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

What we break when we fix ad blocking

tonyhaile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 226 posts

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#81

Post by Mz »

gglitch wrote: post #79
Mz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More extremely, I flat out refuse consumerist society whenever possible. None of us needs to be manipulated into buying most of the things ads try to manipulate us to buy. Yet, you are consuming someone else's writing as a minimum. I have taken ads off most of my websites and added a tipping option. I hope that turns out to be successful. I currently don't get enough traffic for it to support me outright. Most people…

How about, as a start, an ad industry that voluntarily and transparently (e.g, using open source software and business contracts) restricts itself to displaying ads that (a) do not directly impinge upon the browsing/reading experience, and (b) do not track?

Thanks.

Though, to my mind, that isn't really an alternative monetization model. It is the same model, but tweaked.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#82

Post by sambrand »

jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

I respect your ideals. And I'd love to hear about how you plan to move the Internet towards Utopia. But I'm not sure consuming without paying (attention to ads) is really the most respectful or effective way to get there.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#83

Post by toothbrush »

sambrand wrote: post #71

Advertising is paying for goods with attention. It's a novel type of currency. It's a wealth generator. And it's contributed to a more diverse Internet. If you don't want to pay with attention that's fine. If you believe the Internet should be an ad-free Utopia, that's fine too. But rather than take content without paying attention, practice some civil disobedience: embargo publishers who piss you off.

I'm really curious whenever people say such things though: what about (thought experiment) the situation where i let my computer run whatever code websites throw at me, but that come hell or high water, i'm 100% sure i would never click on any ad or be swayed in my opinions regarding what to purchase? Is that 'attention' still worth any nonzero value? Or what about the situation where some technical gizmo forces me to look and listen to the advert (see Black Mirror S01E02) before receiving the article text. Say i do all that, but still am 100% uninterested in what's being offered—wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests to not show that ad?

On a lighter note, this is how i feel about ads: https://youtu.be/JiHjzGKc8tA?t=0m58s (Black Books – "just browsing")

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#84

Post by GhotiFish »

amelius wrote: post #50
JulianMorrison wrote: post #34

There is an alternative to adverts. Its real, it's here, it works. That alternative is Patreon. In the Patreon model, you can support the creator directly, and their ability to produce content scales with that support. It's like a subscription, except you allow anyone else to free ride. A Patreon supported site could run no ads at all and still make a stable income. It would no longer be fighting its readers to force…

It seems that in the Patreon model, the creator is the central element, and not the content itself. This seems a bit weird, because it is the content I'm after, not the artist. It may be nice for fans who will buy anything from a particular artist, even if it is worthless when considering just the content. Also, this seems a lot like "branding & marketing" version 2.0. I don't like branding. And I don't want to like…

I'm paying for creation, that is what is valuable, not content, content is worthless. Content has infinite supply. Creation is what is limited.

This dissonance has been, and (it seems) will always be, the primary stumbling block in the discussion of the information economy.

Why are pirates immoral? Why are they not immoral? Why is DRM immoral? Why is DRM not immoral? Who owns the copyright? what is fair use?

All to do with information. All fighting this central dissonance.

This is why the Patreon model should be advocated when it comes to information. Because as a tool, the market is utterly unfit to operate in this arena.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#85

Post by itsybitsycoder »

Mz wrote: post #80
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not slavery; it's volunteerism. No one is forced to produce content for the web. Will there be more and better content if people can make money by producing content? Probably. However, comparing people who voluntarily produce free content to slavery is ludicrous.

Let me put that another way: People currently try to monetize by putting ads on their sites. Other people use adblockers, denying them payment but benefitting from their labor. If you want the ads to stop but the labor to continue, you basically desire slave labor from people. I posit that if you are using ad blockers and not also promoting another form of valid monetization, you are, in fact, taking advantage of peo…

But websites don't ask for my consent before they show me ads, and I have no idea what they expect the "price" of an article to be before I click on it, nor what I'll be getting in return. Why does the author of an article have a unilateral right to decide the terms of exchange?

Websites are able to detect most ad-blockers these days. If they like, they're welcome to deny me access to their content if they see I've blocked the ads.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#86

Post by JulianMorrison »

GhotiFish wrote: post #84
amelius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that in the Patreon model, the creator is the central element, and not the content itself. This seems a bit weird, because it is the content I'm after, not the artist. It may be nice for fans who will buy anything from a particular artist, even if it is worthless when considering just the content. Also, this seems a lot like "branding & marketing" version 2.0. I don't like branding. And I don't want to like…

I'm paying for creation, that is what is valuable, not content, content is worthless. Content has infinite supply. Creation is what is limited. This dissonance has been, and (it seems) will always be, the primary stumbling block in the discussion of the information economy. Why are pirates immoral? Why are they not immoral? Why is DRM immoral? Why is DRM not immoral? Who owns the copyright? what is fair use? All to d…

Now that's an interesting point.

