We’re dropping Google Ads(groundup.org.za)
groundup.org.za
We’re dropping Google Ads
http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-ads/
614 comments
3,000,000 for $150? That's criminal. How are you only getting 5 cents per thousand impressions? Are you getting really low quality traffic from far eastern countries or something? That's just extremely low even for Google. If your CTR is the problem, have you looked at placement optimization?
My recommendation is to sell the space directly on BuySellAds. At $1.00 CPM it would fly off the shelves, but you can get much more than that with a little patience (and provided that your visitors have at least some kind of quality).
My recommendation is to sell the space directly on BuySellAds. At $1.00 CPM it would fly off the shelves, but you can get much more than that with a little patience (and provided that your visitors have at least some kind of quality).
One thing to remember is that publisher revenue is net Google's monetization cut. Publisher's see just 68% of ad revenue sold on their site. So $150 is really $220.58 in gross, which is significantly higher.
Another point to remember is that typically publishers only sell to Google AdSense their unsold (so-called "non-guaranteed") inventory. Typically you take this money because it's better than nothing, and because you couldn't sell this inventory yourself. Usually this non-guaranteed inventory has a lower value then the stuff you'd sell yourself.
There's a lot of reference-style material on news sites, and the CTRs on that are not bad. Just look at Wirecutter and its affiliate model.
That said, industry average for news display ads is about 0.05%... 1 click per 2,000 impressions. No bueno. Say 3m impression get 1.5k clicks, that's $0.33 CPC net or about $0.49 CPC gross.
Another point to remember is that typically publishers only sell to Google AdSense their unsold (so-called "non-guaranteed") inventory. Typically you take this money because it's better than nothing, and because you couldn't sell this inventory yourself. Usually this non-guaranteed inventory has a lower value then the stuff you'd sell yourself.
There's a lot of reference-style material on news sites, and the CTRs on that are not bad. Just look at Wirecutter and its affiliate model.
That said, industry average for news display ads is about 0.05%... 1 click per 2,000 impressions. No bueno. Say 3m impression get 1.5k clicks, that's $0.33 CPC net or about $0.49 CPC gross.
I get similar results: http://i.imgur.com/NDubFOO.png
Please help: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactnative/comments/64wwge/ads_mak...
Please help: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactnative/comments/64wwge/ads_mak...
Are there any other recommended sites like buysellads?
There's something wrong if you're getting paid $0.05 CPM for AdSense US traffic.
Not necessarily, I have computer-related content which gets results like this (a bit better than this, but I assumed that the parent poster was exaggerating a bit about the 3x10^6 traffic). The problem is quite notorious, and AdSense now refuses new "tech" content.
Perhaps users who are interested in tech are the same kinds of users never click ads.
Or, know how to install adblockers :)
Do people with adblockers count as an impression?
Typically not. They don't initialize the scripts that are required to track and log the impression.
It's pretty well known that techies don't click on ads, but they're only a smaller segment of the internet population.
It's pretty well known that techies don't click on ads, but they're only a smaller segment of the internet population.
I was under the impression that most modern blockers (uBlock etc) simply block that request from the site to the adserver, so no they wouldn't count as an impression.
It's not a CPM problem, it's a CTR one. Click through rates for news sites are abysmal.
The more useful and relevant your content is, the less people are likely to click on ads to take them to something else.
I'm working on something that will benefit people who have high traffic sites that don't want to show their users ads. The basics are here: http://www.trussapp.com/ -- it's not quite ready for production, but if it's something you might be interested in, I'm looking for beta users. [email protected]
Small nitpick, and if you want some unsolicited feedback on that site: the GIF that shows a user using the site goes super slow and it would be a lot more engaging if the user typed faster.
Although I don't know how much I can blame this on connection problems on my end, it looks like it takes five seconds or so to type "Test Tester", when in my opinion it should take only one.
Although I don't know how much I can blame this on connection problems on my end, it looks like it takes five seconds or so to type "Test Tester", when in my opinion it should take only one.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding the concept. What is the benefit of your service vs simply putting up a PayPal donate button on the site?
It's effectively the same thing, but it prevents users from having to leave your site to contribute. The hope is that it will increase donations because of that.
I appreciate the feedback! I recorded it and it seemed a little slow to me, but getting that from someone else validates that. Thanks!
I've made a video like this in the past and I found that one letter entered per frame felt nice and "zippy".
All you need to do is delete the frames where nothing changes in the input box and it'll be a big improvement.
(Obviously, this depends on your framerate. Suck it and see.)
All you need to do is delete the frames where nothing changes in the input box and it'll be a big improvement.
(Obviously, this depends on your framerate. Suck it and see.)
[deleted]
The amount of money you get from Google Adsense depends on the type of content. I looked at your profile but didn't find any information on what sites you might be running. Since this is hacker news, it might be that your site contains computer-related content. That type of content gets very low RPM. Still 3,000,000 impressions a month is quite a lot, so your site is obviously popular.
[deleted]
Put your site in your profile. We need to support businesses like your.
Google is no cake-walk from the other end either. As someone who has paid them for ads, over 70% of the clicks are...shall we say?... low quality. Of course if you only run Google Analytics you may never realize this, but if you cross-check with something else you will.
The idea that google can better qualify leads based on search results has basically failed. Online advertising needs to be treated the same as the other media: just a method of branding.
I much prefer to pay-per-view rather than -per-click. At least I feel like I'm getting what I pay for.
Google is no cake-walk from the other end either. As someone who has paid them for ads, over 70% of the clicks are...shall we say?... low quality. Of course if you only run Google Analytics you may never realize this, but if you cross-check with something else you will.
The idea that google can better qualify leads based on search results has basically failed. Online advertising needs to be treated the same as the other media: just a method of branding.
I much prefer to pay-per-view rather than -per-click. At least I feel like I'm getting what I pay for.
I'd suggest looking at carbonads, they always seem better than google ads in every way.
Off topic: this is the first time I've heard of GroundUp, and I really like the "Dear Editor" format of the comment page on this site.
I'm used to seeing mainstream newspaper websites with downright toxic commenting environments, so seeing "Dear Editor" followed by a thought-out response is very refreshing. Maybe they have a "better" readership/screening process/whatever, but I think this higher quality commenting behavior is in part due to how GroundUp has simply tweaked the wording of the comment box interface - by framing the comment with "Dear Editor".
I'm used to seeing mainstream newspaper websites with downright toxic commenting environments, so seeing "Dear Editor" followed by a thought-out response is very refreshing. Maybe they have a "better" readership/screening process/whatever, but I think this higher quality commenting behavior is in part due to how GroundUp has simply tweaked the wording of the comment box interface - by framing the comment with "Dear Editor".
Their letters (comments) are moderated.
"In contrast to comments, letters are only published if approved by our editors. Views expressed in letters are not necessarily endorsed by GroundUp, but they must meet our quality requirements. Letters are given more prominence than comments on the website. "
"In contrast to comments, letters are only published if approved by our editors. Views expressed in letters are not necessarily endorsed by GroundUp, but they must meet our quality requirements. Letters are given more prominence than comments on the website. "
It's not just the framing. They call their comments "letters". Try clicking the "Write a letter in response to this article" button. The UI is designed to promote constructive comments.
Thanks for the comment. I found a link to http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html there which is very interesting!
Great observation. I think the UI wants to remember that this article was written by another human being. A simple solution to encourage civil conversation.
When I started with Google ads, Google was classier than other ad networks. Other ad networks were stuffed with free ringtones, sketchy supplements and other scams.
Then at some point Google gave me the option to opt out of various objectionable topics and soon Google ads got as bad as the others. Maybe Google bought the bad ad networks, or partnered with them or something.
Quite a bit of subtext is largely unexamined. AT&T and Verizon, two of the biggest advertisers, have pulled out from YouTube. AT&T is the biggest pay TV provider in the US now (DirecTV) and Verizon wishes you would watch Go90 so they could sell ads against it. Both of them benefit if ad spend goes elsewhere than YouTube.
Then at some point Google gave me the option to opt out of various objectionable topics and soon Google ads got as bad as the others. Maybe Google bought the bad ad networks, or partnered with them or something.
Quite a bit of subtext is largely unexamined. AT&T and Verizon, two of the biggest advertisers, have pulled out from YouTube. AT&T is the biggest pay TV provider in the US now (DirecTV) and Verizon wishes you would watch Go90 so they could sell ads against it. Both of them benefit if ad spend goes elsewhere than YouTube.
I worried when Google bought DoubleClick many years back if Google would become as bad as DoubleClick. I don't think we can point fingers at any one thing precisely, but that did seem like an omen at the time.
I think the problem with ads on the internet is that it will always be a race to the bottom. Ads on TV and in newspapers/magazines have scarcities in play to somewhat help manage them. Ad space on the internet has never been scarce.
The ad companies (Google and Facebook especially) see themselves as somehow unbiased market platforms, and I think we are coming to point where the lack of scarcities leaves "neutral" platforms vulnerable to very cheap "attacks". I worry that ad platforms need to exert a lot more editorial control in the face of that and/or start building a lot more artificial scarcity into their platforms, and I don't think any of them are appropriately incentivized to do that.
I also worry that Google and Facebook's ad spaces are content spaces: search ads at the top of search results, and sponsored "posts" that have like/share/comment abilities. I think that also requires a custodianship and a moral obligation to editorially control those spaces that neither Google nor Facebook have thus far been inclined to take enough responsibility for. Facebook especially, when liked/shared ads graduate to "real" viral content, entirely blurring the lines between ads and content and giving direct power to cheap micro-targeting attacks without having some editorial immune system to help avoid the worst memetic viruses. (Facebook claims to want to do better, but their fiduciary responsibility incentivizes them not to treat ads as user hostile infection points.)
I think the problem with ads on the internet is that it will always be a race to the bottom. Ads on TV and in newspapers/magazines have scarcities in play to somewhat help manage them. Ad space on the internet has never been scarce.
The ad companies (Google and Facebook especially) see themselves as somehow unbiased market platforms, and I think we are coming to point where the lack of scarcities leaves "neutral" platforms vulnerable to very cheap "attacks". I worry that ad platforms need to exert a lot more editorial control in the face of that and/or start building a lot more artificial scarcity into their platforms, and I don't think any of them are appropriately incentivized to do that.
I also worry that Google and Facebook's ad spaces are content spaces: search ads at the top of search results, and sponsored "posts" that have like/share/comment abilities. I think that also requires a custodianship and a moral obligation to editorially control those spaces that neither Google nor Facebook have thus far been inclined to take enough responsibility for. Facebook especially, when liked/shared ads graduate to "real" viral content, entirely blurring the lines between ads and content and giving direct power to cheap micro-targeting attacks without having some editorial immune system to help avoid the worst memetic viruses. (Facebook claims to want to do better, but their fiduciary responsibility incentivizes them not to treat ads as user hostile infection points.)
> I worried when Google bought DoubleClick many years back if Google would become as bad as DoubleClick.
Me too, but not so much about the content ("ads is ads", I used to think), but about privacy and the relentless tracking that DoubleClick was doing. And oooh boy, did that omen ever come true.
Another thing was the moment when I realized the implications of having a giant Internet-wide ad-network implemented in the form of injected third-party javascript. I mean, at first it seemed real clever. This wasn't a big thing back then, just yet. Originally ads were just clickable image links with an affiliate code in the GET parameter and http-referer tracking (which already provides an advertiser way more info about their audience then a printed ad in a magazine would, so yes that is more than sufficient for advertisers who honestly want to advertise instead of spying on people).
It's a miracle that over the existence of AdSense, nobody ever managed to XSS the entire Internet. Even if that can be attributed to the AdSense team awareness of their unique position of responsibility and engineering quality control or something; We still dodged a bullet with that one, because it just so happens that it was the Google that came into control of the largest XSS vector in history. But having quality control and a culture of responsibility didn't cause becoming the largest and gaining control (it just means they got to keep it, because it hasn't gone horribly wrong--for which we are lucky). A while back I read a comment on HN arguing (though I'm not sure if they realized) that whether something is a "good product" depends more on how well it is marketed (and therefore finds its way to people that can use it) than it depends on the quality of the product. That's horrible, but like too many horrible things, also true in some sense. So it just so happened that the ad-network that was marketed best and became one of the largest and most successful, also happened to be one that was of sufficient quality to not break the Internet.
Me too, but not so much about the content ("ads is ads", I used to think), but about privacy and the relentless tracking that DoubleClick was doing. And oooh boy, did that omen ever come true.
Another thing was the moment when I realized the implications of having a giant Internet-wide ad-network implemented in the form of injected third-party javascript. I mean, at first it seemed real clever. This wasn't a big thing back then, just yet. Originally ads were just clickable image links with an affiliate code in the GET parameter and http-referer tracking (which already provides an advertiser way more info about their audience then a printed ad in a magazine would, so yes that is more than sufficient for advertisers who honestly want to advertise instead of spying on people).
It's a miracle that over the existence of AdSense, nobody ever managed to XSS the entire Internet. Even if that can be attributed to the AdSense team awareness of their unique position of responsibility and engineering quality control or something; We still dodged a bullet with that one, because it just so happens that it was the Google that came into control of the largest XSS vector in history. But having quality control and a culture of responsibility didn't cause becoming the largest and gaining control (it just means they got to keep it, because it hasn't gone horribly wrong--for which we are lucky). A while back I read a comment on HN arguing (though I'm not sure if they realized) that whether something is a "good product" depends more on how well it is marketed (and therefore finds its way to people that can use it) than it depends on the quality of the product. That's horrible, but like too many horrible things, also true in some sense. So it just so happened that the ad-network that was marketed best and became one of the largest and most successful, also happened to be one that was of sufficient quality to not break the Internet.
Wasn't the seminal moment when Google bought Doubleclick in 2007?
Ad networks regularly serve various forms of malware and spyware, as well as tracking beacons that put my data at risk of being stolen or misused. And once it's in a database somewhere, it's only a matter of time until it gets stolen and someone attempts to hijack accounts or steal an identity.
It's funny how you never see the sites that whine about adblockers offer to accept legal responsibility for their complicity in the potential theft and property destruction served from their site. When you take away the option to protect myself, you accept responsibility for attacks. After all, if it's morally/legally wrong to alter the presentation of the content they serve, then they also morally/legally responsible for incidents when they serve it improperly and cause losses/damages. Quite obviously it's not financially viable for them to pay for their negligence, and so it's also not financially viable for me to trust that a site won't host some sort of attack vector.
The pennies of advertising revenue earned from my modest browsing over the course of a year doesn't pay nearly enough to compensate for the time I lose through dealing with malicious ads. Unless online advertising cleans itself up, adblockers will be the best option. And sites that don't respect that aren't sites I'm interested in.
It's funny how you never see the sites that whine about adblockers offer to accept legal responsibility for their complicity in the potential theft and property destruction served from their site. When you take away the option to protect myself, you accept responsibility for attacks. After all, if it's morally/legally wrong to alter the presentation of the content they serve, then they also morally/legally responsible for incidents when they serve it improperly and cause losses/damages. Quite obviously it's not financially viable for them to pay for their negligence, and so it's also not financially viable for me to trust that a site won't host some sort of attack vector.
The pennies of advertising revenue earned from my modest browsing over the course of a year doesn't pay nearly enough to compensate for the time I lose through dealing with malicious ads. Unless online advertising cleans itself up, adblockers will be the best option. And sites that don't respect that aren't sites I'm interested in.
Genuine question: has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past?
I thought they were, while still annoying, safe from serving such content. So much that if they detect your site has malware they prevent it from serving their ads https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/1308246?hl=e...
As such I went along with allowing google ads since it seemed like a good middle ground between not wanting to have everything pay-walled off and still allowing sites to generate ad money
I thought they were, while still annoying, safe from serving such content. So much that if they detect your site has malware they prevent it from serving their ads https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/1308246?hl=e...
As such I went along with allowing google ads since it seemed like a good middle ground between not wanting to have everything pay-walled off and still allowing sites to generate ad money
> has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past?
Yes.
http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/y...
Yes.
http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/y...
I read the article - it's an interesting read.
The claim is that a YouTube ad was serving malware.
However, upon reading the article, it seems that:
1. Somebody purchased legitimate YouTube ad space. 2. They then redirected that traffic twice through two other legitimate ad networks. 3. They then broke into a Polish government website, and funnelled the traffic there, to serve up malware.
That certainly doesn't seem to be a case of Google/YouTube serving up malware - if anything, these attacks went to a lot of trouble to obscure from YouTube what they were doing, precisely so they wouldn't get shut-down (presumably by either YouTube, or the two other ad networks they were piggy-backing on).
You could argue, they should have caught them earlier - but isn't that a bit like blaming your email provider that you got a spam/malware email - when the actual party to blame is the person sending you aforesaid spam/malware?
The claim is that a YouTube ad was serving malware.
However, upon reading the article, it seems that:
1. Somebody purchased legitimate YouTube ad space. 2. They then redirected that traffic twice through two other legitimate ad networks. 3. They then broke into a Polish government website, and funnelled the traffic there, to serve up malware.
That certainly doesn't seem to be a case of Google/YouTube serving up malware - if anything, these attacks went to a lot of trouble to obscure from YouTube what they were doing, precisely so they wouldn't get shut-down (presumably by either YouTube, or the two other ad networks they were piggy-backing on).
You could argue, they should have caught them earlier - but isn't that a bit like blaming your email provider that you got a spam/malware email - when the actual party to blame is the person sending you aforesaid spam/malware?
I'm not sure what you expect "Google ads serving malware" to mean other than exactly this. Of course it's not as simple as going into Google ad manager and clicking "upload virus". The fact that it included partner networks and a compromised website is unsurprising. When malware makes it through ad networks, it is common for it to take that kind of approach. At the end of the day you're effectively exploiting networks of trust.
In other words: a YouTube ad was serving malware.
All that backend obscurantism is completely irrelevant to the hapless viewer.
All that backend obscurantism is completely irrelevant to the hapless viewer.
So if somebody sends you spam to your GMail account - you'd say "Gmail is sending you spam?"
Or if somebody posts a bomb in your postbox - you'd say "US Postal Service is building and sending bombs"?
There's a fairly clear distinction there...
Or if somebody posts a bomb in your postbox - you'd say "US Postal Service is building and sending bombs"?
There's a fairly clear distinction there...
>>> has google ads been responsible for virus/malware in the past?
Yes. Very much so.
Look for "VLC download" for instance, the first ads should be adware sites that distribute a fake version of the software and they paid to get that top search position.
Yes. Very much so.
Look for "VLC download" for instance, the first ads should be adware sites that distribute a fake version of the software and they paid to get that top search position.
The top 3 links when I search VLC download are all Videolan.
There is even a giant banner (looks like it's not paid for) that says "VLC" and has the VLC logo and links to Videolan.
Google removes ads that contain/link to malware/viruses as soon as they are made aware of them. What more do you want?
There is even a giant banner (looks like it's not paid for) that says "VLC" and has the VLC logo and links to Videolan.
Google removes ads that contain/link to malware/viruses as soon as they are made aware of them. What more do you want?
> What more do you want?
Not doing it in the first place, of course! Because this has happened with VLC (a fact you seem to ignore), maybe they fixed it by now, or maybe it's temporary, or maybe you're just not in the "stupid people that would fall for this" filter bubble, but for quite a while Google Ads have been responsible for serving malware and damaging people's computers.
Also just because they try and fix it after the fact for VLC, doesn't mean it's not still happening for all sorts of other software. Google's approach for curation of ads is just not suitable to be able to provide a platform this large in a responsible manner (and I doubt it can ever be, but that doesn't give them a free ticket to behave irresponsibly).
Maybe you've forgotten what this thread was about in the first place, but if their policy is "we will remove ads that contain/link to malware as soon as they are (made) aware of them", then:
1) it's still a perfectly smart choice to use an adblocker because you can still get malware from ads (in addition to many of the other reasons such as opting out of clickbait timewasters, whose "innocence" evaporates as soon as you consider their scale), and a particularly important and smart choice to install it on people's computers that would actually fall for such a fake download link, which is not the HN crowd.
2) as a publisher, I would DEFINITELY want a much tighter guarantee on not serving/linking malware than "we'll remove it when we see it" because now it's not just my safety on the line (or my father trying to download VLC cause I told him over the phone, etc) but my entire audience!
I know I am careful personally, what to click and install, but I honestly wonder how long I myself could keep a fresh Windows install malware-free without running an adblocker. Some of those things are nasty clever and misleading (not thinking about Google Ads in particular, here). Ever consider the amount of good those people are doing? The ones writing the adblockers and keeping the blocklists up-to-date? They are not even getting paid to do it. It gives me such a bitter taste, every time I see a website whining about my adblocker usage. If you care so much, why are you using a third party ad network. If hosting and linking and curating your own advertisements is too much to ask, well then so is me whitelisting your site, sheesh.
Not doing it in the first place, of course! Because this has happened with VLC (a fact you seem to ignore), maybe they fixed it by now, or maybe it's temporary, or maybe you're just not in the "stupid people that would fall for this" filter bubble, but for quite a while Google Ads have been responsible for serving malware and damaging people's computers.
Also just because they try and fix it after the fact for VLC, doesn't mean it's not still happening for all sorts of other software. Google's approach for curation of ads is just not suitable to be able to provide a platform this large in a responsible manner (and I doubt it can ever be, but that doesn't give them a free ticket to behave irresponsibly).
Maybe you've forgotten what this thread was about in the first place, but if their policy is "we will remove ads that contain/link to malware as soon as they are (made) aware of them", then:
1) it's still a perfectly smart choice to use an adblocker because you can still get malware from ads (in addition to many of the other reasons such as opting out of clickbait timewasters, whose "innocence" evaporates as soon as you consider their scale), and a particularly important and smart choice to install it on people's computers that would actually fall for such a fake download link, which is not the HN crowd.
2) as a publisher, I would DEFINITELY want a much tighter guarantee on not serving/linking malware than "we'll remove it when we see it" because now it's not just my safety on the line (or my father trying to download VLC cause I told him over the phone, etc) but my entire audience!
I know I am careful personally, what to click and install, but I honestly wonder how long I myself could keep a fresh Windows install malware-free without running an adblocker. Some of those things are nasty clever and misleading (not thinking about Google Ads in particular, here). Ever consider the amount of good those people are doing? The ones writing the adblockers and keeping the blocklists up-to-date? They are not even getting paid to do it. It gives me such a bitter taste, every time I see a website whining about my adblocker usage. If you care so much, why are you using a third party ad network. If hosting and linking and curating your own advertisements is too much to ask, well then so is me whitelisting your site, sheesh.
I know they remove the worst links and I am not denying that.
They are however replaced with new ones as soon as they are deleted. It is a constant war and the only salvation is adblockers.
They are however replaced with new ones as soon as they are deleted. It is a constant war and the only salvation is adblockers.
Trackers are malware. Google ads are the widest spread virus on the planet.
Malware they might be, but calling them a virus is incorrect. They are not self-propagating.
I don't know why you're being downvoted, teachers fit in the definition of malware.
"Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer or mobile operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising. Before the term malware was coined by Yisrael Radai in 1990, malicious software was referred to as computer viruses." [1] [2]
I don't think most people would consider Google's purposeful display ads, which site owners choose to put there and customers expect to see, 'Malware.' I think Adware/Advertising Malware refers to software that shows unexpected ads, such as after you leave the site, or installing software on your computer that randomly shows ads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=jOsFlLPg1KkC&pg=PA10
I don't think most people would consider Google's purposeful display ads, which site owners choose to put there and customers expect to see, 'Malware.' I think Adware/Advertising Malware refers to software that shows unexpected ads, such as after you leave the site, or installing software on your computer that randomly shows ads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=jOsFlLPg1KkC&pg=PA10
> disrupt computer or mobile operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising
"Google Ads" is injected third-party code that literally does all of these things (and goes through quite some trouble to obfuscate it) (even if us techies are aware).
And they pay people to serve it to you.
I would like to consider my Android phone to be a "private computer system", yet Google has full access to it and they will disrupt its operations whenever I try to prevent them from either 1) gathering sensitive information or 2) displaying unwanted advertising.
But it came with Android when I bought it, yes? And I chose to agree to this agreement or something, right? Well first, we know by now that this "choice" is mostly illusion. I put Cyanogenmod on it to better protect myself, but the disruption persists and it merely exposes how aggressive the malware in fact is as soon as you put up any form of resistance. The mob can also be real nice people if you don't stand in their way. Also, if you buy a new laptop, the crapware it comes bundled with, is that malware? What if it would disrupt and limit the operation of this laptop if you decide not to use it (yes you must actually use it and thus provide them with sensitive private tracking data, not merely refrain from trying to uninstall it).
Of course I don't really consider my phone to be a "private computer system", not any more, but that is exactly the sad state of affairs. I can't consider it private because I am aware of the above and my lack of real choice in the matter. But this way you can argue that any computer system that malware has gained access to, is no longer private. But that is basically just giving up.
It's a very natural human instinct to legitimize something just because it's the largest, most successful player. There's an internal urge to want to side with the winner. But not all human urges are rational or even okay to give in to, without seriously considering the implications.
"Google Ads" is injected third-party code that literally does all of these things (and goes through quite some trouble to obfuscate it) (even if us techies are aware).
And they pay people to serve it to you.
I would like to consider my Android phone to be a "private computer system", yet Google has full access to it and they will disrupt its operations whenever I try to prevent them from either 1) gathering sensitive information or 2) displaying unwanted advertising.
But it came with Android when I bought it, yes? And I chose to agree to this agreement or something, right? Well first, we know by now that this "choice" is mostly illusion. I put Cyanogenmod on it to better protect myself, but the disruption persists and it merely exposes how aggressive the malware in fact is as soon as you put up any form of resistance. The mob can also be real nice people if you don't stand in their way. Also, if you buy a new laptop, the crapware it comes bundled with, is that malware? What if it would disrupt and limit the operation of this laptop if you decide not to use it (yes you must actually use it and thus provide them with sensitive private tracking data, not merely refrain from trying to uninstall it).
Of course I don't really consider my phone to be a "private computer system", not any more, but that is exactly the sad state of affairs. I can't consider it private because I am aware of the above and my lack of real choice in the matter. But this way you can argue that any computer system that malware has gained access to, is no longer private. But that is basically just giving up.
It's a very natural human instinct to legitimize something just because it's the largest, most successful player. There's an internal urge to want to side with the winner. But not all human urges are rational or even okay to give in to, without seriously considering the implications.
Well... You do have the choice to buy a phone with an OS from a company who's business is to sell phones, rather than ads, don't you? Seems a bit absurd to claim a lack of real choice in this instance.
I think they are talking about the tracking capabilities of these ads, which are unexpected by the user and compromise their privacy. Thus, they behave as malware.
Where teachers = trackers
Here's one such claim: https://securelist.com/blog/incidents/75731/good-morning-and...
I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it.
Almost every senior citizen I've ever had clean up malware for got it from a malicious search ad. And the tech support scams they continue to list take advantage of tons of people as well.
I've pointed out before that Google happily lists phone numbers of tech support scams on search terms for Windows tech support, but doesn't show ads at all if you look for Chromebook support, pointing you straight to their official contact.
As a note, if anyone would like to see examples of this in action, I can go get screenshots and example links and everything, it just takes a little while to put together, as I would prefer to offer evidence of what I see "today" rather than any past examples I might have.
Almost every senior citizen I've ever had clean up malware for got it from a malicious search ad. And the tech support scams they continue to list take advantage of tons of people as well.
I've pointed out before that Google happily lists phone numbers of tech support scams on search terms for Windows tech support, but doesn't show ads at all if you look for Chromebook support, pointing you straight to their official contact.
As a note, if anyone would like to see examples of this in action, I can go get screenshots and example links and everything, it just takes a little while to put together, as I would prefer to offer evidence of what I see "today" rather than any past examples I might have.
> I have gone so far as to suggest a significant portion of Google's revenue is likely serving malicious content, which leaves them very little incentive to do anything about it.
That's quite a serious accusation :). One that is not substantiated by the facts:
https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...
That's quite a serious accusation :). One that is not substantiated by the facts:
https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...
Conspiracy theorists never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy.
A Google blog post is not "the facts". A Google blog post is, in fact, an ad for Google. Your sources should be independent, and independently verifiable. What Google says they do is useless, because it cannot be verified.
Do you have anything specific that would refute anything in the report? Simply mounting an ad-hominem attack doesn't add anything to the discussion.
It's like somebody saying "Tesla cars suck - they explode". And Elon Musk comes out and says, "No they don't, here's the testing/validation we did". And you say "Oh but...but....you work for Tesla. It must be lies!"
If there's factual inaccuracies - of course, that's a different story. But you seem to be simply saying, "They must be lying, because that suits my narrative, so I'm not going to bother trying to refute it".
It's like somebody saying "Tesla cars suck - they explode". And Elon Musk comes out and says, "No they don't, here's the testing/validation we did". And you say "Oh but...but....you work for Tesla. It must be lies!"
If there's factual inaccuracies - of course, that's a different story. But you seem to be simply saying, "They must be lying, because that suits my narrative, so I'm not going to bother trying to refute it".
Reply All did a great episode about google assisting in scammers operations inadvertently. It primarily focuses on the barrage of cheap shady lock smith services offered as sponsored ads at the top of google results.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/78-very-quickly-to-the-drill...
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/78-very-quickly-to-the-drill...
It is quite exaggerated to say that a significant portion of Google's revenue comes from serving malicious content.
But malicious content (even on the SERP) is common enough that one of the most effective steps that you can do to protect senior citizens from malware is to install a good ad blocker. The ironic thing is that the search algorithm does a decent job of filtering out malicious sites from appearing on the first page, but that does no good if there is a malicious ad right above the filtered results.
But malicious content (even on the SERP) is common enough that one of the most effective steps that you can do to protect senior citizens from malware is to install a good ad blocker. The ironic thing is that the search algorithm does a decent job of filtering out malicious sites from appearing on the first page, but that does no good if there is a malicious ad right above the filtered results.
That's a key point. Google's primary business model relies on convincing you to not click on the "best search result". This is why they have, over time, reduced the visible difference between ads and real results. I've regularly found that lay users are not aware they are clicking on ads when they click on Google's search ads.
Even if Google is removing "x million bad ads", they are merely replacing bad ads with other bad ads. Removing bad ads doesn't significantly impact their revenue. I'd argue that while Google is willing to make gestures like removing some ads, they are unwilling to do what's necessary to protect users: Stop serving ads entirely where malicious ads are particularly prevalent, and clearly highlight the difference between ads and search results.
EDIT: Here's some captures I did this morning of Google results on incognito: https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/nTZcQOHrTgnM-90dAfmut0AX_c...
Even if Google is removing "x million bad ads", they are merely replacing bad ads with other bad ads. Removing bad ads doesn't significantly impact their revenue. I'd argue that while Google is willing to make gestures like removing some ads, they are unwilling to do what's necessary to protect users: Stop serving ads entirely where malicious ads are particularly prevalent, and clearly highlight the difference between ads and search results.
EDIT: Here's some captures I did this morning of Google results on incognito: https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/nTZcQOHrTgnM-90dAfmut0AX_c...
[deleted]
Wow, thanks for this. I've been using an adblocker for a while (and even before, I was "blind" to Google ads), but it's really ridiculous what comes up by searching for e.g. "windows help" or "hp support". Shame on Google!
I've known several people on the abuse teams for ad revenue at Google and I can tell you they work very hard and care deeply at preventing malware. It is, however, an extremely non-trivial task.
To be clear, I don't really fault those people specifically, I'm sure they do the absolute best at the jobs they are given. But this is a systemic issue with Google and the sort of solution that would actually fix it would cost more profits than they intend to spend on unimportant issues like protecting consumers from fraud.
Similarly, minesweepers are probably great people that work very hard and care deeply at preventing generations of people from being maimed.
A variant of this that highlights the absurdity of that very nicely are auto-redirecting mobile ads. The two valid options according to the site (and anti-ad-blocker people) would be:
1) Don't open the site to begin with.
2) Open the site and instantly get redirected.
Note how none of the options entails actually reading the content provided by the site.
So if there is no valid way to consume the content, you could ask why it is there in the first place.
1) Don't open the site to begin with.
2) Open the site and instantly get redirected.
Note how none of the options entails actually reading the content provided by the site.
So if there is no valid way to consume the content, you could ask why it is there in the first place.
Good point. And I guess the answer is, the content is there to lead you to advertisements :)
I noticed this a while back, and it annoyed the hell out of me. So on my iPhone I have JavaScript permanently disabled on safari, which is my default browser and use chrome as an auxiliary for any site that I really want to access but can't do so without JavaScript enabled in safari.
> It's funny how you never see the sites that whine about adblockers offer to accept legal responsibility for their complicity in the potential theft and property destruction served from their site.
yep. This is an effective way to get newspapers whining about ad blockers to shut up as well.
yep. This is an effective way to get newspapers whining about ad blockers to shut up as well.
Every time I'm blocked from a news site because of my blocker, I just get context from comments and move on with my life. It's so rare that there's important information beyond what's in the headline anyways. I respect paywalls much more.
"I'll whitelist you, as soon as you stop using a third party ad network"
"But then what's the point", we both said in unison.
"But then what's the point", we both said in unison.
"Because ad tech is a sucking leech", per the article this post is about.
* Everything is worse for users (tracking and malware)
* Everything is worse for advertisers (ineffective ads)
* Everything is worse for publishers (pays way too little)
* But adtech gets paid well
* Everything is worse for users (tracking and malware)
* Everything is worse for advertisers (ineffective ads)
* Everything is worse for publishers (pays way too little)
* But adtech gets paid well
For smaller websites (also referred to the democratization of the internet), I am sure many people may (or have) feel (felt) guilty for using an ad-blocker.
Then you see all those shitty ads for:
- finding a russian bride
- getting rich through some millionaires secret
- anti-aging remedies
- adware
and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is losing.
