25 ms·

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effe

by jordigh 11y ago

I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point.[1] I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe it would be? -- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10244964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10244964

FredFredrickson 11y ago
If this were attempted, I think we'd have a LOT of talk about what truly is an ad and what isn't. I mean, the web banners and billboards we see every day don't do a lot to actually sell products. But your friend telling you they really love a particular product helps a lot. But in a society where a movement such as you've described was in motion, would both be equally as bad? Are both not manipulative in their own way?
- jordigh 11y ago
  I'm thinking something like what São Paulo implemented, https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Without_Ads.html https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Witho... Or, perhaps, you only get ads when requested. "I'm in the market for a new refrigerator. Please show me ads for refrigerators." But still, I have a fundamental problem with how all advertising has a slant, and at least a hint of a lie or manipulation. I do not like being lied to or manipulated, but I don't know what the alternative would be.
  - lmm 11y ago
    The followup article I saw here a few months ago suggested that Sao Paulo hasn't found that entirely successful, and has allowed a significant amount of advertising back.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      I tried looking for this, I really did, but I couldn't find it. Can you find this information and put it in Wikipedia? I tried reading both the English and Portuguese articles, and I couldn't find what you are talking about. The only thing I saw in the Portuguese Wikipedia is that 8 years later they're having problems with illegal electoral flyers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cidade_Limpa https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cidade_Limpa
      - lmm 11y ago
        I tried looking too before posting the comment, honest. But all I've got is a vague memory of reading it on HN a few months ago. Sorry.
  - jpadkins 11y ago
    you should stop browsing the web if you don't want to be manipulated or read content with a slant. 99% of the organic content on the web is trying to manipulate you.
  - dota_fanatic 11y ago
    The alternative is for our culture to have standards and expect more, and to build the technology to support that level of transparency. Wouldn't it be nice if you could instantly have a high level analysis of every refrigerator available (new or used) in terms of its objective qualities? With scientific units of measurement and everything? How about information on how the parts were sourced and manufactured? Unfortunately the majority of the world aren't even close to being in a position to have such standards, expect more, and have the education to evaluate the evidence. The power is in all the wrong places.
billconan 11y ago
I want to say exactly the same thing. I block ads because I don't want to see ads at all. As long as there is the ad blocker, I don't want to use brave.
- jbigelow76 11y ago
  If you don't want to see ads at all why not just refrain from visiting the offending sites?
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    To know that there are ads at all you first need to visit the website.
  - VLM 11y ago
    There's no free market on the internet. I can balance dirty facilities, long lines, bad service, and product quality pretty easy on brick and mortar, from Walmart/Kmart at the bottom up to the nicest designer shops. Same thing with food, nobody goes to McDonalds for a top of the line steak dinner. On the internet all we got is I'm guessing I'd like to see your content but not your ads based on extensive past experience. The internet, believe it or not, is too small and disorganized, no matter how big and indexed and tracked it seems. Sure, we are learning what domains mean useless clickbait, but its not smooth and I don't know its an offending site until I'm already offended. The next step up from ad blocking is domain blocking. At the browser rendering level, once I've had enough, goodbye to all links pointing to salon, perhaps. That'll result in spam style domain name registration to clickbait from in 2020 vs email spam from in 2000, everything old is new again, sooner or later.
  - billconan 11y ago
    the apparent answer is because I need the content. admittedly, ad is a legit monetization method. browsing a site with ads blocked is like pirating a software. but some sites are doing it too much, for example, I often see ad blocker blocks 40 more ads on a single page. that's insane! some commercials are super retarded, like those Geico ones! there was a Geico commercial with a single line: "you can't unwatch this commercial because you have already watched it!" Man, I'd pay super hard to block it.
needz 11y ago
I'd rather have ads I can block than "sponsored content" which may or may not even be labelled as such.
RodericDay 11y ago
I can't emphasize this enough. Every time someone rattles out a list of "annoyances" regarding ads, I wish that I could plead with them to consider that there's even bigger reasons. Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in return. This means that someone out there is being influenced by said ads, so that if the content cost X to put up online (hosting, funding its creation), someone is paying X+(ad company overhead) for it. If these costs are being borne evenly, then it's complete societal waste. We could pay X for the content, and not incur the overhead. If these costs are not borne evenly, and some people are paying for the consumption of more disciplined people, it's probably contributing to terrible cycles of poverty (ie: some kid spending money on fancy new shoes he doesn't need and can't afford is paying for a well-paid tech-users YouTube habits, because it preys on their lack of education). Either way it's terrible. Advertising isn't free. Insofar it works, for some people, it's basically coercive via psychology and simulated peer pressure.
- tamana 11y ago
  The yellow pages (remember that old book?) is advertising. Is that coercive?
  - athenot 11y ago
    Yes when you open it to look for a plumber and see an ad for a pressure-washing service. You were happy with your driveway but now feels it needs something else. At least with the yellow pages, we were able to close the book once done. With the web, it's anywhere, all the time and with machine learning to make it adjust in real time to your preferences.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >We could pay X for the content, and not incur the overhead. Sure we could, but it's extremely clear that only hyper-specialized niches are willing to do that when someone else is providing similar content at no monetary cost to the end user. Like it or not, the market has spoken; they want content in exchange for ads, and are not willing to pay the content provider directly. >Advertising isn't free. Insofar it works, for some people, it's basically coercive via psychology and simulated peer pressure. I've bought ads before. I just wanted people to find out about my product. Short of a guerilla spam campaign, it's the only way to get exposure. I've since learned that so many people tune out ads that guerilla spam campaigns (formal spam campaigns are known as "PR") are really the only way to beat competitors.
marrone12 11y ago
Well people would start to need paying for content instead of entitling themselves to have everything for free.
logingone 11y ago
