want clicks right? Obviously the customer wants legitimate leads but the advertiser the guy we hate doesn't care if the clicks are legit or not. For him the more clicks the better, no?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#69

Post by chatmasta »

hidden_forest wrote: post #15

I block all ads, tracking, beacons, etc. because they are now the single largest vector for malware. I use Firefox largely because it's the most hackable browser. I tweak Firefox to do and not do several things: - I don't allow sites to see my history - I don't allow peerconnect - I don't allow WebRTC (shows private address schemas) - I don't allow much JS - I don't allow fingerprinting beyond pure basics - I don't a…

You realize that by blocking all that stuff you're only making your fingerprint more unique?

Re: AdNauseam: Fight Back Against Advertising Networks and Privacy Abuse

#70

Post by sanswork »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67
sanswork wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content creators have gone with not blocking blockers up until now because it's not an issue. As it becomes more of an issue you start seeing more and more anti-blocking scripts. Once or twice in all your years online you have agreed to an alternate funding method and you think that is sustainable for content creators? You can make a lot of arguments for ad blocking. I ad block because it slows my computer down. Maki…

> Making the claim that you ad block because your attention is more valuable though is a joke. It's not a joke. It's avoiding death by thousand cuts. Time is literally the most valuable commodity we have. Anything you do to waste someone's time - like displaying obtrusive, annoying ads - is in my books an act of aggression.

If your time is so important why are you wasting it visiting pages with ads?

>There's enough better content available for free and without ads

Surely you'd just stick with the better content that doesn't use ads all the time right?

Post reply on HN