People keep saying that "journalism is dying", but this industry and its ad-model isn't very "old" in historical terms. For every Business Insider that dies, the world will carry on. For quality journalism (an oxymoron of sorts) and news that matters to people and their circumstances, I assume people will keep forking out money (like they do for The Economist).
If someone smarter than myself can elaborate, how is Googles business-model for ads on 3rd-party websites sustainable for the long-term?
Then you see all those shitty ads for:
- finding a russian bride
- getting rich through some millionaires secret
- anti-aging remedies
- adware
and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is losing.
People keep saying that "journalism is dying", but this industry and its ad-model isn't very "old" in historical terms. For every Business Insider that dies, the world will carry on. For quality journalism (an oxymoron of sorts) and news that matters to people and their circumstances, I assume people will keep forking out money (like they do for The Economist).
If someone smarter than myself can elaborate, how is Googles business-model for ads on 3rd-party websites sustainable for the long-term?
My attitude toward ad blockers was always "meh". I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish. Using an ad blocker is just modifying the rendering algorithm, much the same way as I could use a French to Russian translator, something that increases font sizes, or throwing on a custom stylesheet. I can write my own web browser, if I wish.
Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses should account for that. If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented. One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.
Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user. That will incentivize people to unblock ads.
Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses should account for that. If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented. One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.
Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user. That will incentivize people to unblock ads.
Not even about the bits/bytes/data to me.
My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.
I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some promise you made to them about how I browse.
My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.
I'm perfectly fine with paywalls - that's the 'correct' approach as far as I'm concerned. You can decide to conceal the information you know; if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale. But if you don't, don't expect your deals with third parties to hold up on some promise you made to them about how I browse.
> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't)...
That right there is the problem, though. You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word).
But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That's an illusion, conceptually very much like clean water: almost free, but vital.
The stuff the wire services collect and sell (and that everybody republishes) does cost quite a lot to produce, and it's the backbone of the news ecosystem. It's subjective value is further diminished by its anodyne voice, making it difficult to picture the actual people reporting it.
Maybe the publishers do actually have a case for a new class of intellectual property protection. I'm horrified of the prospect, but within the current market dynamics, I don't see much of a future for quality journalism. Public opinion is critical of every and all publications, indiscriminately, and quick to use that as an argument for not subscribing. Wall Street may still pay for Bloomberg and the like, but Main Street doesn't see why. Maybe the NYT spent two or three million on some investigation. Once published, the information is delayed by little else than the time it takes the guy at BillingsMorningNews.com to switch a few sentences around.
With regards to ad blockers, you are right in that there is nothing in the law that should stop anyone from using them. But that's not really the argument. Nor is anybody disagreeing that ad tech needs drastic changes.
But fundamentally, the question is if blocking ads isn't hurting your own interests. Sure, there are many sources for the same information, usually. But the one you're reading probably has some small advantage, which is why you are using it. Once that publication folds, you have already lost something. And I'm not optimistic that the process will stop before it has drastic consequences on diversity and availability.
It also sometimes needs reminding that for an individual, news often seems like a guilty pleasure. But for a society, news is vital. Without it, you can't even keep up the appearances of democracy.
It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, obviously: blocking ads is vastly advantageous for the individual, just as fishing with the really big net is for the fisherman. But, thinking a bit broader, the question becomes: What's better – reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?
That right there is the problem, though. You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word).
But that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. That's an illusion, conceptually very much like clean water: almost free, but vital.
The stuff the wire services collect and sell (and that everybody republishes) does cost quite a lot to produce, and it's the backbone of the news ecosystem. It's subjective value is further diminished by its anodyne voice, making it difficult to picture the actual people reporting it.
Maybe the publishers do actually have a case for a new class of intellectual property protection. I'm horrified of the prospect, but within the current market dynamics, I don't see much of a future for quality journalism. Public opinion is critical of every and all publications, indiscriminately, and quick to use that as an argument for not subscribing. Wall Street may still pay for Bloomberg and the like, but Main Street doesn't see why. Maybe the NYT spent two or three million on some investigation. Once published, the information is delayed by little else than the time it takes the guy at BillingsMorningNews.com to switch a few sentences around.
With regards to ad blockers, you are right in that there is nothing in the law that should stop anyone from using them. But that's not really the argument. Nor is anybody disagreeing that ad tech needs drastic changes.
But fundamentally, the question is if blocking ads isn't hurting your own interests. Sure, there are many sources for the same information, usually. But the one you're reading probably has some small advantage, which is why you are using it. Once that publication folds, you have already lost something. And I'm not optimistic that the process will stop before it has drastic consequences on diversity and availability.
It also sometimes needs reminding that for an individual, news often seems like a guilty pleasure. But for a society, news is vital. Without it, you can't even keep up the appearances of democracy.
It's a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, obviously: blocking ads is vastly advantageous for the individual, just as fishing with the really big net is for the fisherman. But, thinking a bit broader, the question becomes: What's better – reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?
My view is that if the population is watching ads, and somehow that is enough to float a business, then the population is actually paying for the business already, but through an indirect middleman.
The population pays for it by buying more or paying more of some products -- in a time and manner that provides evidence to networks, content vendors, and advertisers of business justification.
If we drill down further into the population, I think we'll find that some population of people either view or don't view ads, but don't adequately change their purchasing behavior in a time and manner so as to provide signal.
In other words, some people are takers, and some people are contributors. The people who are takers -- that is, whether or not they look at ads, click through, or whatever, they don't sufficiently change their their market behavior in a time and manner that provides evidence for business justification -- possibly detract from all mentioned parties because they diminish the business justification of the whole affair.
In tension against the takers, the people who are contributors are paying more than what they need to for the service because they're subsidizing "news" for other people.
Note that I don't really consider revenue in situations where eventually advertising clients figure out that they lack the business justification to pursue some advertising venue, such as intermediate marketing metrics that payout to businesses, but then the lack of justification for an advertising decision is later discovered. People who are marked by intermediate marketing metrics but don't go on to yada yada market behavior, are still "takers" in my view.
With that said, I think the money is there, people are already paying for news, but maybe the people who are paying should have more say than those who don't pay. Otherwise, it's the advertisers who have say, and the advertisers sponsor some pathological news outlets.
So in my view, people who argue for advertising are arguing that only advertisers can do the financing of the news world, and that contributors should continue to float takers.
The population pays for it by buying more or paying more of some products -- in a time and manner that provides evidence to networks, content vendors, and advertisers of business justification.
If we drill down further into the population, I think we'll find that some population of people either view or don't view ads, but don't adequately change their purchasing behavior in a time and manner so as to provide signal.
In other words, some people are takers, and some people are contributors. The people who are takers -- that is, whether or not they look at ads, click through, or whatever, they don't sufficiently change their their market behavior in a time and manner that provides evidence for business justification -- possibly detract from all mentioned parties because they diminish the business justification of the whole affair.
In tension against the takers, the people who are contributors are paying more than what they need to for the service because they're subsidizing "news" for other people.
Note that I don't really consider revenue in situations where eventually advertising clients figure out that they lack the business justification to pursue some advertising venue, such as intermediate marketing metrics that payout to businesses, but then the lack of justification for an advertising decision is later discovered. People who are marked by intermediate marketing metrics but don't go on to yada yada market behavior, are still "takers" in my view.
With that said, I think the money is there, people are already paying for news, but maybe the people who are paying should have more say than those who don't pay. Otherwise, it's the advertisers who have say, and the advertisers sponsor some pathological news outlets.
So in my view, people who argue for advertising are arguing that only advertisers can do the financing of the news world, and that contributors should continue to float takers.
It is very much in the interest of these indirect middlemen, the third-party advertising networks, to obfuscate the direct connection/signal between advertising and buying products, while on the other hand trying to make this connection seem as favourable as possible, to both sides (publisher and product-advertiser). So they work to remain in full control of this evidence and which parts of it are shown to either party. I don't want to imply they are lying (not without proof, anyway) but it's a very open secret that are very selective in how and what information they reveal to which of the two sides they are middlemen between.
It kind of seems like an arbitrage situation. But if I understand correctly, those are only good as long as they naturally "deflate" and sort restore balance back. Instead, there is some information-hiding going on that artificially props up this situation at cost for everyone but the third-party ad industry and middlemen. I think that situation is not very good.
It kind of seems like an arbitrage situation. But if I understand correctly, those are only good as long as they naturally "deflate" and sort restore balance back. Instead, there is some information-hiding going on that artificially props up this situation at cost for everyone but the third-party ad industry and middlemen. I think that situation is not very good.
Your argument sounds either as if people are obligated not only to watch ads but to change purchasing decisions based on them or the less gullible people ought to pay more.
I'm not even sure how to effect the latter without making the current fish bowl infinitly more invasive.
Even your choice of words is revelatory of a profoundly scewed perspective full of imaginary obligations. Of course those whose livelihood depends on a particular arrangement often seem to feel that the current state of affairs is necessary to the world at large as if the current good effects are both essential and couldn't be achieved any other way.
I'm not even sure how to effect the latter without making the current fish bowl infinitly more invasive.
Even your choice of words is revelatory of a profoundly scewed perspective full of imaginary obligations. Of course those whose livelihood depends on a particular arrangement often seem to feel that the current state of affairs is necessary to the world at large as if the current good effects are both essential and couldn't be achieved any other way.
[deleted]
"News" are bad for you and bad for democracy. "News" are not what we think about when we think about the word "news", ie, reporting about important issues in the world, put in perspective -- historical perspective, geographical perspective, etc.
Actual news are, in essence, gossip. They destroy people's ability to think and reason.
News agencies are the worst. They define the agenda, what is important and what isn't. They pollute the "news ecosystem" right at the source.
Adblock is one way to fight back. Not the only way but a good way.
Actual news are, in essence, gossip. They destroy people's ability to think and reason.
News agencies are the worst. They define the agenda, what is important and what isn't. They pollute the "news ecosystem" right at the source.
Adblock is one way to fight back. Not the only way but a good way.
I agree in the sense that I think "news" alone is rather worthless. You need an analysis, a context to make sense of it. Agenda and partisanship are not necessarily deal breakers IMO, as long as people are being forward and honest about it instead of faking "neutrality", whatever that is. You can be partisan while keeping your eyes open and your thinking critical instead of devolving into propaganda pamphlets. In a sense I believe that the idea of a completely fair and unbiased reporting is completely absurd.
For this reason I only subscribe to weekly or even monthly newspapers. It means those journalists are not racing to be the first ones to relay any information completely raw. Instead they can take a bit of distance, take time to analyze the situation and think of its possible consequences.
I don't know what to do when I'm told that there's been a terrorist attack in a country thousands of kilometers from me. Then we get a stream of picture, and a death count updated every femtosecond. It's sad, sure, but then what? Learning about the causes and consequences of this attack and how they fit in the history and geopolitics of our societies, now that's a lot more interesting and maybe even actionable.
For this reason I only subscribe to weekly or even monthly newspapers. It means those journalists are not racing to be the first ones to relay any information completely raw. Instead they can take a bit of distance, take time to analyze the situation and think of its possible consequences.
I don't know what to do when I'm told that there's been a terrorist attack in a country thousands of kilometers from me. Then we get a stream of picture, and a death count updated every femtosecond. It's sad, sure, but then what? Learning about the causes and consequences of this attack and how they fit in the history and geopolitics of our societies, now that's a lot more interesting and maybe even actionable.
You must not have read any good news. What you are talking about is known in the industry as human interest stories. That's not what real news is.
It's hard to find. Even NYT does this as opinion pages. Go to their home page, it's got a significant area of opinion. It gets progressively worse the further down the line (of news companies) you go.
The problem is news agencies is the only way to get information. Spicer doesn't invite "regular dude Joe." We in an information desert.
The problem is news agencies is the only way to get information. Spicer doesn't invite "regular dude Joe." We in an information desert.
Disclaimer: I live in the US, and run an adblock indiscriminately and urge others to do the same.
Yes, news as we generally know it contains a lot of fluff, is almost certainly biased - whether politically or racially - and misleads through omission and incredible sources, we can go on. But, who will then do the reporting if these big news sources do not? Imagine a world without CNN or NYT or whatever. All of these sources are blamed by one political party or another to be biased and left/right/radical/whatever leaning. If we got rid of them and relied only on the smaller news entities and blogs and such, who will do the reporting on wars in Syria and Ukraine? Or who will report on whistle blowers and interview them? Why would someone of Edward Snowden's level of infamy be interviewed by a no-name news paper? Actually, on the topic of infamy, would it have even been possible for Edward Snowden to stay alive so far if general opinion was not so divided? If no one knew about him, what would save him? I would credit those same big news entities with spreading his story around and making him known. I believe that credible news sources are required for a healthy democracy, and that news organizations need to make money. Last thing we need is a government-run news entity (how can we trust one to keep us informed about grievances our governments may commit. Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart).
Yes, news as we generally know it contains a lot of fluff, is almost certainly biased - whether politically or racially - and misleads through omission and incredible sources, we can go on. But, who will then do the reporting if these big news sources do not? Imagine a world without CNN or NYT or whatever. All of these sources are blamed by one political party or another to be biased and left/right/radical/whatever leaning. If we got rid of them and relied only on the smaller news entities and blogs and such, who will do the reporting on wars in Syria and Ukraine? Or who will report on whistle blowers and interview them? Why would someone of Edward Snowden's level of infamy be interviewed by a no-name news paper? Actually, on the topic of infamy, would it have even been possible for Edward Snowden to stay alive so far if general opinion was not so divided? If no one knew about him, what would save him? I would credit those same big news entities with spreading his story around and making him known. I believe that credible news sources are required for a healthy democracy, and that news organizations need to make money. Last thing we need is a government-run news entity (how can we trust one to keep us informed about grievances our governments may commit. Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart).
> Lets not kid ourselves and declare that the government is perfect or has the citizens' best interests at heart.
Let's also not kid ourselves about the notion of the current, big, established news organizations being independent of the same conflicting interests that ensare various parts of the federal government. No, the government doesn't control the media. Rather, big corporations and rich moguls control the government, AND the media, to the same ends.
Let's also not kid ourselves about the notion of the current, big, established news organizations being independent of the same conflicting interests that ensare various parts of the federal government. No, the government doesn't control the media. Rather, big corporations and rich moguls control the government, AND the media, to the same ends.
> reading the news with annoying ads, or not reading the news?
False dichotomy.
Firstly, ads don't have to be annoying. Secondly, news doesn't have to be financed by ads.
There are lots of smaller and independent news sources that don't rely on ads for funding. The news organisation linked to in the article is a case in point. They make their money from donations. Another one is insurge intelligence (https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence) which uses crowdfunding.
Then there is also citizen media and blogs.
False dichotomy.
Firstly, ads don't have to be annoying. Secondly, news doesn't have to be financed by ads.
There are lots of smaller and independent news sources that don't rely on ads for funding. The news organisation linked to in the article is a case in point. They make their money from donations. Another one is insurge intelligence (https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence) which uses crowdfunding.
Then there is also citizen media and blogs.
I'd put up with annoying ads if I knew they weren't tracking every click and mouse movement.
That data will soon enough be used to determine things like interest rates and hiring (already is in China).
I can deal with stupid ads and have done for decades reading print journalism. Unless they're animated, modal or otherwise unnaturally annoying.
That data will soon enough be used to determine things like interest rates and hiring (already is in China).
I can deal with stupid ads and have done for decades reading print journalism. Unless they're animated, modal or otherwise unnaturally annoying.
That data will soon enough be used to determine things like interest rates and hiring (already is in China).
Can you elaborate on that, or provide a source? I'm quite curious (and somewhat not surprised).
Can you elaborate on that, or provide a source? I'm quite curious (and somewhat not surprised).
You probably won't see this but here is a source.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-surveilla...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-surveilla...
> Maybe the publishers do actually have a case for a new class of intellectual property protection.
No. They gambled that they could make money giving their content away for free with ads on it. They were never guaranteed an income that way, and to legislate one for them is a terrible way to proceed. We have a name for those people in Australia: rent-seekers.
No. They gambled that they could make money giving their content away for free with ads on it. They were never guaranteed an income that way, and to legislate one for them is a terrible way to proceed. We have a name for those people in Australia: rent-seekers.
It's a good question, and I was about to mention the tragedy-of-the-commons trade-off, but you already did half of that in your final paragraph.
The other half is, that the third-party ad networks themselves are in fact already feeding a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. Somewhere in the whole maelstrom of shitty clickbait websites funded by ads for other shitty clickbait websites. I read an article recently linked here about those weird vague thumbnail image clickbait links (the ones about celebrities, diets and skin diseases, mostly) that appear below low quality articles. They followed the links, and it just led to more and more of the same, but it did so while spiraling downward into a lowest common denominator like way, way lower than I'd have imagined.
There's some really out-of-control complex systems (in the systems theory sense of the word) in the guts of the advertising industry and they are already causing tragedy-of-the-commons situations way before, and regardless of, people using ad blockers.
Disabling the ad blocker is not going to help fix those (they'll just gobble up the extra profit). And even then, to (personally) answer your question, yes I think using ad blockers is a net benefit if it keeps those systems at least somewhat in check.
The other half is, that the third-party ad networks themselves are in fact already feeding a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. Somewhere in the whole maelstrom of shitty clickbait websites funded by ads for other shitty clickbait websites. I read an article recently linked here about those weird vague thumbnail image clickbait links (the ones about celebrities, diets and skin diseases, mostly) that appear below low quality articles. They followed the links, and it just led to more and more of the same, but it did so while spiraling downward into a lowest common denominator like way, way lower than I'd have imagined.
There's some really out-of-control complex systems (in the systems theory sense of the word) in the guts of the advertising industry and they are already causing tragedy-of-the-commons situations way before, and regardless of, people using ad blockers.
Disabling the ad blocker is not going to help fix those (they'll just gobble up the extra profit). And even then, to (personally) answer your question, yes I think using ad blockers is a net benefit if it keeps those systems at least somewhat in check.
[deleted]
> You are right that most information is "non excludable" (if that actually is a word).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability
Maybe do a quick search before implying someone is making up words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability
Maybe do a quick search before implying someone is making up words.
Assuming good faith, it seemed like they were just openly wondering (and maybe learn a new term), not claiming superior knowledge.
Subscribing to a newspaper in paper.
That's the best for everyone involved.
Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).
That's the best for everyone involved.
Or you need to fund journalism with tax money, directly (NPR, PBS) or indirectly (BBC, ARD, ZDF, etc).
Paper newspapers aren't best for society as a whole when you consider the environment impact of production and distribution. Even with recycling, newsprint causes a lot of pollution. And then the distribution vehicles have to drive around every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
With "in paper", I mean mostly that you subscribe to a daily or weekly single release.
Be it paper or as e-paper on your tablet.
But in either case, subscription costs are a lot more reasonable than subscribing to the website, and you get high quality content with only very few, handpicked, ads. Which also can't track you on paper or in the PDF
Be it paper or as e-paper on your tablet.
But in either case, subscription costs are a lot more reasonable than subscribing to the website, and you get high quality content with only very few, handpicked, ads. Which also can't track you on paper or in the PDF
Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them?
Journalism's oldest and most important role is to serve as a watchdog over government. When they start profiting from government, they'll be less likely to be critical of it.
Journalism should be supported by the free market. If people want it, they pay. If nobody wants to pay, then you either adapt or die. The really good media outlets are doing just fine (i.e. The Economist, NY Times,) those on the margins are at risk -- but that's their own fault.
State supported media has the potential to turn into Pravda (for the political party from whom they garner the most support, usually leftists,) and it generally does, albeit with much more subtlety.
Journalism's oldest and most important role is to serve as a watchdog over government. When they start profiting from government, they'll be less likely to be critical of it.
Journalism should be supported by the free market. If people want it, they pay. If nobody wants to pay, then you either adapt or die. The really good media outlets are doing just fine (i.e. The Economist, NY Times,) those on the margins are at risk -- but that's their own fault.
State supported media has the potential to turn into Pravda (for the political party from whom they garner the most support, usually leftists,) and it generally does, albeit with much more subtlety.
> Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them?
Do you think the BBC is biased? ARD, ZDF? They are not.
Because they don't get paid by the government, but they have the right to collect their own taxes instead. That way they are independent, and still always funded.
Do you think the BBC is biased? ARD, ZDF? They are not.
Because they don't get paid by the government, but they have the right to collect their own taxes instead. That way they are independent, and still always funded.
>Find journalism with taxes? Then wouldn't it follow that those journalists would have a disincentive to serve as a check to their masters that pay them?
How is this different than your "masters" being mega-corporations?
At least in a publicly funded organization there would be transparent checks and balances in place.
How is this different than your "masters" being mega-corporations?
At least in a publicly funded organization there would be transparent checks and balances in place.
so-called "free market" media can turn to propaganda just the same, and just as easily.
this is evidenced by Trump's foolish missile strike being so thoroughly adored in mainstream press.
this is evidenced by Trump's foolish missile strike being so thoroughly adored in mainstream press.
> if it's valuable and nonexcludable (usually isn't), then hey, you have a sale.
Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.
Which means now we need to have some kind of legal, international safeguard to protect against content thieves, who copy paywalled content and publish it themselves. Everyone loses in that scenario.
I completely agree with the principle of being paid for my time to create content. If I choose the publish it for free, that is my choice. If I need to charge for it to feed my kids, that is my choice too.
You mean copywrite? That already exists.
And we do, since 1886 (and being kept more or less up to date, ever since)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyri...
Whether this means that everyone loses ... I'm not directly disagreeing with that either (I don't like copyright/intellectual property rights in their current form at all), but let's get the facts straight first :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#International_copyri...
Whether this means that everyone loses ... I'm not directly disagreeing with that either (I don't like copyright/intellectual property rights in their current form at all), but let's get the facts straight first :)
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.
The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
The sites need to pay for servers somehow. Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
Moot argument. If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content. Newspapers had this model for decades, worked for them.
Not really. It's a change in model that the internet has created, and one that's going to be nigh impossible to undo. If everyone charged for their work, you'd be right, but it's basically impossible to end up in that situation now. Because for everyone charging money there's ten who realise they can out compete them by offering it for free (either out of the 'kindness' of their heart or funded by venture capital).
It's the same situation with smartphone apps about now. Yes, it's an absolute mire of low quality, exploitative crap at the moment, but when developers try and avoid this by just charging full price (like Nintendo with Super Mario Run), they find their apps are significantly less popular/profitable than if they'd be 'freemium' all along and end up getting a virtual tongue lashing from audiences who expect 'mobile app' to equal 'free with ads/microtransactions'.
Unless everyone charges money for content (which is likely happening because of business reasons) or some service genuinely manage to repair the media's reputation enough people will pay for it and also offers a better, more usable product than everyone else, things aren't changing.
It's the same situation with smartphone apps about now. Yes, it's an absolute mire of low quality, exploitative crap at the moment, but when developers try and avoid this by just charging full price (like Nintendo with Super Mario Run), they find their apps are significantly less popular/profitable than if they'd be 'freemium' all along and end up getting a virtual tongue lashing from audiences who expect 'mobile app' to equal 'free with ads/microtransactions'.
Unless everyone charges money for content (which is likely happening because of business reasons) or some service genuinely manage to repair the media's reputation enough people will pay for it and also offers a better, more usable product than everyone else, things aren't changing.
When the Washington Post offered me an online subscription (I live in Boston now but grew up and started my family in the Washington DC area) for $20 it was a no-brainer. The next year they wanted $100 and I worked them down to $50 so I took it. This year they wanted $100 so they got $0. If they charged $20 or $30 a year I bet they would get subscribers if the ad-revenue model died. But it's a winner-take-all operation. WaPo will dominate (along with the NY Times and WS Journal) because of their reputations. The El Paso whatever will be out of luck.
One way to get the charge-for-content back might be to demonstrate how much privacy people are losing and to make some noise about it.
One way to get the charge-for-content back might be to demonstrate how much privacy people are losing and to make some noise about it.
Or news outlets could adopt the academic publishers / netflix / steam(?) model, and aggregate their subscriptions. I too would not pay $100 / year for WaPo. But I would pay $100/year for access to a quality selection of international news organizations. It is a blindingly obvious solution which I suspect is only hindered by pride and unrealistic expectations. There are a myriad of ways the profit could be split internally - it does not even require great creativity to find something that works fairly well, since it has all been done before numerous times.
Interesting isn't it. Upthread there's someone saying to just use the newspaper model as it worked for decades, and here are two people saying they won't pay a fraction of the newspaper model (~27c/day).
Instead you want an immense pool of content generation for that 27c per day. Good journalism isn't cheap - that's why paper newspapers cost what they do and are full of adverts - but you want to pay rock-bottom prices to individual sources whilst still pretending that you're paying a 'reasonable amount'.
Instead you want an immense pool of content generation for that 27c per day. Good journalism isn't cheap - that's why paper newspapers cost what they do and are full of adverts - but you want to pay rock-bottom prices to individual sources whilst still pretending that you're paying a 'reasonable amount'.
The entire newspaper is not of value to me, and I read a newspaper worth of articles total, so I think it is fair to pay a newspaper's worth of subscription prices and have that revenue spread around to the business whose articles I read. Any subscription model can have a quantified limit to my access. Like I said, this isn't hard to think about or do.
There are movies that cost hundreds of millions to make which make up just one more item in the Netflix catalogue, and Hollywood is far from hurting. It may cost enormous amounts to produce good news, but this is true of the business model I am pointing out as well.
There are movies that cost hundreds of millions to make which make up just one more item in the Netflix catalogue, and Hollywood is far from hurting. It may cost enormous amounts to produce good news, but this is true of the business model I am pointing out as well.
Almost. I should point out that I do subscribe to the Boston Globe since that's where I live. The WaPo would be in addition- for that I would only want to pay a delta. This is a new revenue channel for them, not taking away the old one.
> If everyone charged for their time creating content on the internet, you would buy the best quality content.
Interesting, the ones who tried to charge seem to be dying.
Interesting, the ones who tried to charge seem to be dying.
Yeah, and that says more about the perceived value of their content more than their business model. Paying for news is something that basically every household in the US did up until recently so it's a tough argument to make that people are unwilling. But the honest truth is that their content isn't that much better than the ad supported alternatives.
Moot argument. It stopped working for them.
In what way? They are still publishing.
Plenty of newspapers have shuttered their shops, and editing quality has gone way down. It used to be that seeing a single typo in a competitor's paper was cause for jubilation. These days mistakes are everywhere. In the past couple of years the most egregious ones I've seen were 'mruder' and 'hgihway' - these words don't even pass a spell-checker.
[deleted]
> Experience has proven time and time again that putting up paywalls just makes people go elsewhere.
Isn't Spotify and Netflix evidence that suggest otherwise. All the music on Spotify is available for free on the so called dodgy sites. Torrents and whatnot. Heck, you can even listen to it for free on FM radio! However, literally millions of people choose to pay for Spotify - because it's worth it.
The news is no different. If news content providers provide a useful service, millions of people WILL pay.
My analysis is that millions of people avoid paying because news content providers don't sell news, they sell people. They sell their readers as fodder to the ad men. When that business model changes, people will pay for news.
Isn't Spotify and Netflix evidence that suggest otherwise. All the music on Spotify is available for free on the so called dodgy sites. Torrents and whatnot. Heck, you can even listen to it for free on FM radio! However, literally millions of people choose to pay for Spotify - because it's worth it.
The news is no different. If news content providers provide a useful service, millions of people WILL pay.
My analysis is that millions of people avoid paying because news content providers don't sell news, they sell people. They sell their readers as fodder to the ad men. When that business model changes, people will pay for news.
Publishers that have come to the web from old-school media are still failing to understand the medium. They take their print content, slap it up on a website (designed to replicate the look of a print newspaper!), surround it with ads, and expect it to behave in exactly the same way as hardcopy newspapers. It doesn't, for a myriad of reasons.
I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publishers and old-media print journalists. They are way too entrenched in their understanding of publishing/journalism to make the change. The closest I've seen anyone get to something that might work, and they're still a long, long way off, is the Guardian. At least they understand that a) they need to provide additional content, suited to the medium (e.g. quality infographics, interactive data, etc.) and b) online advertising is not enough, but current paywall implementations are a poor substitute.
Spotify is a great example to compare. If Spotify worked the same way as online news, you'd go to Spotify, browse through some skeuomorphic representation of a CD rack, get interrupted, find an album you like the look of, listen to the album with an obnoxious advert between each song, put it back in the rack, repeat. Is there a single newspaper that will allow me to even, for example, do something useful with their content by collecting it / tagging it / whatever for future reference? Will they let my contacts, or famous people, recommend content on a particular subject? Will they offer any kind of api for other publishers wishing to reference their material?
I have experience of this world, having worked with old-school book publishers and old-media print journalists. They are way too entrenched in their understanding of publishing/journalism to make the change. The closest I've seen anyone get to something that might work, and they're still a long, long way off, is the Guardian. At least they understand that a) they need to provide additional content, suited to the medium (e.g. quality infographics, interactive data, etc.) and b) online advertising is not enough, but current paywall implementations are a poor substitute.
Spotify is a great example to compare. If Spotify worked the same way as online news, you'd go to Spotify, browse through some skeuomorphic representation of a CD rack, get interrupted, find an album you like the look of, listen to the album with an obnoxious advert between each song, put it back in the rack, repeat. Is there a single newspaper that will allow me to even, for example, do something useful with their content by collecting it / tagging it / whatever for future reference? Will they let my contacts, or famous people, recommend content on a particular subject? Will they offer any kind of api for other publishers wishing to reference their material?
Thought this would just be a rant against old media but the last paragraph surprised me. Yes, that would be interesting. Not sure if spotify for news would work but a single db where you could read up on most major publications content around a specific subject or search term, standard interface, could be amazing.
This existed (kind of) in an App called Pulse. It was a feed reader, not a database, but it was brilliant for organizing news articles and searching by title.
Then LinkedIn bought it and promptly ruined, then shuttered it. Still waiting for someone to release a new newsreader app with the same scrolling format. I would have absolutely paid to keep and improve that app.
Then LinkedIn bought it and promptly ruined, then shuttered it. Still waiting for someone to release a new newsreader app with the same scrolling format. I would have absolutely paid to keep and improve that app.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
NYT's digital arm has a paywall and their digital revenue is something over a half-billion dollars per year. The group that WSJ is part of, NewsCorp's "news and information services" unit, has annual revenues well over a billion dollars.
I'm pretty sure that should cover their server bills.
I'm pretty sure that should cover their server bills.
The point is that it is winners-take-all now. There are a few winners with strong businesses, like the ones you mentioned, but it is not a broadly strong industry. That was not the case with print, where the local paper had some advantages in their home market.
This seems to be kind of just how technology industries work (at least right now): you don't have a broadly strong market for "social news feed", you have Facebook.
This seems to be kind of just how technology industries work (at least right now): you don't have a broadly strong market for "social news feed", you have Facebook.
I don't believe that was the point of the thread I replied to.
But sure, when you reduce distribution cost to zero, you remove a lot of local advantage. And this isn't new. Improvements in music distribution, starting with the wax cylinder, have been slowly killing the local market for musicians. Why wait until the evening go a few blocks and pay to hear a so-so local band when you can play an amazing one in your house right now?
But sure, when you reduce distribution cost to zero, you remove a lot of local advantage. And this isn't new. Improvements in music distribution, starting with the wax cylinder, have been slowly killing the local market for musicians. Why wait until the evening go a few blocks and pay to hear a so-so local band when you can play an amazing one in your house right now?
A summary of the thread, from my perspective: 1. Advertising is the wrong way to monetize, paywalls are the right way, 2. Paywalls don't work because they make people go elsewhere and sites still have expenses, 3. (you) Paywalls do work, NYT and WSJ make lots of money on digital, 4. (me) Yes but that's only because they are the winners in a winners-take-all market.
I don't really disagree with you, my point was just that the fact that paywalls can work for an extremely small set of publishers does not resolve the tension in comments #1 and #2.
I don't really disagree with you, my point was just that the fact that paywalls can work for an extremely small set of publishers does not resolve the tension in comments #1 and #2.
Ah, got it. Yes, I agree entirely. I was only disagreeing with #2's notion that paywalls never work. Thanks for clarifying.
Free market, right?
Depends very much on the audience. LWN's paywall seems to be working for them!
> My eyeballs are not being loaned to you; my senses/attention is not for sale.
That fine-sounding in theory, but it seems to ignore the fact that your attention has been for sale for as long as billboards, or, heck, carnival barkers have been around.
It's great that we can use technology to un-render ads that have been delivered to us via the internet, so I fully support ad blockers, but let's not pretend that we have some innate, natural Right to never hear a sales-pitch.
That fine-sounding in theory, but it seems to ignore the fact that your attention has been for sale for as long as billboards, or, heck, carnival barkers have been around.
It's great that we can use technology to un-render ads that have been delivered to us via the internet, so I fully support ad blockers, but let's not pretend that we have some innate, natural Right to never hear a sales-pitch.
Yeah, but those billboards and carnival barkers are standing on someone else's property. They're not taking up space on the screen in front of me, which I personally own and administer.
If someone wants to buy their own screens and show ads on them, it's fine by me. But you don't have any right to do it on my screens.
If someone wants to buy their own screens and show ads on them, it's fine by me. But you don't have any right to do it on my screens.
The counter argument is that by visiting a website you are then on "their property", or at the very least using their resources.
You went there on your own free will and can leave when you want. No one is "forcing" anything on your screen.
(not saying I agree with this notion necessarily - just that your physical "property" analogy isn't very good).
You went there on your own free will and can leave when you want. No one is "forcing" anything on your screen.
(not saying I agree with this notion necessarily - just that your physical "property" analogy isn't very good).
Yes, and they can kick me (or any of my code) off of their property, just as I can kick them and theirs off of mine. They can refuse to accept any part of any message I send them at their wish, just as I will refuse to accept any part of any message they send me at mine.
