6 ms·

Here is the whole thing about ad supported sites: We are worth a lot less than you think, and also overall an individuals monthly worth in advertisements is als

by mitchty 11y ago

Here is the whole thing about ad supported sites: We are worth a lot less than you think, and also overall an individuals monthly worth in advertisements is also small. https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ https://air.mozilla.org/subscribe2web/ Turns out, we're worth about $6.20/mo in advertising. Lets just round this up to $10/month to not have ads but still support sites we visit. If content providers aren't working on an alternative like the above, I'll continue to block ads. If you want to stop me from accessing the site by detecting that I will also kill that. If that stops working I won't see your content. Forcing me to watch ads with zero alternative though, nope. Google contributor is a start, but this needs to be across all ad platforms. I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... What I'm saying here is content providers and ad agencies and us ALL need to fix this. In my opinion though, this is all a result of the Faustian bargain the content providers have chosen and the inevitable escalation the ad companies have taken. I value my time and attention and am willing to pay to not have that taken away from me. Just don't force me to buy into ads, do like the twit network does if you have to. I've tried out almost all of their sponsors, not because of the company advertising but because of the person and people recommending it.

donohoe 11y ago
Looks like that number was from 2013? Can anyone tell me how they would figure out that number today? I've looked into a similar approach and would love a reliable way to answer "how much does a publisher need to charge to not have ads".
- rsynnott 11y ago
  Divide Google revenues by Internet penetration to get a rough guideline, perhaps? I doubt it has changed that much.
notNow 11y ago
An excerpt from the intro on that landing page of that project or intiative "It is a movement to create an ad-free Web" I find this view to be unlikely to materialize. We're in a consumerist-led capitalist economy and advertising is an integral part of it and the web as communications medium is one of its important assets. This project will fail before it even starts due to the unrealistic end goal advertised - pun intended - on the page.
dannyr 11y ago
So I can go to a store, I don't like how they make money, I'll just take away whatever I want for free? If you don't like how they make money, do not patronize them.
- tertius 11y ago
  If it's not harming them, they let me take it and it's not illegal then your comparison is a non-sequitur.
  - dannyr 11y ago
    How is it not harming them? Sites make money thru advertising and you block those ads. Paywalls don't work for everybody.
    - tertius 11y ago
      The point being is that your comment is a non-sequitur. My comment, in the end, really doesn't even matter because your comment, to begin with, is not applicable.
- msandford 11y ago
  If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.
  - anseljh 11y ago
    The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
    - evilduck 11y ago
      Contracts have to be agreed upon by both parties. If you want to have users agree to a ToS and protect your content, you should 401 their requests for your content until that happens. Otherwise fuck off, it's a public request.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
As the verge pointed out[1], small publishers do have a way to get paid that will work a lot better than subscriptions. They'll just put their content on Facebook -- ad blockers don't work inside the Facebook app. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10233010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10233010
- shanecleveland 11y ago
  Doesn't do anything for sites not considered "publishers." Popular "tools," such as calculators, forms, etc. will not have these Facebook-type options.
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    I over simplified the Verge story. They said that everybody that currently depends on web ad revenue would either move to Facebook and/or a native app running iAds. Either way, it's a pretty pessimistic view of the future of the web.
    - shanecleveland 11y ago
      Agreed.
- lmm 11y ago
  I'm ok with this. Facebook at least operates their advertising with some minimal level of... respect is too strong a word, but facebook won't redirect you to a page that tries to get you to install viruses.
jsonne 11y ago
>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... This is an extremely simplistic view of the world. You can go on thinking that you're really only sticking it to coca-cola or walmart, but the truth of the matter is that 50% of digital ads (At least on facebook) are SMBs. They're startups, they're mom and pop diners. As for railing against ad agencies, most of us don't work for F500s. We support entrepreneurs, and we do it at very slim margins (often times less than 15%). So, whatever, I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  > "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around. Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same. If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them. Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet. Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies. But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.
  - untog 11y ago
    If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.

by mitchty 11y ago

donohoe 11y ago

Looks like that number was from 2013? Can anyone tell me how they would figure out that number today? I've looked into a similar approach and would love a reliable way to answer "how much does a publisher need to charge to not have ads".

