3 ms·

As a full disclosure, I used to work on a platform for serving ads. For one, while certain websites or apps show a clear signal that can be used (e.g. coding,

As a full disclosure, I used to work on a platform for serving ads. For one, while certain websites or apps show a clear signal that can be used (e.g. coding, hence the user can be shown ads on coding tools), many other websites or apps are not giving a signal on preferences or intent, this besides the ads inventory being an issue. For example when you're reading political news, or when you're playing chess, what ad could you be shown that could be related to politics or chess? I can answer this - without a user profile, best case scenario is that you're shown something at random, with a disastrous conversion rate. And worst case scenario is ads being used for spreading pieces of propaganda on controversial issues and I remember for example how a certain gold mining company was attempting to manipulate with downright lies the viewers of certain YouTube videos that were criticizing their open-pit project. And because such ad spots are basically worthless, they can be bought for cheap. I'm personally all about privacy and the security of my data, being downright paranoid. But privacy is one thing, blocking ads is another. If you don't like ads, then don't use those services or websites. That's how you end up rewarding alternatives and personally I rewarded many alternatives that way. Even if you want to punish bad actors, you still give them the eyeballs, you still distribute those links to your friends, etc. The concept of voting with your wallet is basically broken. And contrary to the music and film industry that has pushed for DRM, this time people that block ads don't have the proper moral ground to stand on and also the industry is not going to go down without a fight. Consider that you can't block ads in mobile apps without having root privileges. This will turn out to be a whack-a-mole game and it won't last for long. Just wait until these websites will start to serve ads from their own domain, with ads being indistinguishable from the surrounding content ... oh wait, this is already happening ;-) Worst of all is that you end up hurting other people - from publishers, many of whom are already on the verge of bankruptcy, to people that will suffer the consequences even if they don't use ad-blockers, as the history of video gaming can teach us. Do you enjoy the DRM laden pay-to-win gaming industry that others have created for you? As personally I'm thankful that I've outgrown video games.

micampe 11y ago
> ads being indistinguishable from the surrounding content I think this is an improvement, compared to the current situation of ads getting in the way of the content I want to read.
- teaneedz 11y ago
  Except that the FTC has their eye on native ads for a very good reason.
kuschku 11y ago
The game industry also brought us Cities Skylines, Minecraft, Witcher 3 — popular, no effective DRM, no issue with people pirating, as most end up buying the game anyway. It will end up in better quality for everyone if only those products people are willing to pay for exist.
teaneedz 11y ago
If you hitch a ride to a run-away wagon heading toward a cliff and don't listen to the screaming passengers jumping off when they decide enough is enough, no one else is to blame if you're still hanging on to the trailing rope as it sails over the edge. Stop blaming the passengers for not putting up with the bumps. Your ride is over. UX will win.
manicdee 11y ago
Here is the moral ground that I stand on: I pay for the data coming down my link, you don't. Your ads and trackers cost me money, and there is every chance that your ads cost me more money than the site owner gets from that "ad impression." You can not claim any moral ground at all. Claiming that web sites will fold if you don't exist is like a drug dealer claiming that taking them off the street will make life worse for the drug addicts. Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. I would like to see a micropayment system where I can load up a few dozen dollars a month and pay shares through +1 or liking pages. Sure, 1/1000 of my $50/month isn't going to make much of a difference, but if you are getting paid through ad impressions you will get a similar monthly return. Even better, you will make more money by producing content people like, with reduced incentive to split a five word article over six pages of ads. These days the ads are to the point that if I see a site start janking around as the stylesheets load and ads start pushing content around, I just force quit Safari right there on the spot. I don't have the time or money to support a web fuelled by the advertising dollar.
- bad_user 11y ago
  If you don't want that data consuming your bandwidth, then don't load those websites. It's as simple as that. Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. > Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. But that's the point - they won't adapt in the direction that you want and they won't die. Why? Because you're not punishing the bad actors. Expect ad-blockers to stop working in the coming months. They only worked until now because they weren't considered to be mainstream ;-) > I would like to see a micropayment system ... Right, because that would solve the privacy thing. Micropayment systems for rewarding websites and projects with donations have already been tried and it's not working. For one because people claiming this never put their money where their mouth is. And also because the pool of people that can afford to spend $50 a month on reading websites is not that big, as we're speaking about the middle-class living in first-world countries, many of whom as I said don't give a shit. #firstWorldSolutions
  - 11y ago

micampe 11y ago

> ads being indistinguishable from the surrounding content I think this is an improvement, compared to the current situation of ads getting in the way of the content I want to read.

teaneedz 11y ago
Except that the FTC has their eye on native ads for a very good reason.

kuschku 11y ago

The game industry also brought us Cities Skylines, Minecraft, Witcher 3 — popular, no effective DRM, no issue with people pirating, as most end up buying the game anyway. It will end up in better quality for everyone if only those products people are willing to pay for exist.

teaneedz 11y ago

If you hitch a ride to a run-away wagon heading toward a cliff and don't listen to the screaming passengers jumping off when they decide enough is enough, no one else is to blame if you're still hanging on to the trailing rope as it sails over the edge. Stop blaming the passengers for not putting up with the bumps. Your ride is over. UX will win.

manicdee 11y ago

Here is the moral ground that I stand on: I pay for the data coming down my link, you don't. Your ads and trackers cost me money, and there is every chance that your ads cost me more money than the site owner gets from that "ad impression." You can not claim any moral ground at all. Claiming that web sites will fold if you don't exist is like a drug dealer claiming that taking them off the street will make life worse for the drug addicts. Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. I would like to see a micropayment system where I can load up a few dozen dollars a month and pay shares through +1 or liking pages. Sure, 1/1000 of my $50/month isn't going to make much of a difference, but if you are getting paid through ad impressions you will get a similar monthly return. Even better, you will make more money by producing content people like, with reduced incentive to split a five word article over six pages of ads. These days the ads are to the point that if I see a site start janking around as the stylesheets load and ads start pushing content around, I just force quit Safari right there on the spot. I don't have the time or money to support a web fuelled by the advertising dollar.

bad_user 11y ago
If you don't want that data consuming your bandwidth, then don't load those websites. It's as simple as that. Oh, and if you try to make the argument that you are justified in using ad blockers because that bandwidth costs you money and other people agree with you, then you can say goodbye to net neutrality. > Sites funded by invasive ads need to adapt or die. But that's the point - they won't adapt in the direction that you want and they won't die. Why? Because you're not punishing the bad actors. Expect ad-blockers to stop working in the coming months. They only worked until now because they weren't considered to be mainstream ;-) > I would like to see a micropayment system ... Right, because that would solve the privacy thing. Micropayment systems for rewarding websites and projects with donations have already been tried and it's not working. For one because people claiming this never put their money where their mouth is. And also because the pool of people that can afford to spend $50 a month on reading websites is not that big, as we're speaking about the middle-class living in first-world countries, many of whom as I said don't give a shit. #firstWorldSolutions
- 11y ago