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

81–90 of 259 posts

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

#81

Post by y4mi »

Angostura wrote: post #69
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.

it originates from the meta subreddits ( subreddits that only crosslink to other subreddits, such as bestof ) completely derailed any meaningful discussion as soon as threads were posted in said meta subreddits.

its less of an issue if you link from here, as not everybody on this side will be a logged in user on reddit, but it should still be considered polite, considering that there is an actual 'best-practice' for linking

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

#82

Post by esoteric_nonces »

Maciej (HN handle 'idlewords') has an interesting take on this that I'm struggling to find in my history right now. The basic idea is that all of the data these companies collect is still ultimately useless in practice. We still don't have advertising that is even close to being relevant.

But the data retains its toxic qualities (of being a database of every action I take on the Internet and some in the real world).

I fire up the YouTube homepage and all of my recommendations are for UK daytime TV. Celebrities, 'Jeremy Kyle' (the UK Jerry Springer), etcetera.

YouTube sends me adverts for female hygiene products and dog food. (I am male and I own no dog.)

Even when I get advertising that's not selling me stuff that would require I buy something else first (sex change, dog) it's invariably for something vastly overpriced or some sort of megabrand.

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

#83

Post by baldfat »

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…

> nobody really knows a solution that makes everyone happy

Impossible and usually the worst approach to have. The best thing is to have a visionary that blazes the path for the rest to follow. Sadly the vast majority of visionaries will fail.

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

#84

Post by Retric »

cstross wrote: post #30
tomp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a subtle difference: pharmacists are regulated by statute and are legally liable if medication they dispense on prescription causes injury. (Source: I used to be a pharmacist -- in the UK, > 25 years ago, precise regulations vary by jurisdiction.) Ad networks are utterly unregulated. In terms of this pharmacy metaphor they're snake-oil salesmen.

All industry's are regulated. The general case is normal laws. Ad networks serving links to compromised websites is likely already illegal.

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

#85

Post by chris_wot »

oarsinsync wrote: post #75
chris_wot wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scale. Reddit is bigger with hundreds, if not thousands, of subcultures and norms. While HN has a single stream of stories being voted on, the guidelines for story submissions limits the scope for what can be submitted. The people who read HN are pretty much all technically astute, so when they see an article behind a paywall they don't vote it up - heck, many probably just flag it on principle. If the article is cho…

> Scale. Reddit is bigger with hundreds, if not thousands, of subcultures and norms. But the link is about /r/technology only, not reddit as a whole.

If /r/technology has a lot of paywall and ad-filled links, and HN does not, yet both sites have similar moderating technology, then either dang et al. are seriously better admins, or HN is frequented by a better class of person.

There, you done gone made me say it.

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

#86

Post by colejohnson66 »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #45
tomp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case, high-profit ads include dynamic content (JavaScript or Flash). Safe (but boring) ads would simply be an image or text link with no tracking capabilities that doesn't use CSS hacks to interrupt your page reading. It just sits up there saying, "If you want it, check this out."

I can honestly say that I've clicked on quite a few static ads with the intention of learning more. Dynamic ads, however, I refuse to click.

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

#87

Post by throwaway7767 »

esoteric_nonces wrote: post #82

Maciej (HN handle 'idlewords') has an interesting take on this that I'm struggling to find in my history right now. The basic idea is that all of the data these companies collect is still ultimately useless in practice. We still don't have advertising that is even close to being relevant. But the data retains its toxic qualities (of being a database of every action I take on the Internet and some in the real world).…

I love Maciej's writings, though he hasn't published anything for a few months now. His last writing on advertising was this, might be what you're thinking of: http://idlewords.com/2015/11/the_advertising_bubble.htm

I agree with every word.

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

#88

Post by Vendan »

aaron695 wrote: post #71

How about they bugger off and not censor my content. Power hungry censors from either the government or forums piss me off. People who own forums have a right to regulate content, true. But bullshit like this aint cool, I and the users are not babies, bugger off, we'll decide with votes.

arguably, they are deciding with votes. There appears to be massive support for the idea, and it's getting lots of upvotes.

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

#89

Post by chris_wot »

belorn wrote: post #40
econnors wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. At any one time, a publisher can be serving ads from a few exchanges, a few different private sellers, and custom built ads for brands. And these all are served in different combinations across several different ad units on multiple pages. And some of those ad sellers may be backfilling with other ad networks, or maybe the publisher is backfilling certain ads from the ad exchanges at certain CPM…

Your description doesn't show why a pharmacist selling illegal drugs is dissimilar to a website selling ad space to illegal ad-space buyers. Any time where you've got multiple producers and multiple retailers, you get middle people like those you describe that must juggle demand and supply. Pharmacists have an equally complex path from producer to customer as ads have from ad-space buyer to website visitor. However,…

I'm not aware of any legal action taken over malware served up from add on a website.

But if it were to happen, the website is who is sue, because it is within their responsibility to ensure that ads and/or content should not cause harm to a visitor.

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

#90

Post by morgante »

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.

Yea, it's horrible that high-quality journalists won't just work for free.
Post reply on HN