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

91–100 of 226 posts

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#91

Post by austenallred »

ISL wrote: post #47
austenallred wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Contributor is terrible. Not because it doesn't work, but because it still leaves big green gaps where the ads were saying, "Thank you for using contributor!" Not even mentioning the fact that it only works on a minority of ads, the green boxes are even more annoying than the ads were.

You can configure it to render transparent images, so you see the site's background. Hit the 'gear' in the upper right of the Contributor site, and the options are neutral-grey, transparent, cats, and 'soft focus'.

I really want the "nonexistent" option (collapse)

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#92

Post by sambrand »

toothbrush wrote: post #83
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 t…

At least today even fraudulent impressions are valuable because ad buyers are willing to pay for them. They're smartening up though, as Tony Haile (author of the linked article & Chartbeat CEO) is aware. Viewability & attention metrics are the future of ad performance tracking. (and that link gave me a good laugh)

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#93

Post by anotherevan »

They are not ad-blockers so much as HTML firewalls.

I use a firewall to protect my home network from the wilds of the internet. I use an HTML firewall to protect my browser (and in turn, my home network) from the wilds of the web.

Incredibly slow loading, large assets that are inconsequential to the functionality I need, malware, unwanted visual clutter that creates a negative cognitive load I want to protect myself from.

The reality that advertisements are the main targets is indicative that they have perhaps been the worst offenders. I'm sure there are many good advertisers out there. I'm sure it is only the 99% that make the rest of them look bad.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#94

Post by x5n1 »

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…

You just hate the economy and want everyone to be unemployed.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#95

Post by eropple »

jordigh wrote: post #90
sambrand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opt-in solutions are not solutions, though. You say you're willing to pay--but nobody else is. The commonses are gettin' real tragic here.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#96

Post by PhasmaFelis »

bradleyjg wrote: post #19
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…

If you had a plugin that simply blanked the entire page if it contained advertising you'd be acting in a principled fashion aligned with your preferences. As it is you want to have your cake and eat it too. It may be legal and technically possible, but isn't ethical. I'm reminded of the debates that raged on the internet when Napster was around. All the people downloading music strenuously claimed that the industry m…

> If you had a plugin that simply blanked the entire page if it contained advertising you'd be acting in a principled fashion aligned with your preferences. As it is you want to have your cake and eat it too. It may be legal and technically possible, but isn't ethical.

What you're saying here is that, if you don't like advertising, your only ethical option is to never use the Web again. (Well, I suppose I can read the comments on Hacker News. None of the articles, though.) That is not reasonable. I have actually gone out of my way to configure my adblocker to un-block as many inoffensive ad providers as possible, because I want to support the sites I use, but when those sites are knowingly degrading not just my browsing experience but the functioning of my computer, measures need to be taken.

> I'm reminded of the debates that raged on the internet when Napster was around. All the people downloading music strenuously claimed that the industry model was broken and they should come up with a new one. Well, if that's what they thought why weren't they out there patronizing artists using a new model?

Because there weren't any new models yet. Which is why the downloaders wanted people to come up with one.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#97

Post by XorNot »

click170 wrote: post #39
markyc wrote: post #15

in trying to be more private we may be more transparent I think that's one thing people don't account for. once most content is behind paywalls you leave much more of a trace than on the ad-ridden web now

I don't disagree but I think an important distinction is that when you provide your credit card there is an expectation that they will be able to track you based on that. A big problem with ad tracking these days is that its entirely out-of-site-out-of-mind, nontechy people don't expect to be tracked across the internet as much as when they buy something online with a credit card.

No it's also just that once the user is the customer, there's a requirement to actually pay them some respect. An annoyed paying customer is directly lost revenue.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#98

Post by ThomPete »

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…

The problem fundamentally really is that too many people are trying to say the same thing and so it becomes a commodity that can only be countered by attracting huge number of visitors to your specific site and bombard them with adds.

Then you look at something like Maria Popovos www.brainpickings.org and you realize that there are other ways to build a business around content without it being advertizing centric.

But sure if you are in competition with 3000 other media outlets all trying to say the same about the same 5 subjects then this is the result.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#99

Post by AJ007 »

briffle wrote: post #37
giancarlostoro wrote: post #7

My issue is with advertisements that break web pages, or slow them down dramatically. Or even worse, take up real estate on my phone, and just plain break my mobile experience further. Sometimes I forget to install an adblocker whenever I do a fresh OS install and forget just how bad things can be without an adblocker (well really my biggest peeve is pop ups, just why are they still around?) and they get worse when s…

There is a sports related web site I often read (friends link to it from facebook, and other sites I visit).. When reading it on mobile, almost the entire page will load, then my whole phone (LG G4) freezes up completely for about 8 seconds, then a full page add appears over the screen. Sometimes the "X" is in the upper right, sometimes below, etc, and if you are off even the slightest amount, you get a new chrome ta…

One thing is for certain, publishers aren't using cohorts for how browser-breaking advertising is influencing their user retention and overall revenue. Fuck, some of the JS just for news site UI makes it clear no one is even testing their mobile sites on an actual mobile device.

If the ad block rate gets high enough, and if the CPMs do not increase in the face of dwindling supply, publishers will just make content available only in their own apps. Fake crises averted, things change, markets and businesses adapt.

Re: What we break when we fix ad blocking

#100

Post by djur »

MBCook wrote: post #11
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…

The Verge has a poll going today asking if you use an ad blocker: "Yes, I want free content and I'll pay the ad blockers" and "No, I want free content and I'll pay the publisher through ads". I'm with you. I didn't use an ad blocker for years. Then I installed a flash blocker because it kept my computer from trying to melt it's self and play video ads while I was trying to read. Then we started to get so many ads tha…

Why does one of those responses assume that you have to pay for an ad blocker? I've never heard of such a thing.
Post reply on HN