I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. Interesting. I'm the opposite. I've yet to encounter an ad that has a hope in hell of manipulating me at all. I couldn't be more dismissive of them. And if I encounter one too often my dislike of the company starts to grow. "It's show time, and you've been coding like a beast..." really pissed me off. They're throwing garbage at me, they want my money, I want my money, I'm at war with them.
- jordigh 11y ago
  > I've yet to encounter an ad that has a hope in hell of manipulating me at all. If you know what "just do it", "the happiest place on Earth", "think different", or "the world's most advanced operating system" refer to, you've already been manipulated. A lot of ads are just about making sure you have a particular brand in mind and you're keenly aware of that brand's existence. Then, when time comes around to actually buy something, you'll think back to that brand. There's a lot of sneaky group psychology in the advertising industry.
  - logingone 11y ago
    That works both ways. In the UK, presumably elsewhere too, there are long running themed adverts - they drive me nuts on the occasions that I don't hit the mute button soon enough. Brits will know the mongooses, and the two marathon runners, supposedly humorous - incessant, for years on end. Never, ever will I use those services.
    - J-dawg 11y ago
      Ugh, I'm right with you. When I renewed my car insurance recently, I avoided using either of the 2 comparison sites for exactly that reason. I wonder if brands ever do market research on the number of people actively repelled by their adverts.
      - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
ams6110 11y ago
I'm exactly the opposite. I've never intentionally clicked on a web ad. Most of the time I mentally filter them, and don't really even notice them. I don't feel that ads manipulate me -- but they do slow me down. So I use a hosts file which is IMHO the best result/least effort approach, but I try ad blockers occasionally.
smacktoward 11y ago
So you're willing to pay out of your own pocket for all these things you enjoy, right? Right? Right?
- jordigh 11y ago
  Right. Sell premium movie ticket prices that do not have ads (although I like previews, those can stay). Sell me a subscription to duckduckgo, payable in bitcoins or similar. Paywall every newspaper website. These are far more honest approaches in my view.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > Paywall every newspaper website. Nearly every newspaper website is already paywalled, and every time someone posts a story from those sites to HN all the comments are people complaining about the paywalls. HN even added a special little link to let people skip around them, because why would we want to encourage people to pay for quality work they appreciate?
    - jordigh 11y ago
      No, do it for real. Paywall completely. Keep the Googlebot out too. If people want to read a newspaper, they'll have to hear from their friends how great it is.
      - jay_kyburz 11y ago
        I agree, and you know what? I think online newspapers could be so much better. Imagine an online paper where, instead of just mimicking a real newspaper with story after story, a site that collects facts, history as it happens, and weaves them together to form a cohesive stream that a reader can explore in all kinds of innovative ways. You can still have he said / she said news. Still make it dramatic, but allow the user to follow the protagonist, step back in time to see what else they have said, what brought them to this point in time. Or folly the ripples outwards, how did what was said affect others, how did it interact with other stories. I want to do an online news startup one day. It will be one where everybody thinks I'm crazy when I start it.
bobajeff 11y ago
Ads by themselves don't bother me that much I certainly understand the convictions against them but I don't share them. It's just much better to browse the web with them blocked. I don't hate ads just what they do to my computer and phone.
bsznjyewgd 11y ago
In a broad (and rather optimistic) sense, advertising informs you of available opportunities, not just things that you can buy. I guess you can try to separate it into "selling products and services" versus "brand promotion and awareness" versus "public service announcements", but the line can be fuzzy and gray. I don't have anything against ads on webpages in general, but I really hate anything with sound/animation or focus-stealing like pop-up/interstitual/hiding/whatever. I don't block ads because I'm lazy, and because I think it's an acceptable payment model for content, but I just leave the page if the ads annoy me enough. FWIW, the only ads I've actually purchased services/products from are when I'm actually searching for them and they come up as sponsored results or sidebar ads.
colept 11y ago
> because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need So in 10 years, are you going to not visit any website because all the advertising will go native? Most people are scared of the devil they know, but few are afraid of the devil they don't.
Joeri 11y ago
The purpose of advertising is to make you buy more than you need. The economy relies strongly on people buying much more than they need. If you got rid of advertising, it would temporarily destroy the economy, until a new normal is reached, and long term it would save the environment due to heavily reduced consumption. Also, it could bring about the keynesian fantasy where people work only 12 hours a week, because that's all they need to work to produce what is needed. Then again, maybe it wouldn't make a difference. It would be an interesting experiment nevertheless.
- brador 11y ago
  > The purpose of advertising is to make you buy more than you need. That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at the situation. There is also the purpose of telling you about a product you can buy that might possibly be beneficial to your lifestyle. Through advertising you get to find out about that product faster, something especially important in these days of brisk innovation.
  - Joeri 11y ago
    I can't recall ever having learned anything of value from an ad, but YMMV. Still, it's not cynical to say that advertising is meant to make you buy more, because that's why ad space is bought: to boost sales. And it's also not cynical to say that those extra sales would not have occurred without the ad, hence they were for goods people could have done without. Something which can be done without is unneeded, hence, it is not cynical to say ads are meant to make you buy things you don't need. Or rather, they're meant to make you think you need more than you did before. Advertising is the engine of consumerism.
    - brador 11y ago
      > And it's also not cynical to say that those extra sales would not have occurred without the ad, hence they were for goods people could have done without Here's the error. Yes, they were products the target could have done without, but not something they can do without once they have the product. Consider: The first iPhone. A device that opens possibilities to improve your life that never existed before. You could do without it, but once you have it you can't do without it. I think you'd have appreciated an ad for the original iPhone if it eventually led to you buying one.
tamana 11y ago
Eich isn't missing the point; he is being practical and not catering to your freeloading and obscure politics.
- rockdoe 11y ago
  I'm not sure replacing a site's ads with your own is beating "freeloading".
- stonogo 11y ago
  Freeloading? You're missing the point; we're not catering to your sense of entitlement.
  - imtringued 11y ago
    So where is your magical solution that puts food on the table of the content creators but doesn't rely on selling user data or displaying ads?
