12 ms·

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know a

I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common, but are neither the majority of advertising online, nor are they among the more annoying. 4. Contributor doesn't work like an ad blocker, which makes ads just "disappear." Instead, you see a big empty block (that is apparently customizable in some way) that says "Thank you for being a contributor. The ad space is still there, it's just blank. So if half of your page used to be covered in ads, now half your page is covered in little blocks that say, "Thank you for being a contributor." For example, here's a screenshot of iMore (the site that was used to compare ios9's ad blockers): https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/iMore__The_1_site_for_iPhone_iPad_Mac_and_all_things_Apple_cllk8.png https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/iMore__The_1_sit... I'd almost prefer ads. 5. This doesn't stop most of your pages from taking forever to load because of JavaScript from other ad networks. 6. I don't care about the tracking/privacy as much as some people, but it doesn't solve that problem either. So, do I think this is a good idea? Absolutely. I hope Google can expand it, and I will pay. I have no idea how expensive it would be to pay for the disappearance of all ads, but I'd likely do it. (I recognize I'm not the "average" Internet user as far as what I'm willing to pay). That being said, it does not yet come close to competing with the convenience that an ad-blocker provides (which I don't use out of principle). It's still early, so I give some leeway, and I like the idea, but as of yet this won't be a game changer. I truly hope it can become one.