Unfortunately the situation has devolved into a kind of arms race where content providers need to recover costs via advertising more aggressively because more people are "skipping"/blocking the ads. Those "more people" include me because some of it has become unbearable as well as malicious.
That said, I do maintain that a site owner has the right to try to extract revenue from their enterprise and to a degree as visitors we have a right to not put up with overwhelming advertising. It's one of those things where we both have rights and we need to find an agreeable medium --not that everyone will agree but at least "the average person" will agree.
Maybe small enthusiast site will always be free and depend on the goodwill of the site maintainer (as in the "good old days" before ads) And maybe we'll have services which bundle premium content ala cable. And maybe there will be a micropayments aspect too. In the end, content does not come for free --someone or many people have to put work into bringing that content to light/publish.
That said, I do maintain that a site owner has the right to try to extract revenue from their enterprise and to a degree as visitors we have a right to not put up with overwhelming advertising. It's one of those things where we both have rights and we need to find an agreeable medium --not that everyone will agree but at least "the average person" will agree.
Maybe small enthusiast site will always be free and depend on the goodwill of the site maintainer (as in the "good old days" before ads) And maybe we'll have services which bundle premium content ala cable. And maybe there will be a micropayments aspect too. In the end, content does not come for free --someone or many people have to put work into bringing that content to light/publish.
I tend to think framing in terms of (legal or moral) rights isn't the best argument. The debate needs to be about utility and interests.
People seem to think they exist in a vacuum. But now everyone is using ad blockers, and the dynamics have devolved to resemble the Greek tax system: "I'm not paying those taxes, they are too high" -> "We're not getting enough revenue, need to lower costs" -> "Why should I pay for the shitty service the government provides?" -> "We need to raise taxes, or close the schools" ->...
Stuff that would help:
– Publishers need to get their act together and offer netflix/spotify-style access
– Adtech needs a quality revolution
– Ad blockers need to evolve to do "smart blocking", where the tuple of (user/publisher/article/ad network/ad client/network condition) determines if an ad should be blocked, with a build-in mechanism to reward both quality content (by being more forgiving in the other dimensions) and quality ads (in terms of technology/security/interest to the user/intrusiveness)
– Users need to welcome such experiments with a modicum of goodwill and good faith, and a renewed willingness to differentiate. Right now, journalists cry themselves to sleep because even if you're just doing the crosswords at a French magazine, someone will try to stab you with your own pencil, yelling something about "Iraq" and "WMDs".
People seem to think they exist in a vacuum. But now everyone is using ad blockers, and the dynamics have devolved to resemble the Greek tax system: "I'm not paying those taxes, they are too high" -> "We're not getting enough revenue, need to lower costs" -> "Why should I pay for the shitty service the government provides?" -> "We need to raise taxes, or close the schools" ->...
Stuff that would help:
– Publishers need to get their act together and offer netflix/spotify-style access
– Adtech needs a quality revolution
– Ad blockers need to evolve to do "smart blocking", where the tuple of (user/publisher/article/ad network/ad client/network condition) determines if an ad should be blocked, with a build-in mechanism to reward both quality content (by being more forgiving in the other dimensions) and quality ads (in terms of technology/security/interest to the user/intrusiveness)
– Users need to welcome such experiments with a modicum of goodwill and good faith, and a renewed willingness to differentiate. Right now, journalists cry themselves to sleep because even if you're just doing the crosswords at a French magazine, someone will try to stab you with your own pencil, yelling something about "Iraq" and "WMDs".
> Adtech needs a quality revolution
Sure, but it has needed one for circa 20 years. And quality has continuously declined over that time. To me, that indicates that generally the next increment of profit gain is not in making things slightly better, but slightly worse.
It seems like a classic tragedy of the commons to me. But good management of a commons requires people perceiving and acting on a common interest with a long-term focus. That's an attitude so far removed from what I see of the culture of advertising and adtech that I expect we'll need a major disaster to change that.
> Users need to welcome such experiments with a modicum of goodwill and good faith
That sounds like a reach to me. In a financial sense, and I think perhaps also in the casual sense, goodwill is what you get when you've spent a long time working hard to make sure your customers like you. For the whole of the consumer internet, advertisers and adtech have been pushing the line of what people will put up with. With the possible exception of search advertising, I think internet ads have earned enormous negative goodwill.
If publishers and advertisers want new experiments to be evaluated separate from the last 20 years of history, I think they're going to have either a) spend a long time undoing the damage, or b) find some way to declare brand bankruptcy for the whole notion of advertising.
And even if they try, I'm not sure how well it will work. The point of the sort of ads that publishers run is to distract you from what you're trying to read and manipulate you into buying whatever the advertiser wants you to buy, without regard to the actual utility or quality of the thing purchased. No matter how much you experiment, there will be a moral conflict at the root of advertising. New tech won't fix that.
Sure, but it has needed one for circa 20 years. And quality has continuously declined over that time. To me, that indicates that generally the next increment of profit gain is not in making things slightly better, but slightly worse.
It seems like a classic tragedy of the commons to me. But good management of a commons requires people perceiving and acting on a common interest with a long-term focus. That's an attitude so far removed from what I see of the culture of advertising and adtech that I expect we'll need a major disaster to change that.
> Users need to welcome such experiments with a modicum of goodwill and good faith
That sounds like a reach to me. In a financial sense, and I think perhaps also in the casual sense, goodwill is what you get when you've spent a long time working hard to make sure your customers like you. For the whole of the consumer internet, advertisers and adtech have been pushing the line of what people will put up with. With the possible exception of search advertising, I think internet ads have earned enormous negative goodwill.
If publishers and advertisers want new experiments to be evaluated separate from the last 20 years of history, I think they're going to have either a) spend a long time undoing the damage, or b) find some way to declare brand bankruptcy for the whole notion of advertising.
And even if they try, I'm not sure how well it will work. The point of the sort of ads that publishers run is to distract you from what you're trying to read and manipulate you into buying whatever the advertiser wants you to buy, without regard to the actual utility or quality of the thing purchased. No matter how much you experiment, there will be a moral conflict at the root of advertising. New tech won't fix that.
If we could go back to self-hosted ads without scripts, cookies and other forms of user tracking, without autoplaying videos and whole-page overlays, I'd be much more willing to turn off my adblocker.
I would totally turn off my ad blocker if ads to restricted to a set maximum size, constituted only a static JPG and contained no tracking pixels/code or cookies and we no more targeted than the site they were on: I.e. technology ads on tech sites (SO, Ars Technica, etc), ads for games on gaming sites. Basically, the ad model back in the day.
I would absolutely turn my adblocker off as well if that were the model. My problem isn't advertising, it is false, malicious, bloaty surveillanceware that most advertising is today.
Ads need to be curated by content providers.
Ads need to be curated by content providers.
You wouldn't even need to - ads like that are practically indistinguishable from locally-hosted images, I'd reckon most adblockers don't block them anyways!
Goodwill? Good faith? After years and years of abuse, attacks, and irritation from their part? I think not.
So then we "close the schools"?
>Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user. That will incentivize people to unblock ads.
microsoft tried that with bing rewards. i suspect it's not working well because i only heard of it in the context of botting it to get free money. the advertiser wants to spend as little money to gain as many sales, whereas the viewer (and blackhats) want to get as much money as possible. the two parties' objectives do not line up.
microsoft tried that with bing rewards. i suspect it's not working well because i only heard of it in the context of botting it to get free money. the advertiser wants to spend as little money to gain as many sales, whereas the viewer (and blackhats) want to get as much money as possible. the two parties' objectives do not line up.
And Google tried that with Google Contributor [1], which they shut down mid-January, promising a replacement.
I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are.
I started being a subscriber to some of those websites after.
Despite teasing a Contributor replacement "early 2017", nothing has been announced yet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
I was on that program, paying $10 a month. They refunded anything that was left over. IIRC think they habitually refunded $5+. They also showed stats, and IIRC the websites I frequented the most frequently (Ars Technica, multiple times a day), still received only pennies. That's how cheap ads are.
I started being a subscriber to some of those websites after.
Despite teasing a Contributor replacement "early 2017", nothing has been announced yet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
> the websites I frequented the most frequently [...] still received only pennies.
And what I don't understand is when I decide I want to subscribe to a newspaper, it's hundreds of dollars a year. They take pennies to serve me spam and malware, but if I want to pay them, it's 1000x the price.
And don't get me started on how the Washington Post gives a $70 annual discount on a digital subscription if you agree to receive a print copy of the Sunday edition. It sounds incredibly stupid and backward until you remember, advertising.
And what I don't understand is when I decide I want to subscribe to a newspaper, it's hundreds of dollars a year. They take pennies to serve me spam and malware, but if I want to pay them, it's 1000x the price.
And don't get me started on how the Washington Post gives a $70 annual discount on a digital subscription if you agree to receive a print copy of the Sunday edition. It sounds incredibly stupid and backward until you remember, advertising.
I think we might need to call that the Netflix theorem at some point:
"If you just ask for the fucking right price, people will pay and great original content can arise"
"If you just ask for the fucking right price, people will pay and great original content can arise"
Netflix was massively popular because the price was anchored against the price of cable. Americans were used to paying $100/mo or more for a collection of channels of which the majority were never watched. (because... ESPN? I never understood that) So $10/mo looked like a bargain.
Currently, online journalism is anchored against the price of free. So if I want to sit down with my coffee and read an article from the New York Times, another from Washington Post, and a counter-point from the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and follow that up with a long-form piece from the New Yorker, I can either pay $500/yr, or remember to right click each article and open in incognito mode.
Currently, online journalism is anchored against the price of free. So if I want to sit down with my coffee and read an article from the New York Times, another from Washington Post, and a counter-point from the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and follow that up with a long-form piece from the New Yorker, I can either pay $500/yr, or remember to right click each article and open in incognito mode.
Yeah but if it was like 1$ a month each or 10$ for all newspaper problem solve customers would pay.
They just haven't figured out yet that on the web no-one is ready to pay 15$ for access to a single news source given that no-one is able to actually read all available content produced in one day.
New potential news customers born in the 1990 are like bees that fly from sites to sites.
Loyals customers that relly on one newspaper and are paying high fee are elderly people and they will stop paying when they unfortunately dies.
It all about not getting the demographic of you potential customer base...
They just haven't figured out yet that on the web no-one is ready to pay 15$ for access to a single news source given that no-one is able to actually read all available content produced in one day.
New potential news customers born in the 1990 are like bees that fly from sites to sites.
Loyals customers that relly on one newspaper and are paying high fee are elderly people and they will stop paying when they unfortunately dies.
It all about not getting the demographic of you potential customer base...
I, too, am waiting for a cross-publisher content network. I'd easily pay $30/mo, instead of the $0 I'm paying now.
But, for the individual publisher, this would mean the end of their current subscriber base and 70%+ of revenue. I'm pretty sure the NYT has a spreadsheet somewhere, and currently it's still saying that they are likely to lose out in such a model.
If they get, say, 10% of my $30, that's $3 x 12 = $36, which is about 1/10 of their current price. Could they increase their subscriber base by an order of magnitude with such a model? I'd say it's possible, but it's just too big a risk right now. And the numbers may be less favourably for smaller outfits.
But, for the individual publisher, this would mean the end of their current subscriber base and 70%+ of revenue. I'm pretty sure the NYT has a spreadsheet somewhere, and currently it's still saying that they are likely to lose out in such a model.
If they get, say, 10% of my $30, that's $3 x 12 = $36, which is about 1/10 of their current price. Could they increase their subscriber base by an order of magnitude with such a model? I'd say it's possible, but it's just too big a risk right now. And the numbers may be less favourably for smaller outfits.
There's http://blendle.com . They let you pay-per-article. It's still early work, but I do use them, and I was glad to find their service.
[deleted]
I used to work on that project. I'm sad that this happened, but mostly I'm annoyed at the public -- the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount.
It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.
It's definitely coming back, though. Just not in quite the same form.
> the problem turns out to be, people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount.
No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware.
My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but necessary after finding out that newspapers will continue to charge even expired or cancelled credit cards. Even after I explicitly cancelled a credit card to try to stop recurring billing, the credit card company will helpfully keep accepting those charges.
I'm desperately looking for a solution to support journalism that simply lets me pay to read articles for exactly what advertisers would pay to bombard me with crap.
Google Contributor was SO close to being a solution. All it had to do was work with ad blockers.
No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware.
My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but necessary after finding out that newspapers will continue to charge even expired or cancelled credit cards. Even after I explicitly cancelled a credit card to try to stop recurring billing, the credit card company will helpfully keep accepting those charges.
I'm desperately looking for a solution to support journalism that simply lets me pay to read articles for exactly what advertisers would pay to bombard me with crap.
Google Contributor was SO close to being a solution. All it had to do was work with ad blockers.
> No, the problem is it didn't work with adblockers. I really want to pay for the content I read, I just am not willing to risk being outbid on the chance to view a page without spam by someone trying to deliver malware.
That's a big issue. Another is that I want sites without any ads to be able to get a share of the money too.
But it's also that the bidding model is a poor way to allocate the money. I don't want the word "insurance" to randomly trigger a $50 ad slot. It's okay if there's some influence from ad slot prices onto how the money gets allocated, but the main influence should be how much I use each site.
That's a big issue. Another is that I want sites without any ads to be able to get a share of the money too.
But it's also that the bidding model is a poor way to allocate the money. I don't want the word "insurance" to randomly trigger a $50 ad slot. It's okay if there's some influence from ad slot prices onto how the money gets allocated, but the main influence should be how much I use each site.
> But it's also that the bidding model is a poor way to allocate the money. I don't want the word "insurance" to randomly trigger a $50 ad slot. It's okay if there's some influence from ad slot prices onto how the money gets allocated, but the main influence should be how much I use each site.
Using the normal bidding process was a clever shortcut to get Contributor working as a 20% project, with minimal manpower. Seriously, it was just two guys at first.
It's not currently just two guys. I'll let you read that how you will.
Using the normal bidding process was a clever shortcut to get Contributor working as a 20% project, with minimal manpower. Seriously, it was just two guys at first.
It's not currently just two guys. I'll let you read that how you will.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves (Looking at you NY Times) If you allow me to subscribe to your site/service online, then you better fkn let me manage my subscription (update payment method, deactivate recurring billing, etc...) online as well. You can't even email them. You have to call them, so they can push you onto their retention specialists. FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
In Germany and The Netherlands, there is Blendle, which allows you to pay per article:
https://blendle.com/signup/kiosk
They also have a 9.99 per month subscription, where you get 20 articles daily (I think they are selected through a recommendation system + curation).
https://blendle.com/signup/kiosk
They also have a 9.99 per month subscription, where you get 20 articles daily (I think they are selected through a recommendation system + curation).
"My current solution is to buy pre-paid visa cards to pay for online news subscriptions, which is a huge pain, but necessary after finding out that newspapers will continue to charge even expired or cancelled credit cards. Even after I explicitly cancelled a credit card to try to stop recurring billing, the credit card company will helpfully keep accepting those charges."
1. I haven't resorted to pre-paid Vias cards, but it's a good idea.
2. There has been so many times when I'm thinking about signing up for a website, or service, but the fear of them being "cute", like not charging the correct amount, recurrent billing, making it difficult to quit, and lousy security prevents me from giving money to anyone, except the current monopolies., and only for stuff I really need. As to really need--I don't need that much in all reality.
3. I get those Wall Street Journal offers for $1 for so many weeks. I don't care if it was .01 cents; I don't want to have another thing in the back of my mind to worry about.
It's not about the money, it's about Trust. If I feel this way about WSJ, how are the littler sites suspose to gain trust?
4. I don't have a solution as to how online companies can make money. I just know the minute you hire the MBA, or the "expert", and start underestimating your customers; you're screwed.
Every website should give the customer the option of an immediate purge of all credit card data on the servers, at the time of registration;
"We will sign you up today, charge you $10, and purge you from our database. We would not sell your information. We won't bother you ever again. You have my word--sincerely, the Founders."
You will need to re-register next month. Big deal? Most people will opt for the easy way(keep all info on the customer on the servers), but their will be people like me, that don't want you to have that information on file.
I was just about to sign up for Republic Wireless. It might me the cheapest cell phone service out there. Then I noticed their "new, and improved" billing. It's not new and improved, it's just more money per month. I didn't bite. One lost customer, at least for now.
It's about trust, at this point, for me. I don't think getting certain people to pay is an insurmountable problem, but work on trust, and make the content something they need to pay for? In my youth, I needed quality porn, and that was my last subscription. Pathetic, I know, but even then I made sure they didn't get cute with my Credit Card.
What will be the next website I really need? Yea, it's a problem, but trust should be taken for granted.
1. I haven't resorted to pre-paid Vias cards, but it's a good idea.
2. There has been so many times when I'm thinking about signing up for a website, or service, but the fear of them being "cute", like not charging the correct amount, recurrent billing, making it difficult to quit, and lousy security prevents me from giving money to anyone, except the current monopolies., and only for stuff I really need. As to really need--I don't need that much in all reality.
3. I get those Wall Street Journal offers for $1 for so many weeks. I don't care if it was .01 cents; I don't want to have another thing in the back of my mind to worry about.
It's not about the money, it's about Trust. If I feel this way about WSJ, how are the littler sites suspose to gain trust?
4. I don't have a solution as to how online companies can make money. I just know the minute you hire the MBA, or the "expert", and start underestimating your customers; you're screwed.
Every website should give the customer the option of an immediate purge of all credit card data on the servers, at the time of registration;
"We will sign you up today, charge you $10, and purge you from our database. We would not sell your information. We won't bother you ever again. You have my word--sincerely, the Founders."
You will need to re-register next month. Big deal? Most people will opt for the easy way(keep all info on the customer on the servers), but their will be people like me, that don't want you to have that information on file.
I was just about to sign up for Republic Wireless. It might me the cheapest cell phone service out there. Then I noticed their "new, and improved" billing. It's not new and improved, it's just more money per month. I didn't bite. One lost customer, at least for now.
It's about trust, at this point, for me. I don't think getting certain people to pay is an insurmountable problem, but work on trust, and make the content something they need to pay for? In my youth, I needed quality porn, and that was my last subscription. Pathetic, I know, but even then I made sure they didn't get cute with my Credit Card.
What will be the next website I really need? Yea, it's a problem, but trust should be taken for granted.
Checkout Privacy.com, I use it for exactly these kind of scenarios. You can generate card numbers that are locked to a single merchant, and you can set transaction limits and delete the card whenever you want. Or you can set it as a "burner" which will only work for a single transaction.
Some banks have a e-card option for internet payment.
The most extreme can give you a unique card number with an expiry date of your choosing, whenever you need one. That does wonder against shady practices.
The most extreme can give you a unique card number with an expiry date of your choosing, whenever you need one. That does wonder against shady practices.
people don't want to pay, not even that tiny amount.
(You is to be read as Google, not you personally)
You didn't even give me a chance! I was actively looking and you denied me, I think because I was European and didn't want to lie or something.
And seriously: I only knew of it through HN. Was there ever any campaigns to inform about it? I can't remember seeing a single ad. Never heard about a single talkshow appearance from any of your bosses.
(You is to be read as Google, not you personally)
You didn't even give me a chance! I was actively looking and you denied me, I think because I was European and didn't want to lie or something.
And seriously: I only knew of it through HN. Was there ever any campaigns to inform about it? I can't remember seeing a single ad. Never heard about a single talkshow appearance from any of your bosses.
If I hadn't seen it mentioned deep in a thread here at HN, I would never have seen a single mention of it, either.
As it was, I was the only one of the dozens of other techs/devs I know who heard about it. Most were interested once I told them! There must have been zero advertising.
As it was, I was the only one of the dozens of other techs/devs I know who heard about it. Most were interested once I told them! There must have been zero advertising.
I was happy to pay, and starting using Contributor the moment I found out about it.
Not nearly enough ads were replaced by Contributor. Worse, it was the more innocuous ones that were replaced, while the most obnoxious blared on through.
On top of that, it showed me the absolutely paltry amount paid out to the sites running the ads.
So back came adblock, and Contributor mostly just helped on my mobile browsing. I bought Contributor to contribute to the sites, and some for Google, not majority Google, dribble for sites.
Not nearly enough ads were replaced by Contributor. Worse, it was the more innocuous ones that were replaced, while the most obnoxious blared on through.
On top of that, it showed me the absolutely paltry amount paid out to the sites running the ads.
So back came adblock, and Contributor mostly just helped on my mobile browsing. I bought Contributor to contribute to the sites, and some for Google, not majority Google, dribble for sites.
> Not nearly enough ads were replaced by Contributor. Worse, it was the more innocuous ones that were replaced, while the most obnoxious blared on through.
That was a serious problem, I agree, and not one we could do anything about at the time. The problem was, those more-obnoxious ads were mainly not served by Google in the first place.
(There may have been a period when Contributor only worked on a subset of Google's ad products, mostly for technical reasons.)
That was a serious problem, I agree, and not one we could do anything about at the time. The problem was, those more-obnoxious ads were mainly not served by Google in the first place.
(There may have been a period when Contributor only worked on a subset of Google's ad products, mostly for technical reasons.)
> people don't want to pay
cough
rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them.
That's the base of the free internet model.
With the Tier1 ISP billing at 95th percentile, and ISP almost illimited subscription and the close to flat rate, the contribution of small internet users in volume is the biggest in proportion of revenues.
And with people like google not paying for their transit, it means someone has to pay. Who?
Every internet users.
Internet & phone are in all developed country a must have for administrative & job related tasks. In every country it is when you are poor a substantial cost, as well as computers.
For those who are growingly poor internet is expansive.
But for the happy few with latest generation computers internet is comparatively cheap.
Being rich is the art of making the poor pay for you.
It is not people don't want to pay, the poor cannot pay, and they are the biggest population.
Me I have an adblock not because I don't want advertisement, it is because my 2007 computers cannot load a modern web page under 15 seconds with ads enabled.
The modern economy is based on the redistribution of the money of the poorest to the richest achieve by (lack) of regulations where the strongest wins.
So, my point is there is no free champagne, someone has to pay, but I don't see why it should be the one not being able to buy a bier.
And call a cat a cat: commercial internet has not yet found a fair sustainable model.
cough
rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them.
That's the base of the free internet model.
With the Tier1 ISP billing at 95th percentile, and ISP almost illimited subscription and the close to flat rate, the contribution of small internet users in volume is the biggest in proportion of revenues.
And with people like google not paying for their transit, it means someone has to pay. Who?
Every internet users.
Internet & phone are in all developed country a must have for administrative & job related tasks. In every country it is when you are poor a substantial cost, as well as computers.
For those who are growingly poor internet is expansive.
But for the happy few with latest generation computers internet is comparatively cheap.
Being rich is the art of making the poor pay for you.
It is not people don't want to pay, the poor cannot pay, and they are the biggest population.
Me I have an adblock not because I don't want advertisement, it is because my 2007 computers cannot load a modern web page under 15 seconds with ads enabled.
The modern economy is based on the redistribution of the money of the poorest to the richest achieve by (lack) of regulations where the strongest wins.
So, my point is there is no free champagne, someone has to pay, but I don't see why it should be the one not being able to buy a bier.
And call a cat a cat: commercial internet has not yet found a fair sustainable model.
> rich people don't pay, poor people pay for them.
Funny, F2P gaming is all about the opposite. The whales pay for everyone.
Funny, F2P gaming is all about the opposite. The whales pay for everyone.
Some of those whales are the folks who sit at casinos spending their social security and eating cat food for the rest of the month. They're not all rich.
Who said the whales are rich ?
Something like lotteries being a tax on people who don't get math.
Something like lotteries being a tax on people who don't get math.
I remember the pirate Bay team pushing something like that way back when.
Bing rewards actually got me to use Bing as my primary search engine for half a year. The rewards were enticing enough to convince me to give them a fair shot. There were some nice things in Bing, but after 6 months, I decided that the quality of their results just weren't good enough even with the rewards. Maybe if their search quality or features (ala DDG) were better, it would have worked. In the end, quality >> incentives.
I tried bing rewards, but the spamy emails of "hey get a few more points!" both were annoying and there really was no benefit to using their service. Never did redeem any points, so my mileage was varied.
20 years ago, my best friend's brother worked for a company trying this - it was called AllAdvantage. They paid you to watch ads, and paid you a bit for every person you referred who watched ads.
We of course botted immediately. I am shocked they went out of business.
We of course botted immediately. I am shocked they went out of business.
[deleted]
I wonder if there is another solution:
All large websites switch to canvas rendering (like Netflix already does). This provides scrape, adblocker, content filter, ... protection.
And of course it makes the internet completely unusable by anyone either blind or ...
You might even create a startup that makes a javascript web browser, that allows all these companies to get consistent rendering across all web browsers, prevent ad blockers from working, while enabling them to use all their current infrastructure as-is. This would work better because it would still enable ad-network providers to send their javascript to the end-user, so they can keep doing their little custom checks to verify if they're being scammed or not.
All large websites switch to canvas rendering (like Netflix already does). This provides scrape, adblocker, content filter, ... protection.
And of course it makes the internet completely unusable by anyone either blind or ...
You might even create a startup that makes a javascript web browser, that allows all these companies to get consistent rendering across all web browsers, prevent ad blockers from working, while enabling them to use all their current infrastructure as-is. This would work better because it would still enable ad-network providers to send their javascript to the end-user, so they can keep doing their little custom checks to verify if they're being scammed or not.
At present, ads are easy to identify and block because advertisers don't trust the sites they advertise on - they want the impression to be recorded by a trusted (?) 3rd party ad server; this means ad data are easily identifiable at the network level, which is easy to block.
Until there's a replacement model for that lack-of-trust, ad blocking will probably be easy regardless of display technique.
Until there's a replacement model for that lack-of-trust, ad blocking will probably be easy regardless of display technique.
In the long term, even that won't be tenable: machine-learning will be able to block all the right pixels.
It's called video or TV.
Perhaps. But Netflix doesn't just use it for the movies, right. Their "tv guide"/menu is just using Canvas as well.
I'm talking about news that is hard to rip and re-word programmatically.
Differently put : capital forces want to maximize profit, I tend to minimize costs.
> One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.
You should take a look at the sponsored lenses on Snapchat. Nowhere else on the internet are ads so engaging and enjoyable. This is also why I think Snapchat had a chance to really take on Facebook, until FB sucked up and started copying everything from Snapchat.
You should take a look at the sponsored lenses on Snapchat. Nowhere else on the internet are ads so engaging and enjoyable. This is also why I think Snapchat had a chance to really take on Facebook, until FB sucked up and started copying everything from Snapchat.
When I was a kid, my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines as soon as they came in the mail. That's a practice I've carried on, despite getting far few magazines these days... My family also used to mute the advertisements on TV, though I don't think any of us still watch it.
So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazine immoral too? Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?
So when I see people claiming that adblockers are immoral, it always gives me a good chuckle. Is ripping the ads out of a magazine immoral too? Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?
> Is the mute button on my remote a ethnical crime against poor hapless television companies?
Which reminds me, TV/cable/et al. related services already cost money, yet they still serve advertisements. Isn't this a form of double-dipping? Shouldn't they be paying (or giving a discount) to watch advertisements?
Which reminds me, TV/cable/et al. related services already cost money, yet they still serve advertisements. Isn't this a form of double-dipping? Shouldn't they be paying (or giving a discount) to watch advertisements?
The cost of broadcast and cable networks already includes a discount that takes the advertising into account. Ad-free networks (HBO, Showtime, etc.) otherwise known as "pay television" are $15/mo each, since all revenue must come directly from subscribers.
Pay TV came to Australia in the 90s with the promise "No ads - your payment covers it". Then the ads came between shows. Then the ads came within shows, just like free-to-air TV. So... what were we paying for again?
> my dad used to rip the advertisements out of magazines
sheezus. didn't that take a shitload of time and effort? i can't believe how many ads magazines have. they're all over everything.
sheezus. didn't that take a shitload of time and effort? i can't believe how many ads magazines have. they're all over everything.
> didn't that take a shitload of time and effort?
Not really, back when I received the paper copy of the Economist it took me about a minute after receiving it on a Saturday morning to flip through and rip-out the double-sided ad pages. Also gave me an idea of the main stories in the issue.
Put a 30cm ruler on the page near the binding, grab top, pull. Well worth it for making the magazine thinner, easier to fold into my back pocket, and more readable on the bus. Just turn the page and continue reading, no interruptions.
One time there I remove so many pages ( 20? a lot anyway ) that I actually spent money on postage and sent them back to the Editor with the suggestion that he spend his time reading them for me and provide a summary.
Not really, back when I received the paper copy of the Economist it took me about a minute after receiving it on a Saturday morning to flip through and rip-out the double-sided ad pages. Also gave me an idea of the main stories in the issue.
Put a 30cm ruler on the page near the binding, grab top, pull. Well worth it for making the magazine thinner, easier to fold into my back pocket, and more readable on the bus. Just turn the page and continue reading, no interruptions.
One time there I remove so many pages ( 20? a lot anyway ) that I actually spent money on postage and sent them back to the Editor with the suggestion that he spend his time reading them for me and provide a summary.
Did you remove less than 50% of the paper? I guess the equivalent to online publishers' attempts to prevent ad-blocking would be simply to stop printing adverts on both sides of a page. Presumably, publishers had no incentive to do that because, as far as they were concerned, they still got paid for the adverts. And the number of people ripping ads out of magazines must be a tiny percentage, of course.
This I did as well when The Economist arrived. They make it easy since half of the ads are printed full-page on both sides. Took like 30 seconds to do and did make reading much more enjoyable. Now (wow, has been years now) I use the digital edition on iPad and listen to it more than I read it, but when reading I do look at the ads as there are fewer and of high quality in the app edition.
This big effort could serve as an indicator how experience damaging those ads were perceived to be.
If you create great costs (like ripping 30 pages from a magazine) for a small gain is this a particularly well intended economic strategy?
If you create great costs (like ripping 30 pages from a magazine) for a small gain is this a particularly well intended economic strategy?
> Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user.
Brendan Eich is trying to do exactly this with the Brave browser [0]. Although it is a ways away, he wants to cut out the adware middlemen and give users a portion of the revenue for ads which they view, perhaps with some sort of opt-in "watch this video and earn $x" model in which the video content is tailored to you through (local, private) browsing history analysis.
If you are interested, Software Engineering Daily recently did an interview with him about the topic:
https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2017/03/31/webassembly-...
[0] https://www.brave.com
Brendan Eich is trying to do exactly this with the Brave browser [0]. Although it is a ways away, he wants to cut out the adware middlemen and give users a portion of the revenue for ads which they view, perhaps with some sort of opt-in "watch this video and earn $x" model in which the video content is tailored to you through (local, private) browsing history analysis.
If you are interested, Software Engineering Daily recently did an interview with him about the topic:
https://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2017/03/31/webassembly-...
[0] https://www.brave.com
>One thing I've been hoping for is inventing some form of advertising that was actually fun for the user -- fun enough that they would not want to block them.
Unfortunately it seems they've taken an other route. If users try to actively disable ads, just hide the ads amongst the actual content of your website.
I will admit to have been tricked by that a couple of time already (that I know of, at least). You're on some kind of news website, you see a genuine looking link towards a potentially interesting article. You follow it, read a few paragraphs and then starts to notice that the tone appears completely off and way too enthusiastic about the device or service they're talking about.
Then you start looking around and you eventually find a small "sponsored content" disclaimer somewhere on the page. I've seen those types of ads on physical newspapers as well, mainly those given for free in the subway. Often the only thing that sets them apart from actual content is a think border around the page or something like that. That's super shady and a bit worrying honestly.
Unfortunately it seems they've taken an other route. If users try to actively disable ads, just hide the ads amongst the actual content of your website.
I will admit to have been tricked by that a couple of time already (that I know of, at least). You're on some kind of news website, you see a genuine looking link towards a potentially interesting article. You follow it, read a few paragraphs and then starts to notice that the tone appears completely off and way too enthusiastic about the device or service they're talking about.
Then you start looking around and you eventually find a small "sponsored content" disclaimer somewhere on the page. I've seen those types of ads on physical newspapers as well, mainly those given for free in the subway. Often the only thing that sets them apart from actual content is a think border around the page or something like that. That's super shady and a bit worrying honestly.
I don't think anyone is seriously doubting your legal right to block ads.
> If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented.
If the ad blocking becomes so widespread that the ad-supported model becomes unsustainable, I think a lot of people will be unhappy with what happens next. There will be a lot more paywalls and a lot more native advertising, which will be fine for entrenched players but much harder for very small publishers to pull off.
The cool thing about AdWords was you could write a little blog and actually make a few dollars running ads on it just by adding a snippet of code. Maybe micropayments can take care of that some day?
> If it is not sustainable, new business models will be invented.
If the ad blocking becomes so widespread that the ad-supported model becomes unsustainable, I think a lot of people will be unhappy with what happens next. There will be a lot more paywalls and a lot more native advertising, which will be fine for entrenched players but much harder for very small publishers to pull off.
The cool thing about AdWords was you could write a little blog and actually make a few dollars running ads on it just by adding a snippet of code. Maybe micropayments can take care of that some day?
Do not underestimate the American corporation's ability to believe they have a right to a profitable business model. This is a nation where municipalities are regularly stopped from building their own broadband.
[deleted]
The cool thing about AdWords...
...is that a competing business down the road from mine has decided to spend $20/click for my business name, so now I have to spend much more than that in order for customers who already want to make an appointment with me to be able to call my phone number consistently. Google are complete gangster at this point... "nice business you have there."
...is that a competing business down the road from mine has decided to spend $20/click for my business name, so now I have to spend much more than that in order for customers who already want to make an appointment with me to be able to call my phone number consistently. Google are complete gangster at this point... "nice business you have there."
Or you could hire an IP attorney to file a trademark infringement suit against that competing business?