    - stonogo 11y ago
      I'm not responsible for putting food on their tables. Perhaps if their content is worth money, they can charge for it. If they can't get people to pay for their content, maybe they should consider a line of work they can monetize without subjecting every single transaction to third-party skimming and engendering massive surveillance projects.
      - imtringued 11y ago
        The problem with that approach is that you put everything behind a wall. Only the "rich" will have access to information. I wouldn't call that a free (as in freedom) and open web.
        stonogo 11y ago
        I disagree. Libraries existed before the internet, and if the internet were healthy, it would contain an analog.
wrsh07 11y ago
So I think I largely understand your point. But I am genuinely curious to know how you would then get information about products. Would it be on-demand research only? Would you browse lists of new products [eg the Wirecutter's "Realist guide to CES"]? I do both of these already, and I do have js disabled on most sites, and I think ads mis-align the incentives of publishers... But I think that there are demographics that benefit from ad-supported [ie free] stuff more than I do.
BrendanEich 11y ago
I get your point, and it is a good one. We have a micro payments channel to publishers, frictionless and anonymous, under construction, for folks who want no ads and who will pay. Other users than you will be able to mix and match, too: better and more private ads on sites they don't support, with a revenue share to these users that they can spend on sites they do. We aren't saying "only ads". We do see ads as a necessary funding model for much of the web today. I would love to see micropayments replace ads. Let's see what can be done.
- imonabout 11y ago
  I would love if it was more viable to choose between ads and payment. I don't know how much my current Web habits would end up costing. But if it was a lot, I could stand to cut down on my Web surfing. There are after all other worthwhile things to do.
  - Brakenshire 11y ago
    If this browser is planning to block obtrusive / non-performant ads, and replace them with others, presumably they will have to work out how to pay the website owners. They could use the same structure to set up a micropayments.
- akkartik 11y ago
  Just to add the opposing viewpoint: after watching browsers get incredibly sluggish over the past year on up-to-date hardware (desktop and mobile), I absolutely care about speed and bandwidth consumption[1]. So Brave's 'manifesto' absolutely resonates. Very happy to see the principal agent problem on the web stated so clearly. I've been calling it the tragedy of the commons in comments here and elsewhere. Thanks! [1] And security and privacy, they're the basic minimum the world needs, right? Grandparent seems too quick to dismiss them.
  - chippy 11y ago
    >tragedy of the commons I suspect it's also due to developers getting and using the latest hardware (i.e. top range Mac Book Pros) and as long as it works on their machine, with all bells and whistles, they don't care about any of their users with slower machines. Same with phones - older phones are out of date because the updated apps get bloated and bloated for them but are not bloated for the developers.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wfo 11y ago
I agree ads are bad but the current state of the web is disgusting, it's barely recognizable as a conduit for any real information. People hail the internet as a great way to find information -- if you type anything into the google search bar you're curious about, you either get wikipedia, which is clean and usually pretty great if incomplete, or clickbait ad-filled trash that gives you one sentence of content before you click "next", repeated 10 times downloading megabytes of data, tracking your habits, and grinding your machine to a halt, possibly infecting you with drive-by malware. This feels to me like much needed incremental progress. Let's not give up on solving anything just because we can't fix everything we don't like all at once. I clicked the HN link about ISIS fighter's salaries. Constant flash video playing in the other tab, CPU usage at 50%, obnoxious sounds pouring out of it. This should not be allowed to happen, we don't need to tolerate this kind of bad behavior on the part of websites. And even 'respectable' sites like newspapers do it.
- ashark 11y ago
  Google either lost and surrendered or simply stopped caring about the war against crappy spam sites in search results sometime around '08/'09. Combining with a bunch of other things this led, IMO, to a reversal in what had been a steady increase in the quality of the web[1]. By around '11/'12 most of the web that wasn't crappy spam sites came to strongly resemble crappy spam sites. Anything like real, quality content not on a handful of major sites (e.g. Wikipedia) is either gone or impossible to find via search without knowing precisely what you're looking for. See also: all sites and news organizations everywhere embracing terrible clickbait titles over traditional, informative ones. [1] Like a massive jump in Javascript use and page sizes killing performance, and the expansion of Facebook/Twitter and the related death of the "no-one knows you're a dog" web.
- petercooper 11y ago
  if you type anything into the google search bar [..] you either get wikipedia [..] or clickbait ad-filled trash that gives you one sentence of content before you click "next", repeated 10 times downloading megabytes of data Hyperbolic to the extreme and rarely true.
- callalex 11y ago
krupan 11y ago
I remember Google's unobtrusive text-only ads. Those were often actually helpful to me, letting me know of products or services that I might actually be interested in that I didn't otherwise know about. If all adds were like that plus fast-loading and not invasive of privacy or security, I'd be just fine with them.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  "actually helpful" and "not invasive of privacy" are in tension.
thetmkay 11y ago
Agreed. Many of the use-cases for ads have been replaced by search engines, marketplaces and aggregator sites. There's troves of information and access out there for a consumer to make informed purchasing choices. If I need something, I can actively find it. The use-case for ads is: 1. I don't need the thing 2. I am not aware of my need for thing Advertisers probably claim (2) when almost certainly it's just (1)
inanutshellus 11y ago
I disagree... I find ads an extremely agreeable way for the web to run. I get what I want for free, you get money just simply because someone's ad showed up. Sweet. What I don't care for is the idea that one or two megacorps know everything about me. So I selectively use ad-block software to keep the Big Boys from overly tracking me. I find your version of the future--in which ad networks are gone and content proviers stay around because they provide their services "just for giggles" or require micro+ payments--unpalatable.
trevmckendrick 11y ago
Then you wouldn't know the best places to get food, water, or shelter.
branchless 11y ago
Yes! No surrender to the manipulative ad-men. I said that to my son the other day "it's a stupid advert because I don't need anything". Most adverts are trying to make you feel bad and that consuming their product will fill the hole they just made. Enough of these disgusting people.
tutuca 11y ago
