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

Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

imlefthanded.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 844 posts

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#801

Post by Nextgrid »

ohleg wrote: post #602
ajmurmann wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly appalled by the price for YouTube Premium. It's $15/month. That's the same as HBO Max, almost twice of Disney+ and more expensive than F1TV or Showtime which come in around $10. Per month this is 50% more than Prime! Only my UltraHD Netflix plan is more expensive. This price to me is outrageous, given that Google, unlike everyone else listed here, doesn't provide any of the content and their services is…

> All they do is in essence provide the platform. That’s not quite correct. YouTube pays out creators who monetize their channels using YouTube ads (separate from any sponsors in the video itself). The amount paid out varies but is around $3-5 per 1000 views. With YouTube Premium, among other features you get to avoid seeing ads. But Google still pays out creators a share of the YouTube Premium fee. See https://suppo…

His point still stands - Google only pays a share despite having much less overheads than let's say Netflix who in addition to providing the infrastructure also create the content itself (and the production costs of it are much higher than a typical YouTube video).

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#802

Post by Nextgrid »

chki wrote: post #614
mplewis wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once sent a link to a news article to a friend at work. He became angry at me because the link I had sent him was to a malware-infested shit site. It wasn't, but the ads in the site I had intended to send had taken over his browser and made it indistinguishable from a malware link. That's how showing ads on your site is abuse of the user.

You've just shifted the goalposts significantly and did not really reply in good faith. Showing ads is very different from linking to malware. Especially on YouTube the amount of malware is probably very low since everything is sandboxed.

Showing ads without properly vetting them nor taking responsibility for any malicious ads is not in good faith either.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#803

Post by ratww »

elwell wrote: post #554
somerando7 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creators that are decently big (100k+) make enough money whether or not you ad-block. Don't worry about it.

They make enough money precisely because not everyone ad blocks. This seems like a fallacious argument.

GP is talking about Patreon and sponsorships. A lot of videos get demonitized too, so some creators stand to see no money from ads in some videos.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#804

Post by ratww »

redml wrote: post #159
Tenoke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all fairness, if the rest of us didn't run adblockers, they probably wouldn't need to be so aggressive with the ads for those that currently don't.

There was a time back in the IE6 era where firefox didn't really have any market share and adblockers weren't really a thing. The advertising industry was really aggressive even then. Some publishers put as many popups and banner ads as they could. I'm not saying all publishers would do this, but I have to admit the worst actors are the ones I strongly remember. Only difference now is that there's a lot more tracking…

Yep, the first punch was thrown by the ad industry. Popups, pop-unders and even full window advertisements were rampant before popup blockers became commonplace, to the point of being added directly to browsers.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#805

Post by ratww »

Tenoke wrote: post #131
tasha0663 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've put the cart ahead of the horse. Ad-blockers took off once they started throwing animated banners at us. Punch the monkey, win an ipod.

That's not really true. Youtube ads specifically were way way milder and rarer years ago when way less people used Adblock.

I wouldn't call them "milder". They weren't static ads. They were video ads. Often loud and un-skippable for a certain small amount of time. This is definitely equivalent to a "punch the monkey" ad.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#806

Post by Nextgrid »

nescioquid wrote: post #247
capital_guy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people are saying this but I disagree that you are either on one side or the other. If you pay a monthly subscription to the Washington Post, their website is still absolutely covered with advertisements - moving, video, intrusive advertisements that IMHO make the site unusable. So I'm not owed free content. I'm paying for it. And since I'm paying for it, don't shove a bunch of crap down my throat when I wan…

I don't recall how long ago this was, but I bought a digital subscription to The Economist only to discover the site refused to make good on my subscription while I had an adblocker active. I canceled the subscription explaining why. I've since resubscribed as their site no longer does this. It seems so crazy to me that I tried to search for when The Economist changed their policy and found nothing relevant, other th…

I would have much less problems with internet advertising if it had the same standards as print advertising when it comes to quality.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#807

Post by Ygg2 »

account42 wrote: post #798
Ygg2 wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Situation is that dire. I think following happens. Actual click through rate on online ads is low. People don't want to pay lots of money for ads that don't increase their revenue. Only ones willing to pay for ads are shady business. We are talking unlicensed pills, scams, crypto etc. Eventually those dry up so they go even lower, malware authors willing to use ads as malware vectors. I browsed once without ad blocke…

> [...] was actually malware. As in Defender was activated. I don't doubt that plenty of ads are malware but let's not pretend that Defender does not have tons of false positives or that MS cares about preventing them.

While I have encountered false positives with Defender, the fact that ads are deploying something Defender can detect, is hair raising in itself.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#809

Post by Nextgrid »

cblconfederate wrote: post #397

It would be nice if we had the option to ask for $1 to our visitors, but we don't because the credit card and payments racket works its magic. Just what are websites supposed to do to survive? Shutting down is not a valid answer Of course the #1 culprits are the advertisers themselves, because they don't care about their craft, they are lazy and just push all their money to google. But the web should be like an arcad…

Destroying the advertising industry would provide market pressure to make a viable micropayment system.

Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web

#810

Post by Nextgrid »

the_snooze wrote: post #84
skummetmaelk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash This cannot be overstated. Everything today is a battle for eye-balls and ad money. The corruption is insane. You can't even buy appliances designed perform their function well. Instead you can buy cheap junk for less than cogs because they make money selling your data to ad companies instead of making money by making products that…

>The concept of "value" for consumers has been completely twisted and I am not looking forward to seeing where this race to the bottom will end up. For a lot of consumer tech companies, it's less about providing value to consumers and more about extracting value from them. Between vendor lock-in, privacy violations, and arbitrary one-sided changes in service, it's straight out of an abusive partner's playbook.

A lot of consumer tech companies' entire business model is "growth and engagement" which is basically arbitrage between what the investors/advertisers will pay and what it costs them to produce this "engagement". Any useful output produced by the system is a mere side-effect and the bare minimum necessary for to get the victims to "engage".
Post reply on HN