rsynnott 11y ago
Divide Google revenues by Internet penetration to get a rough guideline, perhaps? I doubt it has changed that much.

notNow 11y ago

An excerpt from the intro on that landing page of that project or intiative "It is a movement to create an ad-free Web" I find this view to be unlikely to materialize. We're in a consumerist-led capitalist economy and advertising is an integral part of it and the web as communications medium is one of its important assets. This project will fail before it even starts due to the unrealistic end goal advertised - pun intended - on the page.

dannyr 11y ago

So I can go to a store, I don't like how they make money, I'll just take away whatever I want for free? If you don't like how they make money, do not patronize them.

tertius 11y ago
If it's not harming them, they let me take it and it's not illegal then your comparison is a non-sequitur.
- dannyr 11y ago
  How is it not harming them? Sites make money thru advertising and you block those ads. Paywalls don't work for everybody.
  - tertius 11y ago
    The point being is that your comment is a non-sequitur. My comment, in the end, really doesn't even matter because your comment, to begin with, is not applicable.
msandford 11y ago
If HTTP was a contract whereby you agreed to look at everything that was sent over then your analogy would make sense. But HTTP is a protocol, not a legally binding contract. So no.
- anseljh 11y ago
  The terms of service for the site that's delivered to you over HTTP, though--that is a legally binding contract. Some have no-ad-blocking terms.
  - evilduck 11y ago
    Contracts have to be agreed upon by both parties. If you want to have users agree to a ToS and protect your content, you should 401 their requests for your content until that happens. Otherwise fuck off, it's a public request.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

As the verge pointed out[1], small publishers do have a way to get paid that will work a lot better than subscriptions. They'll just put their content on Facebook -- ad blockers don't work inside the Facebook app. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10233010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10233010

shanecleveland 11y ago
Doesn't do anything for sites not considered "publishers." Popular "tools," such as calculators, forms, etc. will not have these Facebook-type options.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  I over simplified the Verge story. They said that everybody that currently depends on web ad revenue would either move to Facebook and/or a native app running iAds. Either way, it's a pretty pessimistic view of the future of the web.
  - shanecleveland 11y ago
    Agreed.
lmm 11y ago
I'm ok with this. Facebook at least operates their advertising with some minimal level of... respect is too strong a word, but facebook won't redirect you to a page that tries to get you to install viruses.

jsonne 11y ago

>I'm not against funding people, I'm against funding ad agencies and their tracking and their other maladies. Such as trojaned ad networks, silly amounts of javascript and data, etc.... This is an extremely simplistic view of the world. You can go on thinking that you're really only sticking it to coca-cola or walmart, but the truth of the matter is that 50% of digital ads (At least on facebook) are SMBs. They're startups, they're mom and pop diners. As for railing against ad agencies, most of us don't work for F500s. We support entrepreneurs, and we do it at very slim margins (often times less than 15%). So, whatever, I probably won't get you to change your mind, just know you aren't sticking it to the man. You're sticking it to the little guy.

potatolicious 11y ago
> "You're sticking it to the little guy." And I'll keep doing it so long the little guy thinks being the little guy entitles them to dick their users around. Yeah, there's nuance to the debate around ad blocking, but this argument is just silly. If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down, just as we would a huge restaurant chain for doing the same. If small businesses are spreading malware by using ad networks that are regularly compromised, it's on them. If small businesses are feeding their user's private data (often via exploits) to extensive ad networks, it's on them. Being small doesn't exempt you from being a good citizen on the internet. Of course, the reality isn't that small businesses and publishers are somehow evil and cackling maniacally as they feed their user's private information to huge ad networks. The reality is that they needed revenue, they chose an ad vendor, and they followed some guide on throwing some JS into the page so the ads get loaded. The real shithead behavior is on the part of these adtech companies. But ultimately the misbehavior of adtech and ad networks is still held against the websites who choose to integrate them, and rightly so. This increases every single time an ad network is compromised to distribute malware, or is actively user-hostile, but the publisher chooses not to switch networks.
- untog 11y ago
  If a mom and pop diner refused to follow basic hygiene procedures we'd shut them down But that's not what you're doing. You're going to the mom and pop diner, eating their food, then declaring that their hygiene standards mean you don't think you should have to pay for the food.