How is that not intentionally causing marketplace confusion?
Also, if you roll over and pay Google, you are damaging your ability to defend your own business name as a trademark. Trademarks are lost if you don't defend them. Talk to a real lawyer, ASAP.
How is that not intentionally causing marketplace confusion?
Also, if you roll over and pay Google, you are damaging your ability to defend your own business name as a trademark. Trademarks are lost if you don't defend them. Talk to a real lawyer, ASAP.
Do you mean to say that Chevrolet has never bought the AdWords phrase "Chevrolet"? I would be shocked to learn that.
We've considered seeking legal counsel. Part of the problem is that the two primary words of the business name are a generic service offered by this type of business (40 years ago SEO was not a big consideration). Also very few of our customers take the care to quote the two-word phrase, so their queries could plausibly be sent to the competitor which offers that service as well. This competitor has itself recently added the name of yet another lucrative related service to its name, presumably as an SEO measure.
That said, I'd be very eager to see any more advice you might have, or any links to resources you think might be helpful to us.
We've considered seeking legal counsel. Part of the problem is that the two primary words of the business name are a generic service offered by this type of business (40 years ago SEO was not a big consideration). Also very few of our customers take the care to quote the two-word phrase, so their queries could plausibly be sent to the competitor which offers that service as well. This competitor has itself recently added the name of yet another lucrative related service to its name, presumably as an SEO measure.
That said, I'd be very eager to see any more advice you might have, or any links to resources you think might be helpful to us.
Ah. I was assuming that it was a situation like Ford buying AdWords for "Chevrolet". If it is more like Speedy Plumbing buying AdWords for "snake" and "plumbing" when your business is named Snake Plumbing, then I don't think you have much of a trademark case there.
In that case, businesses exist that can help your business search for and monitor more defensible trademarks. If you are truly hurt by competitors buying AdWords, you really should thrust your hand into the fire and suffer the pain of rebranding now, because it's only going to get worse the longer you wait. Switching from "Snake Plumbing" to "Jessaustin Pipewranglers" would hurt temporarily as you trained your existing customer base to use the new name, but uncommon or newly coined words are so much more defensible.
In that case, businesses exist that can help your business search for and monitor more defensible trademarks. If you are truly hurt by competitors buying AdWords, you really should thrust your hand into the fire and suffer the pain of rebranding now, because it's only going to get worse the longer you wait. Switching from "Snake Plumbing" to "Jessaustin Pipewranglers" would hurt temporarily as you trained your existing customer base to use the new name, but uncommon or newly coined words are so much more defensible.
> Maybe micropayments can take care of that some day?
Seriously, where's the Spotify of blogs?
Seriously, where's the Spotify of blogs?
Everyone needs to aggressively block ads so that there's more motivation to develop better monitization approaches.
Careful what you wish for. I bet the Verizons and Comcasts of the world have some ideas for monetizing web content. Buy the "sports package" and you get ESPN on your TV and access to sports blogs on the web.
It's entirely unclear that will be affected by adblocking, however - they would do this anyway if they thought they could.
If ad-supported blogs are a viable alternative, then there were always be ad-supported blogs. If it isn't, well, some of them will probably go on with tip jars. But some won't.
I'm not sure Spotify is something to aim for. My understanding is that payments to musicians are pitiful.
It might be the best we can do, given that the price of information has plummeted, but I hope something better comes along.
It might be the best we can do, given that the price of information has plummeted, but I hope something better comes along.
People have been searching for the "iTunes of news" for over a decade. Guess it's a hard problem.
Also, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people would prefer ads over paying for content directly. What percentage of Spotify users are on the free plan dispite it's disruptive ads?
Also, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people would prefer ads over paying for content directly. What percentage of Spotify users are on the free plan dispite it's disruptive ads?
Didn't medium launch something like this recently?
Check out the brave browser. I think that's their business plan
I think a 70-90% cut is probably closer the the right ballpark. I've long thought that ads cost me, the viewer, far more in lost attention and annoyance than they give a monetary benefit to the website owner. I'd like to see the ads cost their creators an order of magnitude more, and for the viewer to get the lion's share.
> I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish.
Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
Doesn't feel right to me.
Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't. By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
Doesn't feel right to me.
> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement
No.
By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no obligation to me. Neither of us entered into any kind of agreement.
Keep in mind - I'm even happy to unblock and click ads relevant to my interests and follow relevant affiliate links - to stuff I'm actually interested in. Webcomics in particular are my jam.
So I would likely not even bother with ad blockers if site owners were not routinely acting as a proxy for criminals in (attempting to) serve me malware, extortion-ware, pyramid schemes, and other scams - or peddling horrifically low quality untargeted advertizing that doesn't respect my time (think "same 30 second unskippable ad plays 5 times in a row" utter and other absolute garbage.)
> Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't
If you want to talk ethics and morals, just how ethical and moral is it to leave your computer open to joining a botnet - imposing so many externalities onto other parties not privy to your "agreement" in the form of DDoS attacks and proxying to obfuscate the origins of such criminals? I think these concerns far weightier than the ethical or moral concerns of depriving a website owner a few cents for selling my time, my attention, my browsing history, etc. (even if they've outsourced that messy work to an ad company who does so on their behalf.)
No.
By replying to my browser, they're entering into an agreement to not waste my time, and give me lots of money. Oh, not that either? Hmm. Several sites detect that I'm using a malware blocker. I make no effort to obfuscate this. Some websites will ask me to turn it off, others will block me if I do not. That's fine - I've no obligation to them, they have no obligation to me. Neither of us entered into any kind of agreement.
Keep in mind - I'm even happy to unblock and click ads relevant to my interests and follow relevant affiliate links - to stuff I'm actually interested in. Webcomics in particular are my jam.
So I would likely not even bother with ad blockers if site owners were not routinely acting as a proxy for criminals in (attempting to) serve me malware, extortion-ware, pyramid schemes, and other scams - or peddling horrifically low quality untargeted advertizing that doesn't respect my time (think "same 30 second unskippable ad plays 5 times in a row" utter and other absolute garbage.)
> Legally I have no idea. But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't
If you want to talk ethics and morals, just how ethical and moral is it to leave your computer open to joining a botnet - imposing so many externalities onto other parties not privy to your "agreement" in the form of DDoS attacks and proxying to obfuscate the origins of such criminals? I think these concerns far weightier than the ethical or moral concerns of depriving a website owner a few cents for selling my time, my attention, my browsing history, etc. (even if they've outsourced that messy work to an ad company who does so on their behalf.)
You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app.
Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course).
The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement.
So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. After all, isn't opening a website just like installing an app? I don't see a difference really.
Don't get me wrong, I now have ad-blockers installed everywhere I can.
But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with, by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.
Their communications are probably encrypted and their ads are probably served on the same connection as everything else. Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course).
The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement.
So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement. After all, isn't opening a website just like installing an app? I don't see a difference really.
Don't get me wrong, I now have ad-blockers installed everywhere I can.
But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with, by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.
> The only option you'll have will be to crack Facebook's client and modify its behavior, which will be copyright infringement.
It wouldn't be. You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer, you just don't have the right to redistribute all of those bits.
Copyright is about distribution, not about modification (well, it is in part, such a modified work would be classed as a 'derived work' and that is why you can't redistribute it, just like you can't redistribute the original).
> courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement.
That's utterly wrong. Copyright infringement is about distributing content, not about forced consumption of content that was freely given to you by the rights holders or their agents and associates (the ad networks).
And rights holders have plenty of options here:
It wouldn't be. You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer, you just don't have the right to redistribute all of those bits.
Copyright is about distribution, not about modification (well, it is in part, such a modified work would be classed as a 'derived work' and that is why you can't redistribute it, just like you can't redistribute the original).
> courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement.
That's utterly wrong. Copyright infringement is about distributing content, not about forced consumption of content that was freely given to you by the rights holders or their agents and associates (the ad networks).
And rights holders have plenty of options here:
- sell ads directly rather than through networks
(and serve them up from the same server)
- charge for their content
- deny you access if you use an adblocker
For using apps in general you need to agree with an EULA, which can be upheld, otherwise EULAs wouldn't exist.
Of course you can't sell your soul in an EULA and there's always this gray area where users might not be held accountable for selling their souls with a single click on "I agree".
But you're saying that copyright law refers to distribution, but well, you can't have that binary distributed legally unless you agreed to that EULA. And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement.
The other problem is that most users won't be able to crack their own binaries and distributing or even downloading cracked binaries from the Internet will be copyright infringement.
Even so, lets assume that an easy to use tutorial will be provided, such that somehow users aren't violating any laws. Well, this is why the industry is pushing for DRM, which ends up getting used not only for encrypting media, but also for protecting binaries. And in some parts of the world it is already illegal to crack DRM.
And if not, I see the industry winning this argument and pushing for legislation protecting them, because truthfully they can point to people that crack binaries in order to freeload and pirate stuff for free - even if such arguments will be morally and factually wrong, they'll win by those arguments with the right lobbying power being exerted. It has been happening for some time now.
> You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer
Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it.
There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.
Of course you can't sell your soul in an EULA and there's always this gray area where users might not be held accountable for selling their souls with a single click on "I agree".
But you're saying that copyright law refers to distribution, but well, you can't have that binary distributed legally unless you agreed to that EULA. And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement.
The other problem is that most users won't be able to crack their own binaries and distributing or even downloading cracked binaries from the Internet will be copyright infringement.
Even so, lets assume that an easy to use tutorial will be provided, such that somehow users aren't violating any laws. Well, this is why the industry is pushing for DRM, which ends up getting used not only for encrypting media, but also for protecting binaries. And in some parts of the world it is already illegal to crack DRM.
And if not, I see the industry winning this argument and pushing for legislation protecting them, because truthfully they can point to people that crack binaries in order to freeload and pirate stuff for free - even if such arguments will be morally and factually wrong, they'll win by those arguments with the right lobbying power being exerted. It has been happening for some time now.
> You have the right to do whatever you want with the bits on your computer
Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it.
There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.
You keep using the words 'copyright infringement' but you really have no idea what they mean.
> And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement.
No, it really isn't.
Breach of the EULA does not automatically translate into breach of terms-of-use for the service and neither of those translate into copyright infringement.
They would have a case to terminate your right to use and maybe they'd sue you for damages if you cause any but copyright has nothing to do with it (in this case, there are edge cases where copyright might be invoked but this is not one of those).
> Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it.
Yep.
> There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.
Well, the company won't like it and may sue you but they will still have to convince a judge that you caused them damage. And suing a private individual for pennies in lost ad sales is just not going to happen.
> And if you haven't agreed to that EULA, then by using the app it's copyright infringement.
No, it really isn't.
Breach of the EULA does not automatically translate into breach of terms-of-use for the service and neither of those translate into copyright infringement.
They would have a case to terminate your right to use and maybe they'd sue you for damages if you cause any but copyright has nothing to do with it (in this case, there are edge cases where copyright might be invoked but this is not one of those).
> Sure, if you don't like how the Facebook app works, you can choose to not use it.
Yep.
> There's no way you can package this argument as to make it right.
Well, the company won't like it and may sue you but they will still have to convince a judge that you caused them damage. And suing a private individual for pennies in lost ad sales is just not going to happen.
[deleted]
It would only be copyright infringement if you distributed your modified version of the Facebook app, or the modified content you've caused your browser to render.
Fortunately, Facebook seems to have some standards for ads: I don't see the porn/Russian brides/make money fast ads on Facebook like I see elsewhere. (except for a few real world friends involved in some MMF scam who use their personal status to advertise - not Facebooks' fault there though)
I do judge publishers by the quality of ads they accept. You cannot advertise a borderline illegal MMF scam and be considered legit. So when I see such ads I assume the news is at best a twisting of the truth, at worst completely fake. Quality editors will take less revenue to ensure that their advertising is not a scam.
I do judge publishers by the quality of ads they accept. You cannot advertise a borderline illegal MMF scam and be considered legit. So when I see such ads I assume the news is at best a twisting of the truth, at worst completely fake. Quality editors will take less revenue to ensure that their advertising is not a scam.
Sure, I agree about quality, but if we continue blocking ads, then how are we going to end up rewarding the good actors?
I mean, this GroundUp site decided to drop Google's ads in order to improve usability for users and because the gains aren't worth it.
But this change won't get noticed by users having ad-blockers installed.
And if they'll decide to push high-quality in-house ads in order to survive, all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination.
Again, because of the status quo I too have ad-blockers installed everywhere, phone included. But it's not a win-win situation and that bothers me.
I mean, this GroundUp site decided to drop Google's ads in order to improve usability for users and because the gains aren't worth it.
But this change won't get noticed by users having ad-blockers installed.
And if they'll decide to push high-quality in-house ads in order to survive, all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination.
Again, because of the status quo I too have ad-blockers installed everywhere, phone included. But it's not a win-win situation and that bothers me.
> all it takes is somebody submitting a new rule in uBlock's or AdBlock's repository and then that revenue will be lost, with no discrimination.
Anybody is free to disable their blocker on any site. If you want a site to be funded by mean of ads and you are fine with the ads served to you, just disable your blocker on that site.
Anybody is free to disable their blocker on any site. If you want a site to be funded by mean of ads and you are fine with the ads served to you, just disable your blocker on that site.
That's why I use m.facebook.com on iOS instead of the native app.
Even better. Just checkin to FB once a day on your desktop (assuming you have one of course). Then you can use FBPurity to "cleanse" your FB experience.
> You can't block ads in Facebook's native mobile app.
One of the many reasons I don't install every dick and jane's mobile app. In this context, I don't even have a Facebook account.
> Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course).
It's trivial to proxy your own HTTPS traffic even on unrooted phones for e.g. debugging or corporate MITM. Short of cert pinning - which is going to block some corporate users as well - it's not going to be a problem. Facebook would be able to detect I'm not consuming their ads, of course.
> So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked
You'll want a working website if only for the search traffic. I also consume most of my content on desktops or laptops - native apps are barely a thing here (anymore.) Even for phones, Google has a powerful incentive not to let apps break the web (which would deprive Google of all that juicy search traffic) and are already penalizing e.g. "intrusive interstitals". And even for phones, I will go without sooner than I will go with people's terrible native apps.
> or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement.
Has that stopped pirates? And reminding consumers that adtech can be regulated might not be the smartest move as well... that goes both ways after all.
It's also giving ad blockers powerful incentive to obfuscate their tracks. Right now, adtech has the option to detect and request you disable your ad blocker, or refuse to serve you content if you don't. They lose that option if ad blockers have to obfuscate their tracks as a matter of routine, just to continue operating.
> But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with
Agreed.
> by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.
That doesn't follow. Several blockers have e.g. "acceptable ads" policies. Those that don't can still whitelist sites (either because they asked nicely, or because the website breaks without doing so), and you will likely not remain whitelisted unless you and your advertisers are good actors. If anything, ad blockers are about only rewarding good actors.
There's also native advertising, doing a bit for one's sponsors in a podcast or video stream, etc. which tends to be of infinitely better quality, impossible to embed malware into, actually vetted by the content producers, and which generally nobody bothers to even try blocking.
And for all GroundUp's good intentions, part of the reason they seem to be ditching google ads is because they were not being good actors by running said ads. Are you sure this is an example of a darkening future instead of a brightening one?
One of the many reasons I don't install every dick and jane's mobile app. In this context, I don't even have a Facebook account.
> Which means that either now or in the future you won't be able to modify your /etc/hosts to solve this problem either (assuming you have a rooted phone or tablet of course).
It's trivial to proxy your own HTTPS traffic even on unrooted phones for e.g. debugging or corporate MITM. Short of cert pinning - which is going to block some corporate users as well - it's not going to be a problem. Facebook would be able to detect I'm not consuming their ads, of course.
> So how long do you think it will take for either (1) everybody moving to native apps where ads can't be blocked
You'll want a working website if only for the search traffic. I also consume most of my content on desktops or laptops - native apps are barely a thing here (anymore.) Even for phones, Google has a powerful incentive not to let apps break the web (which would deprive Google of all that juicy search traffic) and are already penalizing e.g. "intrusive interstitals". And even for phones, I will go without sooner than I will go with people's terrible native apps.
> or (2) courts starting to rule ad blocking in browsers as being copyright infringement.
Has that stopped pirates? And reminding consumers that adtech can be regulated might not be the smartest move as well... that goes both ways after all.
It's also giving ad blockers powerful incentive to obfuscate their tracks. Right now, adtech has the option to detect and request you disable your ad blocker, or refuse to serve you content if you don't. They lose that option if ad blockers have to obfuscate their tracks as a matter of routine, just to continue operating.
> But let's not kid ourselves, you didn't have an implicit right for that content to begin with
Agreed.
> by blocking ads you won't reward the good actors (i.e. GroundUp, featured in this article) and the future isn't bright.
That doesn't follow. Several blockers have e.g. "acceptable ads" policies. Those that don't can still whitelist sites (either because they asked nicely, or because the website breaks without doing so), and you will likely not remain whitelisted unless you and your advertisers are good actors. If anything, ad blockers are about only rewarding good actors.
There's also native advertising, doing a bit for one's sponsors in a podcast or video stream, etc. which tends to be of infinitely better quality, impossible to embed malware into, actually vetted by the content producers, and which generally nobody bothers to even try blocking.
And for all GroundUp's good intentions, part of the reason they seem to be ditching google ads is because they were not being good actors by running said ads. Are you sure this is an example of a darkening future instead of a brightening one?
I used to feel that way, and still have absolutely no problem with ads in and of themselves. But they are the ones who breached ethics and morals by tracking me around the web, tracking my search queries, running all sorts of terrible JavaScript, and generally being dicks. So I don't feel bad anymore.
Doesn't stop you from consuming their content though?
It used to be the case that all content was Hollywood or newspaper created. But now, 99% of the content I am using is discussion threads such as this one, Wiki articles, arXiv papers and blogs.
From the people, to the people! I don't even need movies and articles - well, I still keep a 1% interest in them, but that's all. I am sorry about them but they are so derivative and dishonest at times that I can't watch them any more.
How many times did you find more value in YC comments than the linked article?
From the people, to the people! I don't even need movies and articles - well, I still keep a 1% interest in them, but that's all. I am sorry about them but they are so derivative and dishonest at times that I can't watch them any more.
How many times did you find more value in YC comments than the linked article?
[deleted]
Exactly. On HN, I click to view the comments to see if it's even worth reading the linked article. It seems to be about 50/50, which is as good is it gets I think.
Why would it?
It does if they bother to stop me.
By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server deem me worthy, it will send me some. That's what I signed up for low those many years ago. If you and advertisers would like to change the "agreement" after the fact, well, good luck with that upstream swim.
C'mon, you know better. What agreement? If your answer contains the word "unspoken", I'll let you in on the real definition of that word in this context: "non-existent". I didn't sign anything, no notice was posted. The only agreement I have is that I ask for data, and should your server deem me worthy, it will send me some. That's what I signed up for low those many years ago. If you and advertisers would like to change the "agreement" after the fact, well, good luck with that upstream swim.
Society has many unwritten agreements.
You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."
You don't like ads, I get it. You take without compensating because you want to. Don't just shrug and say, "no notice was posted." Own it. Say, "I felt like taking this so I took it."
I'm sorry but it isn't that black and white. To be honest, I wish there was a way to put in my HTTP request headers the fact that I'm going to use an ad blocker - then your server has enough knowledge what to serve me exactly - if you wish, the text without adds, if not, then a notice saying that the text if for pay.
That'd be perfectly fine. Many sites already do this - detect my adblocker in javascript and then deny me access to the content. This is also perfectly fine - I fully agree that circumventing this forcefully is immoral/unethical.
In essence - the seller (content provider) should have the option to not give me content if I have an ad-blocker. If this is possible, then I don't see anything immoral about me using an adblocker. Do you?
And in fact, it does seem to be possible - wired for example does this. And I certainly don't try to circumvent this.
Many sites manage to work around and still show me ads. I dearly wish there would be some way for me to indicate "I'd rather be denied access to the content than be shown ads." Unfortunately that doesn't technologically exist easily yet.
That'd be perfectly fine. Many sites already do this - detect my adblocker in javascript and then deny me access to the content. This is also perfectly fine - I fully agree that circumventing this forcefully is immoral/unethical.
In essence - the seller (content provider) should have the option to not give me content if I have an ad-blocker. If this is possible, then I don't see anything immoral about me using an adblocker. Do you?
And in fact, it does seem to be possible - wired for example does this. And I certainly don't try to circumvent this.
Many sites manage to work around and still show me ads. I dearly wish there would be some way for me to indicate "I'd rather be denied access to the content than be shown ads." Unfortunately that doesn't technologically exist easily yet.
Flip that around.
It's more like content-mills like adverts, so they give content for free, attach adverts and hope it sticks.
Don't just shrug and say "we have to do this". Own it. Say, "we sideloaded non-relevant content to you for profit through pipes you're paying for because we didn't want to bother building a different business model".
It's more like content-mills like adverts, so they give content for free, attach adverts and hope it sticks.
Don't just shrug and say "we have to do this". Own it. Say, "we sideloaded non-relevant content to you for profit through pipes you're paying for because we didn't want to bother building a different business model".
Society does have many unwritten agreements, but this is not one of them.
Did you ever get those "march of dimes" solicitations that include a dime? I know people who believe that there's an unspoken agreement of reciprocity - they sent you something of value (even though you did not ask for it) so you must give something back. But no such social contract, spoken or unspoken, exists.
Similarly, there is no such contract with respect to ads. Personally, I never watch TV live, even when the schedule is convenient, because I like to skip all the ads. Courts have held time shifting to be a right, so I can assure you I am in the right on this one, although there is zero practical difference between my fast-forward ad blocking (which is sometimes automated), and running uBlock Origin.
Did you ever get those "march of dimes" solicitations that include a dime? I know people who believe that there's an unspoken agreement of reciprocity - they sent you something of value (even though you did not ask for it) so you must give something back. But no such social contract, spoken or unspoken, exists.
Similarly, there is no such contract with respect to ads. Personally, I never watch TV live, even when the schedule is convenient, because I like to skip all the ads. Courts have held time shifting to be a right, so I can assure you I am in the right on this one, although there is zero practical difference between my fast-forward ad blocking (which is sometimes automated), and running uBlock Origin.
You could argue that the society has an unspoken agreement about views vs ads, but that agreement includes limitations on what kinds of ads are considered acceptable - and guess what, most of the sites are violating that unspoken agreement.
Adblockers didn't happen by magic, they are a reaction to advertising trampling all over the implicit social contract.
Adblockers didn't happen by magic, they are a reaction to advertising trampling all over the implicit social contract.
And this isn't an unwritten agreement that this member of society is even aware of so... so much for that aspect of society. Or as my grandfather used to say, you can wish in one hand and crap in the other, one of them will fill up faster. That unwritten agreement is worth everything its written on.
What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of all are generally using psychology to influence my behavior. If your site is using them to monetize, I'll be blunt, tough shit. I dislike the advertising model of shoveling malware javascript from dodgy ad companies and if blocking ads is the way to get that changed, so be it. Consider this societal protest over a business model I disagree with on its very premise. All the way back to Edward Bernays I think advertising has a rotten core by encouraging things like women to smoke, and passing off one of the most common elements off as some sort of rare thing amongst numerous other ethically questionable tactics.
But what theft has occurred when ads are blocked? What have I taken from the ad companies? From the publisher? What alternative has been given? If anything the only thing I have taken away is encouraging them to pursue better ways of monetization that doesn't treat my attention as some fungible thing for their own benefit. This company made $200 a month, donations alone could easily recoup that cost with 40 people doing $5 a month.
Also, if I go to a website and read content without viewing ads due to having an ad blocker. Well oops, but not like there is a giant banner over each hyperlink that says I can't click it without hurting someones feelings or bottom line. Block me if you want, but ironically you'd be cutting of your own nose to spite your face. I'm willing to pay for no ads, but no site is wanting to engage in what that truly means.
Point me to the ethical problem with ad blocking and maybe I'll buy your argument. But if your fundamental premise is that you need ads to publish, you're not going to convince me with $200/month arguments.
My computer is controlled by me, ads come through a programmable rendering engine, nobody owes ads the right to render unconditionally.
All that being said, the irony is I pay more out via patreon than I'm probably worth in ad revenue to all the websites I've ever visited. I do this because I hate the current model. I'm supporting the content producers that have realized this fact and are embracing it. What are you doing to change things for the better?
What exactly am I taking by not viewing ads? I view it the opposite, ads take away my attention and time and worst of all are generally using psychology to influence my behavior. If your site is using them to monetize, I'll be blunt, tough shit. I dislike the advertising model of shoveling malware javascript from dodgy ad companies and if blocking ads is the way to get that changed, so be it. Consider this societal protest over a business model I disagree with on its very premise. All the way back to Edward Bernays I think advertising has a rotten core by encouraging things like women to smoke, and passing off one of the most common elements off as some sort of rare thing amongst numerous other ethically questionable tactics.
But what theft has occurred when ads are blocked? What have I taken from the ad companies? From the publisher? What alternative has been given? If anything the only thing I have taken away is encouraging them to pursue better ways of monetization that doesn't treat my attention as some fungible thing for their own benefit. This company made $200 a month, donations alone could easily recoup that cost with 40 people doing $5 a month.
Also, if I go to a website and read content without viewing ads due to having an ad blocker. Well oops, but not like there is a giant banner over each hyperlink that says I can't click it without hurting someones feelings or bottom line. Block me if you want, but ironically you'd be cutting of your own nose to spite your face. I'm willing to pay for no ads, but no site is wanting to engage in what that truly means.
Point me to the ethical problem with ad blocking and maybe I'll buy your argument. But if your fundamental premise is that you need ads to publish, you're not going to convince me with $200/month arguments.
My computer is controlled by me, ads come through a programmable rendering engine, nobody owes ads the right to render unconditionally.
All that being said, the irony is I pay more out via patreon than I'm probably worth in ad revenue to all the websites I've ever visited. I do this because I hate the current model. I'm supporting the content producers that have realized this fact and are embracing it. What are you doing to change things for the better?
I hate the ad model too, but you're stealing bandwidth and hosting. Delivering those pictures and text comes from somewhere, and ads are how they're hoping to pay for it. Justify it to yourself how you want, but it's true.
It's not stealing, because you request the resource from the server and the server explicitly decides to fulfill your request. And this isn't exploiting a bug or security vulnerability. The server is deliberately programmed to fulfill requests regardless of whether the requester's client.
If running an ad blocker is stealing, then so is disabling JavaScript or using curl.
If running an ad blocker is stealing, then so is disabling JavaScript or using curl.
A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth.
Should they download the ad and pretend to display it? Then the site still gets the impression and everybody wins.
Should they download the ad and pretend to display it? Then the site still gets the impression and everybody wins.
A user with an ad blocker normally uses less bandwidth
The user uses less of her own bandwidth, but not the publisher's. Ads are served from third-party networks, not the publisher's servers.
The user uses less of her own bandwidth, but not the publisher's. Ads are served from third-party networks, not the publisher's servers.
That's easy to solve by the publisher: serve up the ads directly, ad blocking problem goes away. And that's exactly how this will end.
There are other comments (including one by me) discussing this. I'm totally fine with it. Others have said that most advertisers won't pay for these ads due to an inability to audit and track users.
Well, they were happy to pay for them in the past that way and likely will be happy to pay for them again if the only other option is not to be able to advertise at all.
The target of a link could still be redirected, this would not allow the ad agency to track visitors but would allow them to track the effectiveness of a campaign.
That's about as much as they should be getting anyway.
But it would kill most RTB schemes and it would get rid of the majority of the tracking, which would be a good thing.
The target of a link could still be redirected, this would not allow the ad agency to track visitors but would allow them to track the effectiveness of a campaign.
That's about as much as they should be getting anyway.
But it would kill most RTB schemes and it would get rid of the majority of the tracking, which would be a good thing.
Funny, advertisers seem willing to pay for billboards and television ads. Remind me what the auditing and tracking capabilities there are?
The ethical problem isn't ethical, but existential. If everyone acted on only their immediate self-interest, ad-supported business models would fold. Then, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls. Even if you decide to pay for a few sources of information, you will never again have access to the breath of journalism you have now.
If paywalls don't catch on, it's game over for he current model of societies. Because even if my contribution of a vote every four years seems quite small, it's still the currency that democracy depends on. And without an informed public, their decisions tend towards randomness, and are no longer a factor in the decision-making process.
All this isn't a new mechanism, it's basic tragedy of the commons. "It's my boat, and I'm gonna go out tonight, and fish as much as I want to. Nature belongs to me as much as to anyone else, and nobody has the right to tell me what to do, especially not in international waters".
There's nothing really wrong with that argument, except that many a fisherman has made it, and seen his haul cut to almost nothing when overfishing had decimated the population.
If paywalls don't catch on, it's game over for he current model of societies. Because even if my contribution of a vote every four years seems quite small, it's still the currency that democracy depends on. And without an informed public, their decisions tend towards randomness, and are no longer a factor in the decision-making process.
All this isn't a new mechanism, it's basic tragedy of the commons. "It's my boat, and I'm gonna go out tonight, and fish as much as I want to. Nature belongs to me as much as to anyone else, and nobody has the right to tell me what to do, especially not in international waters".
There's nothing really wrong with that argument, except that many a fisherman has made it, and seen his haul cut to almost nothing when overfishing had decimated the population.
The public's attention span and patience is a commons, too. Advertisers have engaged in a vicious, scorched-earth campaign to target the most vulnerable (read: gullible) people out there. Needless to say, this has done catastrophic damage to the commons.
The media deserve their share of the blame. Besides participating in this unethical ad market, they've cranked up the emphasis on sensationalist, click bait garbage at the cost of real journalism.
To continue with the fishing/aquatic analogy: don't blame people for filtering their water or buying bottled water after all of the toxic waste that's been dumped into the river.
The media deserve their share of the blame. Besides participating in this unethical ad market, they've cranked up the emphasis on sensationalist, click bait garbage at the cost of real journalism.
To continue with the fishing/aquatic analogy: don't blame people for filtering their water or buying bottled water after all of the toxic waste that's been dumped into the river.
If everyone stopped watching ads, of course the ad-supported business models would fold! And what we would have lost out on is a business model that is apparently not liked by enough people anymore.
Who's to say paywalls will end up being the norm? And what happens if the paywall is abstracted away behind a Spotify-like news interface?
In the Netherlands there's an online subscription-based news and magazine service, it's doing quite well. It seems quite succesful in engaging their readers more than the traditional media.
I do also see that we live in a more chaotic time than say a 100 years ago. I think much of it can be attributed to the rise of fast information transport systems, computers and the Internet, but that does not mean I have an obligation to support a business model I find immoral, because it might in some way indirectly benefit journalism and democracy in general. Perhaps abolishing the advertising model will make space for interesting other models, like community-curated news, patronage, paying for archives/more in-depth articles, etcetera.
It's not a tragedy of the commons if the only "victims" are a few companies. Companies are not "the commons", or humans for that matter. Companies fail all the time, and that's OK. Business models are not sacred cows that can never be slaughtered. If one business model stops working, companies will adapt and find new business models.
On the other hand, it can be argued that advertisements can have a negative influence on their viewers in many ways.
Who's to say paywalls will end up being the norm? And what happens if the paywall is abstracted away behind a Spotify-like news interface?
In the Netherlands there's an online subscription-based news and magazine service, it's doing quite well. It seems quite succesful in engaging their readers more than the traditional media.
I do also see that we live in a more chaotic time than say a 100 years ago. I think much of it can be attributed to the rise of fast information transport systems, computers and the Internet, but that does not mean I have an obligation to support a business model I find immoral, because it might in some way indirectly benefit journalism and democracy in general. Perhaps abolishing the advertising model will make space for interesting other models, like community-curated news, patronage, paying for archives/more in-depth articles, etcetera.
It's not a tragedy of the commons if the only "victims" are a few companies. Companies are not "the commons", or humans for that matter. Companies fail all the time, and that's OK. Business models are not sacred cows that can never be slaughtered. If one business model stops working, companies will adapt and find new business models.
On the other hand, it can be argued that advertisements can have a negative influence on their viewers in many ways.
> Because even if my contribution of a vote every four years seems quite small,
Every year! There are elections every year! Vote every year!
Every year! There are elections every year! Vote every year!
> people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls
I don't think this claim can be made on the basis of site traffic. You would have to compare how many people actively support the ad system vs actively support the paywall system.
Assuming people that use adblocking software, support the paywall system as a default alternative, ~22% of internet users use adblockers[0] and (let's say) support a paywall system.
I would guess that of the 78% of people that don't use an adblocker, the majority of them don't know about them, rather than make a conscious decision to not use them.
Ad revenue model is winning on traffic because of three reasons
* lots of people don't know about adblockers
* the default configuration for browsers is to not do adblocking
* most people don't change defaults
I couldn't find any studies that have specific estimates of how many people dont know about adblocking software or know and don't use.
[0]https://iabuk.net/about/press/archive/iab-uk-reveals-latest-...
I don't think this claim can be made on the basis of site traffic. You would have to compare how many people actively support the ad system vs actively support the paywall system.
Assuming people that use adblocking software, support the paywall system as a default alternative, ~22% of internet users use adblockers[0] and (let's say) support a paywall system.
I would guess that of the 78% of people that don't use an adblocker, the majority of them don't know about them, rather than make a conscious decision to not use them.
Ad revenue model is winning on traffic because of three reasons
* lots of people don't know about adblockers
* the default configuration for browsers is to not do adblocking
* most people don't change defaults
I couldn't find any studies that have specific estimates of how many people dont know about adblocking software or know and don't use.
[0]https://iabuk.net/about/press/archive/iab-uk-reveals-latest-...
>hen, we already have all lost out, because people currently obviously prefer ads to paywalls.
