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

Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#81

Post by XorNot »

spicybright wrote: post #13
Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

I block all advertisement, and go out of my way to ignore it and scroll right past it.

Same. Spam, page loads, and aesthetics aside: I'll never click an ad out of principal. So why load it? I wish there was some kind of Netflix for site supporting. I admittedly don't donate because of how awful some payment systems are. I'd rather log into a site and tick a few boxes to pay.

Micro-payments never really came to pass is the sad thing - except where they just increased in size enough to become "payments".

Though I suspect the answer is closer to the ugly truth: whatever you think you're worth, you're not really worth it unless it's through ads. If people had to think about how they allocate resources, then they'd inevitably decide they can do without in most cases.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#82

Post by nopenopenopeno »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #65
throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

> I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. Well that’s why. When you refuse to even listen/consider their argument, no one is going to argue with you. In addition, saying such a thing here gets you downvoted to oblivion. Doesn’t stop people from doing it; Just look at some of the other comments here.

No post body was provided.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#83

Post by krapp »

ziml77 wrote: post #43
float_laugh wrote: post #20

I have a degree in marketing, took a vow never to work in it, and use these words to describe advertisements - Motivated deception, manipulation, mind control, inauthentic, inorganic, insincere, a betrayal by your peers. They're using your own mind against you with psycological techniques you're blind to. Behind every advertisement is a group of real life people working hard to find new ways to control and manipulate…

I also like to call ads "mind control" because they are that manipulative, but it's hard to say that without sounding like a nutjob. I don't think ads are inherently evil, but most ads are designed to exploit human psychology instead of just making you aware that a product exists.

> I also like to call ads "mind control" because they are that manipulative, but it's hard to say that without sounding like a nutjob.

If they were that manipulative, they would always work. Every time you saw an ad you would immediately be compelled to buy whatever it was advertising like those mall zombies from Dawn of the Dead.

Ads are manipulative but definitely not "mind control" manipulative. You would probably be more effective convincing people of the dangers of advertising without resorting to hyperbole of that degree.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#84

Post by mmcgaha »

robertlagrant wrote: post #56
horsawlarway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The quid pro quo of the site is you pay nothing to see this, but you look at the ads that pay for the site. But this isn't the fucking model. The model is: We created compelling content that draws lots of views, and companies will pay us to plaster their name/products on it. There is literally zero contract with the person being shown the ads at all. They can do as they please. If companies don't like that... move…

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscrib…

I know there is a lot of push back against pay walls but I would rather give money to a business that I know than to have some creepy unknown entity record everything I do.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#85

Post by krapp »

mmcgaha wrote: post #84
robertlagrant wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this adds anything. I know there's no contract. But while the system can shoulder a certain load of parasitic behaviour, if everyone does as you say then it stops working. So practically speaking it is a quid quo pro. A better analogue for your description is something like the Guardian website, where you don't have to pay for it, but it does require a certain number of people to volunteer to subscrib…

I know there is a lot of push back against pay walls but I would rather give money to a business that I know than to have some creepy unknown entity record everything I do.

They're going to record everything you do anyway - the choice being offered is an illusion. There is no way to opt out of surveillance capitalism (other than blocking ads and piracy,) only ways to opt in further.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#86

Post by jefftk »

timokoesters wrote: post #68
jefftk wrote: post #45

If enough of us used ad blockers, it could help force a systemic shift away from the attention economy altogether It's worth putting serious thought into whether this would actually be a better web; I think it would likely be worse. Most sites today are supported by ads, and if that weren't an option we'd see some combination of paywalls, sponsored content, and sites shutting down. (I used to work on ads)

Paywalls are annoying because it forces you onto the few websites you pay for. Maybe we need a platform where you pay some fixed amount of money per month and get access to many websites. At the end of the month you can decide how to split your money among the websites you used, defaulting to proportional to the amount of time you spent on the site. The platform should be open so that anyone can add their website.