hartator 11y ago
Just out of curiosity, how much are you paying per month?
- austenallred 11y ago
  $15/month. There's a sliding scale that goes in $1 increments.
  - nicpottier 11y ago
    Is the $15/mo use it or lose it, or just a maximum amount? IE, do all your monthly subscriptions add up to $15? If I'm paying the same as the bidding cost for advertisers, then I'm all in, this is super sweet. If I'm paying some vague hand-wavy fee that reduces my ads, but doesn't correspond 1-1 to what advertisers are paying then forget it.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      The $15/month is a flat fee. I'm not aware of how the math works behind the scenes, but it does not appear to be a 1:1 mapping. Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out.
      - nicpottier 11y ago
        Don't you feel a bit ripped off? Why does google get to keep the extra? How do we know they aren't still showing you SOME ads, just not all of them, and the price for that is $15? The way I would be in 100% support of this would be if I could go and "top up" my ad-support-budget. Say I add $50.. and from then on every Google served ad gets swallowed up and my balance gets deducted whatever the bid price was, with the same % going to the contributor site. When my $50 is up, ads return. I can choose to refill as I want, or set it up to auto-refill with $20 when it runs out, sending me an email or whatnot. I really really really like this concept, but man, they need to be really honest with their implementation.
        austenallred 11y ago
        Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out. reply
      - cmpb 11y ago
        That's not correct. Unused money rolls over. See https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&ref_topic=6182570&vid=1-635787105116485323-1411417406 https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Justsignedup 11y ago
I must argue a few points. - Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links - To try this experiment, I need to turn adblocking off. Which I am not willing to. - Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-... -- people are happier since less information assaults their brains, companies are still doing what they need to do because they needed to get creative ways to convince people why their products are worthwhile.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links Yes, there are multiple ways to monetize things on the Internet. Affiliate links work very well for Wirecutter, because it is based around people trying to buy things. If you're forbes.com however, affiliate links don't really work. > Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads... If the problem we're trying to solve is, "How can we pay content creators what they need in order to continue producing content?" then an anecdote about outdoor advertising and billboards is largely irrelevant. Of course, your proposed solution may be, "No one gets paid for content and the content ceases to exist because I don't like ads," and that may be what happens to some degree, but I personally wouldn't like that solution very much.
  - jkaunisv1 11y ago
    Is there really so much content scattered across so many sites that you couldn't easily pay for the content you enjoy, if it came to that? I would pay a small Tumblr subscription. I already patronize comic artists and musicians whose work I want to continue to exist. Jenna Marbles and Medium ego-pieces I wouldn't miss.
- dfbrown 11y ago
  thewirecutter.com also has ads
- cmpb 11y ago
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Sadly, this. It doesn't come down to not wanting to look at ads (though that's a big part), it comes down to exploits being served through massive ad networks that no human has the time to vet. I'll start unblocking ads the moment site creators start taking responsibility for what they display. My hourly rate for machine fixing is many times more than the few tenths of a penny you got for my ad impression.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).
      - supercanuck 11y ago
        Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me. To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. YMMV, I suppose we may be browsing different parts of the Internet, but I know content I love would mostly stay intact. From my personal and subjective experience, nearly everything that is actually worth anything on the Internet is made by unpaid volunteers for whom creating content is an end in itself, and not a way to earn money. Wikipedia? Check. HN discussions? Check. Topical subreddits? Check. Tutorials, videos, articles? Check, check, check. In fact, over time I've noticed a strong negative correlation between trustworthiness of content and amount of ads around it. Heck, myself I created lots of such content and always felt it should be distributed for free. Sure, videogames, music, movies, etc. are a different story. They are products that usually require full-time engagement of skilled professionals and you can't really get around paying for those. But your average web page? Rule of thumb: the more ads it projects, the more likely it is that it exists only to earn money off you (quality or dependability of content be damned). TL;DR: I don't mind if upon removing ad support half of the Internet goes to shit. It was the bad part. Oh, and since someone will surely bring up New York Times - I say, let it burn. Let's be honest with ourselves, we all know mainstream media are 1% content, 99% combination of bullshit and malicious lies. I'm willing to support that 1% with cash, but not the 99%. It is harmful to society and it should die.
- austenallred 11y ago
  > Topical subreddits And how is reddit funded?
  - a3n 11y ago
    Imgur kickbacks, I've always assumed.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Doesn't matter. They don't create the content, but merely facilitate creation by unpaid volunteers. Yes, they use ads, and if they didn't, I probably would be happy to pay or donate (if only to keep all the topical forums in one place and not revert to dark ages of phpBB and linear discussion threads). But let's not cheat ourselves - the ads are not paying for the content, they are merely supporting an efficient platform.
flgr 11y ago