And it's one reason why I support Basic Income as an idea. I feel like the potential prevalence of creation is huge. But everybody is wasting away their life in "day jobs".

It's interesting to consider in fact, that Patreon is kind of like a one-person basic income.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#87

Post by Mz »

itsybitsycoder wrote: post #85
Mz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put that another way: People currently try to monetize by putting ads on their sites. Other people use adblockers, denying them payment but benefitting from their labor. If you want the ads to stop but the labor to continue, you basically desire slave labor from people. I posit that if you are using ad blockers and not also promoting another form of valid monetization, you are, in fact, taking advantage of peo…

But websites don't ask for my consent before they show me ads, and I have no idea what they expect the "price" of an article to be before I click on it, nor what I'll be getting in return. Why does the author of an article have a unilateral right to decide the terms of exchange? Websites are able to detect most ad-blockers these days. If they like, they're welcome to deny me access to their content if they see I've b…

I am not suggesting they should have a unilateral right. I am asking for suggestions on how to solve this so that content producers can get paid without posting ads, something no one has yet to really respond to.

The Internet has created a situation that did not previously exist. It is natural that we don't automatically know what the solution is.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#88

Post by randcraw »

sambrand wrote: post #77
randcraw wrote: post #63

If ad blocking is a matter of right and wrong, then so is the invisible hand of any demand/supply driven system. Blocking web-based ads is no different from TV viewers who walk out of the room, or record shows then skip over ads on playback, or mute the TV during ads. AFAIK, no TV advertisers have bemoaned that venerable practice. If web ad purveyors want folks to browse differently then they must 1) improve their sp…

The adblocking : DVR analogy is broken. TV ads are interstitial. Online ads are, for the most part, native. You can consume the content and the ad simultaneously. So online ads really are already, in some sense, product placements. Are you're arguing in favor of blocking out all product placements?

Yes, block all product placement. All advertising is a curse not a blessing. Look at the state of its progeny: TV and radio. Hopeless.

The little bit of good content on TV is... only from sources without ads (HBO, PBS, Netflix).

The advertising model of content underwriting should be dead. Let ad blockers be the stake through its vampire heart.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#89

Post by zzalpha »

hiou wrote: post #25

Ad blocking is interesting in that it shows what happens when something that probably should be regulated has not. And because of this the public trust has eroded and then the answer has become an arms race of ad blockers vs ads. Resulting in a downward spiral resulting in less quality content. The world of online advertising is a fantastic way to study the possible downsides of no regulations.

Well, or it's a powerful illustration of a market finding a solution to a new, novel problem.

After all, what solution would the government put in place? Ban ads? Regulate their content? How would that be more optimal than allowing people in the market to find the right solutions?

The reality is, ad supported content with lots and lots and lots of content providers may simply not be tenable, due to the fragmentation in both content and ad delivery vectors.

That requires the market to find new solutions, like paywalls, micropayments, different styles of ads, mixed pay/free models, good ol' fashioned consolidation, etc.

Now, to be clear, I'm about as far from a free market dogmatist as you can get... I'm no communist, but I'm Canadian, so...

But I honestly don't believe this is a case where regulation is appropriate. Where the market is likely to settle on a highly non-optimal solution (like, say, healthcare, due to information asymmetries, or broadband, due to enormous barriers of entry, or manufacturing pollution, thanks to negative externalities), absolutely I think the government has to get involved.

But in this case, I don't see any reason for that kind of heavy-handed intervention.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#90

Post by jordigh »

sambrand wrote: post #82
jordigh wrote: post #4

I'm going to keep repeating this because everyone seems to frame the debate in the wrong terms. Ad blocking for me is not about speed or security. Those are just nice side effects. It is also not because I do not want to pay. I don't mind paying. It is because when I'm in the middle of something I do not want to be told to pay someone else for goods I do not need. I don't care how unobtrusive it is (well, if it's onl…

I respect your ideals. And I'd love to hear about how you plan to move the Internet towards Utopia. But I'm not sure consuming without paying (attention to ads) is really the most respectful or effective way to get there.

Google contributor seems like a good plan.
Post reply on HN