Rio stripped street ads because of visual pollution [1]. Quito and some other cities in Ecuador did the same. It didn't impact the economy negatively. It makes the city way more pleasant to walk around. This is specially annoying in "newspaper" sites, where content should be king (I mean, guys, you are already ton of money selling your printed version) and you are welcomed with a full page ad that is not related to the content nor my interests. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/clean-rio-stripping-away-visual-pollution_n_1474502.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/clean-rio-stripping...
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > I mean, guys, you are already ton of money selling your printed version Not at all. Printed paper is definitely on the decline - just compare what's easier to do e.g. at a train or while drinking your morning coffee: holding a huge-ass 1 m² newspaper while the train is shaking and the crowd makes it impossible to stretch your arm, or, holding a notebook/tablet/phablet to read.
- cowpewter 11y ago
  Newspapers don't really make money selling their printed versions. That's why the printed version is full of ads in the first place. Advertisers pay for printed newspapers to exist.
mozumder 11y ago
> I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I don't understand this argument. How are ads "manipulating" you? They're just ads. They're not an argumentative authority figure with a gun. The only reason to block ads is because of speed of user experience. The "manipulation" argument is the weakest reason to block ads. In any case, you manipulate other people for your own personal benefit. Everyone does. Just talking to people is "manipulation".
- amorphid 11y ago
  I am affected by my environment. Aren't you? A page full of ads for things that tend to make me feel slightly less optimal is, well, suboptimal.
  - theg2 11y ago
    Are you that impressionable that you run out to buy every little thing that is shown to you? How do you propose that journalism, creative works, and other medias that are heavily supported by ads exist? Pretty much everyone in this thread says they won't do payment, will block ads, and seemingly has a problem with people earning a living who aren't software developers or startup owners.
    - punee 11y ago
      Oh but the livelihood of software developers and startup owners also depends on advertising, or even worse gasp... SALES (direct manipulation!!). They just can't admit it.
  - nugget 11y ago
    In the absence of ads-that-are-obviously-ads don't you think that clever marketers would just migrate to native ads disguised as content? There's something to be said for a clear line of separation between ads and content. It seems naive to think that the concept of ''advertising'' would ever be eliminated full stop, given how human nature works. You might enjoy this read, which an MD friend of mine sent to me the other day: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/17/pharma-virumque/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/17/pharma-virumque/
sputr 11y ago
That's the exact case I just tried to make in a blog[1] yesterday. Ads are a BAD solution to the problem of financing content creation. There are business models out there, not fringe ones, but big examples, where free content with volunteer fan donations WORK. Ads were a quick fix, but if we want content created for consumers, money will have to come from consumers directly. Yes, these models can't yet support a creator by themselves, but the share has been getting better and there has been a quite noticeable effect on content. [1] http://thescepticalpirate.eu/adblock-destroying-ads-good/ http://thescepticalpirate.eu/adblock-destroying-ads-good/
specialist 11y ago
I block ads because I can.
agumonkey 11y ago
I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target), I do respond a lot to efficiency arguments a lot. I felt delighted to find better adblockers (less lag, less heat, more battery). The ad problem won't go away, unless you're top tier brand your business rely on it. You may tame it but it's like weed, it comes back.
- jbigelow76 11y ago
  >I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target) That seems dubious unless you spend all your time browsing sites you have no interest in. If I spent all day browsing ad-supported sites about antique Czechoslovakian sewing thimbles, then yeah, I'll buy your argument (no pun intended), but the sites I view show ads that fit expected areas of interest for my demographic. Just because you don't ever act on ads doesn't mean you aren't still a target.
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Then enjoy your doubting. Even on the geekiest websites I don't click on ads, I barely even see them; except when they slow down loading and rendering, Then I go mean in and pass it through printfriendly.com. And for other products well meh, I'm not a "consumer", and few ads will ever make me believe any product is really that valuable to me. I have soap and water thank you.
    - jbigelow76 11y ago
      I wasn't implying that I was dubious that you aren't interested in whatever is being advertised (though I see how it reads that way now). I was dubious that you aren't still a target no matter how futile the effort. If I throw a water balloon at you but don't hit you it doesn't mean you aren't the target.
      - agumonkey 11y ago
        Aight, I thought target meant clicking regularly or at least thinking about the product or brand shown.
manigandham 11y ago
Unless you have another way to subsidize content or are willing to pay directly (= micropayments, subscriptions, donations, taxes, purchases), then yes, it would be a massive problem for universally accessible internet content.
morgante 11y ago
If you don't want to see ads, don't use ad-supported content. Simple as that.
eli 11y ago
This startup might not be for you. That's ok and doesn't mean the author is doing something wrong.
necessity 11y ago
lol are you that easily maninupulated?
eli 11y ago
But this whole little website we're both posting on is essentially content marketing for a for-profit startup incubator. It even has "promoted content" in the form of job ads for YC backed companies. Why is that OK but display ads are not? If all sites switched to native ads does that make it better?
agentgt 11y ago
> I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe it would be? I'm not sure I agree all ads are associated with capitalism. Propaganda is one example. There are also ads for awareness and for non-profits. Also I have noticed that the best content that I like is typically ad free or at least doesn't have the buy-product-ads (e.g. PBS TV and NPR). This is the case with most media with the only exception being the Internet. The only time I have issues with ads is when I'm ironically either trying to buy something or I have decided to go low brow and click on some sleazy news.. (its like the South Park episode on ads.. they trick me..).
drumdance 11y ago
I want to browse content provided by companies that won't go out of business. I don't mind ads as long as they don't slow down the browser.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point. Not everything is about you. Some people are fine with seeing tasteful, non-intrusive ads to support content they really like (in my case, mostly smallish blogs and webcomics). By all means continue using the tools that serve your needs, and I'll do the same; but please stop acting like you're the only user who matters.
jldugger 11y ago
> Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe it would be? It kind of would. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. are all funded by selling ads. There's a few experiments with buying out ads, but when the current price is "free," any increase in price of these services to users is a huge increase in price with an expected equivalent decrease in users. As a fellow AdBlock user, we have a huge problem to reconcile: the sites we use by and large don't exist without someone clicking on ads. The Categorical Imperative Adblock would block not only the ads, but the website delivering them as well.
