6 ms·

As a content creator who runs two websites and relies on ads to pay bills because my actual job doesn't cover the costs, I say fuck anything that's trying to bl

• drdeca 11y ago
  I mean, if you get users to specifically and intentionally agree to not block your ads, then I would say they are obligated to not block your ads. (say, for example, a cookie-based "do you agree to not block ads on this website" thing for first time users) But at any point before that, as far as ads go, I think users have the right to run what software they will. Though I choose not to block ads.
• executesorder66 11y ago
  How would you like to be continually forced to perceive everything you hate, while others profit off of your pain? Edited: to conform to site rules.
  • dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.
    • executesorder66 11y ago
      Thanks. I have altered my comment.
  • TheLogothete 11y ago
    Why do you feel forced? Stop using websites which rely on advertising. Simple enough.
    • executesorder66 11y ago
      I don't feel forced at all. I use adblockers and my problem goes away. However I was talking about the 'fuck adblockers because I need ads to support my hosting costs' mentality. Those people want to force people to view ads so that they can make some money.
      • TheLogothete 11y ago
        Why do you feel entitled to use their services? Don't you think that makes you a hypocrite?
        • executesorder66 11y ago
          I don't feel entitled to use their services. They put content on a publicly accessible server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I sometimes choose to) They also link ads on the same server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I always choose not to) If they took their content away, I wouldn't give a shit. There are many other things I can, and do, spend my time on. Since I never paid for their content, and they never asked me to pay for it, I have no expectation of what must happen with the content. Edit:formatting and spelling.
          • TheLogothete 11y ago
            Then why do you use their services? You know certain companies provide a free service because they can serve ads alongside with the service and this is how they operate. You chose to use their business, but to obstruct their business model intentionally. This is hypocrisy at its finest. Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad at all. Well, a little bit, but for a totally different reason. Advertising is not going anywhere. In fact, it will grow incredibly in the coming years. And the actions and attitude of people like you will make it way more invasive and amoral than it currently is. Congratulations on running adblock. You stuck it to the man!
            • executesorder66 11y ago
              I click on a link because I might find it interesting. I risk my time and data going to that link because the content might be worth it. If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link. The advertisers/website take a risk by placing ads. They know people hate ads. They know people might use adblockers. They know most people that don't ignore the ads anyway. People who run botnets that spam the living fuck out of millions of email addresses have the exact same business model. Send lots of unwanted advertising to masses of people hoping for that one idiot who will take the bait. Is using a spam filter obstructing their business model? No, because one of the main risks that the business model accounts for is the fuckload of spam filtering that is used. Putting ads on your website as a business model, is using a business model based on risk. The risk that many people will have no response to an advert. People who use adblockers are built into that risk. So I am not obstructing it. So I don't see how it is hypocrisy at all. To me personally spam and ads on a website are exactly the same thing. In fact all advertising (radio, TV, posters, door to door sales, cold calls) is spam by my definition. I don't want to be told what I need/want. I know what I need/want and I will go find the products/services to satisfy that need/want by myself. No advertising necessary. Why are you a little bit mad? What would you suggest everyone should do? I fully agree that advertising will grow worse and worse. And I also agree that adblockers are accelerating this process. And I'm glad about that. I can't wait for the whole advertising industry to become so evil and abhorrent to the human civilization that it becomes illegal on a global scale. In the mean time, let the arms race continue. I don't see how the advertising industry will ever win. And no, I don't run adblock to "Stick it to the man". I run adblock because I hate adverts. But if by "the man" you mean the advertising industry, then yes. Congratulations to me. Fuck them. I hope I make their lives difficult. I can't wait until their whole industry implodes. Even if it takes another 200 years, then I'll be glad I contributed in a small way to their downfall.
    • lmm 11y ago
      Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker.
      • TheLogothete 11y ago
        Do you use google? Android? Youtube? Facebook? Twitter? Reddit? Do you visis newspaper sites? Do you know they run ads? Do you still use them even when you know they run ads?
        • lmm 11y ago
          There's a level of annoyingness I'll tolerate from ads; small text ads or images are fine, autoplaying sound or anything that slows down my computer when I load the page is not.
          • TheLogothete 11y ago
            Thanks for replying. While reading your reply, I noticed you didn't answer the questions. How come?