Fallacy of the excluded middle: among the choices you did not accept we have the option of returning the internet back to the laws that originally governed it, that is nothing commercial.
I don't personally want this across the board, but I am not convinced that the world wouldn't be better if that rule held for non fictional content.
Fallacy of the excluded middle: among the choices you did not accept we have the option of returning the internet back to the laws that originally governed it, that is nothing commercial.
I don't personally want this across the board, but I am not convinced that the world wouldn't be better if that rule held for non fictional content.
There's an unwritten agreement that sites won't serve stuff that tries to infect me with malware, but, well, here we are.
Could you please answer the question: are you accepting actual legal liability for users' computers you infect with malware from ads? If not, you have lost any moral argument.
Could you please answer the question: are you accepting actual legal liability for users' computers you infect with malware from ads? If not, you have lost any moral argument.
Does your site take responsibility for the ads it displays? Will you compensate me for the time and expense in the event one of your unvetted ads infects a user at my company with some kind of drive-by malware?
No?
Then I guess this "agreement" isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.
No?
Then I guess this "agreement" isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.
There are laws against stealing, they aren't "unwritten".
Give me two examples of unwritten agreements that are not laws and will get me in more trouble than "some segment of the population will think less of me".
Twist it however you like, but just saying things like they're a fact does not an argument make. Making your case without accusations would be a good place to start.
Your argument boils down to "I feel entitled to something so I'll take it."
I call it as I see it and am not falling for, "I didn't sign anything. I'm just going by what I signed up for years ago."
I call it as I see it and am not falling for, "I didn't sign anything. I'm just going by what I signed up for years ago."
I'm definitely entitled not to let your document which you chose to send me on request cause my hardware+software to do things I don't want it to, like make any ol' network request it pleases without my say-so.
What was the agreement? Access for losing privacy and risking malware?
The point is that if you don’t like an ad-supported website, you should simply not read it, not strip the ads and read it anyway.
Would you say the same about changing the font size or the color contrast?
For years I had "flash click to play" for usability reasons (I always have 20-50 tabs open), before ad blocking was a thing - but as a results, ads wouldn't play or show until I clicked on them. Do you think back then I had the obligation to click-to-play the ads?
It is exceedingly simple. If you don't want me to see content without ads, don't serve it to me without ads. If you don't want me to change the font size, serve it as a png so I can't change it.
For years I had "flash click to play" for usability reasons (I always have 20-50 tabs open), before ad blocking was a thing - but as a results, ads wouldn't play or show until I clicked on them. Do you think back then I had the obligation to click-to-play the ads?
It is exceedingly simple. If you don't want me to see content without ads, don't serve it to me without ads. If you don't want me to change the font size, serve it as a png so I can't change it.
What about skipping ads on TV by fast-forwarding? What about going to the toilet while ads are playing live?
The argument breaks down sooner than you think.
The argument breaks down sooner than you think.
Yeah, falling back to this faux legalese is tiresome. Just own your behaviour.
> Society has many unwritten agreements
Well that's convenient. Next time someone does something I don't like, I'll be sure to tell them about the unwritten agreement they're violating.
Well that's convenient. Next time someone does something I don't like, I'll be sure to tell them about the unwritten agreement they're violating.
Sure, it's called "manners", or "social behaviour". Of course, as time goes on, many informal social rules have been made into law, because someone always figures he can live with the disapproving looks.
As just one example: If you've agreed to meet with a friend and they don't show, without notice, you'll probably inform them that they are in violation of your unwritten agreement.
(I'm not actually in favour of this line of argument, but I believe it's pretty obvious that unwritten social norms exist, and often serve a purpose)
As just one example: If you've agreed to meet with a friend and they don't show, without notice, you'll probably inform them that they are in violation of your unwritten agreement.
(I'm not actually in favour of this line of argument, but I believe it's pretty obvious that unwritten social norms exist, and often serve a purpose)
When you enter a physical store or the house of your neighbours, you are also entering into an unspoken agreement that far exceeds the minimum requirements set by law. You didn't sign anything and no notice was posted, yet you abide by the rules.
When they clearly and openly change those requirements, for instance by hanging advertisement banners from the walls, then you have the option of leaving. You are certainly not entitled to remove the banners from your view, not even using magic shades. The may ban magic shades in the stores or the house.
That technology makes certain things possible, even easily, does not make it an entitlement. That the other party is invisible, instead of mom and pop behind the counter of the store, does not mean you are entitled to ignore their wishes.
When they clearly and openly change those requirements, for instance by hanging advertisement banners from the walls, then you have the option of leaving. You are certainly not entitled to remove the banners from your view, not even using magic shades. The may ban magic shades in the stores or the house.
That technology makes certain things possible, even easily, does not make it an entitlement. That the other party is invisible, instead of mom and pop behind the counter of the store, does not mean you are entitled to ignore their wishes.
But you certainly are entitled to use magic shades, unless of course the homeowner bans them. Likewise, a server is free to deny my browser's web request for any reason. The fact that the server does not deny my browser's request makes it pretty clear that using an ad blocker is analogous to using magic shades in my neighbor's home and receiving no complaints from the neighbor.
This analogy breaks down because it's my browser and my hardware. You're essentially putting both the web site and the viewer in a room together that happens to belong to the people who own the site. Whereas the reality is that each party owns his own end of a connection. My house is connected to their house/store. Neither party's rules apply outside their own domain, no pun intended. I can't remove the banners from their store, without permission and they can't display them in my house without permission.
If I could use magic shades (a They Live reference?) to block ads in real life I would, even if it hurt the feelings of some business people.
We're not that far from achieving that, from a tech point of view. Augmented reality with something like the Hololens could hide these things away, image recognition has become good enough to deal with most real world ads panels/posters. The main showstopper is size of equipment and battery life.
The day AR allows me to use a headset untethered to a desktop computer with enough battery life to last a day will be the last day I ever have to watch an ad in the real world.
The day AR allows me to use a headset untethered to a desktop computer with enough battery life to last a day will be the last day I ever have to watch an ad in the real world.
The parent poster did say "ethically/morally". There's no legal agreement, obviously.
Are advertisements themselves moral?
How can you debate the finer points of whether accessing a website and rejecting ads is moral or not, when you haven't built a moral case for urging and tricking people into buying stuff that they don't need?
How can you debate the finer points of whether accessing a website and rejecting ads is moral or not, when you haven't built a moral case for urging and tricking people into buying stuff that they don't need?
> tricking people into buying stuff that they don't need
This tells me all I need to know. If this is your stance on advertising, I don't know what to tell you.
This tells me all I need to know. If this is your stance on advertising, I don't know what to tell you.
What do you think the purpose of advertising is?
Your inability to grapple with the question tells me all I need to know, too.
You say "visiting a site" should be enough to "enter into an agreement" with a site to agree to view their ads.
Surely the same should extend to the site, such that "visiting a site" is enough to "enter into an agreement" with the visitor to agree to show only ads that are relevant, non-intrusive, and do not contain malware.
The main short-term incentive for ad networks is to show more ads, make them more intrusive, and sell them to whomever pays the most. It's simply not in the long-term interests of a website, or a website visitor, to be part of an ad network.
Surely the same should extend to the site, such that "visiting a site" is enough to "enter into an agreement" with the visitor to agree to show only ads that are relevant, non-intrusive, and do not contain malware.
The main short-term incentive for ad networks is to show more ads, make them more intrusive, and sell them to whomever pays the most. It's simply not in the long-term interests of a website, or a website visitor, to be part of an ad network.
I'm more frustrated they're wasting my bandwidth, slowing down load times. If their ads were text-only and not running trackers to follow me on the internet I wouldn't bother with ad-blockers/tracker-blockers.
They have to waste your bandwidth in order to pay for the content you came to read. If you’re not happy with that, don’t read it.
They don't have to. There are plethora of monetizing options and content gating possible (subscriptions , apps, etc).
When one chooses the cheapest to implement approach, one can't really complain that the cheapest ad blocking technique counters it.
When one chooses the cheapest to implement approach, one can't really complain that the cheapest ad blocking technique counters it.
Again: if they choose one you’re not happy with, you’re free to decide not to read the content. Otherwise I don’t see how the situation is different from not paying for a meal in a restaurant if you’re not happy with the payment methods offered.
Actually, if the restaurant only accepts payment by credit card, you are free to not pay. That's the concept of legal tender - if they want to demand payment of a debt (i.e. after you finish the meal) from you with backing by law, they _must_ accept legal tender. If they only accept credit card payments, they can't use the law to make you pay.
> ... they _must_ accept legal tender
That is a myth; even the US Treasury Department outright says so.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
That is a myth; even the US Treasury Department outright says so.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
> This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
Emphasis added is mine. US coins and currency are valid offers of payment for debts, but for most other purposes a vendor can choose what to accept. The uniform commercial code, §3-603, then states:
> If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.
Unless there are other statutes that apply (I'm not any kind of expert in this area), it sure sounds like if I make a valid offer of legal tender to an authorized agent of a creditor, and they refuse, I have satisfied the terms of the debt. So, if I owe someone $10,000 I can legally offer them one million pennies, which are legal tender under the Coinage Act of 1965 (perhaps I also should provide some form of proof that there are one million pennies in the truck so there's no dispute about that). They can also legally choose to reject it, but if they do then I no longer owe them anything.
Emphasis added is mine. US coins and currency are valid offers of payment for debts, but for most other purposes a vendor can choose what to accept. The uniform commercial code, §3-603, then states:
> If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.
Unless there are other statutes that apply (I'm not any kind of expert in this area), it sure sounds like if I make a valid offer of legal tender to an authorized agent of a creditor, and they refuse, I have satisfied the terms of the debt. So, if I owe someone $10,000 I can legally offer them one million pennies, which are legal tender under the Coinage Act of 1965 (perhaps I also should provide some form of proof that there are one million pennies in the truck so there's no dispute about that). They can also legally choose to reject it, but if they do then I no longer owe them anything.
That doesn't contradict what I said. If I pay up front, the restaurant can accept/deny whatever they want. If they want to recover a debt, they have to accept legal tender.
From reading the responses and thinking further on this: is this a culture-divide issue? Do you pay for meals in advance in US restaurants? If so, I've misspoken.
It depends on the type of restaurant. Table-service restaurants generally do not require payment in advance [if you look like you can pay]. Take-out, delivery, and counter-service restaurants generally require payment in full before fulfilling your order. Buffet restaurants are split: some require payment as you walk in the door, and others require payment on your way out.
This leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation where you cannot buy a hot dog on credit, but you can get a porterhouse, lobster tail, salad, baked potato, and a beer and not be expected to pay until well after the food is already beyond recovery.
This leads to the somewhat paradoxical situation where you cannot buy a hot dog on credit, but you can get a porterhouse, lobster tail, salad, baked potato, and a beer and not be expected to pay until well after the food is already beyond recovery.
I would be surprised if this is true.
So I started looking into this, because it's interesting.
So, merchants can reject cash for purchases[1] because cash is legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues, and a purchase is not one of these.
The Wikipedia page [2] for dining and dashing states that ordering a meal is a contract debt, since you are given the food before the transaction occurs, with the understanding that you'll pay for it afterwards. Thus, if the merchant, after giving you the food, informed you that they only accept credit card, that would not be allowed.
Also some good discussion on this SE post [3]
1. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine_and_dash 3. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7701/is-it-illeg...
So, merchants can reject cash for purchases[1] because cash is legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues, and a purchase is not one of these.
The Wikipedia page [2] for dining and dashing states that ordering a meal is a contract debt, since you are given the food before the transaction occurs, with the understanding that you'll pay for it afterwards. Thus, if the merchant, after giving you the food, informed you that they only accept credit card, that would not be allowed.
Also some good discussion on this SE post [3]
1. https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine_and_dash 3. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7701/is-it-illeg...
It's completely true. If I finish my meal and don't have a credit card, the restaurant will be annoyed. I offer them cash, and they refuse the payment. I therefore leave without paying. The restaurant takes me to court for non-payment and I agree to pay. I pay in cash. From the link in your sibling comment:
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor"
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor"
If I sat down in a restaurant, finished my starter, and was then brought a bowl of vomit for my main course, I wouldn't expect to have to pay for the starter. I would get up and leave. If the restaurant had a big sign outside saying "vomit for main course", I wouldn't feel entitled to leave without paying.
I can't work out why nobody does HTTP 402 to pay for the content on a site.
> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
If that's your attitude then you should publish PDF's or create an app. On the web it's always been up to browsers to render a site how they wish.
If that's your attitude then you should publish PDF's or create an app. On the web it's always been up to browsers to render a site how they wish.
Consider the following: If you pick up a newspaper or magazine, is it wrong to skip the ads? What about changing the TV channel or radio station while commercials play?
>Consider the following: If you pick up a newspaper or magazine, is it wrong to skip the ads? What about changing the TV channel or radio station while commercials play?
Apparently when I take a piss during a commercial break, I'm not just voiding my bladdder... I'm breaking the social contract.
Sorry, but if you put up a website, I can render it with whatever browser I please.
Or alternatively, content providers can embrace a holistic view of their site - ads and all... just don't cry when someone tries to make a case that your malvertising is a CFAA violation :)
Apparently when I take a piss during a commercial break, I'm not just voiding my bladdder... I'm breaking the social contract.
Sorry, but if you put up a website, I can render it with whatever browser I please.
Or alternatively, content providers can embrace a holistic view of their site - ads and all... just don't cry when someone tries to make a case that your malvertising is a CFAA violation :)
I think it'd be wrong to hire a dude to clip out all the ads before I open the paper in the morning. I think it'd be wrong to mod my TV and car radio to change the channel when an ad starts playing.
Do you also think it's wrong to change the channel when an ad starts playing on TV, or to turn the volume down when an ad starts playing on the radio?
No. I also don't think it's wrong to navigate away from a website when it loads an ad I don't like.
The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free.
Newspapers have just struggled to find and adopt a similar model, I hope they find it. The common thread is that we live in an advertising saturated world and a lot of people are tired of it.
Drive down a street or highway... Ads, signage, billboards, Turn on a radio... Ads, Go online... Ads, Open a newspaper or magazine... Ads, Watch a movie... Product placements. I am waiting for them to print ads on the individual sheets of toilet paper on a roll.
Some advertising is fine but when it ruins landscapes, deafens you as you watch TV or ruins a perfectly good site layout whilst tracking and eavesdropping on you then something is wrong.
Newspapers have just struggled to find and adopt a similar model, I hope they find it. The common thread is that we live in an advertising saturated world and a lot of people are tired of it.
Drive down a street or highway... Ads, signage, billboards, Turn on a radio... Ads, Go online... Ads, Open a newspaper or magazine... Ads, Watch a movie... Product placements. I am waiting for them to print ads on the individual sheets of toilet paper on a roll.
Some advertising is fine but when it ruins landscapes, deafens you as you watch TV or ruins a perfectly good site layout whilst tracking and eavesdropping on you then something is wrong.
>The TV and Radio ad argument falls a little flat when you consider people have left radio for competitively priced streaming music that is ad-free and people have left TV for competitively priced streaming movies and TV that are ad-free.
Not ad free - different types of ads. Services like Netflix have product placement.
(Which troubles me a bit since while traditional ads were irritating, at least there was disclosure.)
Not ad free - different types of ads. Services like Netflix have product placement.
(Which troubles me a bit since while traditional ads were irritating, at least there was disclosure.)
Yeah, that is true with Netflix... It was a pre-coffee post so the gears weren't fully turning yet.
Isn't this what clippings services provide? I don't see Obama (because Trump only watches TV) wasting his precious time reading the ads. He has people literally picking the wheat from the chaff.
>it'd be wrong to hire a dude to clip out all the ads
>hire
Well I'm not paying for my adblocker. What if this dude volunteers? What if I'm doing it for my family members? This isn't a hypothetical.
>hire
Well I'm not paying for my adblocker. What if this dude volunteers? What if I'm doing it for my family members? This isn't a hypothetical.
59nadir(1)
> Legally I have no idea.
Duly noted.
> But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't.
That has to be a first: arguing for the morality of the advertising eco system. I've seen quite a bit of it from the inside and let's just say that if there is an argument for morality it lies with the consumers, emphatically not with publishers (who have conditioned their audience first that everything should be free) or with advertisers (and that's even before we get into the content of the ads, see TFA).
> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
That sounds like a legal argument to me, about which you earlier said you have no idea. Let me summarize my answer: you're wrong. By visiting a site you do not 'enter into an agreement to exchange your adviews for content'.
> Doesn't feel right to me.
That's ok, you are entitled to your own feelings.
So you don't get to install an adblocker. Have fun with spyware, malware and being tracked from here to kingdom come.
If it was just ads, on the page itself and without any further trickery the ads would work just fine.
Duly noted.
> But ethically/morally, I'd argue you don't.
That has to be a first: arguing for the morality of the advertising eco system. I've seen quite a bit of it from the inside and let's just say that if there is an argument for morality it lies with the consumers, emphatically not with publishers (who have conditioned their audience first that everything should be free) or with advertisers (and that's even before we get into the content of the ads, see TFA).
> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement to exchange your ad views for content and you're breaking that agreement.
That sounds like a legal argument to me, about which you earlier said you have no idea. Let me summarize my answer: you're wrong. By visiting a site you do not 'enter into an agreement to exchange your adviews for content'.
> Doesn't feel right to me.
That's ok, you are entitled to your own feelings.
So you don't get to install an adblocker. Have fun with spyware, malware and being tracked from here to kingdom come.
If it was just ads, on the page itself and without any further trickery the ads would work just fine.
>If it was just ads, on the page itself and without any further trickery the ads would work just fine.
I really want this to be true but the elephant in the room is auditing. Without the ad network performing tracking, advertisers have no way to independently verify ad performance and corresponding payment to publishers for CPC ads. For CPA ads, the publisher has no way to independently verify the advertiser is paying out correctly for sales conversions.
You need a third party in the middle to arbitrate. AFAIK, the only way to do that at scale is with cookies from an ad network dropped in and tracked via a beacon.
I guess the only solution is for a new, non-commercial advertising network to spring up (sort of like an NGO) with a strong enough charter and ethical approach that end users (or browsers themselves?) trust limited tracking from ads served through that network. The problem is, who funds it? Not the advertisers or publishers as that would destroy the impartiality of the network.
Edit: and problem two is if such an ad network came in to existence and was successful, it would end up a de-facto monopoly for on-line ad distribution. Apart from the headwinds it would attract from Google, there are obvious issues around free-speech, mono-culture etc.
Edit 2: or maybe the "internet" agrees what an ethical ad network should look like and then any one is free to set one up but must submit to regular auditing by a new internet body to make sure they are sticking to the agreed "charter". That way the ad network could be operationally funded by publishers/advertisiers but still retain user's trust. A little like the CA market for SSL certs. If an ad network started misbehaving, browsers themselves could block/de-list them (like they do when they revoke root certs from rogue CAs)
I really want this to be true but the elephant in the room is auditing. Without the ad network performing tracking, advertisers have no way to independently verify ad performance and corresponding payment to publishers for CPC ads. For CPA ads, the publisher has no way to independently verify the advertiser is paying out correctly for sales conversions.
You need a third party in the middle to arbitrate. AFAIK, the only way to do that at scale is with cookies from an ad network dropped in and tracked via a beacon.
I guess the only solution is for a new, non-commercial advertising network to spring up (sort of like an NGO) with a strong enough charter and ethical approach that end users (or browsers themselves?) trust limited tracking from ads served through that network. The problem is, who funds it? Not the advertisers or publishers as that would destroy the impartiality of the network.
Edit: and problem two is if such an ad network came in to existence and was successful, it would end up a de-facto monopoly for on-line ad distribution. Apart from the headwinds it would attract from Google, there are obvious issues around free-speech, mono-culture etc.
Edit 2: or maybe the "internet" agrees what an ethical ad network should look like and then any one is free to set one up but must submit to regular auditing by a new internet body to make sure they are sticking to the agreed "charter". That way the ad network could be operationally funded by publishers/advertisiers but still retain user's trust. A little like the CA market for SSL certs. If an ad network started misbehaving, browsers themselves could block/de-list them (like they do when they revoke root certs from rogue CAs)
They could audit the effectiveness by catching the clicks on a redirect. That way they can't track but will still know the number of visitors as a result of the campaign.
A 'sample audience' such as used in TV that would willingly be tracked could then be used to extrapolate impressions.
A 'sample audience' such as used in TV that would willingly be tracked could then be used to extrapolate impressions.
The sample audience might work for CPC campaigns on large sites but difficult to see how it would work reliably for the millions of smaller sites out there (or work at all for CPA campaigns where conversion % can vary wildly depending on the action being paid for and the geography of the end user market being targetted).
I'd personally have zero problem with a strongly audited third party tracking me during transition from a publisher site to arrival (or checkout in the case of CPA) on an advertiser's site.
What I do object to is that same tracking info being used across every publisher and advertiser on the ad network (and tracking info persisting for months).
If there was an ad network that enforced a strict set of simple, inert advertising formats and ensured tracking was ephemeral and unique between each publisher/advertiser pair (and not capable of being used to parallel construct my browsing across the whole network), I'd happily accept the compromise. Doubly so if I knew the browsers held a nuclear option of "de-listing" the network in the event of bad behaviour.
I'd personally have zero problem with a strongly audited third party tracking me during transition from a publisher site to arrival (or checkout in the case of CPA) on an advertiser's site.
What I do object to is that same tracking info being used across every publisher and advertiser on the ad network (and tracking info persisting for months).
If there was an ad network that enforced a strict set of simple, inert advertising formats and ensured tracking was ephemeral and unique between each publisher/advertiser pair (and not capable of being used to parallel construct my browsing across the whole network), I'd happily accept the compromise. Doubly so if I knew the browsers held a nuclear option of "de-listing" the network in the event of bad behaviour.
Well, for CPA the only thing that matters you already know, then it's up to you to decide who you want to run those ads and if they agree with you and find you trustworthy. That's a 'solved problem' in the sense that for a long time such situations were dealt with using outside auditors. It costs a bit but not so much that it would make CPA impossible, merely less convenient.
Interesting part I got from this discourse: there is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. That's yet another problem to be solved.
Interesting part I got from this discourse: there is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. That's yet another problem to be solved.
> By visiting the site, you're entering into an agreement
If that were true, it'd be built into the protocol. "HTTP GET" would require an acknowledgement of the agreement you purport exists.
Instead, it just serves the page to any requestee who comes by it, even if automated. Doesn't exactly sound like an agreement to me.
Hell, a javascript popup would be a valid test for agreement compared to that.
If that were true, it'd be built into the protocol. "HTTP GET" would require an acknowledgement of the agreement you purport exists.
Instead, it just serves the page to any requestee who comes by it, even if automated. Doesn't exactly sound like an agreement to me.
Hell, a javascript popup would be a valid test for agreement compared to that.
Sometimes when I click a link I get to a site I never visited before and I don't know that before having got there. They could have ads, they could not have ad. They could use JS to display even text content, they could not use any JS at all. They could serve malware, they could fingerprint me, they could run some bitcoin miner in the JS they serve. They could be totally honest. I really don't know. In some cases they don't know too.
That's why I'm adblocking everything and I visit sites with NoScript, Self Destructing Cookies, DisableWebRTC among the others. Better safe than sorry.
And about the right to render bits and bytes however I wish, I use Stylish for those few sites that do really wierd things with their layout.
By the way, a browser renders bit and bytes as it wishes, starting from the html file and maybe stopping there or going as far as precaching linked pages.
That's why I'm adblocking everything and I visit sites with NoScript, Self Destructing Cookies, DisableWebRTC among the others. Better safe than sorry.
And about the right to render bits and bytes however I wish, I use Stylish for those few sites that do really wierd things with their layout.
By the way, a browser renders bit and bytes as it wishes, starting from the html file and maybe stopping there or going as far as precaching linked pages.
No. You can not force "agreement" on me that easily. By visiting the site, I am visiting the site. There is no agreement between us whatsoever about anything.
What if you just wget the html, just read the body of the page, and don't load any of the external ad scripts?
The good thing about morale is that it doesn't have to be the same for different people. It's not an absolute value. You can live up to your high morale standards and watch ads (which sounds a bit odd). Other people think differently.
Other people like me think we are morally bound to ignore ads as much as possible because we think they destroy a healthy capitalism and are misused to track people and distribute malware. Therefore I use an ad-blocker.
But that's only a side note. In the internet your argument is invalid because I don't know in advance whether a website uses ads or not. To discover that I would have to visit that site without an ad-blocker and let them serve ads without warning. And that would be unacceptable.
The solution for that problem is the various websites either use paywalls or detect ad-blockers and don't provide content when one is in use. In this case we really have an agreement. If I turn off my ad-blocker I'm allowed to watch the content, otherwise I'm not.
But I never ever had the desire to see content which has been hidden behind an ad-blocker blocker.
Other people like me think we are morally bound to ignore ads as much as possible because we think they destroy a healthy capitalism and are misused to track people and distribute malware. Therefore I use an ad-blocker.
But that's only a side note. In the internet your argument is invalid because I don't know in advance whether a website uses ads or not. To discover that I would have to visit that site without an ad-blocker and let them serve ads without warning. And that would be unacceptable.
The solution for that problem is the various websites either use paywalls or detect ad-blockers and don't provide content when one is in use. In this case we really have an agreement. If I turn off my ad-blocker I'm allowed to watch the content, otherwise I'm not.
But I never ever had the desire to see content which has been hidden behind an ad-blocker blocker.
I agree. It's just like any other kind of piracy. If the content isn't valuable enough to see with ads enabled, then the ethical answer is to not view the content at all.
It turns out to be the other way around: the site owner claims that the ads Google served up were of such low quality that they "polluted" the content of the site:
"For about R20,000 a year, it isn’t worth it to pollute our content with get-rich-quick adverts featuring Patrice Motsepe, Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey (see image at top of article)."
Moreover, the author states in the comments that their non-profit is sustained by donations, not by ads. If someone had visited this site with an ad-blocker turned on before the author stopped using Google ads, it would have improved the content (by the author's own stated standards) without endangering the site's source of funding.
Granted this may be a special case. But I think special cases are often worth the read, or at least not "just like any other kind."
"For about R20,000 a year, it isn’t worth it to pollute our content with get-rich-quick adverts featuring Patrice Motsepe, Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey (see image at top of article)."
Moreover, the author states in the comments that their non-profit is sustained by donations, not by ads. If someone had visited this site with an ad-blocker turned on before the author stopped using Google ads, it would have improved the content (by the author's own stated standards) without endangering the site's source of funding.
Granted this may be a special case. But I think special cases are often worth the read, or at least not "just like any other kind."
I read newspapers without looking at the ads. I use highways and public transportation without looking at the billboards. I don't see how it's any different.
I would say it should be arguably illegal to resell content with ads removed, but how something is rendered in my brain or inside the confines of my home is upto me to decide. There's nothing illegal about ripping out the ad pages before reading a magazine at home.
I would say it should be arguably illegal to resell content with ads removed, but how something is rendered in my brain or inside the confines of my home is upto me to decide. There's nothing illegal about ripping out the ad pages before reading a magazine at home.
There is a big difference between print and web: by the time you rip the ads out of the newspaper you have already made it to the ad statistics (“our newspaper sells X copies daily”). On the other hand, with an ad blocker an ad load is never recorded. In the first case, the publisher still makes money, in the second he doesn’t.
Along with several other factors, this is what makes advertising online more valuable, as far as I can tell. Online ads can be far better quantified, in terms of impact, can appeal more to their target audience, can more easily provide a service alongside their advertising content, etc. Advertisers were given a magic wand, but decided to break it over their collective knee and carrying on waving their empty hands about instead.
In the first case you are also screwing the advertising entity for the gain of the publisher, in the second case you are not pretending to see ads to profit for someone in the ecosystem on the expense of someone else.
I can hardly see any moral advancement there.
I can hardly see any moral advancement there.
>There's nothing illegal about ripping out the ad pages before reading a magazine at home.
Nope but hanging around the printing press and cutting out the ads in all your friends' papers seems unethical.
Nope but hanging around the printing press and cutting out the ads in all your friends' papers seems unethical.
Unless your friend asks you to cut ads out of their newspaper. Ad blockers operate with explicit permission, so it's not as if anyone who wants to view ads is being deprived.
>I would say it should be arguably illegal to resell content with ads removed
And it sounds like he agrees with you.
And it sounds like he agrees with you.
Sucks when you actually buy the content (DVD) and then still have to sit through ads (previews).
Arrr! Let's block those ads to Davey Jones, savy.
I didn't enter into an agreement to play Russian roulette with malware.
Are you accepting actual legal liability for malware served to me via ads on your site?
Are you accepting actual legal liability for malware served to me via ads on your site?
[deleted]
Or invent a system by which 10% of the ad revenue gets cut out to the end user.
Or the user-allocated payments in the Brave browser[1].
1. https://www.brave.com/publishers.html
Or the user-allocated payments in the Brave browser[1].
1. https://www.brave.com/publishers.html
This is also why I pirate all the indie games I want. Cracks are just modifiers to bits I have on my computer. And don't get me started on movies. Some people offer me some bytes at a cheaper (free!) rate than so-called 'legitimate' sources.
Previously, lots of indie games used to have serial codes which I could just get off the Internet (just more bytes), but now they act in a user-hostile manner by using debilitating spyware like Steam. It's still crackable, and some people let me play their games for free because they don't put any DRM on it so all I need is the bits and lots of people are giving me those bits for free.
Non-subscription software is my favourite. I only need to modify the check algorithm, which are just bits and bytes that I can change however I wish, but subscription algorithm often means I have to get help from the Internet to prevent the spyware phoning home.
Previously, lots of indie games used to have serial codes which I could just get off the Internet (just more bytes), but now they act in a user-hostile manner by using debilitating spyware like Steam. It's still crackable, and some people let me play their games for free because they don't put any DRM on it so all I need is the bits and lots of people are giving me those bits for free.
Non-subscription software is my favourite. I only need to modify the check algorithm, which are just bits and bytes that I can change however I wish, but subscription algorithm often means I have to get help from the Internet to prevent the spyware phoning home.
> That will incentivize people to unblock ads.
But then they will likely start clicking on ads to increase their own revenue. Or just visit various websites in an automated way to make money.
I don't know if that would work.
But then they will likely start clicking on ads to increase their own revenue. Or just visit various websites in an automated way to make money.
I don't know if that would work.
> Invent a system by which x% of the ad revenue gets cut to the end user
That's a great idea. Is it not what the BRAVE-Browser is trying to acheive?
That's a great idea. Is it not what the BRAVE-Browser is trying to acheive?
Some percentage of users will use ad blockers, and businesses should account for that.
How is that an argument for it? Some percentage of people steal things from stores, business do account for it, but its neither here nor there in an argument about whether people should do it.
How is that an argument for it? Some percentage of people steal things from stores, business do account for it, but its neither here nor there in an argument about whether people should do it.
Let's separate morality and legality. Morality is relative to your beliefs and values. Legality is common to all.
It's illegal to steal physical property (payment transfers ownership of property). It's not illegal to not look at something.
Speaking of which, I really want to write a real life ad blocker with a HoloLens or whatever AR equipment becomes popular in the future. Replace all the billboards with cat pictures.
It's illegal to steal physical property (payment transfers ownership of property). It's not illegal to not look at something.
Speaking of which, I really want to write a real life ad blocker with a HoloLens or whatever AR equipment becomes popular in the future. Replace all the billboards with cat pictures.
> Legality is common to all.
Coming soon to a congress/senate near you : adblockers are now illegal. Why ?
Because media appear to control a decent proportion of voters and can make or break political candidates.
Coming soon to a congress/senate near you : adblockers are now illegal. Why ?
Because media appear to control a decent proportion of voters and can make or break political candidates.
I'd much rather have the next few lines from whatever book I'm reading. Might as well replace it with something worth while
It's more like some percentage of people change channels, mute or fetch something to drink when ads are running on TV.
Just because you watched the film doesn't mean you are obliged to watch the ads.
Just because you watched the film doesn't mean you are obliged to watch the ads.
I disagree that adblockers are theft and that the comparison is accurate.
Stores do indeed account for a small amount of theft in their budget in the way of security and special procedures, and also for actual theft. Precautions are taken, security personnel and procedures are evaluated, and there's a cost/benefit analysis on such situations. Living abroad in certain countries, it's no unusual to see even a small corner shop have a prominently displayed security personnel standing at the front just keeping an eye on things on top of an array of security cameras across the store. It's a cost of business that physical stores take, and it has an impact on their public perception, and that's a choice the store owners have to make; public perception, or the cost of theft. If websites feel that strongly about ads, then they should make it clear - an adblocker is an indication that people don't want ads. The reason could be as simple as "they're annoying" to "they're intrusive privacy wrecking tools of the devil", but it's a response to the complaint "these ads are annoying." Advertisers have very simple and low cost solutions to this; they can ask for whitelisting, they can ask to turn off the adblocker, they can use the adspace that is blocked to offer an ad-free alternative, or they can just not serve the page, something I wish more would do. Yes, such a position may harm the websites readership, but it's better than the alternative.
As for it being theft, I disagree as ads on a website are basically a unilateral agreement that I have no agency in. Making it a condition for viewing the site, whether it's a spoken or unspoken contract, means that we are in some sort of arrangement - your content for my eyeballs and privacy. I don't know what's on your page before I load it, and titles being what they are for articles, it's even harder to know if it's something I want to see. A single paragraph summary of an AP posting isn't really worth me disabling the adblocker. A conspiracy theory style rant on such a posting isn't worth my time either, regardless of the agenda. A list that is basically just copy/pasted from wikihow with some stock photos added isn't worth it, and so on. If the requirement for your page is I must watch ads, then politely let me know before you spam me with ads so I can make the decision as to whether I want to view the content or not. I have the adblocker on because I specifically don't want ads; the risk outweighs the reward in most cases. If the site operators feel that I shouldn't see the content with an adblocker on, I'm fine with that. That's their offer, and I respect their wishes. I just want website operators and advertisers to respect my wishes instead of trying to circumvent it, or flat out lie to me about why they want me to unblock ads. I don't have an obligation to view ads because I clicked on a link that I had no idea of the contents of. The agreement between an advertiser and a site isn't any of my business, and if they want to make it my business, that's fine, but they need to be upfront about it. Removing my agency in the matter is not a way to win me over as a repeat visitor.