I thought I was clever and tried to enable it from the Apple News web browser so I wouldn't get ads there even when I follow links. But it doesn't seem to work due to third party cookies being blocked. I wonder if that also means it won't work anywhere else where an embedded web view is used. And I tried to see if it removes Video ads on YouTube (which I find very annoying), but that doesn't seem to be the case.
roymurdock 11y ago
> much of the web I know and love will cease to exist Which parts of the web are those exactly? You'd be surprised at how creative people can get when their livelihoods are threatened by changing business models. Those who come up with a better solution for monetizing good content will survive. Those who don't, or who had poor content to begin with, will be forced out of the market.
- Zarel 11y ago
  The problem is, the changed business model will often be worse, because if it were better, we'd already have switched to it by now. Look at the main alternatives – subscription is the usual other one. And subscription will probably be enough to keep the big sites like Google and Facebook afloat, but for smaller sites, they'd just go under. Not to mention subscription biases the wealthy – suddenly, the poor are locked out of a lot of sites.
lighthawk 11y ago
> or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that will do it for them. If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model. Google is great. I think in many ways they've made the world a better place. Google is very ad revenue dependent. Ad revenue sponsored all of the great television shows and radio shows from the beginning. I don't think that advertising should go away because it makes great things by Google and media companies possible. However, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever in blocking ads on my own without paying Google. Tivo allows ad blocking. DVRs allow ad blocking. I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate just to block ads.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- untog 11y ago
  > Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. Much of it is, yes. Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do. Not that I have any answers here - I think your DVR comparison is fair.
  - Animats 11y ago
    "Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do." Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs. Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" sections (cars, real estate, food and wine, sports) are outsourced, sometimes to Demand Media, the content-farm company. Buy a newspaper and mark all the articles that didn't originate as a press release, press conference, national news service, or ad. There will not be many.
SlashmanX 11y ago
> Contributor doesn't work like an ad blocker, which makes ads just "disappear." Instead, you see a big empty block (that is apparently customizable in some way) that says "Thank you for being a contributor. The ad space is still there, it's just blank. So if half of your page used to be covered in ads, now half your page is covered in little blocks that say, "Thank you for being a contributor." The demo images/gifs make it seem like you can make the ad space disappear. Is this achieveable by replacing the placeholder with a custom 1x1px image? https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ (The 'or even this' image)
- austenallred 11y ago
  These are the options you're given in the settings: https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/Contributor_Preferences_Manager_eto21.png https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/Contributor_Pref... I suppose you could use a 1x1 pixel as a workaround, but that seems to be more of a hack than the way Google designed it to function.
  - mattpavelle 11y ago
    There is a checkbox that says "Use custom URL" - it's even in your screenshot. It is obviously designed to insert something else - a 1x1 pixel for example. That is not a "hack" and as it is there for everyone, it clearly IS the way Google designed it to function.
- ariwilson 11y ago
  I think depending on how the site has their ad slots configured with their layout, they can disappear or not.
a3n 11y ago
If viewing contents without viewing ads is damaging to a site, they can block. Or they can provide N free views per X days, and then block. And provide a subscription mechanism. I think I must have been turned away from a site once or twice, but I really can't remember specifically. So they don't block. Which means, they get something out of the visit. Exposure, at least. The hope of an eventual subscription, as I subscribe to the NYT digital. But if they don't block, then they either get something out of those visit, or they're foolish. Either way, I'm not worried about them. At all.
- manigandham 11y ago
  Blocking adblock users is not as easy as it sounds. Many of the adblockers also maintain rules and filters to actively get around this. Paywalls are the only sure fire way to keep people out.
  - a3n 11y ago
    It may not be easy. Wired seems to know how, they ask me to unblock when I visit. Same with Reddit (years ago) and duckduckgo.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      Most adblockers these days get rid of those messages as well. And asking you to unblock is not the same as stopping you completely - the only way to do that is paywalls.
      - a3n 11y ago
        Yes, but the point is, if they have the ability to ask, whether my blocker blocks the ask message or not, then they know I'm using an ad blocker, and they can refuse to serve me content, or redirect me to a subscription/registration page. But they keep on letting me view their content. It's their problem.
        11y ago
mstade 11y ago
> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. Yes – content creators should get paid. Also, not all ads are bad. Some campaigns even make such an impression on popular culture that they have their own place in history. But the campaigns that won't? Well, basically anything coming out of ad machines like adsense and what not. Ads can be tasteful, even enjoyable, but most of the internet ads aren't. Unlike broadcast tv, you can block internet ads; it's easy to do, and you should. Not because it'll kill content creators or indie app makers[1] or whatever, because it won't. It'll hurt the revenue streams of shitty ad mongers like adsense and doubleclick and facebook and admob and what have you. These are – in my opinion – on the same shitty level as porn peddlers. They sell crap for pennies, but they win because you just won't reach out to everyone otherwise. Google and Twitter and Facebook and all of the shitty ad platform snake-oil salesmen are the broadcasters of today – and their messages suck. Not only do their messages suck, but people – good people – spend valuable time they'll never get back in order to produce these shitty ads. Time they could have spent doing something useful. Instead they made a shitty flash banner that won't play anyway because everyone blocks flash. Ads of this kind need to be blocked so we can get to a point where advertising can be good. Where it requires thought, effort, research. Where it requires smart people, creative people, coming up with things that matter and are contextually relevant. The shitty ads we have today need to be blocked to preserve bandwidth, and to help make our planet perhaps die a little bit less every year. Blocking ads on the internet is easy, and doesn't require fancy heuristics or anything. It just requires black lists and hive minds. Ads that are not peddled through "platforms" or however you'd like to describe it – sponsored articles like those on Daring Fireball or increasingly in news papers these days – are less easy to block, and require more effort. But those ads aren't annoying, and they may not be entirely relevant but at least you don't want to throw up because you're fed up with their bullshit. So it becomes a cost/benefit calculation – is it worth the time and energy to block all ads, or are some ads ok? To me the answer to that is simple: ads are ok. The ad-porn that inflicts the internet today, through adsense and the rest of the ad-platform mob, can die a painful death in fire. Fuck 'em, I'm blocking their shitty ads left-right-center. [1]: http://blog.desk.pm/df/ http://blog.desk.pm/df/
- mstade 11y ago
cwilkes 11y ago
I love not seeing ads. Well, technically you're not "seeing" ads but I'm pretty sure your information is still being traded to data providers. This actually works to google's advantage. They reduce ad blindness and when an actual ad appears it will be highly targeted and probably gives Google a lot more revenue per ad.
codingdave 11y ago
So you pay the highest level for it, and think it is a good idea... yet a few days ago, you said: "Google Contributor is terrible. Not because it doesn't work, but because it still leaves big green gaps where the ads were saying, "Thank you for using contributor!" Not even mentioning the fact that it only works on a minority of ads, the green boxes are even more annoying than the ads were."
Paulods 11y ago
|1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. One of the nice things about ads is that it allows many users to browse content for free - subsidised by those that interact with adverts. If advertising were to go away and micro-payments replace it - how do users get free access to content subsidised by the masses? I can freely browse the most internet today from anywhere in the world regardless of my income situation. A micro-payments barrier to entry isn't going to allow that. Also those who are most likely to pay for a solution like this are likely the most affluent who are likely to be the ones clicking and buying products through advertising.
spenvo 11y ago
> I hope Google can expand it A few days ago I remarked on Twitter: "sad that Contributor, a great alternative to ads/tracking, is owned & marketed by Google, which has more to lose than gain from promoting it"[0] The idea behind Contributor is a powerful one: one that if aggressively marketed and expanded, could (at least conceivably) provide a viable hybrid model for online content publishing (that could coexist with ad-tech). But Google is a one-trick pony (with ads, obviously) and has everything at stake here. That makes Contributor feel like more of a defensive "moat" initiative -- there to passively discourage others from pursuing (or investing in) similar ideas. Maybe I'm being too cynical. I too am happily subscribed to Contributor--the most dramatic difference is The Next Web -- where the crazy canvas-flying ads are toggled off. [0] - https://twitter.com/spencenow/status/646480765794975744 https://twitter.com/spencenow/status/646480765794975744
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Yeah. This seems like a typical Google half-measure with little thought put into it. It's a shame because there is so much that could be done, but companies like google just don't care enough, yet, to actually put in the work.
Winsaucerer 11y ago
You have some good thoughts here. I do not think that Google Contributor is the answer, though it's in the right ballpark. The advantages of Google Contributor are reasonably clear. There is at least: 1. Works through Google's existing advertising systems, so easier for them to implement. 2. Minimal work for websites to sign up. 3. Advertisements disappear, while supporting websites. 4. Very little work for the end user to get started. But the disadvantages to me seem quite strong. A few: 1. Advertisers (e.g., Google), can still track you. Those with privacy concerns won't have those concerns addressed. 2. Doesn't remove all ads (even if you pay the maximal amount, it only affects Google ads, as you say). 3. Effectively creates more competition for the ad spots, driving the prices up (good for Google). 4. Does not change content layout. 5. Google still controls the space, where it would be better for the website owner to be able to use that space themselves. 6. Pricing is not clear. What exactly am I getting for what I pay? As competition increases, price goes up. As an end user, I like to know how much I need to pay to get a particular service. I don't want to have to give it much thought. I do think it's great that you're willing to support websites in removing ads. An Adblock Plus survey suggests that there are many users who would be willing to donate, so you're not alone. Full disclosure: I run https://webpass.io https://webpass.io, a service to give money back to the content creators in a way that completely bypasses the advertising industry, rather than working through it (thus protecting privacy). Gives the power to the website owner to control their content, not Google.