Lots of people have played around with ideas like this, but nothing especially successful. One problem you'll run into is that people have vastly different amounts of money. While I might be content paying $50/month for unlimited internet, someone less well off might balk at $5/month. So either you set your price high enough that many people can't afford it, or you miss out on the ability to draw more money from people who can afford it.

Additionally, different sites will have different views, often correctly, on how valuable their content is. An NYT article is much more expensive to produce than a Buzzfeed one, but your system compensates them the same (while the NYT is able to charge a premium for advertising today, plus runs their own paywall).

Your proposal is also pretty exploitable: submit your own website and set the platform to always send 100% of your money to your own site.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#87

Post by mojzu »

jefftk wrote: post #67
krageon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I used to work in ads The fact that you admit to working in an industry that actively tries to take as much agency away from others as it can without (apparently) feeling bad about it is really terrible.

I don't think advertising is harmful in general, and I think an ad-funded web is likely much better than a paywall-funded web. More: https://www.jefftk.com/p/why-i-work-on-ads

In theory, ads are great, I'd like to hear about products and services that can solve problems or improve my quality of life. In practice, my experience of ads on the web is to degrade the user experience of the page I came to see and to build intrusive personal profiles on what my interests are believed to be (which often seems to result in being repeatedly fed the same ads for products I've already purchased)

Anecdotally the best advertising I have engaged with and bought the most as a result of is content based, not personalised for me in any way (i.e. podcasts before dynamic ads became a thing)

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#88

Post by muttled »

jefftk wrote: post #51
throwaway22032 wrote: post #42

I find the idea that anyone, a single person, could consider blocking ads to be wrong to be hilarious. I've never met such a person. I can only imagine them to be barely human. What other bizarre opinions, internal or external, would they have? I don't think that I could trust them with literally anything.

I think running an ad blocker is freeloading, the same as using paywall-bypassing software. There are worse things people regularly do, but I do think it's minorly wrong and I don't run an ad blocker. I would be fine with ad blockers that only blocked ads, as long as publishers could chose to refuse service to users running ad blockers or ask them to turn their ad blocker off. But uBlock Origin etc don't just block a…

I think my biggest issue with paywalls is that I wouldn't mind it if they showed the search engine only what the viewer can see as well. Then the search engines can try to prioritize the content that the user actually wants to see. As it is now, though, sites will often show the search engine different content than what's revealed to the user. Which is against the terms and conditions of most search engines (known as "cloaking"). Many of the paywall-bypassing software just let the user see what they freely serve up to the search engines. It wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't know how much effort was put into not only serving different content to the spider, but also how much effort is put into trying to make sure the search engine doesn't detect that they're doing it.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#89

Post by jgilias »

jefftk wrote: post #79
jgilias wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like the solution put forth by Brave. Basically reify the attention economy and make it explicit so that you, as the producer of your attention get a say and a monetary stake in it.

If you think the attention economy is legitimate, a browser that removes the ads publishers have put on their sites and instead serves different ads to the users is pretty shady.

I was referring more to the mechanism of paying content providers directly in proportion to the time I spend on their site.

Without getting tracked all over the place and being shown intrusive ads. And without an opaque middleman taking most of the cut.

Re: Why It’s OK to Block Ads (2015)

#90

Post by BLKNSLVR »

RajT88 wrote: post #34

As long as malvertising campaigns are a thing, you should block ads. The online ad industry AFAIK still has not got their shit together.

Regarding getting their shit together, they're also some of the largest, most profitable companies in the world, so it's not like they don't have the resources to get their shit together - it's that there's not enough motivation to do it; there's no additional profit in changing their current negligent process.

The answer, failing legislative intervention from government (I don't think I'll live long enough to see that), is: more people need to block more ads to get the fucking message across.

I don't think I'll live long enough to see that either though.

Additionally, blocking ads should be added to any corporate cyber security checklist - if that happens, that may be more likely to send the message.

Post reply on HN