Stores do indeed account for a small amount of theft in their budget in the way of security and special procedures, and also for actual theft. Precautions are taken, security personnel and procedures are evaluated, and there's a cost/benefit analysis on such situations. Living abroad in certain countries, it's no unusual to see even a small corner shop have a prominently displayed security personnel standing at the front just keeping an eye on things on top of an array of security cameras across the store. It's a cost of business that physical stores take, and it has an impact on their public perception, and that's a choice the store owners have to make; public perception, or the cost of theft. If websites feel that strongly about ads, then they should make it clear - an adblocker is an indication that people don't want ads. The reason could be as simple as "they're annoying" to "they're intrusive privacy wrecking tools of the devil", but it's a response to the complaint "these ads are annoying." Advertisers have very simple and low cost solutions to this; they can ask for whitelisting, they can ask to turn off the adblocker, they can use the adspace that is blocked to offer an ad-free alternative, or they can just not serve the page, something I wish more would do. Yes, such a position may harm the websites readership, but it's better than the alternative.
As for it being theft, I disagree as ads on a website are basically a unilateral agreement that I have no agency in. Making it a condition for viewing the site, whether it's a spoken or unspoken contract, means that we are in some sort of arrangement - your content for my eyeballs and privacy. I don't know what's on your page before I load it, and titles being what they are for articles, it's even harder to know if it's something I want to see. A single paragraph summary of an AP posting isn't really worth me disabling the adblocker. A conspiracy theory style rant on such a posting isn't worth my time either, regardless of the agenda. A list that is basically just copy/pasted from wikihow with some stock photos added isn't worth it, and so on. If the requirement for your page is I must watch ads, then politely let me know before you spam me with ads so I can make the decision as to whether I want to view the content or not. I have the adblocker on because I specifically don't want ads; the risk outweighs the reward in most cases. If the site operators feel that I shouldn't see the content with an adblocker on, I'm fine with that. That's their offer, and I respect their wishes. I just want website operators and advertisers to respect my wishes instead of trying to circumvent it, or flat out lie to me about why they want me to unblock ads. I don't have an obligation to view ads because I clicked on a link that I had no idea of the contents of. The agreement between an advertiser and a site isn't any of my business, and if they want to make it my business, that's fine, but they need to be upfront about it. Removing my agency in the matter is not a way to win me over as a repeat visitor.
I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish.
Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?).
Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?).
Some bytes may not be rendered in front of audiences, only for personal use.
In general: those bytes come with a copyright and a license agreement. They are my arrangement of bytes. I could easily include an explicit HTTP header saying that you may only render these bytes with unmodified browser brand X version Y.Z (or brand A version B, or ...). That that is currently unwritten in the HTTP response does not make it a non-existent agreement.
If you do something else, you violate my copyright over that arrangement of bytes.
This gets onto very shaky ground. What if I'm in a console and only browse with w3m or lynx? What if I simply disable all Images and Javascript (older web browsers made disabling images really simple; back when we had very limited dial-up bandwidth).
Can websites dictate what web browsers you use? Are you violating an agreement by using a different User-Agent?
No, no and no. You are requesting data and your browser renders it. If you write your own browser to request and render the data differently, I don't see any issue with copyright.
Can websites dictate what web browsers you use? Are you violating an agreement by using a different User-Agent?
No, no and no. You are requesting data and your browser renders it. If you write your own browser to request and render the data differently, I don't see any issue with copyright.
No, no and no.
I'll make it explicit. You can't show a Netflix show to an audience (let alone a paying audience). You may not render an e-book that you haven't bought. You may not even store that sequence bytes on a device you own. You may not decrypt an encrypted file not intended for you.
What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.
Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view.
When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.
Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.
Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.
When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.
Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.
Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.
The difference with paintings and architecture is that there is only one. That is a sufficient justification for letting the creator control the ability to modify it. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of that painting or designing a model of that building and using it in some modern art bodily fluid exhibit or whatever.
Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.
Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.
It's a good point but I think it does not apply to my example.
Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.
And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.
And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
>> Then you see all those shitty ads for
I remembered an old maxim. Apparently, a successful copywriter was asked "How do you write a good ad?" and his answer was "Its very easy. Get the Yellow pages for this year, last year and the year before. See which ads repeat. They are repeating because they are working. Now just copy those ads for your purpose"
The point is, those shitty ads keep repeating on those websites because their ROI is positive. Google wants to help these people by providing them every imaginable and conceivable tool so they can do it better. This also answers your last question about how their business model is sustainable for the long term. It is actually really sustainable because you think Google is a search engine, and I think Google morphed long ago into an internet scale ad-ROI measurement engine which keeps improving (by violently invading privacy of course) both the measurement tools and the actual ROI itself for those who keep pouring money into these ads.
I remembered an old maxim. Apparently, a successful copywriter was asked "How do you write a good ad?" and his answer was "Its very easy. Get the Yellow pages for this year, last year and the year before. See which ads repeat. They are repeating because they are working. Now just copy those ads for your purpose"
The point is, those shitty ads keep repeating on those websites because their ROI is positive. Google wants to help these people by providing them every imaginable and conceivable tool so they can do it better. This also answers your last question about how their business model is sustainable for the long term. It is actually really sustainable because you think Google is a search engine, and I think Google morphed long ago into an internet scale ad-ROI measurement engine which keeps improving (by violently invading privacy of course) both the measurement tools and the actual ROI itself for those who keep pouring money into these ads.
I used to feel there was something bad about using ad-blockers, then Google started paying AdBlock to allow some types of Google ads through. I learned this while working for Google in DoubleClick circa 2014. I no longer work for Google. PSA -- just so you know.
Yes, that's been known about AdBlock. These days I recommend uBlock Origin.
I always allowed the text ads to go through. They are the least intrusive, least dangerous ads for the longest time. I found them generally relevant.
I'm sort of confused. That list of yours is a bunch of stuff that (at least not generally) Google doesn't advertise. So where does the "only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts" bit come from? Seems like you're only angry at the peddlers. What did Google do?
If they are going to spend a million man hours of effort playing wack a mole with content creators, why haven't they spent a tenth of that effort keeping the ads they get paid to run safe and clean? Easy. Poor search results reflects poorly on them, when they put a dodgy ad on a site they get paid, and the site gets blamed.
I think perhaps you're underestimating the amount of effort that they do put into keeping their ads clean. A few highlights from [their 2016 report][1]:
> we disabled more than 5 million payday loan ads
> In 2016, our systems detected and disabled a total of 112 million ads for “trick to click,” 6X more than in 2015.
> We disabled more than 68 million bad ads for healthcare violations, up from 12.5 million in 2015.
> We took down more than 17 million bad ads for illegal gambling violations in 2016.
> In 2016, we took down nearly 80 million bad ads for deceiving, misleading and shocking users.
> in 2016, our systems detected and disabled more than 23,000 self-clicking ads on our platforms, a huge increase year over year.
> Last year, we took down almost 7 million bad ads for intentionally attempting to trick our detection systems.
> In 2016, we suspended more than 1,300 accounts for tabloid cloaking.
> We took action on 47,000 sites for promoting content and products related to weight-loss scams.
> We took action on more than 15,000 sites for unwanted software and disabled 900,000 ads for containing malware.'
> And we suspended around 6,000 sites and 6,000 accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods, like imitation designer watches.
[1]: https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...
> we disabled more than 5 million payday loan ads
> In 2016, our systems detected and disabled a total of 112 million ads for “trick to click,” 6X more than in 2015.
> We disabled more than 68 million bad ads for healthcare violations, up from 12.5 million in 2015.
> We took down more than 17 million bad ads for illegal gambling violations in 2016.
> In 2016, we took down nearly 80 million bad ads for deceiving, misleading and shocking users.
> in 2016, our systems detected and disabled more than 23,000 self-clicking ads on our platforms, a huge increase year over year.
> Last year, we took down almost 7 million bad ads for intentionally attempting to trick our detection systems.
> In 2016, we suspended more than 1,300 accounts for tabloid cloaking.
> We took action on 47,000 sites for promoting content and products related to weight-loss scams.
> We took action on more than 15,000 sites for unwanted software and disabled 900,000 ads for containing malware.'
> And we suspended around 6,000 sites and 6,000 accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods, like imitation designer watches.
[1]: https://blog.google/topics/ads/how-we-fought-bad-ads-sites-a...
On mobile, the ads I see are almost exclusively fake virus warnings, "clean your phone" and other crap like that. Complete with flashing yellow and red images.
Are those Google Ads though? Google is indeed a dominant player in the advertising market, but they're not the only one. You could be seeing ads from a different ad network.
All of those things you described (fake virus warnings, "clean your phone", flashing yellow and red images) are against Google's policies for AdWords. See:
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6020954
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6021546
All of those things you described (fake virus warnings, "clean your phone", flashing yellow and red images) are against Google's policies for AdWords. See:
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6020954
https://support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/6021546
Definitely Google - AdMob, I think.
Agreed. This is still hn right? I had assumed most of us would be familiar with the product.
[deleted]
> Then you see all those shitty ads for [...]
Nowadays, when a family member is asking which "antivirus should I pick?", my answer goes along the lines of "just install uBlock Origin, activate this and that filter and allow it in incognito mode. You can do it on your own, it's super easy and super effective". Even better, this also "fix" most of the "slow computer" complaints.
Nowadays, when a family member is asking which "antivirus should I pick?", my answer goes along the lines of "just install uBlock Origin, activate this and that filter and allow it in incognito mode. You can do it on your own, it's super easy and super effective". Even better, this also "fix" most of the "slow computer" complaints.
I block all ads and don't feel one bit of guilt about it.
With the notable exception of AdBlock Plus (which has its own problems) the big ad block plugins tend to be philosophically opposed to all ads of any type, quality or quantity. This is a bummer for sites like ours where the ads are sold directly to advertisers (no network) and are relevant to the audience and subject matter.
It's actually kind of amazing how many wrong notes this 2-line comment hits
(A) The plugins do not actually have any particular philosophy. They act as facilitators for different lists which certainly have their own.
(B) The creators of the plugins' philosophies (which again, aren't actually in the plugin - usually you have to look into the creator) tend to be varied, and several of them (notably the best ones) do promote supporting content creators, either directly or via whitelist
(C) You can always control your adblocker, and many users (especially those who care about a site, are interested in related content, or so on) do disable it for their favorite sites. The extensions (that I've used, anyways) specifically account for this and remember whitelisted sites.
If your site is significantly suffering because of adblocking and you've mentioned your concerns to users, adblockers are not your problem, your users are. There's no fix for resource leeches.
(A) The plugins do not actually have any particular philosophy. They act as facilitators for different lists which certainly have their own.
(B) The creators of the plugins' philosophies (which again, aren't actually in the plugin - usually you have to look into the creator) tend to be varied, and several of them (notably the best ones) do promote supporting content creators, either directly or via whitelist
(C) You can always control your adblocker, and many users (especially those who care about a site, are interested in related content, or so on) do disable it for their favorite sites. The extensions (that I've used, anyways) specifically account for this and remember whitelisted sites.
If your site is significantly suffering because of adblocking and you've mentioned your concerns to users, adblockers are not your problem, your users are. There's no fix for resource leeches.
You're mostly arguing semantics. I believe the default options -- that most users never adjust -- are very aggressive for nearly all major ad blockers, blocking all ads possible as well as adblock detection scripts. We can call that something other than a philosophy if you wish, but that stuff matters..
My sites are not suffering significantly at all due to ad blocking, but some peers say it's a problem. It's a bummer, though, that we don't even have an opportunity to show adblock users that our ads are relevant and not too obnoxious. The filter list author has made that decision for them, and it's almost always "block every ad."
My sites are not suffering significantly at all due to ad blocking, but some peers say it's a problem. It's a bummer, though, that we don't even have an opportunity to show adblock users that our ads are relevant and not too obnoxious. The filter list author has made that decision for them, and it's almost always "block every ad."
If you are already directly selling the ads, why not host them on your own domain? Then they won't be blocked automatically. If you still see people going out of their way to add site-specific rules to their ad blocker, the ads probably weren't as relevant or unintrusive as you thought.
Troy Hunt wrote about his experience with self-hosted ads a while ago [1]. Basically, he added a as-non-intrusive-as-possible "banner" (if you can even call it that) at the top of the content. Ad blockers blocked it. He changed the markup to avoid being caught by a false positive. Ad blockers (Adblock Plus with EasyList in this case) blocked it again.
I made similar experiences in the past, to the point where our API broke because we had the audacity to call one of our API endpoints "metric" (for a metrics service), which got caught by one of the over-zealous regexes of EasyList.
[1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...
I made similar experiences in the past, to the point where our API broke because we had the audacity to call one of our API endpoints "metric" (for a metrics service), which got caught by one of the over-zealous regexes of EasyList.
[1]: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...
It wouldn't work for very long.
If you're site is even moderately popular, the self hosted ads will be blocked by a specific rule.
There also aren't any good self hosted ad servers, among other reasons. .
There also aren't any good self hosted ad servers, among other reasons. .
> Then you see all those shitty ads for:
> - finding a russian bride
> - getting rich through some millionaires secret
> - anti-aging remedies
> - adware
> and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is losing.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but check out https://hotlinkx.com if you want. What you mentioned are a few of the other things it tries to address by letting publishers manually choose what they want to advertise.
> - finding a russian bride
> - getting rich through some millionaires secret
> - anti-aging remedies
> - adware
> and you realize that the ad-model only benefits Google and the peddlers pushing the dodgy adverts. Everyone else is losing.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but check out https://hotlinkx.com if you want. What you mentioned are a few of the other things it tries to address by letting publishers manually choose what they want to advertise.
I don't mind ads; I just don't want clickbait crap about shocking celebrity photos and "deep searches" for local singles.
<plug>
So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola): https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/
The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. If you know of any other bad clickbait ad networks, please let me know! As the article describes, I now see clickbait ads from Google that are almost as bad, but I'm not quite ready to block all Google ads in what was supposed to be a minimal blocklist.
</plug>
<plug>
So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola): https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/
The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus. If you know of any other bad clickbait ad networks, please let me know! As the article describes, I now see clickbait ads from Google that are almost as bad, but I'm not quite ready to block all Google ads in what was supposed to be a minimal blocklist.
</plug>
A few years ago, I wrote something similar:
https://github.com/duskwuff/syndicationblock/
Is Yavli still a thing? I had a hell of a time blocking their ads -- they served content from custom subdomains, and used class names "borrowed" from Google to evade ad blockers.
https://github.com/duskwuff/syndicationblock/
Is Yavli still a thing? I had a hell of a time blocking their ads -- they served content from custom subdomains, and used class names "borrowed" from Google to evade ad blockers.
Thanks! I check out your syndication blocklist. I haven't seen Yavli in my testing.
Where are these "deep searches" for local singles? The lack of search functionality is my biggest problem with dating sites.
I find it really funny when a site asks me to turn off my adblocker, and my blocked element count is displaying 60-100+. Not a chance.
Meanwhile, duckduckgo never asked. They're pretty awesome (check their wikipedia page) so I turned blocking off.
They rewarded me with a couple subtle, text-only ads that didn't disrupt my load time or experience. <3
If we want the web to be a better place, we have to use and support companies who are making it one even if it means not getting to use the 'best'. Like Firefox. Damn I miss Chrome's performance, but the alternatives won't get better and compete unless we back them.
Meanwhile, duckduckgo never asked. They're pretty awesome (check their wikipedia page) so I turned blocking off.
They rewarded me with a couple subtle, text-only ads that didn't disrupt my load time or experience. <3
If we want the web to be a better place, we have to use and support companies who are making it one even if it means not getting to use the 'best'. Like Firefox. Damn I miss Chrome's performance, but the alternatives won't get better and compete unless we back them.
What I fear is that smart people with money (like you and me) use ad-blockers.
So the ads that do get shown are exactly the low quality crappy ads that appeal to the great unwashed.
This is certainly evident to me on Facebook for instance. The very first ads that get shown do not have the benefit of the marketing analytics about me so they're very low quality ones like the ads in the article.
The second wave (after about 5 seconds) are vastly improved and often touch on my interests or have some connection to friends interests or real current news events.
So the ads that do get shown are exactly the low quality crappy ads that appeal to the great unwashed.
This is certainly evident to me on Facebook for instance. The very first ads that get shown do not have the benefit of the marketing analytics about me so they're very low quality ones like the ads in the article.
The second wave (after about 5 seconds) are vastly improved and often touch on my interests or have some connection to friends interests or real current news events.
Not sure how the relationship between "smart" and "with money" plays out here. Last time I checked, ublock was completely free.
That aside, yep, it's hard to ignore how incredibly dumb the lowest common denominator appears to be - if viewed as a reflection of those ads.
That aside, yep, it's hard to ignore how incredibly dumb the lowest common denominator appears to be - if viewed as a reflection of those ads.
Yeah, I was suggesting a correlation between intelligence (r expertise) to use an ad-blocker and (at least) a certain level of income.
> Then you see all those shitty ads
Still somewhat better than creepy targeted advertising. I bought a new garbage can a few weeks ago now many sites are full of ads for garbage cans. Although this may be one example where the targeting is working. Most of the sites showing those ads are garbage.
Still somewhat better than creepy targeted advertising. I bought a new garbage can a few weeks ago now many sites are full of ads for garbage cans. Although this may be one example where the targeting is working. Most of the sites showing those ads are garbage.
This example is brought up all the time - "I just bought something which I buy every few years at most, and now I'm getting ads for it after I bought it".
Obviously it's usually completely ineffective. BUT I think it might make a purchase correlation score go up. Imagine that no human working for the company buying the ads is fully understanding what the correlation score means, and they are effectively using or subscribing to a machine learning model that is trying to increase the correlation score. And they're seeing the score go up.
I'm no expert in the ad targeting ecosystem, and I'm sure I'll be told that's not what it does. But I'm more familiar with systems software, databases, distributed services and such, and I've seen many things that didn't really do what they were supposed to do. It just takes a lot of smarts and a lot of focus, such as Aphyr does with distributed databases, to show that they don't actually do what they claim, due to some mundane bugs or subtle design flaws.
I think there's a good chance that the complex ad targeting ecosystem is just fooling advertisers into thinking it works, without actually working.
Obviously it's usually completely ineffective. BUT I think it might make a purchase correlation score go up. Imagine that no human working for the company buying the ads is fully understanding what the correlation score means, and they are effectively using or subscribing to a machine learning model that is trying to increase the correlation score. And they're seeing the score go up.
I'm no expert in the ad targeting ecosystem, and I'm sure I'll be told that's not what it does. But I'm more familiar with systems software, databases, distributed services and such, and I've seen many things that didn't really do what they were supposed to do. It just takes a lot of smarts and a lot of focus, such as Aphyr does with distributed databases, to show that they don't actually do what they claim, due to some mundane bugs or subtle design flaws.
I think there's a good chance that the complex ad targeting ecosystem is just fooling advertisers into thinking it works, without actually working.
I do not understand this behavior at all. You just bought a garbage can. Why would you need another one right away? If you did you presumably would've bought multiple at the time you made the original purchase. To me thats just the marketer or advertising platform being tone deaf.
Or extremely specific advertising.
For several months, I saw no ads on AdSense except for those advertising the Vive. None whatsoever. I saw plenty of ads, they were just the exact same one with an attractive person doing some sort of dance in a headset and controllers.
So...okay, Google. I guess you've figured out that I'm interested in technology, graphics, games, that sort of thing? Is this all that you've got? It's creepy in that it makes me wonder WHEN you're listening to me, not if.
For several months, I saw no ads on AdSense except for those advertising the Vive. None whatsoever. I saw plenty of ads, they were just the exact same one with an attractive person doing some sort of dance in a headset and controllers.
So...okay, Google. I guess you've figured out that I'm interested in technology, graphics, games, that sort of thing? Is this all that you've got? It's creepy in that it makes me wonder WHEN you're listening to me, not if.
I take it your using Chrome, disable third-party cookies.
At least for me here in Australia, Google AdSense ads aren't obnoxious.
Below is the result of a quick scan of a few websites in private mode. I wonder why OP has such a different experience? Maybe the ad market in South Africa is very different? Or maybe GroundUp hasn't spent the necessary time to filter out bad ads?
----- New York Times:
Cycling clothing
Microsoft Enterprise
Health Insurance
Avoid overeating
Mortgage
----- Forbes:
Unfair Dismissal Lawyers
'JobActive' - Aust govt ad for employment service
Cancer council Australia - funding drive
Commonwealth bank Australia
----- Bloomberg:
Doesn't seem to use AdSense
----- Fox News:
Save the children (charity)
Find best debit card
Business Travel saver
Below is the result of a quick scan of a few websites in private mode. I wonder why OP has such a different experience? Maybe the ad market in South Africa is very different? Or maybe GroundUp hasn't spent the necessary time to filter out bad ads?
----- New York Times:
Cycling clothing
Microsoft Enterprise
Health Insurance
Avoid overeating
Mortgage
----- Forbes:
Unfair Dismissal Lawyers
'JobActive' - Aust govt ad for employment service
Cancer council Australia - funding drive
Commonwealth bank Australia
----- Bloomberg:
Doesn't seem to use AdSense
----- Fox News:
Save the children (charity)
Find best debit card
Business Travel saver
As a South African, I can attest to the exact ads shown by the author on various site, both in incognito mode as well as during normal browsing. I have seen every one of them, and they are awfully persistent and incredibly annoying. Even selecting "Don't show this ad again" seems to do nothing, despite repeated efforts. Particularly frustrating is that there seems to be no way of flagging an advert as fraudulent or malicious.
What about alternative ad business models like http://projectwonderful.com
Project Wonderful is the ad network I explicitly enable. They're really nice so far. Very little money in it though.
I really tried to hold off on using an ad blocker as I want to support as many content creators as possible, but the minority spoil it for the majority. Websites like Mashable and Windows Central bombard you with ads to a point where it affects loading times. If it starts affecting speed, then there is definitely something wrong with how your site is designed and it should be looked at again.
Okay, question on ad blockers: So far I have not tried to use one. And my Web site for my startup, to be ad supported, has not gone live yet.
But, what if: What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?
But, what if: What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?
Generally the adblockers won't detect it if you host your ads like that. But if your website becomes popular, then someone will figure out whatever pattern is used to display the ads (url location, css class etc) and add it to a list that adblockers can use.
The adblocker can block download of easily identifiable URLs, so if your images look like http://my.coolwebsite.com/ad/jdhe73yd.jpg, the adblocker will refuse anything from http://my.coolwebsite.com/ad/ or similar.
Also, it can stop rendering, so if your ad has a custom CSS class, element name, etc then it will refuse to render that element (and children) even if it downloads the image.
Also, it can stop rendering, so if your ad has a custom CSS class, element name, etc then it will refuse to render that element (and children) even if it downloads the image.
But it will probably not come with these rules out of the box. I don't know how it is for others, but I only ever use the curated block lists and then whitelist a few sites I want to support.
Hardly anyone will pay for that kind of ad, because it can't be audited and you could just forge ad impressions.
This is exactly what we did at Techcrunch. The ads sold and we went from $3k a month ad revenue from bad ads with ad sense to $30k a month (the format where it is the square ads in the sidebar - which almost every other blog adopted)
It can work if you're trusted and selling influence.
Later on when we wanted to run some of the high end campaigns and exclusives we ran OpenX
I think serving your own ads is a solution to a lot of ad and media problems that needs to be encouraged. Its strange to me that so many companies hand over so much of their webpage real estate and user trust to what are often complete strangers
It can work if you're trusted and selling influence.
Later on when we wanted to run some of the high end campaigns and exclusives we ran OpenX
I think serving your own ads is a solution to a lot of ad and media problems that needs to be encouraged. Its strange to me that so many companies hand over so much of their webpage real estate and user trust to what are often complete strangers
Glad to hear it worked! As you say, it brings trust back to the right places in the ecosystem.
But maybe could get paid based on clicks?
What if my Web server sends the actual ads, as JPG, GIF, WEBM, etc. files instead of just URLs to ad servers at some ad network? Then will an ad blocker still work?
Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex [0] does this. I've run ad blockers for years and his ads have never shown up on the lists. I feel no urge to block them on my personal list, either, since they don't bother me. It's probably a good way to go if you've got a good sized niche audience and you don't mind negotiating directly with your sponsors.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/
Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex [0] does this. I've run ad blockers for years and his ads have never shown up on the lists. I feel no urge to block them on my personal list, either, since they don't bother me. It's probably a good way to go if you've got a good sized niche audience and you don't mind negotiating directly with your sponsors.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/
I routinely block anything that messes up the layout, ad or not [but mostly advertising]. right-click, add a regular expression rule, never to be witnessed again.
Yet, I am the minority. If you serve your own images/iframes, they are likely going thru... but you have to be trusted not to forge impressions and the like.
Yet, I am the minority. If you serve your own images/iframes, they are likely going thru... but you have to be trusted not to forge impressions and the like.
What infuriates me is that I've paid for subscriptions to online editions of newspapers like the New York Times and still--even though I am a paid subscriber--they show me ads. It's obscene. How much do I have to pay not to get pestered? I have no idea because that's not even an option.
I won't pay a cent for any site that shows me ads on a paid subscription. In fact, I'll go out of my way to cancel the subscription and block the ads and do everything I can to subvert their paywalls and read the content for free.
I won't pay a cent for any site that shows me ads on a paid subscription. In fact, I'll go out of my way to cancel the subscription and block the ads and do everything I can to subvert their paywalls and read the content for free.
i think, way back in the old days, some cable tv channels didn't have commercials. but they found out they could make more money with commercials and people kept subscribing anyways.
Use adblocks and stop paying until they understand.
Direct mail campaigns with a 2% response rate are considered wildly successful.
Similarly, Google Advertisers are paying exceptionally low CPM rates for inventory that would otherwise go unfilled.
Even a 1% click-through rate justifies the acquisition costs.
Similarly, Google Advertisers are paying exceptionally low CPM rates for inventory that would otherwise go unfilled.
Even a 1% click-through rate justifies the acquisition costs.
I work at my college newspaper. We get some money from the university but I can tell you without a doubt that we would be in far worse shape if we didn't have an ad sales team that sold our ad space directly.
> this industry and its ad-model isn't very "old" in historical terms.
It dates back to the 1700s-era newspapers. That's... pretty old in terms of the medium.
It dates back to the 1700s-era newspapers. That's... pretty old in terms of the medium.
I probably forgive those idiot bad image ads way more than i do the fact that there are still websites autoplaying video and audio in The Year of Our Lord 2017
Just so you know, there's this one crazy trick for getting free news without ads while Oprah refinances Obama's secret mortgage...
I think this speaks for 1000s and 1000s of small(er) website publishers. All squeezed by Google.
For example, we run a website having millions of page views a month. And similarly frustrated.
If we can divide the slot between 10 advertisers directly, we might make much more. Perhaps even double than what Adsense pays. The only reason, why we don't attempt that is time and effort getting directed in an unwanted direction.
And many small businesses are always struggling for bandwidth to do the core job (and projects that enthuse them). And Google is getting full advantage of this situation.[1]
Sometime back, I even wrote to them on falling CPCs (eCPMs) but of course, Google has a culture of not replying.
Its amazing to see, Internet living with a broken Ad model, for so long. I can't wait for a browser like Brave to take off. Where we can collect an ultra small amount from users for pageview, and still make more than Adsense.
[1] I suspect, this squeeze is happening more recently, because Google itself is feeling the pinch from Facebook. As its stealing a lot of its Ad revenue.
For example, we run a website having millions of page views a month. And similarly frustrated.
If we can divide the slot between 10 advertisers directly, we might make much more. Perhaps even double than what Adsense pays. The only reason, why we don't attempt that is time and effort getting directed in an unwanted direction.
And many small businesses are always struggling for bandwidth to do the core job (and projects that enthuse them). And Google is getting full advantage of this situation.[1]
Sometime back, I even wrote to them on falling CPCs (eCPMs) but of course, Google has a culture of not replying.
Its amazing to see, Internet living with a broken Ad model, for so long. I can't wait for a browser like Brave to take off. Where we can collect an ultra small amount from users for pageview, and still make more than Adsense.
[1] I suspect, this squeeze is happening more recently, because Google itself is feeling the pinch from Facebook. As its stealing a lot of its Ad revenue.
Unfortunately if your money comes from advertising your core job is advertising. So you should focus on your core business. I don't blame you for not liking this - and I don't like it either. The problem is that I like so many others probably wouldn't pay for your content/service if I had to.
You may not want to pay for it, if its inconvenient. But you may not mind paying for it in the aggregate, in a way similar to what you pay for Internet access. Especially, if there is a charge back feature built in, i.e. you can exclude some site for payment, if you felt they click baited you.
Edit: To add, I am slightly uncomfortable with 'if your money comes for Ad, then you are an Ad business'. People will need to settle for whatever model pays them, so that they can work on better things. On a different note, Google itself is spoken of as Ad company till date. But look at what it has now, possibly a leadership position in self driving cars; Companies working on longevity; Android and several other Alphabet companies.
Edit: To add, I am slightly uncomfortable with 'if your money comes for Ad, then you are an Ad business'. People will need to settle for whatever model pays them, so that they can work on better things. On a different note, Google itself is spoken of as Ad company till date. But look at what it has now, possibly a leadership position in self driving cars; Companies working on longevity; Android and several other Alphabet companies.
> People will need to settle for whatever model pays them, so that they can work on better things.
If you're doing something valuable, figure out a way to get paid for it. By and large the thing you get paid for is the thing people value.
> On a different note, Google itself is spoken of as Ad company till date. But look at what it has now, possibly a leadership position in self driving cars; Companies working on longevity; Android and several other Alphabet companies.
None of which is profitable. They're an ad company with PR.
If you're doing something valuable, figure out a way to get paid for it. By and large the thing you get paid for is the thing people value.
> On a different note, Google itself is spoken of as Ad company till date. But look at what it has now, possibly a leadership position in self driving cars; Companies working on longevity; Android and several other Alphabet companies.
None of which is profitable. They're an ad company with PR.
I was always saying that the Google motto is not "do no evil", but "do evil so thin that nobody can notice or can speak up and be taken seriously."
But that tiniest evil is multiplied by billions, with the power of automation. It is really an epoch-making company in that it gives a new light to the definition of the word.
An ordinary person (myself included) can't sense it. Their evil only appears in statistics.
But that tiniest evil is multiplied by billions, with the power of automation. It is really an epoch-making company in that it gives a new light to the definition of the word.
An ordinary person (myself included) can't sense it. Their evil only appears in statistics.
If I ordered the parts individually and read the repair manual, I could replace the starter in my car for much less money than taking it to the mechanic. The only reason why I don't attempt that is time and effort getting directed in an unwanted direction.
Internet advertising is a bubble - it delivers so little value but so much money is flowing through it. It has to pop sometime.
What's the alternative? Broadcast television viewership is shrinking, and skews older. The demographics advertisers like are spending their time playing games and watching youtube videos.
Sponsored referral, social, direct mail, content syndication, out of home, etc. are all different channels, but depending on your product and your goals only a few are worth it (including search/display ads).
Why would so many companies advertise if it provided such little value?
because there is so much opacity that they don't realize there's no there there
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/chase-ads-youtub...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/chase-ads-youtub...
Isn't this what happened during the dot com bust of 2000?
I started, ran an sold an ad based business in 2008. To say that most of the activity in the ad space was dubious back then is a complete understatement.
Most of our traffic to the adverts was generated, purely to syphon off money from the advertisers and we established this by fingerprinting the traffic with JS tools at the client side. This was what let me to the conclusion that the business is dysfunctional, the customers at best are getting wildly ripped off, their privacy effectively sold off and they open themselves up to huge amounts of malware too.
Advertising is a horrible business model. But until a new way is found, people/businesses don't have any other choice of marketing their activities.
I totally stand by the publication. Any publication that really cares about it's readers will try to find another way.
(Edit: I am viewing this page on a Brave Browser, check it out, it has ad blocking and publisher micropayments built in https://brave.com)
Most of our traffic to the adverts was generated, purely to syphon off money from the advertisers and we established this by fingerprinting the traffic with JS tools at the client side. This was what let me to the conclusion that the business is dysfunctional, the customers at best are getting wildly ripped off, their privacy effectively sold off and they open themselves up to huge amounts of malware too.
Advertising is a horrible business model. But until a new way is found, people/businesses don't have any other choice of marketing their activities.
I totally stand by the publication. Any publication that really cares about it's readers will try to find another way.
(Edit: I am viewing this page on a Brave Browser, check it out, it has ad blocking and publisher micropayments built in https://brave.com)
I always imagined that some website/mobile app/service would appear that would let you buy subscriptions for access to multiple publishers at once. I think people have a hard time spending $5 here a month $10 there a month, but would spend maybe $49 for a range of access to sites. I don't know why something like that hasn't taken off yet. You could pick the sites you want access to or they could do a pay out based on where you went and what you read.
You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon.
So far, for me, the tip jar has been more successful than ads or Patreon (though I am new to Patreon, so, time will tell). I would be happy to get rid of ads altogether (with the exception of one site, for REASONS) if I thought that would drive up tips. But I have experimented a bit and it didn't seem to drive up tips.
Then, whenever I read these discussions, there is a great deal of vitriol about the evil of ads, yet, most people don't actually want to pay for content. They just want it free. When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically.