donatj 11y ago
I genuinely enjoy very well targeted advertising. It has actually made my life more enjoyable. It's happened to me on Facebook a couple times where there has been an advertisement for something that scratched an exact itch I didn't know there was a solution for. Honestly, I think if you're against ads, you just aren't getting good ones.
return0 11y ago
Then ads would slip into the "independent" news articles you read every day. All information disemination is advertising, it's part of our nature. Tin foil hats are not going to save you, but a good judgement will.
BurningFrog 11y ago
To anyone using the phrase "We, as a society, should do X": I don't understand what that means, and it makes me think you're babbling nonsense. If you mean a law should be passed, say that. If you mean something else, I honestly can't even guess what it is.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Terr_ 11y ago
They're all valuable, but IMO everybody assigns different weight to that suite of reasons, and even improving the privacy/security/speed aspects would be a net win.
echochar 11y ago
"Those are just nice-side effects." For me, not being baited into buying stuff is a nice side effect. I block ads because it's fun to see how badly Google, Apple, Microsoft, apps and websites want data about computer users. It's a game (I would guess that's how they see it); one that forces the user to be vigilant about networking.
tomcam 11y ago
"Enough, no more ads" == "Enough, no free speech" So no ads for Greenpeace? Your favorite political party? Your favorite union? Your favorite website?
orionblastar 11y ago
I do not want to be manipulated into buying stuff I don't need either. Yet advertising is how free websites stay free, they also collect data and sell it. I don't mind some ads, but some websites go overboard on ads and have more ads than content. What really annoys me are pop-up ads or ads that launch a new web browser window. Then there are ads that play some video and has someone talking in it. Then there are free download sites but some of the download buttons are ads that download adware stuff. Only one download button is the correct one. I can resist most ads, and I really cannot afford to buy things I see advertising for. I use UBlock Origin because some sites started to detect Adblock and refuse to show content. This Brave web browser is just the next in a line of ad blockers it is a web browser with an ad blocker built in. Advertising has gotten out of control and I pity the person without some sort of ad blocker that doesn't know any better and clicks on ads to get tool bars and other stuff installed. In order to combat ad blockers some sites have gone behind a paywall and need an account with a subscription to view content. Going back to the newspaper business model of subscribers and away from the free website paid for with ads. Some advertising like Adsense are not so bad, I don't mind those ads so much because they are not annoying.
robbrown451 11y ago
> I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point. Do you get the impression that you, and people whose values are identical to your own, are their only potential customer? I have no problem with ads, as long as they are not obnoxious and don't slow me down the site a lot. I accept the tradeoff. Some ads I actually like (such as an ad for a movie that seems interesting). It's not that rare for me to see an ad on YouTube that says "Skip Ad" and I watch it through till the end. I don't even mind some targeting and tracking, I just wish I had more control over it. Amazon does it, to show me things that they think I am interested in based on what I have looked at. It's not bothersome to me when they get it right. Although I was never as big on shopping as some people, I don't tend to mind looking at things I might like to own. Call it manipulation if you want....ok. I personally enjoy having a web that is mostly free, and don't begrudge people that try to make a living at producing content for me.
oxplot 11y ago
From top of my head, I can count 5 things I've purchased only after seeing an ad for it, that have improved my life immensely, solving issues that I'd never thought I had. One example is (be careful, I'm advertising here on someone's behalf) bellroy wallet. They aggressively advertised for a while. I bought one and I've kept it for years. Before that, I was purchasing one every half year and found no pleasure in using any after few weeks. So, I don't believe that I should buy things only when there is an existing "need". Just as is the case with science and technology.
ryan-allen 11y ago
I block ads after years of holding out because they have become too intrusive. I don't do it for privacy because I think there is none, but the speed is just a nice benefit. But I consider a site being slow because of ads as an intrusive effect.
johnnyfaehell 11y ago
The point of ads isn't actually to get you to go out and buy their goods. It's to get you to remember their name, so when you are buying goods and looking at that product range you're more likely to buy their goods. Because you know the name that some how that makes you more likely to buy it. So ads are all about getting you to know the name.
ionised 11y ago
In the end, I get to decide what the browser on my machine renders and displays to me. It's a piece of software under my control, and I am configuring it to avoid annoyances and manipulations. If advertisers don't like that then I'm not sure what I can say to assuage their concerns. Tough shit?
- mattmanser 11y ago
  In the next 3 years websites will increasingly block users with adblock. So the future is less tough shit and more total war.
  - ionised 11y ago
    FuckFuckAdblock basically highlights that there are ways to avoid adblock detectors.
JadeNB 11y ago
> I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. Surely, though, "this project does not fit my use case" is not the same as "this is a bad project and you should feel bad"? There are people who adblock just for those reasons, and who would (or claim that they would) allow through ads, to support content creators, if those concerns were obviated.
Grishnakh 11y ago
Fair enough, but speak for yourself. If ads were tiny, insignificant things that didn't chew up CPU and RAM resources (like with Javascript), didn't massively bloat the total size of a web page and use up my bandwidth, and didn't try to invade my privacy with tracking, then I simply wouldn't bother blocking them. If they were small, unobtrusive text-based ads like Google use to be really good at, then why would I care? Maybe you just can't stand advertising, but I don't think most people care as much as you do. I adblock precisely because of privacy, security, and speed. And without ads of any kind, it probably would be a capitalist apocalypse. How would Apple sell the iPhone or Samsung sell the Galaxy phones without advertising? Word of mouth? That's a pretty slow way to get the word out. Relying on the press? That might work for really big players (and how is that different from advertising anyway?), but it won't work for smaller firms selling more niche products. What if you're shopping on Amazon and you buy product X, but product Y would go really well with it? Right now, Amazon will frequently show you "other customers who bought this product also bought product Y". But without advertising, you wouldn't see that, so you'd be stuck only buying the exact thing you're looking for, and never getting any suggestions. I actually like getting those suggestions; I do buy things like that from time to time, things I wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

