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

Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

ninjasandrobots.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#61

Post by polshaw »

I had this happen recently with airbnb.. I went to check out prices in a city, and decided youth hostels offered better value for the situation so left.

Virtually every single website i visited for a week was shoving airbnb in my face. Yes, i know you exist, i went there.

There has to be more complexity to the 'rule of 7' because i'm sure there must be better sales patterns than just shoving 7 ads in a row for the same thing at you. The same thing happens with comedy central's online shows.. every time the same ad-- it just makes me hate the product after the first few times.

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#62

Post by 12uu45dd »

12uu45dd wrote: post #37

Now, let's be serious. If we all block ads, whic is really trivial to do, then the web would cease to be an important medium, the quality of content found through the web would drop sharply and our lives would lose the enrichment that online advertising brings. It would just be terrible. Don't block ads. A kitten is tortured everytime you do.

If you don't believe this is an important issue, then please consider the example of public television. The damage it has caused by denying income to advertisers has been immeasurable. Not to mention that the programs they show serve only to dull the minds of the population. Please do not block ads. My kitten thanks you for your anticipated cooperation.

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#64

Post by jodrellblank »

tomkarlo wrote: post #32
joejohnson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument is false for a few reasons. With many online services, who's to say precisely what the product is. Aren't we (the users) the real product for a lot of large, free services (gmail, Facebook, etc.)? And for the bandwidth, I'm paying for that too. I pay an ISP every month to browser the internet. Shouldn't I be able to control what I use this bandwidth for? When I click on a link, I don't truly know what r…

I don't disagree that as a consumer you should have the right to choose what gets sent to you - but generally, if you're using a site, you're also consenting to its terms of service (which generally include accepting its ads.) As such, the product IS actually defined for you, and not up for you to define as you see fit. Using it outside of those terms is theft of service. If you don't want accept those ads, fine, but…

Is it legally agreed that connecting to a webserver and sending "GET /" and reading the reply is "agreeing to the terms of service"?

If the terms of service included a link to an audio advert, do I have to quiet other sound sources so I can hear the advert?

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#65

Post by niels_olson »

vladd wrote: post #7

Google allows you to manage your ads preferences at: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ Retargeting is basically disabled if one opts out there (for the web, search&gmail or both).

Er, mine says I currently do not have an 'id' cookie. What's that mean? Am I untouchable or completely exposed?

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#66

Post by niels_olson »

storborg wrote: post #46
rglullis wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If using adblock is unethical, so is torrenting TV shows; and I thought you agreed with me that the MPAA claim is bullshit. Google is better than the alternatives, sure. It doesn't mean that it is any good. The ads I get on my cell phone are still awful, to the point of discouraging me to use it more.

It's not contradictory to agree that the MPAA's "every pirate is a stolen sale" claim is bullshit, but still think that torrenting TV shows is unethical. Some may believe that the ethical choice is just to not watch that TV show.

> Some may believe that the ethical choice is just to not watch that TV show.

Here's my dilemma: I don't own a TV, I can't be bothered to even try to download, let alone watch. I tried with The Wire, it became a suffering labor to t trough it, no matter how interesting. Mad Men? Good luck. I have no time.

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#67

Post by robomartin »

Aren't you just angry because your girlfriend keeps seeing that penile enlargement ad every time she uses your computer? It sure bothers me!

All kidding aside, I'd say that the minute you start paying for Google's search engine, email, docs and other services you are automatically entitled to them blocking ads from AdSense-powered sites. Until then I can't see how someone can complain given the value received. Fair trade.

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#68

Post by Duff »

Peaker wrote: post #44
tomkarlo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that the MPAA claim is silly. But in this case, you're actually consuming the product - using their bandwidth, their servers, etc, all of which costs money - and denying them the revenue they use to support that service. The argument with the MPAA concept is that you're not denying them a sale, nor are you increasing their cost of doing business, but here you're you're doing the latter. Do you really…

If you just mentally ad-block, are you still denying them?

It's your ethical duty to click!

Seriously though, my local weekly newspaper knows nothing about my habits, but offers ads 10x more relevant than Google, who has been tracking me for a decade.

Re: Google, I've had enough. How about a Compromise?

#69

Post by throw_away »

dubya wrote: post #55
rglullis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if the product is actually valuable to me, I would spend more money on them that they could ever make from me through ads. "But wait, what about freemium? Plenty of services remove the ads for paying customers", one might ask. The problem with it is that you now a have false sense of choice: 1) Free product + ads 2) Paid product and no ads. There is a third alternative: free product, adblock, no ads. Ye…

It's technically possible for sites to not serve content to those who use adblock. I remember arstechnica.com did this once to make a point. I guess if this was widespread, it would turn into an arms race though.

I'm pretty sure that washingtonpost.com does this now. This URL, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-governments-ou... serves content if you have adblock plus turned off, but a registration page if you have it turned on.
Post reply on HN