hartator 11y ago

Just out of curiosity, how much are you paying per month?

austenallred 11y ago
$15/month. There's a sliding scale that goes in $1 increments.
- nicpottier 11y ago
  Is the $15/mo use it or lose it, or just a maximum amount? IE, do all your monthly subscriptions add up to $15? If I'm paying the same as the bidding cost for advertisers, then I'm all in, this is super sweet. If I'm paying some vague hand-wavy fee that reduces my ads, but doesn't correspond 1-1 to what advertisers are paying then forget it.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    The $15/month is a flat fee. I'm not aware of how the math works behind the scenes, but it does not appear to be a 1:1 mapping. Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out.
    - nicpottier 11y ago
      Don't you feel a bit ripped off? Why does google get to keep the extra? How do we know they aren't still showing you SOME ads, just not all of them, and the price for that is $15? The way I would be in 100% support of this would be if I could go and "top up" my ad-support-budget. Say I add $50.. and from then on every Google served ad gets swallowed up and my balance gets deducted whatever the bid price was, with the same % going to the contributor site. When my $50 is up, ads return. I can choose to refill as I want, or set it up to auto-refill with $20 when it runs out, sending me an email or whatnot. I really really really like this concept, but man, they need to be really honest with their implementation.
      - austenallred 11y ago
        Edit: Apparently it is a 1:1 mapping and unused money rolls over until next month. I was wrong. Thanks cmpb for pointing that out. reply
    - cmpb 11y ago
      That's not correct. Unused money rolls over. See https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&ref_topic=6182570&vid=1-635787105116485323-1411417406 https://support.google.com/contributor/answer/6182619?hl=en&...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Justsignedup 11y ago

I must argue a few points. - Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links - To try this experiment, I need to turn adblocking off. Which I am not willing to. - Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads. http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-outdoor.html http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/07/sao-paulo-city-with-no-... -- people are happier since less information assaults their brains, companies are still doing what they need to do because they needed to get creative ways to convince people why their products are worthwhile.

austenallred 11y ago
> Sites like thewirecutter.com make their money from affiliate links Yes, there are multiple ways to monetize things on the Internet. Affiliate links work very well for Wirecutter, because it is based around people trying to buy things. If you're forbes.com however, affiliate links don't really work. > Ads are not the answer. In fact, an interesting thing happened when a city banned the use of outdoor ads... If the problem we're trying to solve is, "How can we pay content creators what they need in order to continue producing content?" then an anecdote about outdoor advertising and billboards is largely irrelevant. Of course, your proposed solution may be, "No one gets paid for content and the content ceases to exist because I don't like ads," and that may be what happens to some degree, but I personally wouldn't like that solution very much.
- jkaunisv1 11y ago
  Is there really so much content scattered across so many sites that you couldn't easily pay for the content you enjoy, if it came to that? I would pay a small Tumblr subscription. I already patronize comic artists and musicians whose work I want to continue to exist. Jenna Marbles and Medium ego-pieces I wouldn't miss.
dfbrown 11y ago
thewirecutter.com also has ads
cmpb 11y ago

WorldWideWayne 11y ago

And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.