by jordigh 11y ago

FredFredrickson 11y ago

If this were attempted, I think we'd have a LOT of talk about what truly is an ad and what isn't. I mean, the web banners and billboards we see every day don't do a lot to actually sell products. But your friend telling you they really love a particular product helps a lot. But in a society where a movement such as you've described was in motion, would both be equally as bad? Are both not manipulative in their own way?

jordigh 11y ago
I'm thinking something like what São Paulo implemented, https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Without_Ads.html https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/73/Sao_Paulo_A_City_Witho... Or, perhaps, you only get ads when requested. "I'm in the market for a new refrigerator. Please show me ads for refrigerators." But still, I have a fundamental problem with how all advertising has a slant, and at least a hint of a lie or manipulation. I do not like being lied to or manipulated, but I don't know what the alternative would be.
- lmm 11y ago
  The followup article I saw here a few months ago suggested that Sao Paulo hasn't found that entirely successful, and has allowed a significant amount of advertising back.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    I tried looking for this, I really did, but I couldn't find it. Can you find this information and put it in Wikipedia? I tried reading both the English and Portuguese articles, and I couldn't find what you are talking about. The only thing I saw in the Portuguese Wikipedia is that 8 years later they're having problems with illegal electoral flyers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cidade_Limpa https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_Cidade_Limpa
    - lmm 11y ago
      I tried looking too before posting the comment, honest. But all I've got is a vague memory of reading it on HN a few months ago. Sorry.
- jpadkins 11y ago
  you should stop browsing the web if you don't want to be manipulated or read content with a slant. 99% of the organic content on the web is trying to manipulate you.
- dota_fanatic 11y ago
  The alternative is for our culture to have standards and expect more, and to build the technology to support that level of transparency. Wouldn't it be nice if you could instantly have a high level analysis of every refrigerator available (new or used) in terms of its objective qualities? With scientific units of measurement and everything? How about information on how the parts were sourced and manufactured? Unfortunately the majority of the world aren't even close to being in a position to have such standards, expect more, and have the education to evaluate the evidence. The power is in all the wrong places.

billconan 11y ago

I want to say exactly the same thing. I block ads because I don't want to see ads at all. As long as there is the ad blocker, I don't want to use brave.

jbigelow76 11y ago
If you don't want to see ads at all why not just refrain from visiting the offending sites?
- chris_wot 11y ago
  To know that there are ads at all you first need to visit the website.
- VLM 11y ago
  There's no free market on the internet. I can balance dirty facilities, long lines, bad service, and product quality pretty easy on brick and mortar, from Walmart/Kmart at the bottom up to the nicest designer shops. Same thing with food, nobody goes to McDonalds for a top of the line steak dinner. On the internet all we got is I'm guessing I'd like to see your content but not your ads based on extensive past experience. The internet, believe it or not, is too small and disorganized, no matter how big and indexed and tracked it seems. Sure, we are learning what domains mean useless clickbait, but its not smooth and I don't know its an offending site until I'm already offended. The next step up from ad blocking is domain blocking. At the browser rendering level, once I've had enough, goodbye to all links pointing to salon, perhaps. That'll result in spam style domain name registration to clickbait from in 2020 vs email spam from in 2000, everything old is new again, sooner or later.
- billconan 11y ago
  the apparent answer is because I need the content. admittedly, ad is a legit monetization method. browsing a site with ads blocked is like pirating a software. but some sites are doing it too much, for example, I often see ad blocker blocks 40 more ads on a single page. that's insane! some commercials are super retarded, like those Geico ones! there was a Geico commercial with a single line: "you can't unwatch this commercial because you have already watched it!" Man, I'd pay super hard to block it.

needz 11y ago

I'd rather have ads I can block than "sponsored content" which may or may not even be labelled as such.