As a content producer, I find it enormously frustrating to read some of the awful things that get said. It reminds me of the line in All in the Family where Archie says men are supposed to have experience before marriage and women are not and his daughter asks "Who are they supposed to get their experience with?"
My snarky son's answer: Elderly widows should be deflowering young men. It fits all the parameters of the expectations while horrifying most people.
An awful lot of people are only thinking about "I don't want ads" and that's it. They basically want it for free, then don't think about what that means for the big picture.
/rambling vent
So far, for me, the tip jar has been more successful than ads or Patreon (though I am new to Patreon, so, time will tell). I would be happy to get rid of ads altogether (with the exception of one site, for REASONS) if I thought that would drive up tips. But I have experimented a bit and it didn't seem to drive up tips.
Then, whenever I read these discussions, there is a great deal of vitriol about the evil of ads, yet, most people don't actually want to pay for content. They just want it free. When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically.
As a content producer, I find it enormously frustrating to read some of the awful things that get said. It reminds me of the line in All in the Family where Archie says men are supposed to have experience before marriage and women are not and his daughter asks "Who are they supposed to get their experience with?"
My snarky son's answer: Elderly widows should be deflowering young men. It fits all the parameters of the expectations while horrifying most people.
An awful lot of people are only thinking about "I don't want ads" and that's it. They basically want it for free, then don't think about what that means for the big picture.
/rambling vent
I don't think that people want things for free. People want things with the least amount of effort, money or not; Steam and Netflix have proven as much in context of piracy. People don't pirate as much because they have always wanted to enjoy games/movies, not derive pleasure from denying publishers money and these services provide a way to do just that.
Adverts are a pain in the back for the user, they take up bandwidth and processing time and that fucks with the experience. If you could simply charge $50 for a ticket for the whole amusement park, once you are in you don't have to worry about paying but only the experience, rather than nickel and dime them people would gladly pay that amount. It's about the convenience/experience.
Adverts are a pain in the back for the user, they take up bandwidth and processing time and that fucks with the experience. If you could simply charge $50 for a ticket for the whole amusement park, once you are in you don't have to worry about paying but only the experience, rather than nickel and dime them people would gladly pay that amount. It's about the convenience/experience.
I don't mind the ads up to a point. For example, I buy "Mopar Muscle" for the ads, not the articles. I'd buy computer mags (yes, I'm dating myself) for the ads as much as the articles, too. The Yellow Pages (I'm really old) were useful for the ads.
Not all advertising is objectionable.
Not all advertising is objectionable.
If you know of a better means than google ads to do advertisements for a one person shop that isn't going to take enormous time away from producing content, I am all ears.
We don't use ads for the D programming language. What we do, and I've done in the past, is write articles about programming that are interesting in their own right, and that happen to use D:
http://digitalmars.com/articles/
Pretty much all programming products, even free ones, operate this way. Much of the content you see on Hacker News, and on reddit/r/programming, is of this form.
There are TV shows that do the same thing, such as "Detroit Muscle". Each show is about how to do a repair/customization job on a car, and various tools and products are used to do it (and the makers of those tools and products pay for the show).
Tupperware parties are another example of this sort of thing.
It's like having a free cooking class where you show people how to cook with butter, and you're in the butter business.
The hit TV show "This Old House" was all paid for by the products and tools used in the show. It didn't look like advertising, but that's exactly what it was. And it works, and people love the show (I loved it, too).
I.e. organic marketing.
http://digitalmars.com/articles/
Pretty much all programming products, even free ones, operate this way. Much of the content you see on Hacker News, and on reddit/r/programming, is of this form.
There are TV shows that do the same thing, such as "Detroit Muscle". Each show is about how to do a repair/customization job on a car, and various tools and products are used to do it (and the makers of those tools and products pay for the show).
Tupperware parties are another example of this sort of thing.
It's like having a free cooking class where you show people how to cook with butter, and you're in the butter business.
The hit TV show "This Old House" was all paid for by the products and tools used in the show. It didn't look like advertising, but that's exactly what it was. And it works, and people love the show (I loved it, too).
I.e. organic marketing.
That is basically my plan for my next website. But some problem spaces are not served well by that model. Also, I think there is a substantial learning curve for doing something like that well and not being borderline con artist.
> When you suggest this is a broken model and content producers also deserve compensation, the answer is typically "not my problem," basically.
I hate ads. I hate that they track you. I hate that they waste data. But most of all I hate that they are annoying. I always use an ablocker and I don't care if you don't get paid because I didn't look at an ad.
I am still busy with my degree this year. (I am studying part time) But next year I want to start my own website. With a blog and a place to share my side projects. Will I put ads on the website? Fuck no. In fact I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one.
Just because I write some interesting code or article and then share it on the public internet, doesn't mean people now owe me money. I don't deserve compensation for putting stuff on the internet, and why would anyone else? But if my employer didn't pay me I would be really pissed off. Because we have an agreement that I will write code for them and they will pay me for it. I don't remember signing a contract with the whole internet saying that I will pay everyone who publicly shares some text or other media.
If someone is butthurt that they can't make a product/service/content valuable enough to sell it for money, but instead rely on advertisers for money, then that is their problem.
Do you think we all deserve to be paid for commenting on hackernews? Lots of people here write incredibly interesting and insightful comments. We all do it for free without complaining.
Edit: formatting/spelling
I hate ads. I hate that they track you. I hate that they waste data. But most of all I hate that they are annoying. I always use an ablocker and I don't care if you don't get paid because I didn't look at an ad.
I am still busy with my degree this year. (I am studying part time) But next year I want to start my own website. With a blog and a place to share my side projects. Will I put ads on the website? Fuck no. In fact I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one.
Just because I write some interesting code or article and then share it on the public internet, doesn't mean people now owe me money. I don't deserve compensation for putting stuff on the internet, and why would anyone else? But if my employer didn't pay me I would be really pissed off. Because we have an agreement that I will write code for them and they will pay me for it. I don't remember signing a contract with the whole internet saying that I will pay everyone who publicly shares some text or other media.
If someone is butthurt that they can't make a product/service/content valuable enough to sell it for money, but instead rely on advertisers for money, then that is their problem.
Do you think we all deserve to be paid for commenting on hackernews? Lots of people here write incredibly interesting and insightful comments. We all do it for free without complaining.
Edit: formatting/spelling
> I will put up messages begging people to install adblockers if I detect that they aren't using one.
Best idea today, thanks! I pirate it.
Best idea today, thanks! I pirate it.
Although this is itself a form of advertising..?
I guess it is, but it feels more like defense so I'm ok with it.
> You can also just do a tip jar model or patreon.
I've contemplated this kind of thing, but it feels like panhandling, and I'm reluctant to go there. I would do it if I thought I could do so tastefully and respectfully.
I'm a (non-tech-related) "content producer," and I absolutely refuse to put up ads or be a shill or "native advertiser." Instead, I wrote a book, and if people want to support what I do, they can buy it. It's not enough to be a day job, but it probably could be with day-job levels of time and effort, and my "content consumers" appreciate my integrity.
I've contemplated this kind of thing, but it feels like panhandling, and I'm reluctant to go there. I would do it if I thought I could do so tastefully and respectfully.
I'm a (non-tech-related) "content producer," and I absolutely refuse to put up ads or be a shill or "native advertiser." Instead, I wrote a book, and if people want to support what I do, they can buy it. It's not enough to be a day job, but it probably could be with day-job levels of time and effort, and my "content consumers" appreciate my integrity.
When I had donate buttons, I literally had someone tell me I was panhandling the internet. Tip jars are a better way to signal "It took work to create value here and compensation is appreciated." It has gotten a very different response from people.
I am glad your strategy is working for you. But, if you are interested:
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-...
I am glad your strategy is working for you. But, if you are interested:
http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-to-make-...
Thanks for the link. I may give this a try and see if people use it. I think I have more drive-by readers than regulars, so this probably makes more sense than Patreon.
BTW, kudos for writing the "Survival Guide." I ran across it at random awhile ago, and it has some great advice.
BTW, kudos for writing the "Survival Guide." I ran across it at random awhile ago, and it has some great advice.
It would be great to hear (via email) if the tip jar works for you. So far the only data I have is my own.
I think people donating on Patreon get the whole "predictable income makes an artist's life an awful lot easier" thing, if you're looking for a tactful way to approach the topic.
Saying that you'd like to be able to make it your full time job is a very reasonable thing as well, and I imagine people get that you need some kind of salary to do it.
Both of these are things that I, if I were a frequent visitor to your site, would have a pretty good incentive to make happen.
Saying that you'd like to be able to make it your full time job is a very reasonable thing as well, and I imagine people get that you need some kind of salary to do it.
Both of these are things that I, if I were a frequent visitor to your site, would have a pretty good incentive to make happen.
Patreon has a rather large problem for poorer people. Patreon's insistance on taking the money on the 1st of the month is a pain because that is rent day for most people.
A service that allowed a person to select a day (e.g. 12th) or better yet pick a day the way a lot of people get paid (day after third Thursday of the month) would be preferred.
[edit] To give a concrete example. Suppose someone on Social Security wants to pay for their sites/shows/etc. SS pays on the third Wednesday of the month. This person, in order to avoid any bank charges or other foolishness, wants the payment to come the day after that. "Day after 3rd Wednesday of month" would be a good thing to allow.
A service that allowed a person to select a day (e.g. 12th) or better yet pick a day the way a lot of people get paid (day after third Thursday of the month) would be preferred.
[edit] To give a concrete example. Suppose someone on Social Security wants to pay for their sites/shows/etc. SS pays on the third Wednesday of the month. This person, in order to avoid any bank charges or other foolishness, wants the payment to come the day after that. "Day after 3rd Wednesday of month" would be a good thing to allow.
Patreon allows content produces to make content available for free while a subset of the audience pays for it. If you do it well, that subset gets additional benefits without leaving the larger audience out in the cold with hollow teasers and no real substance. Tip jars allow the same thing: For the content producer to make some money without charging a fee to poor people, who are free to access it.
I will always have ads on my homeless site so that homeless people do not feel like leeches. Traffic alone can put some money in my pocket. But, I would happily remove ads from other sites if I genuinely thought this would lead to a better outcome for me. I have done a lot of nice things for people online for a lot of years and mostly not been paid for it.
This is partly a function of the problem spaces that I am involved in. Some problems are inherently trickier than others. But it is partly a function of being a woman, which both cuts me out of the "old boy network" such that I have difficulty accessing pertinent knowledge and skills and also makes other people prone to thinking I should do it out of the goodness of my heart and my dire poverty is not their problem, which is all kinds of fucked up.
So, at this point, I am more concerned with figuring out how to line my empty pockets with money than I am with the criticisms of other people. They mostly haven't given a damn about what I need and I am at a point where I feel "Yeah, whatever. This resource can absolutely go away. You are not entitled to benefit from me while I get nothing back, assholes."
So, you know, if people want to give me solutions for how to get money in a "good" way that actually improves my bottom line, awesome. If people want to bust my chops about it, not really caring at this point. Being super giving and virtuous does not have a track record of keeping me fed.
I will always have ads on my homeless site so that homeless people do not feel like leeches. Traffic alone can put some money in my pocket. But, I would happily remove ads from other sites if I genuinely thought this would lead to a better outcome for me. I have done a lot of nice things for people online for a lot of years and mostly not been paid for it.
This is partly a function of the problem spaces that I am involved in. Some problems are inherently trickier than others. But it is partly a function of being a woman, which both cuts me out of the "old boy network" such that I have difficulty accessing pertinent knowledge and skills and also makes other people prone to thinking I should do it out of the goodness of my heart and my dire poverty is not their problem, which is all kinds of fucked up.
So, at this point, I am more concerned with figuring out how to line my empty pockets with money than I am with the criticisms of other people. They mostly haven't given a damn about what I need and I am at a point where I feel "Yeah, whatever. This resource can absolutely go away. You are not entitled to benefit from me while I get nothing back, assholes."
So, you know, if people want to give me solutions for how to get money in a "good" way that actually improves my bottom line, awesome. If people want to bust my chops about it, not really caring at this point. Being super giving and virtuous does not have a track record of keeping me fed.
To be completely honest, if this is an issue, that person probably shouldn't be using patreon at all.
No. I don't think you get the problem. If I'm spending $10 or so on all these media and entertainment folks, the first day of the month might be bad, but the 20th or day after the 3rd Wednesday might be just fine. A lot of people living on fixed incomes or paycheck to paycheck manage their money closely. Given how banks work, a $1 charge at the wrong time is seriously problematic.
I realize SV never has to worry, but how about making it easier for janitor who cleans your building or the person making your coffee to participate in the digital economy?
I realize SV never has to worry, but how about making it easier for janitor who cleans your building or the person making your coffee to participate in the digital economy?
My point is that if you're living paycheck to paycheck in such a way that when you get paid impacts when you can pay your expenses, you shouldn't be paying for things like patreon, you should be saving that money into a rainy day fund. That is, people living paycheck to paycheck aren't (and shouldn't be) the target audience of Patreon, because they really shouldn't be using Patreon.
Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds.
Also the snark isn't appreciated.
Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
Or in other words, if "a $1 charge at the wrong time can be seriously problematic", you shouldn't be spending on patreon, you should be instead saving up that money until a $1 charge isn't problematic. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but this problem is solvable by waiting a month to join the service, and paying each month with last month's funds.
Also the snark isn't appreciated.
Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
I kind of agree with your basic point, but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off.
It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills.
If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.
It is inherently problematic to design a world where only The Haves can contribute. I am homeless. I have been treated vastly better by second hand stores and payday loan places than by any charity organization that has helped me because I am a customer and they need my money to pay their bills.
If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
It is critical that we find ways to be less exclusive or the world will go to hell in a hand basket. Giving people a choice as to when they pay is an important detail. I agree with that point, though it isn't the only issue here. There are other issues. But their POV is inherently less problematic than yours. Treating poor people like they can't and shouldn't support the services they value is an excellent way to make sure the world continues to be designed for the comfort and convenience of the 1% and to hell with everyone else.
>but people with this issue don't solve it by "saving up" and some people will never be well off.
Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not.
Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here).
>If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck.
The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.
Agreed. Although at least for patreon, which in my experience is freemium, you aren't worrying about basic access. If we were talking about a newspaper subscription or internet access or an all access subscription to some content creator who only gave access to patrons that might be different, but "premium access to extra content a creator makes" is something that I don't spend money on. In an ad-free world that might change, but it also might not.
Now, on the other hand, there's perhaps an honor in saying that I shouldn't be taking money from people who can't afford this. I think its difficult, because you either end up inadvertently taking advantage of people or alienating people, but I don't see a way to do neither. (I'm thinking of cigarettes and lottery tickets as corollaries here).
>If you do not allow for the possibility that the 99% can help pay for it, you also inherently cut them out in other critical areas, like having a voice in design and services.
I make two comments here. The first is that (again at least with patreon), I see it as an expressly premium service. My view might be wrong, but from that perspective its worth replacing "Patreon subscription" with "concierge drycleaning subscription", and I hope you wouldn't have a problem with me saying that as a general rule people really shouldn't be using a concierge drycleaning service if they are living paycheck to paycheck.
The second is that this isn't (necessarily) a 99%/1% issue. My comment was specifically addressing people with no savings and who were living paycheck to paycheck. While that's a lot of people, its not 99% (at least in the US). That's not to say that you're overall point is wrong (classist design is bad except in specific circumstances), but if you're going to make that claim, I think its important to be clear about the classes.
Funny, last I checked, even billionaires are a bit scared about financial security in the crazy world we live in today.
But, I have other things to do and trying to bridge whatever communication gap exists here is not the best use of my time ATM.
Best.
But, I have other things to do and trying to bridge whatever communication gap exists here is not the best use of my time ATM.
Best.
I'm honestly not sure how that has to do with what I wrote.
In any case, have a nice day as well.
In any case, have a nice day as well.
This whole thread ended up being about a replacement for Ads. So, when news / entertainment goes to a payment arrangement like Patreon, what do those people do? The answer "don't" and "save" are not realistic. Especially if a simple change would open up some help by being a bit more user centric. Waiting a month for an expense you actually have the money now for is just plain poor manners on the billing agency. When Comcast can do this stuff then others might want to think about the their approach on a customer service level.
Sorry for the snark, but I am getting a little sick of lamenting the plight of other folks while not doing the simple things to help.
> Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
Sorry for the snark, but I am getting a little sick of lamenting the plight of other folks while not doing the simple things to help.
> Edit: To clarify, what this really comes down to is that I don't think patreon (or any company) should be going out of its way to encourage people who may not be financially stable to subscribe to recurring charges for things. That seems abusive, not empowering.
Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
>Waiting a month for an expense you actually have the money now for is just plain poor manners on the billing agency.
Perhaps, but I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow. If I understand
>Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
correctly, your implication is that this will cut people who can't pay out of services (ie. things become subscription based and then non-payers are excluded). That at least can be solved by freemium models (which is what Patreon does), although Mz goes further and states that even that can be alienating to people who want to pay but can't.
FWIW, as someone who is a consumer of a lot of things that I don't subscribe or pay for (including some patreon based groups), who I probably should start supporting, because I can and I'd prefer that they continue existing, I've never felt like I don't have access to media I want (note that this is different than "do I feel like I'm unable to support something I enjoy"). I'm relying on the morality of creators to continue producing (good) free content, and only producing special content at the price, but so far at least that's been a good assumption.
Perhaps, but I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow. If I understand
>Think about that statement in the light of a non-ad supported web.
correctly, your implication is that this will cut people who can't pay out of services (ie. things become subscription based and then non-payers are excluded). That at least can be solved by freemium models (which is what Patreon does), although Mz goes further and states that even that can be alienating to people who want to pay but can't.
FWIW, as someone who is a consumer of a lot of things that I don't subscribe or pay for (including some patreon based groups), who I probably should start supporting, because I can and I'd prefer that they continue existing, I've never felt like I don't have access to media I want (note that this is different than "do I feel like I'm unable to support something I enjoy"). I'm relying on the morality of creators to continue producing (good) free content, and only producing special content at the price, but so far at least that's been a good assumption.
> I also don't necessarily think of Comcast as a design we should follow
I think when Comcast does it better, people should consider that the bottom level they need to achieve.
I do imply it will cut people off. People need to think about these issues as soon as "free" dies. I await the various Netflix-for-news attempts.
Just as the next level of problem is the bank-less. That is one more step down the line. A lot of the bank-less have jobs that pay above minimum wage but had a bad streak. Walmart understands this given their financial services. I'm starting to think with ads going down the tube someone dealing with web content better start walking through the implications.
I think when Comcast does it better, people should consider that the bottom level they need to achieve.
I do imply it will cut people off. People need to think about these issues as soon as "free" dies. I await the various Netflix-for-news attempts.
Just as the next level of problem is the bank-less. That is one more step down the line. A lot of the bank-less have jobs that pay above minimum wage but had a bad streak. Walmart understands this given their financial services. I'm starting to think with ads going down the tube someone dealing with web content better start walking through the implications.
You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual.
I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $3 and $5 to solicit small sums so people who can't afford more than $1 feel okay about giving $1. The jar is set up so you can then enter a quantity if you want to give more, for example 2 Tips at $5 to leave a total of $10. Most people who tip leave me $5 or more. But I do sometimes get $1. (This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
I think you have a point, but perhaps you should submit it as a suggestion directly to Patreon. Second, I have tip jars so people can give once without making a monthly commitment. Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
I intentionally list dollar amounts of $1, $3 and $5 to solicit small sums so people who can't afford more than $1 feel okay about giving $1. The jar is set up so you can then enter a quantity if you want to give more, for example 2 Tips at $5 to leave a total of $10. Most people who tip leave me $5 or more. But I do sometimes get $1. (This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
> You let such people participate by designing systems where content producers can make money without getting money from every individual.
> Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population.
> This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.
> Monthly commitments are a serious burden for poor people.
A lot of people don't want charity and are fine with paying their own share. What I am trying to say is simple, the timing of payment is often critical for people. $10 on day 1 of a month is not the same as $10 in the third week. Most utilities get this. It would be nice if people planning the future of paying for website, news, etc. get this through their head before they leave out part of the population.
> This is really about 67 cents for me, but I don't want to treat other poor people like charity cases. I think that actively creates problems.)
That is a good attitude because treating other poor people as charity cases often leads to contempt even if its subtle. A lot of poor people won't be that way later, but they will still have the memories.
You observation was already covered in the very first sentence:
> Patreon has a rather large problem for poorer people.
> Patreon has a rather large problem for poorer people.
> Elderly widows should be deflowering young men. It fits all the parameters of the expectations while horrifying most people.
"When you're young, it's all filet steak, but as the years go by, you have to move on to the cheap cuts. Which is fine with me, because I like those. More flavorful, or so they say." - M. Gustave (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
"When you're young, it's all filet steak, but as the years go by, you have to move on to the cheap cuts. Which is fine with me, because I like those. More flavorful, or so they say." - M. Gustave (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Probably wouldn't work for bigger companies or people who don't want to publicly reveal themselves as the owner of the site. There needs to be a personal element for that to be efficient
And larger companies can have a department devoted to developing quality advertising (or other solutions). Google ads tend to appeal to very small operations that need a plug and play solution to try to monetize their work.
I am still wrestling with the question. I like the progress I am seeing. It is a good trend for me. But it is far from a solved problem. However, for the traffic numbers etc that I have, I seem to do better than average.
I am still wrestling with the question. I like the progress I am seeing. It is a good trend for me. But it is far from a solved problem. However, for the traffic numbers etc that I have, I seem to do better than average.
I started subscribing and paying for Blendle about a month ago. Their service shows me article summaries from otherwise expensive publications like The Financial Times, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Economist, etc. I can view a full article from $0.10 to about $0.50 without advertisements.
I spend a little over a dollar a week and I get to occasionally read articles from sources that are expensive to buy a full subscription for.
I wonder if publishers find Blendle's usage statistics to be useful. They certainly track users'navigation across their own web properties, but knowing which articles people are willing to pay for must be a good signal.
I spend a little over a dollar a week and I get to occasionally read articles from sources that are expensive to buy a full subscription for.
I wonder if publishers find Blendle's usage statistics to be useful. They certainly track users'navigation across their own web properties, but knowing which articles people are willing to pay for must be a good signal.
I've just started trialing Blendle, it looks very promising although the prices feel slightly higher than I'd be happy with and I'm not sure how I feel about the browsing/article discovery interface.
But in principle I'm a huge fan of micropayments for journalism, so I'm going to keep using it for a while and see how it goes!
But in principle I'm a huge fan of micropayments for journalism, so I'm going to keep using it for a while and see how it goes!
I tend to only read a few articles a week on Blendle so itt is not expensive, butt yes, for a 'news junkie' who reads news everyday it could get expensive.
>I can view a full article from $0.10 to about $0.50 without advertisements.
Thats at least an order of magnitude more expensive than its worth (to me), and 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than they would make from ads. As an ad-blocking user who reads a lot of online content, I am in favor in the pay for content model, but it has to come at an appropriate price. A couple cents per reading minute is the high end of what most news/magazine/blog type writing is worth to me.
Thats at least an order of magnitude more expensive than its worth (to me), and 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more than they would make from ads. As an ad-blocking user who reads a lot of online content, I am in favor in the pay for content model, but it has to come at an appropriate price. A couple cents per reading minute is the high end of what most news/magazine/blog type writing is worth to me.
Pre-internet you could buy the Sunday edition of your city's newspaper for 50 cents. This included dozens of in-depth articles. So yea, probably on the order of a penny per article. Though it was heavily subsidized by car dealer advertisements and the classifieds.
It was pretty much completely paid by advertising; the purpose of charging readers is because paid circulation numbers is an important metric used by advertisers.
Yeah, thats pretty much it -- I remember print media too! Quality digital journalism from somewhere like NYT or WP (your opinions may vary) is worth $10/year/sub to me as an occasional reader. Unfortunately, they cost 10x that.
How many articles do you read as an "occasional reader"? 10$ distributed over 0.10 to 0.50 per article is 100-20 articles.
I'd be interested in something that was the web site equivalent of Spotify, but not if it was HTML HBO.
I think the reason the online music subscriptions have done so well is that their catalogs span multiple publishers, and customers really don't want to subscribe to multiple services. While there's minor differences, you pretty much can get access to any music you can think of.
Otherwise you just end up with some crummy bundling service where you pay a premium for a few things you are interested in, and waste money on the rest of the junk.
I think the reason the online music subscriptions have done so well is that their catalogs span multiple publishers, and customers really don't want to subscribe to multiple services. While there's minor differences, you pretty much can get access to any music you can think of.
Otherwise you just end up with some crummy bundling service where you pay a premium for a few things you are interested in, and waste money on the rest of the junk.
Have you tried Blendle? It's exactly as you say towards the end, articles are ~20 cents each with lots of good publishers.
I've been using them since they launched in the US and couldn't be happier, they even offer refunds for clickbait!
I've been using them since they launched in the US and couldn't be happier, they even offer refunds for clickbait!
The reason why it has not taken off is because success depends strongly from network effect. Starting small provides no value for subscribers.
What we need is subscription payment service network __protocol__. It should be protocol because we don't want to give monopoly for single organization.
You pay something lke $5 -$60 per month for one company of your choosing. Whenever you visit a web page and pay, consume content or tip, your browser leaves an anonymous authenticated tokens/coins/whatever behind. Services can turn these tokens into money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
What we need is subscription payment service network __protocol__. It should be protocol because we don't want to give monopoly for single organization.
You pay something lke $5 -$60 per month for one company of your choosing. Whenever you visit a web page and pay, consume content or tip, your browser leaves an anonymous authenticated tokens/coins/whatever behind. Services can turn these tokens into money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flattr
Piano Media tried this in central Europe and folded.
Reason as I understand it: downward spiral. Publishers of worthy content learn to make people pay for content, and then go off-platform once they have large enough audience to keep the whole profit.
Weaker publications stay in a bundle, but at that point not many people want to pay.
Is this a future of Spotify model as well? Taylor Swift or Adele are now powerful enough to try to break away.
(use Google translate) https://www.pianomedia.sk/122/system-piano-na-slovensku-spln...
Reason as I understand it: downward spiral. Publishers of worthy content learn to make people pay for content, and then go off-platform once they have large enough audience to keep the whole profit.
Weaker publications stay in a bundle, but at that point not many people want to pay.
Is this a future of Spotify model as well? Taylor Swift or Adele are now powerful enough to try to break away.
(use Google translate) https://www.pianomedia.sk/122/system-piano-na-slovensku-spln...
There's no reason to believe that this would get rid of ads in the long run. Once the big publishers have established such a payment model, what keeps them from adding ads on top of it? You pay $5 for printed newspapers and magazines, do they come ad-free?
I'd love to have something like that. We already have Spotify (et al) for music. PressReader for newspapers. If the music industry can be dragged kicking and screaming into the bulk buying model, why can't online publishers?
Google Contributor would be your primary competition. I think typical users just aren't ready to pay for access to regular websites.
This only works for sites that show google ads. This is not a subscription service and probably doesn't pay sites much as I am signed up for this and I pay maybe $6-$9 a month and I spend a lot of time online. Google Contributors is a way for readers to opt out of ads, it's not a way to fund sites other than to maybe opt to whitelist in an adblocker. But it's not a lot of money.
It already exists... in the world of porn, though.
I probably wouldn't mind paying for the online newspaper an article at a time, like a nickel. For some reason, the idea of a subscription just irks me - it makes me feel guilty when I don't read the paper, because hey I paid for it.
I like OkCupid's solution to this problem a lot. You pay $5 once and they never serve you an ad again.
If you think about it, $5 is probably more than they could ever hope to make serving ads to a single occasional user.
If you think about it, $5 is probably more than they could ever hope to make serving ads to a single occasional user.
Sounds very much like what Brendan Eich's trying to do with Brave.
Sounds like the start of cable: pay a monthly fee, and get the programming without ads. That lasted, what? Months? And we got the ads anyway.
texture.com looks quite promising, they cover well known magazines (Time/New Yorker/Forbes etc.) I don't know anything else, I just heard them advertised on a podcast - US/Canada only for some reason so I can't check it out.
The ad driven models are slowly killing publishing. They're right in what they're saying - their competition is clickbait that just wants attention. A view is a view, and an ad will pay out the same regardless of the quality of the content on the page. I really hope we find a way to distribute payment for quality content in a better way. It's something that I've been working on personally because I like publishing content, and I hate having to choose between marring my content with ads, or losing money if I hit the front page of reddit.
>A view is a view, and an ad will pay out the same regardless of the quality of the content on the page.
That's not really true. Advertisers can bid on how much they want to pay for each individual impression. Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites. Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.
That's not really true. Advertisers can bid on how much they want to pay for each individual impression. Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites. Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.
>Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites
Citation needed
> Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.
Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.
Citation needed
> Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.
Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.
We don't typically sell them this way, but the CPM for an ad on e.g. retaildive.com is much higher than anything on Google's network.
> Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.
Citation needed :)
> Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.
Citation needed :)
Do I really need a citation to prove dumb people have money? Because that's basically what you are asking. Or perhaps you believe that when people click an ad on "low-quality" site the are less likely to buy than from the same ad on "high-quality" site?
Seriously, the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit.
Seriously, the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit.
> the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit
I don't think you understand "average". It's the extreme tail of the distribution that is targeted by such ads.
Example:
> Nigerian scam emails 'deliberately implausible'
> New research from Microsoft suggests that email scammers maximise profits by entrapping only the most gullible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9346371/Nige...
I don't think you understand "average". It's the extreme tail of the distribution that is targeted by such ads.
Example:
> Nigerian scam emails 'deliberately implausible'
> New research from Microsoft suggests that email scammers maximise profits by entrapping only the most gullible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9346371/Nige...
I really hope we find a way to distribute payment for quality content in a better way.
Our platform Snapzu (similar to Reddit) allows tribe leaders to earn a 55% revenue split when their referred members buy premium (our version of Reddit gold.)
This was recently added with the launch of our "blog enhancement suite" as explained in this explainer video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvWM-kjXSQ
TLDR: You can start/run a community (like a sub-reddit), embed it on your blog/website, and earn money from your referrals (your members.)
Our platform Snapzu (similar to Reddit) allows tribe leaders to earn a 55% revenue split when their referred members buy premium (our version of Reddit gold.)
This was recently added with the launch of our "blog enhancement suite" as explained in this explainer video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvWM-kjXSQ
TLDR: You can start/run a community (like a sub-reddit), embed it on your blog/website, and earn money from your referrals (your members.)
I think ideal for me would be some sort of hassle free micro-payment if some form of it ever really caught on. With all the paywalls going up I really wouldn't mind paying a small bit for some of the quality content out there, but I'm not gonna sign up for a subscription to every site on the internet nor give them my info.
I recently tried putting Google ads on one of my websites. Over the course of 10,000 page views Google shows there were only 7 click throughs.
It does not even make sense because it means there was basically zero mis-clicks. I don't know how they count a click-through but it seems to be more than just someone clicking on the ad.
Also I'm pretty tired of hearing how Google are the good guys and 'do no evil'. It's obvious through their latest YouTube scandals and AdSense they are literally stealing billions of dollars from individuals around the world.
It does not even make sense because it means there was basically zero mis-clicks. I don't know how they count a click-through but it seems to be more than just someone clicking on the ad.
Also I'm pretty tired of hearing how Google are the good guys and 'do no evil'. It's obvious through their latest YouTube scandals and AdSense they are literally stealing billions of dollars from individuals around the world.
You can improve that with better ad space placing and styling but seems about right. Also 1000 impressions pay about 1 click.
The earnings per click will vary wildly depending on your content "quality"(whatever Google's algorithms decide is quality) and category(content about insurance will probably bring better paying insurance ads and content about 9/11 conspiracies will probably bring less paying ads).
AdSense has many problems but it's not a scam.
The earnings per click will vary wildly depending on your content "quality"(whatever Google's algorithms decide is quality) and category(content about insurance will probably bring better paying insurance ads and content about 9/11 conspiracies will probably bring less paying ads).
AdSense has many problems but it's not a scam.
About 1%, that sounds right.
People very rarely click ads.
People very rarely click ads.
My experience with google ads was not great. I once ran google ads for my mom's online shop. Before, there was a constant stream of visitors and revenue. With google ads, the visitor rate went up crazy - the revenue, not at all! Despite the fact that the ad was very specific for what you could buy for how much. Once the google ad credits were all used up, the visitors rate dropped to almost zero. As if google was punishing us for not running ads anymore.
I too deal with Google as a "publisher", and some of my experiences are similar to theirs. For example the odd way that they complain about certain forms of content, apparently prompted by an algorithm and unchecked by a human.
It seems to me that Google is a kind of corporate "Rain Man" - they have amazing abilities, and yet there are also these astonishing failures to deal with problems which could easily be resolved by a normal corporation.
It seems to me that Google is a kind of corporate "Rain Man" - they have amazing abilities, and yet there are also these astonishing failures to deal with problems which could easily be resolved by a normal corporation.
I've been saying that the ad model is broken for a while, and prescribing a real fix for it: a new form of native advertising that actually benefits the user. My company, PLEENQ[1], makes it so users can hover over an image and click on the individual products within it to go where they can buy the product. Here's a demo video: https://youtu.be/V_oTtDUV0yI
My solution is to basically build features around the content of sites that enhance the areas of the site that already attract the users. More importantly, it simplifies the revenue model that the article talks about -- people click on your links and make purchases, and you get a share of every single purchase (CPA). The important thing is that it's compatible with any other revenue models a site might use. If, like GroundUp, they take donations, then it's just an extra revenue source on top of that.
I looked on GroundUp.org for building an example video of how that would work so I could show the community, but it doesn't really fit the model of PLEENQ. Regardless, there are a vast number of niches that this new form of native advertising would drastically improve the revenue for. Imagine an auto blog showing a picture of an engine, and you being able to hover over any part within the picture and purchase it from Auto Zone.