Karunamon 11y ago
Sadly, this. It doesn't come down to not wanting to look at ads (though that's a big part), it comes down to exploits being served through massive ad networks that no human has the time to vet. I'll start unblocking ads the moment site creators start taking responsibility for what they display. My hourly rate for machine fixing is many times more than the few tenths of a penny you got for my ad impression.
kbenson 11y ago
Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).
    - supercanuck 11y ago
      Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me. To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. YMMV, I suppose we may be browsing different parts of the Internet, but I know content I love would mostly stay intact. From my personal and subjective experience, nearly everything that is actually worth anything on the Internet is made by unpaid volunteers for whom creating content is an end in itself, and not a way to earn money. Wikipedia? Check. HN discussions? Check. Topical subreddits? Check. Tutorials, videos, articles? Check, check, check. In fact, over time I've noticed a strong negative correlation between trustworthiness of content and amount of ads around it. Heck, myself I created lots of such content and always felt it should be distributed for free. Sure, videogames, music, movies, etc. are a different story. They are products that usually require full-time engagement of skilled professionals and you can't really get around paying for those. But your average web page? Rule of thumb: the more ads it projects, the more likely it is that it exists only to earn money off you (quality or dependability of content be damned). TL;DR: I don't mind if upon removing ad support half of the Internet goes to shit. It was the bad part. Oh, and since someone will surely bring up New York Times - I say, let it burn. Let's be honest with ourselves, we all know mainstream media are 1% content, 99% combination of bullshit and malicious lies. I'm willing to support that 1% with cash, but not the 99%. It is harmful to society and it should die.

austenallred 11y ago
> Topical subreddits And how is reddit funded?
- a3n 11y ago
  Imgur kickbacks, I've always assumed.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Doesn't matter. They don't create the content, but merely facilitate creation by unpaid volunteers. Yes, they use ads, and if they didn't, I probably would be happy to pay or donate (if only to keep all the topical forums in one place and not revert to dark ages of phpBB and linear discussion threads). But let's not cheat ourselves - the ads are not paying for the content, they are merely supporting an efficient platform.

flgr 11y ago

I thought I was clever and tried to enable it from the Apple News web browser so I wouldn't get ads there even when I follow links. But it doesn't seem to work due to third party cookies being blocked. I wonder if that also means it won't work anywhere else where an embedded web view is used. And I tried to see if it removes Video ads on YouTube (which I find very annoying), but that doesn't seem to be the case.

roymurdock 11y ago

> much of the web I know and love will cease to exist Which parts of the web are those exactly? You'd be surprised at how creative people can get when their livelihoods are threatened by changing business models. Those who come up with a better solution for monetizing good content will survive. Those who don't, or who had poor content to begin with, will be forced out of the market.

Zarel 11y ago
The problem is, the changed business model will often be worse, because if it were better, we'd already have switched to it by now. Look at the main alternatives – subscription is the usual other one. And subscription will probably be enough to keep the big sites like Google and Facebook afloat, but for smaller sites, they'd just go under. Not to mention subscription biases the wealthy – suddenly, the poor are locked out of a lot of sites.

lighthawk 11y ago

> or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that will do it for them. If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model. Google is great. I think in many ways they've made the world a better place. Google is very ad revenue dependent. Ad revenue sponsored all of the great television shows and radio shows from the beginning. I don't think that advertising should go away because it makes great things by Google and media companies possible. However, I see absolutely no problem whatsoever in blocking ads on my own without paying Google. Tivo allows ad blocking. DVRs allow ad blocking. I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate just to block ads.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
untog 11y ago
> Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. Much of it is, yes. Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do. Not that I have any answers here - I think your DVR comparison is fair.
- Animats 11y ago
  "Meanwhile, publications like the New York Times still depend on online advertising to continue to exist in the way they do." Not any more. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist are all paywalled. Those are some of the few remaining newspapers with sizable reporting staffs. Most other US "newspapers" have a few reporters, but mostly regurgitate wire services and press releases. The "fluff" sections (cars, real estate, food and wine, sports) are outsourced, sometimes to Demand Media, the content-farm company. Buy a newspaper and mark all the articles that didn't originate as a press release, press conference, national news service, or ad. There will not be many.