RodericDay 11y ago

I can't emphasize this enough. Every time someone rattles out a list of "annoyances" regarding ads, I wish that I could plead with them to consider that there's even bigger reasons. Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". It's insane. If companies are buying ad-space, it's because they expect to get more business in return. This means that someone out there is being influenced by said ads, so that if the content cost X to put up online (hosting, funding its creation), someone is paying X+(ad company overhead) for it. If these costs are being borne evenly, then it's complete societal waste. We could pay X for the content, and not incur the overhead. If these costs are not borne evenly, and some people are paying for the consumption of more disciplined people, it's probably contributing to terrible cycles of poverty (ie: some kid spending money on fancy new shoes he doesn't need and can't afford is paying for a well-paid tech-users YouTube habits, because it preys on their lack of education). Either way it's terrible. Advertising isn't free. Insofar it works, for some people, it's basically coercive via psychology and simulated peer pressure.

tamana 11y ago
The yellow pages (remember that old book?) is advertising. Is that coercive?
- athenot 11y ago
  Yes when you open it to look for a plumber and see an ad for a pressure-washing service. You were happy with your driveway but now feels it needs something else. At least with the yellow pages, we were able to close the book once done. With the web, it's anywhere, all the time and with machine learning to make it adjust in real time to your preferences.
cookiecaper 11y ago
>We could pay X for the content, and not incur the overhead. Sure we could, but it's extremely clear that only hyper-specialized niches are willing to do that when someone else is providing similar content at no monetary cost to the end user. Like it or not, the market has spoken; they want content in exchange for ads, and are not willing to pay the content provider directly. >Advertising isn't free. Insofar it works, for some people, it's basically coercive via psychology and simulated peer pressure. I've bought ads before. I just wanted people to find out about my product. Short of a guerilla spam campaign, it's the only way to get exposure. I've since learned that so many people tune out ads that guerilla spam campaigns (formal spam campaigns are known as "PR") are really the only way to beat competitors.

marrone12 11y ago

Well people would start to need paying for content instead of entitling themselves to have everything for free.

logingone 11y ago

I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. Interesting. I'm the opposite. I've yet to encounter an ad that has a hope in hell of manipulating me at all. I couldn't be more dismissive of them. And if I encounter one too often my dislike of the company starts to grow. "It's show time, and you've been coding like a beast..." really pissed me off. They're throwing garbage at me, they want my money, I want my money, I'm at war with them.

jordigh 11y ago
> I've yet to encounter an ad that has a hope in hell of manipulating me at all. If you know what "just do it", "the happiest place on Earth", "think different", or "the world's most advanced operating system" refer to, you've already been manipulated. A lot of ads are just about making sure you have a particular brand in mind and you're keenly aware of that brand's existence. Then, when time comes around to actually buy something, you'll think back to that brand. There's a lot of sneaky group psychology in the advertising industry.
- logingone 11y ago
  That works both ways. In the UK, presumably elsewhere too, there are long running themed adverts - they drive me nuts on the occasions that I don't hit the mute button soon enough. Brits will know the mongooses, and the two marathon runners, supposedly humorous - incessant, for years on end. Never, ever will I use those services.
  - J-dawg 11y ago
    Ugh, I'm right with you. When I renewed my car insurance recently, I avoided using either of the 2 comparison sites for exactly that reason. I wonder if brands ever do market research on the number of people actively repelled by their adverts.
    - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago

ams6110 11y ago

I'm exactly the opposite. I've never intentionally clicked on a web ad. Most of the time I mentally filter them, and don't really even notice them. I don't feel that ads manipulate me -- but they do slow me down. So I use a hosts file which is IMHO the best result/least effort approach, but I try ad blockers occasionally.

smacktoward 11y ago

So you're willing to pay out of your own pocket for all these things you enjoy, right? Right? Right?

jordigh 11y ago
Right. Sell premium movie ticket prices that do not have ads (although I like previews, those can stay). Sell me a subscription to duckduckgo, payable in bitcoins or similar. Paywall every newspaper website. These are far more honest approaches in my view.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > Paywall every newspaper website. Nearly every newspaper website is already paywalled, and every time someone posts a story from those sites to HN all the comments are people complaining about the paywalls. HN even added a special little link to let people skip around them, because why would we want to encourage people to pay for quality work they appreciate?
  - jordigh 11y ago
    No, do it for real. Paywall completely. Keep the Googlebot out too. If people want to read a newspaper, they'll have to hear from their friends how great it is.
    - jay_kyburz 11y ago
      I agree, and you know what? I think online newspapers could be so much better. Imagine an online paper where, instead of just mimicking a real newspaper with story after story, a site that collects facts, history as it happens, and weaves them together to form a cohesive stream that a reader can explore in all kinds of innovative ways. You can still have he said / she said news. Still make it dramatic, but allow the user to follow the protagonist, step back in time to see what else they have said, what brought them to this point in time. Or folly the ripples outwards, how did what was said affect others, how did it interact with other stories. I want to do an online news startup one day. It will be one where everybody thinks I'm crazy when I start it.

bobajeff 11y ago

Ads by themselves don't bother me that much I certainly understand the convictions against them but I don't share them. It's just much better to browse the web with them blocked. I don't hate ads just what they do to my computer and phone.

bsznjyewgd 11y ago

In a broad (and rather optimistic) sense, advertising informs you of available opportunities, not just things that you can buy. I guess you can try to separate it into "selling products and services" versus "brand promotion and awareness" versus "public service announcements", but the line can be fuzzy and gray. I don't have anything against ads on webpages in general, but I really hate anything with sound/animation or focus-stealing like pop-up/interstitual/hiding/whatever. I don't block ads because I'm lazy, and because I think it's an acceptable payment model for content, but I just leave the page if the ads annoy me enough. FWIW, the only ads I've actually purchased services/products from are when I'm actually searching for them and they come up as sponsored results or sidebar ads.

colept 11y ago

> because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need So in 10 years, are you going to not visit any website because all the advertising will go native? Most people are scared of the devil they know, but few are afraid of the devil they don't.

