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

91–100 of 259 posts

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

#91

Post by cstross »

Retric wrote: post #84
cstross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about professional registration (exams, licenses to practice, supervisory body, jail sentences for impersonation, forefeiture of registration for ethics infractions), not bog-standard trade law.

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

#92

Post by morgante »

phaemon wrote: post #19
rodionos wrote: post #9

Banning these sites altogether would be too much. Assign a pre-defined downvote so that the hurdle for ad-driven sources is higher to overcome.

I don't think it would be too much. Why would it? I'd like to see those ad-laden pages dropped from HN also. As well as sites with paywalls. There are plenty of other pages on the web that can be featured instead.

Genuine question: do you think all journalism should be done for free?

I can somewhat an understand an opposition to advertising or paywalls. Opposing both is unconscionable.

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

#93

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #86
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Same, and in a few cases I didn't realize they were ads because they were so non-intrusive.

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

#94

Post by krapp »

return0 wrote: post #44
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one has a responsibility to keep Wired or Forbes in business. Either they'll figure out a business model that works, or they won't; either way it's not the redditors' problem.

Obviously redditors like their articles, so they will have a problem too. I don't think this is black-and-white "ads are bad/readers are good" issue.

Forbes will go out of business, and redditors might be mildly annoyed for a minute. All of the power is in the hands of the users, and users don't want to negotiate in this case.

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

#95

Post by softawre »

chmike wrote: post #8
alblue wrote: post #2

The nub of the thread is: these sites have put up ad blocker blockers, so you can't see the content without disabling your ad blocker. And yet when you do you are either exposed to full screen or video auto play ads, or in some cases, malware: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-rea... Given that Reddit is a large source of incoming referrals this stance (if implemented) might be a sufficient lev…

The problem is that sites with advertisement are shooting themselves in the foot. They produce valuable and high quality content attracting readers and increase revenues by providing more advertisement. The amount of advertisement drops the efficiency of advertisement, so price drops and you put more advertisement. None of these people really considered the user experience on their site, except google on the google s…

Nice shot at liberalism at the end there. I almost took you seriously, appreciate the heads up.

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

#96

Post by tacos »

Make it a user option -- sites really shouldn't be in the business of globally blocking domains. And then let me add sites to the .ignore file too, please.

Anyone got the list of sites HN currently blocks/penalizes/rewards? I'd love to tweak those options, and add marco.org and buzzfeed to my personal blocklist.

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

#97

Post by slig »

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).…

Do you use YouTube while logged in?

In my experience, the content recommendation on YouTube is the best. I've been learning about electronics and watching a few videos about it. Now YouTube recommends me new content and channels that are extremely relevant.

My brother is into guitars, and his frontpage is all about that.

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

#98

Post by protomyth »

cooper12 wrote: post #43
snappythrowaway wrote: post #36

I would suggest a emoji based labeling system. Not too intrusive (grey scale) that somehow could signal if article is paywalled / blocking visitors with ad-blockers. For a subset of users (either detected or by user preference), there might be another useful symbol as well for indicating if a website is not tor friendly.

PLOS uses this logo for open access: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLo... . (an open lock) Based on that Wikipedia uses a closed lock to indicate paywalled sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_a... . So how about these: [Closed lock] [Open lock]? (TIL HN doesn't support emoji) I think reddit also allows image use via CSS.

I would prefer not reusing closed lock since it represents encryption in most browsers.

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

#99

Post by beeboop »

jcoffland wrote: post #12

I think HN should automatically penalize the scores of paywalled sites. Although I'm not sure HN's pro-corporate politics would ever allow it.

I don't think HN could ever do this as long as it's associated with YC. It would be hypocritical of YC to be against paywalls and advertising if they have funded, or will fund, a business model that relies on it.

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

#100

Post by mapgrep »

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).…

He fleshes out the toxic waste metaphor most fully in this talk, which he gave, rather boldly, at a big data (Hadoop) event. It's text and images but there's a video link at the top to the actual talk if you prefer it that way:

http://idlewords.com/talks/haunted_by_data.htm

That's quite a good talk. The takeaway is to treat data, especially personal data, as a liability rather than an asset, to discard data by default, and to retain only with a very specific goal in mind, and even then to transform the retained data into some kind of useful aggregate and discard it.

It doesn't contain the YouTube metaphor, which is included in this http://idlewords.com/talks/internet_with_a_human_face.htm

Post reply on HN