SlashmanX 11y ago

> Contributor doesn't work like an ad blocker, which makes ads just "disappear." Instead, you see a big empty block (that is apparently customizable in some way) that says "Thank you for being a contributor. The ad space is still there, it's just blank. So if half of your page used to be covered in ads, now half your page is covered in little blocks that say, "Thank you for being a contributor." The demo images/gifs make it seem like you can make the ad space disappear. Is this achieveable by replacing the placeholder with a custom 1x1px image? https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ (The 'or even this' image)

austenallred 11y ago
These are the options you're given in the settings: https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/Contributor_Preferences_Manager_eto21.png https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/Contributor_Pref... I suppose you could use a 1x1 pixel as a workaround, but that seems to be more of a hack than the way Google designed it to function.
- mattpavelle 11y ago
  There is a checkbox that says "Use custom URL" - it's even in your screenshot. It is obviously designed to insert something else - a 1x1 pixel for example. That is not a "hack" and as it is there for everyone, it clearly IS the way Google designed it to function.
ariwilson 11y ago
I think depending on how the site has their ad slots configured with their layout, they can disappear or not.

a3n 11y ago

If viewing contents without viewing ads is damaging to a site, they can block. Or they can provide N free views per X days, and then block. And provide a subscription mechanism. I think I must have been turned away from a site once or twice, but I really can't remember specifically. So they don't block. Which means, they get something out of the visit. Exposure, at least. The hope of an eventual subscription, as I subscribe to the NYT digital. But if they don't block, then they either get something out of those visit, or they're foolish. Either way, I'm not worried about them. At all.

manigandham 11y ago
Blocking adblock users is not as easy as it sounds. Many of the adblockers also maintain rules and filters to actively get around this. Paywalls are the only sure fire way to keep people out.
- a3n 11y ago
  It may not be easy. Wired seems to know how, they ask me to unblock when I visit. Same with Reddit (years ago) and duckduckgo.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    Most adblockers these days get rid of those messages as well. And asking you to unblock is not the same as stopping you completely - the only way to do that is paywalls.
    - a3n 11y ago
      Yes, but the point is, if they have the ability to ask, whether my blocker blocks the ask message or not, then they know I'm using an ad blocker, and they can refuse to serve me content, or redirect me to a subscription/registration page. But they keep on letting me view their content. It's their problem.
      - 11y ago

mstade 11y ago

> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. Yes – content creators should get paid. Also, not all ads are bad. Some campaigns even make such an impression on popular culture that they have their own place in history. But the campaigns that won't? Well, basically anything coming out of ad machines like adsense and what not. Ads can be tasteful, even enjoyable, but most of the internet ads aren't. Unlike broadcast tv, you can block internet ads; it's easy to do, and you should. Not because it'll kill content creators or indie app makers[1] or whatever, because it won't. It'll hurt the revenue streams of shitty ad mongers like adsense and doubleclick and facebook and admob and what have you. These are – in my opinion – on the same shitty level as porn peddlers. They sell crap for pennies, but they win because you just won't reach out to everyone otherwise. Google and Twitter and Facebook and all of the shitty ad platform snake-oil salesmen are the broadcasters of today – and their messages suck. Not only do their messages suck, but people – good people – spend valuable time they'll never get back in order to produce these shitty ads. Time they could have spent doing something useful. Instead they made a shitty flash banner that won't play anyway because everyone blocks flash. Ads of this kind need to be blocked so we can get to a point where advertising can be good. Where it requires thought, effort, research. Where it requires smart people, creative people, coming up with things that matter and are contextually relevant. The shitty ads we have today need to be blocked to preserve bandwidth, and to help make our planet perhaps die a little bit less every year. Blocking ads on the internet is easy, and doesn't require fancy heuristics or anything. It just requires black lists and hive minds. Ads that are not peddled through "platforms" or however you'd like to describe it – sponsored articles like those on Daring Fireball or increasingly in news papers these days – are less easy to block, and require more effort. But those ads aren't annoying, and they may not be entirely relevant but at least you don't want to throw up because you're fed up with their bullshit. So it becomes a cost/benefit calculation – is it worth the time and energy to block all ads, or are some ads ok? To me the answer to that is simple: ads are ok. The ad-porn that inflicts the internet today, through adsense and the rest of the ad-platform mob, can die a painful death in fire. Fuck 'em, I'm blocking their shitty ads left-right-center. [1]: http://blog.desk.pm/df/ http://blog.desk.pm/df/