            • drdeca 11y ago
              The implicit answer was probably along the lines of "I don't block ads on Google and such, because those ads are tolerable. I know Google has tolerable ads, and so I willingly allow those ads to display, and use Google and such". I'm not them though, so I'm not certain. If you had tried a bit harder, I think you could probably have determined what answers they intended for the questions you asked. Well, not whether they used specific sites, because that was probably irrelevant to what you wanted to know/the point you were making. But for the actual point of your question, you could have probably determined how they intended what they said to correspond to your questions. I mean, obviously it's difficult to do that when talking to someone one disagrees with (sometimes it will take me a number of paragraphs of my response until I figure out a way to interpret what was said in a way that makes significantly more sense than the first interpretation I noticed). So, it's certainly understandable to not realize a more reasonable interpretation. But at the same time, it's I think generally better to look for one, to see if one can find one.
• jlarocco 11y ago
  If the content you've created is so awesome, charge money for it. As far as I'm concerned, web advertising is on the same level as spam, and it's preying on the same group of end users. In fact, web advertising might even be sleazier than spam, because spam doesn't track people around the internet.
  • zepolen 11y ago
    You can't charge money on each and every site, it makes no sense for eg. a blog and even if it did - transaction fees would make it infeasible. A blog still costs money to run/host, it has to get paid somehow. Ads are basically a bad implementation of micropayments that the internet seriously needs. First company to solve the problem of charging 0.000x per request will become the next Big Thing. I think only the ISPs would be able to do this though, metered and bandwidth cost sharing, internet as a utility like gas/elecricity.
    • FuckOffNeemo 11y ago
      Then don't? Just ask for a donation if you think the website is useful and enjoyable (I'm cross referencing posts alot in this article, but see what I said earlier about NexusMods). I don't expect people will want to pay just to log into your site and that's not a business model they want to use. But if I can pay an optional $0.50C for every site I regularly frequent to skip their ads. Which assists them in providing a web service or content I want to consume. That's the road I will take. I want to help the content creators but I won't consume their advertisement material.
      • TheLogothete 11y ago
        How about when you see a site owner who explicitly tells you not to enter his website if you have adblock, you just leave? His content is not worth it anyways, so why do you need another blocker to block his adblocker blocker?
        • drdeca 11y ago
• FuckOffNeemo 11y ago
  Give me an option where I can pay you directly for your web service, whether it's a monthly offering or a life time subscription. See my earlier post regarding Nexus Mods. If I like your site and I continually visit it. I'll shed out cash to consume your service. But not your providers shitty ads.
• _ph_ 11y ago
  I understand your situation and there are a lot of good small websites which depend on ads to survive. However, in case you are using the larger ad networks to generate revenue, you are doing so at the expense of your site visitor. They pay for your site with their privacy (trackers) and their network bandwidth, which can be expensive in the case of mobile. On top of that, these ad networks also sometimes serve malware. So, everyone who wants to finance a web site through ad revenue needs to consider using add providers like the deck, which serve less bandwidth-using and more trustworthy ads or even self-host reviewed ads and then ask the visitors to not block them. Currently, I am running adblockers except a few trusted sites. If a site does not allow me using an adblocker, I rather tend to leave the site than to add exception.
• belorn 11y ago
  Ads on TV, news papers, radio, buses, and so on has to follow the same advertisement laws in Sweden. Publishers can not publish advertisement for tobacco or alcohol products, and may not have advertisement that is intended for minors. Sweden also has very strict privacy law regarding private information, and a company may only record and store information that is relevant for billing purposes. Additionally a company that distribute malware is fully liable for any damages caused and can be charged under criminal law if done knowingly. Publishers need to either curate the advertisement or be very careful if they subcontract the work to someone else. The wild west of web based advertisement is going the same route as email based advertisement. It has lost the customers trust, and from there blocking is the primary tool available to protect against abuse.
• alkonaut 11y ago
  If you serve proper ads and not scripted tracking borderline malware ads through ad-networks, no one would block you. No I can't opt out of viewing your site because I disagree to some kinds of ads, because I don't know what kind of ads you serve. So I block all tracking ads. Either find a way to charge people for your content (with money, not their data/privacy), or even better: ask companies if they would be willing to advertise on your site directly without tracking. What's that? You can't find any companies who would do that? Can't find the time to both create site content and chase advertising money? Can't make content that people would pay for with money? Here is an idea: just shut down your site until you can find a business model that doesn't involve selling your visitors data.
• lagadu 11y ago
  Very simple: put a paywall up. I mean, I know you wont because you're afraid you'll find exactly how little your content is worth and you want to continue making those sweet advertising €€€ but perhaps you should consider moving to a business that doesn't rely on selling the people who are interested in your content to the highest bidder.