Another thing is that it can be used to split between revenue generating links, and informational links. Perhaps you have a news site, and a lot of your articles have pictures of politicians that your users might not be familiar with -- how about hovering over that person and being able to click on them to go to their Wikipedia page? I think that would greatly benefit a user browsing the site, and wouldn't cheapen in any way the experience of the site itself (in fact would greatly improve it).
[1] http://pleenq.com
My solution is to basically build features around the content of sites that enhance the areas of the site that already attract the users. More importantly, it simplifies the revenue model that the article talks about -- people click on your links and make purchases, and you get a share of every single purchase (CPA). The important thing is that it's compatible with any other revenue models a site might use. If, like GroundUp, they take donations, then it's just an extra revenue source on top of that.
I looked on GroundUp.org for building an example video of how that would work so I could show the community, but it doesn't really fit the model of PLEENQ. Regardless, there are a vast number of niches that this new form of native advertising would drastically improve the revenue for. Imagine an auto blog showing a picture of an engine, and you being able to hover over any part within the picture and purchase it from Auto Zone.
Another thing is that it can be used to split between revenue generating links, and informational links. Perhaps you have a news site, and a lot of your articles have pictures of politicians that your users might not be familiar with -- how about hovering over that person and being able to click on them to go to their Wikipedia page? I think that would greatly benefit a user browsing the site, and wouldn't cheapen in any way the experience of the site itself (in fact would greatly improve it).
[1] http://pleenq.com
While cool as a tech (hello again <map>, i did not miss you) , most sites do not have large pictures of sellable items -- and far from every country has amazon as a reasonable choice due the cost of shipping and import tax.
Maybe it is cool for pink bloggers ( https://goo.gl/OFWwmp ), but I don't see the use case for the masses like you do with adsense.
Maybe it is cool for pink bloggers ( https://goo.gl/OFWwmp ), but I don't see the use case for the masses like you do with adsense.
Adsense has became a less and less attractive option. Ad quality is poor, revenue per click lower and lower, policies are enforced weirdly and keep changing, force you to display annoying cookie modals, etc.
I had a bit silly idea about financing of web services.
Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB.
Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP header. Or you could add artificial latency to every request.
Then you sell those useless bytes or milliseconds. Your bytes could really be unicode glyphs. Example: a dollar for every byte per month. When a user leases a specific byte you can send it to him by an e-mail for increased silliness factor. He leased it, so it will not be sent to anyone else as long as he pays.
That way you can specify a ceiling of profits. 500kB at one dollar per kB can bring you at most $500k per month. It seems fair, a bit like Patreon targets.
I thought about doing a service this way. And even a platform - providing web server configs and plug-ins that would do all this selling of bytes process, also payment processor for bytes that would also run on the idea.
Create beautiful, fast and very lean web serivce - "easy" part. It should be very lean - every page at most few hundred kB.
Serve the website with useless bytes at front. Example: page weights 100kB - add 500kB of garbage to it at front. You can place them in html or js comment. You can add useless EXIF data to jpegs. You could place small number in every HTTP header. Or you could add artificial latency to every request.
Then you sell those useless bytes or milliseconds. Your bytes could really be unicode glyphs. Example: a dollar for every byte per month. When a user leases a specific byte you can send it to him by an e-mail for increased silliness factor. He leased it, so it will not be sent to anyone else as long as he pays.
That way you can specify a ceiling of profits. 500kB at one dollar per kB can bring you at most $500k per month. It seems fair, a bit like Patreon targets.
I thought about doing a service this way. And even a platform - providing web server configs and plug-ins that would do all this selling of bytes process, also payment processor for bytes that would also run on the idea.
I absolutely hate the idea of serving garbage byte to users - even if it is only 500 kB worth.
The internet already has enough useless cruft. CNN loads 4.9 mB of data with no adblockers. Fox News loads 2.6 mB. MSNBC loads 4.2 mB. The Guardian (US Edition) loads 4.3 mB. Padding a site with 500 kB (or really any amount of bytes) is unfair to mobile users without unlimited data plans.
A user who visits your site twice per week and navigates to 5 different pages on your site each visit receives about 12 mB of garbage bytes per month.This isn't that big a deal if only one site is doing it, but imagine if that's how all sites did it?
The internet already has enough useless cruft. CNN loads 4.9 mB of data with no adblockers. Fox News loads 2.6 mB. MSNBC loads 4.2 mB. The Guardian (US Edition) loads 4.3 mB. Padding a site with 500 kB (or really any amount of bytes) is unfair to mobile users without unlimited data plans.
A user who visits your site twice per week and navigates to 5 different pages on your site each visit receives about 12 mB of garbage bytes per month.This isn't that big a deal if only one site is doing it, but imagine if that's how all sites did it?
If people would support the site all the garbage would disappear for everyone. If a dollar for a byte is a bit too high, you could place a ceiling at $5000 - it would be around 100 bytes for a dollar.
It would be an alternative to ads. Ads are a padding plus unfairness and dishonesty. They also track you and run code on your machine. This would be just a padding.
A creator has to eat and people don't have to use his site. Those that like it and would want to make it even better can pay.
And don't forget that a first step was to create a _lean_ website. 200kB + 500kB padding would still be more than 2 times less then any website you mentioned. For this to work the website would have to prove from time to time how it would work without useless bytes. You could also serve less useless bytes.
However it could still work with added latency instead of bytes. Example: 50ms every 100kB.
It would be an alternative to ads. Ads are a padding plus unfairness and dishonesty. They also track you and run code on your machine. This would be just a padding.
A creator has to eat and people don't have to use his site. Those that like it and would want to make it even better can pay.
And don't forget that a first step was to create a _lean_ website. 200kB + 500kB padding would still be more than 2 times less then any website you mentioned. For this to work the website would have to prove from time to time how it would work without useless bytes. You could also serve less useless bytes.
However it could still work with added latency instead of bytes. Example: 50ms every 100kB.
So from that I'm getting is to run it like one of those "Pay to increase download speed" across the site.
I mean it makes sense, all content is still available to every user but when you pay you get instant or higher speeds.
I mean it makes sense, all content is still available to every user but when you pay you get instant or higher speeds.
It could be tied to Patreon. Reaching $1000 target cuts latency by X or serves Y less useless bytes.
I can see where you're going with this, but it seems unreasonable to clog everyone's pipe with garbage bytes. A simple usleep() before sending the response should have the same effect.
You're right. Selling latency may be more reasonable. Certainly cheaper for a creator.
Useless bytes have a few properties however. You can do more silly things with them. People like to do something unreasonably silly from time to time.
You can treat useless bytes as virtual goods. You could serve: unicode code points, animal names, or even sentences from public domain books. Then people can explore the catalog and have a tiny bit more personalized experience, than just buying 40ms.
They can also serve as a manifest against ads, because they are honestly useless bytes with a safety hatch.
Useless bytes have a few properties however. You can do more silly things with them. People like to do something unreasonably silly from time to time.
You can treat useless bytes as virtual goods. You could serve: unicode code points, animal names, or even sentences from public domain books. Then people can explore the catalog and have a tiny bit more personalized experience, than just buying 40ms.
They can also serve as a manifest against ads, because they are honestly useless bytes with a safety hatch.
I'm lost, why would someone buy a byte? To reduce load time for everybody?
Exactly. For me it's analogue to Patreon: Why would anyone give money on Patreon? To finance a creator for everybody?
If you would sell all the useless bytes you would serve the clean version of your website.
Ads are useless bytes. But a bit dishonestly useless. You can block them to some extent. Some will not get served to you. However there are still some ad divs or native ads that are uselessly sent to you in case of ad blocking.
I propose sending honestly useless bytes, but give people ability to strip them out for money.
Then everyone can be happy. People can support a creator. People can get a better product by paying. A creator can eat.
If you would sell all the useless bytes you would serve the clean version of your website.
Ads are useless bytes. But a bit dishonestly useless. You can block them to some extent. Some will not get served to you. However there are still some ad divs or native ads that are uselessly sent to you in case of ad blocking.
I propose sending honestly useless bytes, but give people ability to strip them out for money.
Then everyone can be happy. People can support a creator. People can get a better product by paying. A creator can eat.
Why add extra garbage to websites when there's already a whole industry built around serving garbage? Just let users pay for removal of ads for everyone (instead of just for themselves), that would be novel and useful.
You really need different monetization for different kinds of sites.
1) Low quality, high volume, low overhead: google ads.
2) High quality/high value, low volume, niche: subscription/services
3) Medium quality, low volume, niche: donation
The only form of advertising I'd ever want on my site, unless it is a very low quality, is direct sold by my own staff (i.e. me). I'd probably optimize for effort and just do a single "sponsor" for each month, or maybe ongoing. The low-touch way is probably to pick a relevant CPA program (say, Audible) and pitch that to your own audience.
1) Low quality, high volume, low overhead: google ads.
2) High quality/high value, low volume, niche: subscription/services
3) Medium quality, low volume, niche: donation
The only form of advertising I'd ever want on my site, unless it is a very low quality, is direct sold by my own staff (i.e. me). I'd probably optimize for effort and just do a single "sponsor" for each month, or maybe ongoing. The low-touch way is probably to pick a relevant CPA program (say, Audible) and pitch that to your own audience.
Everyone always forgets about Amazon referrals. For certain categories it's a valuable and inobtrusive monetization method
They recently killed electronics referral fees, though.
I often wonder how much revenue my hometown newspaper makes off online adds -- http://newspressnow.com.
When you first go to the site, a Credit Karma ad or Rite Aid ad popup appears (promoted by Kixer).
Close that and you see a site just overwhelmed by ads, some local. Then they have the "Sponsored Links" by Content.ad saying:
- "Cheaper and Stronger than Adderral"
- "Don't watch this video around you wife <insert photo of model>"
- "Fruits that fight diabetes"
- "Biblical solutions to weight loss"
The local owners of the newspaper, sold their cable company for $350 million which they had owned for 45 years (Cablevision->Suddenlink).
If an exceptionally wealthy local newspaper owner can't offer content in a reasonable way without egregious deceptive links, who can?
This type of behavior should be heavily criticized, especially by those who can afford to avoid it. Instead, it's considered business as usual.
When you first go to the site, a Credit Karma ad or Rite Aid ad popup appears (promoted by Kixer).
Close that and you see a site just overwhelmed by ads, some local. Then they have the "Sponsored Links" by Content.ad saying:
- "Cheaper and Stronger than Adderral"
- "Don't watch this video around you wife <insert photo of model>"
- "Fruits that fight diabetes"
- "Biblical solutions to weight loss"
The local owners of the newspaper, sold their cable company for $350 million which they had owned for 45 years (Cablevision->Suddenlink).
If an exceptionally wealthy local newspaper owner can't offer content in a reasonable way without egregious deceptive links, who can?
This type of behavior should be heavily criticized, especially by those who can afford to avoid it. Instead, it's considered business as usual.
I noticed how civil all the comments are. I wonder if automatically prepending all comments with "Dear Editor" makes people think twice before writing the more common and nasty form of comments usual found in the comment sections of news pages?
It definitely looks like it's prepending with Dear Editor and appending the date/name as signature. Really cool :)
I added this article to /. (Slashdot) and it was marked as spam, sending it's rating black and instantly damaging it's chance of being seen, yet here it has proper and full engagement?!? How did someone at /. consider this spam? Hopefully someone here can shed some light.
Don't worry. People on slashdot complain about HN mods.
It's such a weird time to be alive: with all the controversy around advertising nowadays we're kind of seeing Google's previously invulnerable tendrils around the Internet slowly being peeled off. That being their major source of income, they must be worried. I am too, but for another reason -- I don't want a company like Facebook taking over and establishing a monopoly (say what you will about Google, companies like Facebook are even less ethical).
Is it no easier to peel back the tendrils of Facebook though?
This might be a stupid question, but is it possible to monetise a website successfully using entirely "dumb" adverts with no ad networks involved?
I mean ads which are simply an image inside an <a> tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.)
I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential advertisers and make deals. But on the upside you could host only well-curated ads that are relevant to your audience. Presumably they would also be difficult to block (although I suppose ad blockers could start recognising images, maybe they do this already?)
Has anyone had any success doing this? Is it likely to become more common as ad blocking increases?
I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious!
I mean ads which are simply an image inside an <a> tag. Presumably this is how everyone was doing it before the ad networks existed? (I was around in the 90s but never really thought about it.)
I guess it would take a lot of extra work and expense to approach potential advertisers and make deals. But on the upside you could host only well-curated ads that are relevant to your audience. Presumably they would also be difficult to block (although I suppose ad blockers could start recognising images, maybe they do this already?)
Has anyone had any success doing this? Is it likely to become more common as ad blocking increases?
I feel like I'm missing something incredibly obvious!
I've seen it done on some websites. Typically as a partnership with an online shop that sells things of interest for the website audience.
It is probably very effective if you have an audience with well targeted interests. For example a site about espresso coffee may partner with a shop that sells high end espresso machines and specialty coffee.
However, it is much harder if a website has a broader audience. A news network probably has no clue about what visitors want to spend their money on, so either they use an ad network that does the targeting for them, or they are limited to less beneficial generic partnerships.
It is probably very effective if you have an audience with well targeted interests. For example a site about espresso coffee may partner with a shop that sells high end espresso machines and specialty coffee.
However, it is much harder if a website has a broader audience. A news network probably has no clue about what visitors want to spend their money on, so either they use an ad network that does the targeting for them, or they are limited to less beneficial generic partnerships.
It works if you're someone like Amazon that can pay based on sales generated, but that's actually somewhat unusual. A lot of advertisers are hoping to also push their brand, and there fraud is the big problem. A lot of the JS served is just validating that the ads displayed properly, or was seen by the correct target audience.
Yes, ads targeted to the viewer's demographic and interests are far more lucrative. Just try searching for "mortgage interest" or "divorce lawyer" and see how long until your adscape changes when browsing.
Certainly. I had a client who did that (www.greatervictoria.com). He makes decent money at it. I've also seen it on, for example, mrmoneymustache.com and theartofmanliness.com.
At some point, someone is going to turn static visual (and text, I suppose) ads (back, per the "text" part) into a competitive advantage. Why? Because they actually get through. For the graphics, forcefully stripped of any meta-data and corners of the format that can become mal-ware vectors.
I'll put up with ads that don't move or make noise at me. And that don't/can't try to infect me.
But, no one wants to do that.
Stalemate.
My fear is that, in addition to increasingly locking down the web, the new DRM extensions will be used to force (crap-laden) ads upon us. Content and crap will all get packaged up together, as an encrypted binary. Et voilà, no more open Web.
P.S. Yeah, I don't want to look at gross medical ads, either. So, I guess I have a few more qualifications, personally.
I'll put up with ads that don't move or make noise at me. And that don't/can't try to infect me.
But, no one wants to do that.
Stalemate.
My fear is that, in addition to increasingly locking down the web, the new DRM extensions will be used to force (crap-laden) ads upon us. Content and crap will all get packaged up together, as an encrypted binary. Et voilà, no more open Web.
P.S. Yeah, I don't want to look at gross medical ads, either. So, I guess I have a few more qualifications, personally.
> our articles get much more traffic on mainstream media that republish us, but we receive no advertising revenue from this
Um, so, shouldn't you be charging a syndication fee, probably a percentage of their ads displayed on your articles?
Um, so, shouldn't you be charging a syndication fee, probably a percentage of their ads displayed on your articles?
Honestly, I won't use an ad-blocker if the ads weren't so creepily targeted and so annoyingly pervasive. Hell, I don't even mind looking and clicking on some ads if they are not intrusively shoved down my throat.
I fully acknowledge the frustration with AdSense. And their rules are prudish and seemingly intermittent in nature-- at one's whim, if you get my meaning. I see nothing wrong with the above image and there is no nudity involved. I've seen more skin on a public beach.
The real question at this point is, how are you going to pay for your site? I realize AdSense payments are tiny, but they are at least something. How do you plan on replacing those payments? Our site wouldn't be able to pay our writers without that tiny bit of revenue.
In any case, I applaud your efforts and wish you the best.
The real question at this point is, how are you going to pay for your site? I realize AdSense payments are tiny, but they are at least something. How do you plan on replacing those payments? Our site wouldn't be able to pay our writers without that tiny bit of revenue.
In any case, I applaud your efforts and wish you the best.
A large problem here is that ads only support one type of content: low-cost and large-audience.
Content ads, more or less, offer a fixed amount per impression. Sure, you might get a higher ad price for certain audiences than others, but this is related to topic, not the quality or cost of content.
If you only make a fixed amount per impression, the only business model low-cost content targeting a large audience. High quality (aka high cost) content, with a narrow interest audience needs a different model.
That different model is probably charging your reader. However, the moment you set up a paywall, the content disappears. Search engines will not suggest the content, feed readers can't access it, suggestion interfaces won't suggest it, etc. The content might as well not exist.
We don't need micropayments. We need a model where paywall content can be discovered. Systems whereby paywall content can be accessed by aggregators who then can suggest/search/deliver the content, but will not give the content to users without payment.
Content ads, more or less, offer a fixed amount per impression. Sure, you might get a higher ad price for certain audiences than others, but this is related to topic, not the quality or cost of content.
If you only make a fixed amount per impression, the only business model low-cost content targeting a large audience. High quality (aka high cost) content, with a narrow interest audience needs a different model.
That different model is probably charging your reader. However, the moment you set up a paywall, the content disappears. Search engines will not suggest the content, feed readers can't access it, suggestion interfaces won't suggest it, etc. The content might as well not exist.
We don't need micropayments. We need a model where paywall content can be discovered. Systems whereby paywall content can be accessed by aggregators who then can suggest/search/deliver the content, but will not give the content to users without payment.
I applaud the advertisers. For a good long while racists were afraid or ashamed to push their racism too publicly. I liked that world, less hate and venom being spewed around poisoning the public sphere. But something snapped in the last few years and all the assholes have become loud and proud of their assholiness and they are celebrated and encouraged to be the biggest asshole they can possibly be. From what I can tell it is linked to gaming and 4chan, a new culture of young aggressive males raised on shock and gore and porn and no consequences. For the good of civilization this needs to be bottled up. Racists need to be ashamed again. Assholes need to return to pretending to be decent human beings. The great human achievement that makes civilized society possible is keeping testorene fueled young males under some control to allow things to be built up instead of always being torn down. If we lose that then everything is lost.
While I generally agree with you, I do not think control is the best route, but rather guidance. Oppressing/bottling high energy individuals is destructive on the long run even if it seems otherwise at the beginning. Directing this energy into a constructive path however is more beneficial to the individuals themselves as well as the communities they live in.
>from what I can tell this is from 4chan and gaming
I do not think so. Gaming and 4chan have been around a while, but this development is, as you say, relatively recent. I think there is some force that is new that promotes this curve.
One explanation is the widespread adoption and acceptance of the internet. Not so long ago, much fewer people had easy access to the web. Those that did often treated it with disdain, being mostly uninterested in it. At some point, people realized that the internet enabled them to freely speak their mind and associate with whomever they like to an unprecedented degree. Whereas before, people were limited by not wanting to distance themselves from friends and family, the internet enables them to lead a double life, with one part being a normal family man, the other being an internet pundit, freely spreading whichever vitriol they choose.
For these same reasons, I don't think this facet of internet culture will be so easily put away. To do so requires breaking some of the principles that make the internet what it is, primarily the ability to post whatever you want, even illegal content (copyright, cp). There is also the ability to join comunities from anywhere in the world, not just those local to you, that have some extension in real life. These functions are part of what people dreamed about when they fostered the internet and the web.
I think removing someone's advertising harms them to a point, but for many, it is a labor of love. They talk about the things they do because they truly enjoy those topics, and want to deseminate their views on it. If you cut off a revenue stream, they will continue posting, but perhaps scaled back due to needing a real job. Further, if their audience truly and unabashedly enjoys the content, they might be willing to fund the content maker through other channels, such as patreon or a similar websites. Cut off one revenue stream and two more pop up.
I don't know what the solution is. Cutting off advertising won't be enough. Destroying the internet as we know it might be needed, but I worry that this is going too far.
I do not think so. Gaming and 4chan have been around a while, but this development is, as you say, relatively recent. I think there is some force that is new that promotes this curve.
One explanation is the widespread adoption and acceptance of the internet. Not so long ago, much fewer people had easy access to the web. Those that did often treated it with disdain, being mostly uninterested in it. At some point, people realized that the internet enabled them to freely speak their mind and associate with whomever they like to an unprecedented degree. Whereas before, people were limited by not wanting to distance themselves from friends and family, the internet enables them to lead a double life, with one part being a normal family man, the other being an internet pundit, freely spreading whichever vitriol they choose.
For these same reasons, I don't think this facet of internet culture will be so easily put away. To do so requires breaking some of the principles that make the internet what it is, primarily the ability to post whatever you want, even illegal content (copyright, cp). There is also the ability to join comunities from anywhere in the world, not just those local to you, that have some extension in real life. These functions are part of what people dreamed about when they fostered the internet and the web.
I think removing someone's advertising harms them to a point, but for many, it is a labor of love. They talk about the things they do because they truly enjoy those topics, and want to deseminate their views on it. If you cut off a revenue stream, they will continue posting, but perhaps scaled back due to needing a real job. Further, if their audience truly and unabashedly enjoys the content, they might be willing to fund the content maker through other channels, such as patreon or a similar websites. Cut off one revenue stream and two more pop up.
I don't know what the solution is. Cutting off advertising won't be enough. Destroying the internet as we know it might be needed, but I worry that this is going too far.
Is this satire? This comment is too ignorant of the Internet to be a real comment on hacker news.
[deleted]
That's awesome to hear. In particular reading the comments and finding that this sentiment is echoed among many of us.
For what it's worth, some of us just never stopped putting cool and interesting content online, for free, without monetizing it with ads (except perhaps as a short-duration experiment in the early 2000s when this madness started taking off).
If I wanted to get paid to let someone shit all over and between that content/media, I'd be writing/designing very different content. ... unless maybe it was an art project to explicitly demonstrate the fragility of excellence (okay maybe that's a cool idea actually--this besides the point :p)
For what it's worth, some of us just never stopped putting cool and interesting content online, for free, without monetizing it with ads (except perhaps as a short-duration experiment in the early 2000s when this madness started taking off).
If I wanted to get paid to let someone shit all over and between that content/media, I'd be writing/designing very different content. ... unless maybe it was an art project to explicitly demonstrate the fragility of excellence (okay maybe that's a cool idea actually--this besides the point :p)
"Less than $200" seems like a very small amount of money for 329,000 impressions. I imagine the number might be higher if the readers were mostly from the US, instead of South Africa.
But still, you're not going to make a lot of money from a few hundred thousand impressions. In my experience, a YouTube video with 1,000,000 views will give you around $1,000. That's nowhere near enough to sustain a company or pay any employees.
Right now I'm working on a game (which I hope to launch soon and show on HN!). While I dislike ads, I'm still going to put them in my game, because I enjoy making money more than I hate ads. I think Google and AdMob will mostly serve ads for other games, so they're not so bad.
But still, you're not going to make a lot of money from a few hundred thousand impressions. In my experience, a YouTube video with 1,000,000 views will give you around $1,000. That's nowhere near enough to sustain a company or pay any employees.
Right now I'm working on a game (which I hope to launch soon and show on HN!). While I dislike ads, I'm still going to put them in my game, because I enjoy making money more than I hate ads. I think Google and AdMob will mostly serve ads for other games, so they're not so bad.
If malware writers can get toasters to mine bitcoin a browser should be able to do the same for content creators, this would incentize people to make more engaging content the longer people stay on your page the more you make.
Interesting to see this on HN. I use AdMob in my app. Do my stats seem normal to you guys? ~70-100k impressions a day = ~$4-9, not enough for me to eat...
pics of the details can be found here: http://i.imgur.com/NDubFOO.png
Please help: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactnative/comments/64wwge/ads_mak...
pics of the details can be found here: http://i.imgur.com/NDubFOO.png
Please help: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactnative/comments/64wwge/ads_mak...
The real problem is that Google approves pretty much everyone for AdSense. Which works in favor of scammers and plagiarism. Someone scrapes content from respectable sites, parse them through an article spinning mechanism and voila, you have a legitimate looking site with absolutely no original content on it. Google shouldn't be approving any of those sites for ads. But they do, and that's a bit shocking for all of us who grew fond of them because of the "do no evil" mantra. Well Google, you're doing evil and perhaps it's time to do something about it.
[deleted]
If google would simply charge a "review fee" for new adverts, or when a target for an advert changes (via detection), that could cover the cost of manual review. Another fee to "challenge" review, etc...
This would allow good advertisers to pay once or twice a month for reviews on new ad campaigns and the spammy throw it all at the wall campaigns less likely. But google isn't interested in quality... but quantity, so they can charge higher rates per view/click.
This would allow good advertisers to pay once or twice a month for reviews on new ad campaigns and the spammy throw it all at the wall campaigns less likely. But google isn't interested in quality... but quantity, so they can charge higher rates per view/click.
Google Ads I've put on my koszek.com once. Then while doing some layout changes I saw all sorts of things being displayed. Some really inappropriate -- in my Google Summer of Code writeups I got some ulcer and sex-related ads. And I removed it then, never looked back. Not worth compromising your quality.
Right now I only use Amazon Affiliate and I guess only because it's (a) easy to get a link to the books I review (b) they are actually controlled by me, at least in theory. No flipping products Amazon is randomly sending me.
Right now I only use Amazon Affiliate and I guess only because it's (a) easy to get a link to the books I review (b) they are actually controlled by me, at least in theory. No flipping products Amazon is randomly sending me.
Seeing posts like these always send me back to when I was reading comments saying that Google needs to track you all over the web because that's how it serves you "relevant ads".
How is that working so far? For all the tracking Google does through Google analytics, Google search, and the Play Android framework, you'd think ads would be a lot better by now.
What's funny is that Google seems quick to fire publishers but it's never so quick to fire advertisers.
How is that working so far? For all the tracking Google does through Google analytics, Google search, and the Play Android framework, you'd think ads would be a lot better by now.
What's funny is that Google seems quick to fire publishers but it's never so quick to fire advertisers.
It's interesting how the comments on that page are so respectful. I wonder if it's entirely due to the templated "Dear Editor" and "Sincerely" formatting, i.e. remove those words and I wouldn't infer the same perception of respectfulness, that the templating encourages more respectful comments, or just good moderation and I can't see all the bad comments that have been submitted but not shown.
Google incentivizes so much of the content you read on the web, it's fair to say it's "Google's web" at the moment. What alternatives are there though? People can try dropping adsense, but for most websites it would hurt them more than they can handle. I wish there were better advertising systems, but, compared to the rest, adsense is actually better. Advertisers need to come up with better ideas.
Months ago I was excited to get google ads into my app and monetize a project on google play for the first time ever.
After a few dozen bucks, the ads turned into virus scams, +18 hotlines, which I am pretty sure I unchecked the last time I logged into admob's web interface, so I removed it. Good riddance.
Now thanks to google (ironically) I sell in-app purchases to enable features.
After a few dozen bucks, the ads turned into virus scams, +18 hotlines, which I am pretty sure I unchecked the last time I logged into admob's web interface, so I removed it. Good riddance.
Now thanks to google (ironically) I sell in-app purchases to enable features.
> Perhaps at some point online publishers [will] find a new way to solicit advertising from reputable companies that pay properly.
Someone get on this.
Someone get on this.
That was The Deck, and they recently shut down: http://decknetwork.net/
In the near future, it will be total war between amoral lowlife hucksters, and cheapskate users.
In the near future, it will be total war between amoral lowlife hucksters, and cheapskate users.
Those rates are consistent with much of the world. It's typical in the US, Canada, UK, and AU to average about a dollar per thousand visitors. There is very little demand from advertisers for global ad inventory. Part of it is fear of click farms, but mostly corporations are simply interested in reaching consumers and top tier markets.
The argument appears to be about whether to block adverts and whether this is ethical or not. The real reason for adverts is to pay for the site and its content.
I think the real argument should be about how we pay for content on a site and how to solve that problem instead of arguing about the adverts.
Why didn't HTTP 402 ever take off?
I think the real argument should be about how we pay for content on a site and how to solve that problem instead of arguing about the adverts.
Why didn't HTTP 402 ever take off?
If no one would pay money for your service then isn't it inherently valueless? Advertisements is just a scam that's gonna pop eventually.
I'd pay a lot of websites a buck a month for access. Multiply this by millions and you see. It's only when you introduce advertisements that the craziness begins.
I'd pay a lot of websites a buck a month for access. Multiply this by millions and you see. It's only when you introduce advertisements that the craziness begins.
> Multiply this by millions and you see
I would be curious to know how many websites have millions of paying subscribers.
I would be curious to know how many websites have millions of paying subscribers.
It would be interesting to do a study, for a busy site with a big enough sample size, counting ad clicks locally and then comparing with Google's reports. I imagine you could attach your own javascript events etc. to do your own comparative statistics, and see if Google is cheating.
Haha! In quote,
"Google pays a tiny amount each time an ad appears, and a somewhat larger amount if readers click on an ad. To understand exactly how the payment system works requires several PhDs, a four-digit IQ and stay-awake drugs."
That's enough for GroundUp to make these decision.
"Google pays a tiny amount each time an ad appears, and a somewhat larger amount if readers click on an ad. To understand exactly how the payment system works requires several PhDs, a four-digit IQ and stay-awake drugs."
That's enough for GroundUp to make these decision.
I have a solution to the problem of having an ad network (Google) as the dictator of the internet.
1. Create a new browser where the concept of a URL is missing.
2a. Make terms, keywords, concepts first-class citizens. Ban URLs alltogether. Search using keywords to get to the places you want to go, not by typing URLs.
2b. Make it so that the browser gets smarter as you go and accustomed to your prose (the way you formulate your queries).
3. Make it so that the internet index is centralized so that all your browsers use the same "lookup URLS through keywords" service. Also let people use a local index version.
4. Create a buzz around this new browser. Start in the tech community of your choice. They will love using something that has a fair chance of becoming a Google-killer.
5. Your mom and dad already want to use this new browser. URLs are not important to them. Today, they google for "www.facebook.com" before starting their internet session.
6. We are done here. Internet has re-booted. We all profit.
Point 2b makes this perfect for the [random tech incubator], wouldn't you agree?
1. Create a new browser where the concept of a URL is missing.
2a. Make terms, keywords, concepts first-class citizens. Ban URLs alltogether. Search using keywords to get to the places you want to go, not by typing URLs.
2b. Make it so that the browser gets smarter as you go and accustomed to your prose (the way you formulate your queries).
3. Make it so that the internet index is centralized so that all your browsers use the same "lookup URLS through keywords" service. Also let people use a local index version.
4. Create a buzz around this new browser. Start in the tech community of your choice. They will love using something that has a fair chance of becoming a Google-killer.
5. Your mom and dad already want to use this new browser. URLs are not important to them. Today, they google for "www.facebook.com" before starting their internet session.
6. We are done here. Internet has re-booted. We all profit.
Point 2b makes this perfect for the [random tech incubator], wouldn't you agree?
Except you'll replace Google with another Google...
Are you doing any alternative methods of ad revenue or just removing ads from the site entirely?
Those people finally woke up, when others will start following the example?
Advertising is not an easy job: and it takes more than a few lazy banner to do it right. The current model, the one pushed by Google, has no future. Using adblocks is a duty we have to change the system.
Advertising is not an easy job: and it takes more than a few lazy banner to do it right. The current model, the one pushed by Google, has no future. Using adblocks is a duty we have to change the system.
Sometimes, I really wonder how the advertising industry actually earns their bread.
By which I don't mean how they provide a service, in exchange for monetary compensation, in exchange for goods (bread).
I mean I wonder how they earn it.
By which I don't mean how they provide a service, in exchange for monetary compensation, in exchange for goods (bread).
I mean I wonder how they earn it.
People should realize that Ad-blocking became a way of protecting users from malware and scam that even Google includes in their system. I understand that they do their best to remove these sort of things but they are doing a shitty job.
Well? So why isn't there a better source of ad revenue than Google Ads?
But they still have google analytics on their site.
To me the biggest problem with Adsense is that I can not place the ad code to "modern" pages with ajax-loaded content.
So many of these problems go away if we just enforce higher quality (less annoying) ads.
Is there a group discount for subscriptions to major journalistic outlets?
very interesting. I was thinking of removing Google Ads from my site too. I think websites such as BuySellAds can easily double my site's revenue.
Seven years ago I cofounded a genuine alternative platform to Google Ads (Publir). The company is doing remarkably well and we have many happy publishers (and users). Happy to answer questions here or via PM.
[deleted]
paulcole(3)
>So Google accepts get-rich-quick ads featuring famous people without their permission
Just curious but is there any way to know for sure whether those images are licensed or not?
Just curious but is there any way to know for sure whether those images are licensed or not?
Who will pay for my comment? Yeah I make comment I should be pay with Ad. Seriously the Internet was about freedom not money. 99% of journalism article are crap and I will not pay for 40 pages that don't go to the point and summarize. You get all the blablabla for nothing, and can find the info at another place. Tell me where is the value added? Almost everythings that I do I share it for free, it's like that, I don't care, I'm not Mark Z. I don't try to find how to get money first... Let the web free, free of Ads.
I've been saying that when you're selling ad space, knowing your buyer is as important as knowing your audience. In the traditional online ad (Google and alikes) model that knowledge is lost to third party algorithms. And worst, feeds the generic ad blockers which destroy the reliability of said algorithms.
Theoutline.com is an example of how the new relationship between brands<>publishers<>audience will evolve.
Theoutline.com is an example of how the new relationship between brands<>publishers<>audience will evolve.
For those who want no ads at all, try using Outline.com
So to quote GroundUp: "Obviously the behemoth in Mountain View won’t miss [us], but we take some pride in saying the feeling’s mutual."