mstade 11y ago

cwilkes 11y ago

I love not seeing ads. Well, technically you're not "seeing" ads but I'm pretty sure your information is still being traded to data providers. This actually works to google's advantage. They reduce ad blindness and when an actual ad appears it will be highly targeted and probably gives Google a lot more revenue per ad.

codingdave 11y ago

So you pay the highest level for it, and think it is a good idea... yet a few days ago, you said: "Google Contributor is terrible. Not because it doesn't work, but because it still leaves big green gaps where the ads were saying, "Thank you for using contributor!" Not even mentioning the fact that it only works on a minority of ads, the green boxes are even more annoying than the ads were."

Paulods 11y ago

|1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. One of the nice things about ads is that it allows many users to browse content for free - subsidised by those that interact with adverts. If advertising were to go away and micro-payments replace it - how do users get free access to content subsidised by the masses? I can freely browse the most internet today from anywhere in the world regardless of my income situation. A micro-payments barrier to entry isn't going to allow that. Also those who are most likely to pay for a solution like this are likely the most affluent who are likely to be the ones clicking and buying products through advertising.

spenvo 11y ago

> I hope Google can expand it A few days ago I remarked on Twitter: "sad that Contributor, a great alternative to ads/tracking, is owned & marketed by Google, which has more to lose than gain from promoting it"[0] The idea behind Contributor is a powerful one: one that if aggressively marketed and expanded, could (at least conceivably) provide a viable hybrid model for online content publishing (that could coexist with ad-tech). But Google is a one-trick pony (with ads, obviously) and has everything at stake here. That makes Contributor feel like more of a defensive "moat" initiative -- there to passively discourage others from pursuing (or investing in) similar ideas. Maybe I'm being too cynical. I too am happily subscribed to Contributor--the most dramatic difference is The Next Web -- where the crazy canvas-flying ads are toggled off. [0] - https://twitter.com/spencenow/status/646480765794975744 https://twitter.com/spencenow/status/646480765794975744

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Yeah. This seems like a typical Google half-measure with little thought put into it. It's a shame because there is so much that could be done, but companies like google just don't care enough, yet, to actually put in the work.

Winsaucerer 11y ago

You have some good thoughts here. I do not think that Google Contributor is the answer, though it's in the right ballpark. The advantages of Google Contributor are reasonably clear. There is at least: 1. Works through Google's existing advertising systems, so easier for them to implement. 2. Minimal work for websites to sign up. 3. Advertisements disappear, while supporting websites. 4. Very little work for the end user to get started. But the disadvantages to me seem quite strong. A few: 1. Advertisers (e.g., Google), can still track you. Those with privacy concerns won't have those concerns addressed. 2. Doesn't remove all ads (even if you pay the maximal amount, it only affects Google ads, as you say). 3. Effectively creates more competition for the ad spots, driving the prices up (good for Google). 4. Does not change content layout. 5. Google still controls the space, where it would be better for the website owner to be able to use that space themselves. 6. Pricing is not clear. What exactly am I getting for what I pay? As competition increases, price goes up. As an end user, I like to know how much I need to pay to get a particular service. I don't want to have to give it much thought. I do think it's great that you're willing to support websites in removing ads. An Adblock Plus survey suggests that there are many users who would be willing to donate, so you're not alone. Full disclosure: I run https://webpass.io https://webpass.io, a service to give money back to the content creators in a way that completely bypasses the advertising industry, rather than working through it (thus protecting privacy). Gives the power to the website owner to control their content, not Google.