Joeri 11y ago

The purpose of advertising is to make you buy more than you need. The economy relies strongly on people buying much more than they need. If you got rid of advertising, it would temporarily destroy the economy, until a new normal is reached, and long term it would save the environment due to heavily reduced consumption. Also, it could bring about the keynesian fantasy where people work only 12 hours a week, because that's all they need to work to produce what is needed. Then again, maybe it wouldn't make a difference. It would be an interesting experiment nevertheless.

brador 11y ago
> The purpose of advertising is to make you buy more than you need. That's an incredibly cynical way of looking at the situation. There is also the purpose of telling you about a product you can buy that might possibly be beneficial to your lifestyle. Through advertising you get to find out about that product faster, something especially important in these days of brisk innovation.
- Joeri 11y ago
  I can't recall ever having learned anything of value from an ad, but YMMV. Still, it's not cynical to say that advertising is meant to make you buy more, because that's why ad space is bought: to boost sales. And it's also not cynical to say that those extra sales would not have occurred without the ad, hence they were for goods people could have done without. Something which can be done without is unneeded, hence, it is not cynical to say ads are meant to make you buy things you don't need. Or rather, they're meant to make you think you need more than you did before. Advertising is the engine of consumerism.
  - brador 11y ago
    > And it's also not cynical to say that those extra sales would not have occurred without the ad, hence they were for goods people could have done without Here's the error. Yes, they were products the target could have done without, but not something they can do without once they have the product. Consider: The first iPhone. A device that opens possibilities to improve your life that never existed before. You could do without it, but once you have it you can't do without it. I think you'd have appreciated an ad for the original iPhone if it eventually led to you buying one.

tamana 11y ago

Eich isn't missing the point; he is being practical and not catering to your freeloading and obscure politics.

rockdoe 11y ago
I'm not sure replacing a site's ads with your own is beating "freeloading".
stonogo 11y ago
Freeloading? You're missing the point; we're not catering to your sense of entitlement.
- imtringued 11y ago
  So where is your magical solution that puts food on the table of the content creators but doesn't rely on selling user data or displaying ads?
  - stonogo 11y ago
    I'm not responsible for putting food on their tables. Perhaps if their content is worth money, they can charge for it. If they can't get people to pay for their content, maybe they should consider a line of work they can monetize without subjecting every single transaction to third-party skimming and engendering massive surveillance projects.
    - imtringued 11y ago
      The problem with that approach is that you put everything behind a wall. Only the "rich" will have access to information. I wouldn't call that a free (as in freedom) and open web.
      - stonogo 11y ago
        I disagree. Libraries existed before the internet, and if the internet were healthy, it would contain an analog.

wrsh07 11y ago

So I think I largely understand your point. But I am genuinely curious to know how you would then get information about products. Would it be on-demand research only? Would you browse lists of new products [eg the Wirecutter's "Realist guide to CES"]? I do both of these already, and I do have js disabled on most sites, and I think ads mis-align the incentives of publishers... But I think that there are demographics that benefit from ad-supported [ie free] stuff more than I do.

BrendanEich 11y ago

I get your point, and it is a good one. We have a micro payments channel to publishers, frictionless and anonymous, under construction, for folks who want no ads and who will pay. Other users than you will be able to mix and match, too: better and more private ads on sites they don't support, with a revenue share to these users that they can spend on sites they do. We aren't saying "only ads". We do see ads as a necessary funding model for much of the web today. I would love to see micropayments replace ads. Let's see what can be done.

imonabout 11y ago
I would love if it was more viable to choose between ads and payment. I don't know how much my current Web habits would end up costing. But if it was a lot, I could stand to cut down on my Web surfing. There are after all other worthwhile things to do.
- Brakenshire 11y ago
  If this browser is planning to block obtrusive / non-performant ads, and replace them with others, presumably they will have to work out how to pay the website owners. They could use the same structure to set up a micropayments.
akkartik 11y ago
Just to add the opposing viewpoint: after watching browsers get incredibly sluggish over the past year on up-to-date hardware (desktop and mobile), I absolutely care about speed and bandwidth consumption[1]. So Brave's 'manifesto' absolutely resonates. Very happy to see the principal agent problem on the web stated so clearly. I've been calling it the tragedy of the commons in comments here and elsewhere. Thanks! [1] And security and privacy, they're the basic minimum the world needs, right? Grandparent seems too quick to dismiss them.
- chippy 11y ago
  >tragedy of the commons I suspect it's also due to developers getting and using the latest hardware (i.e. top range Mac Book Pros) and as long as it works on their machine, with all bells and whistles, they don't care about any of their users with slower machines. Same with phones - older phones are out of date because the updated apps get bloated and bloated for them but are not bloated for the developers.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

wfo 11y ago

I agree ads are bad but the current state of the web is disgusting, it's barely recognizable as a conduit for any real information. People hail the internet as a great way to find information -- if you type anything into the google search bar you're curious about, you either get wikipedia, which is clean and usually pretty great if incomplete, or clickbait ad-filled trash that gives you one sentence of content before you click "next", repeated 10 times downloading megabytes of data, tracking your habits, and grinding your machine to a halt, possibly infecting you with drive-by malware. This feels to me like much needed incremental progress. Let's not give up on solving anything just because we can't fix everything we don't like all at once. I clicked the HN link about ISIS fighter's salaries. Constant flash video playing in the other tab, CPU usage at 50%, obnoxious sounds pouring out of it. This should not be allowed to happen, we don't need to tolerate this kind of bad behavior on the part of websites. And even 'respectable' sites like newspapers do it.

ashark 11y ago
Google either lost and surrendered or simply stopped caring about the war against crappy spam sites in search results sometime around '08/'09. Combining with a bunch of other things this led, IMO, to a reversal in what had been a steady increase in the quality of the web[1]. By around '11/'12 most of the web that wasn't crappy spam sites came to strongly resemble crappy spam sites. Anything like real, quality content not on a handful of major sites (e.g. Wikipedia) is either gone or impossible to find via search without knowing precisely what you're looking for. See also: all sites and news organizations everywhere embracing terrible clickbait titles over traditional, informative ones. [1] Like a massive jump in Javascript use and page sizes killing performance, and the expansion of Facebook/Twitter and the related death of the "no-one knows you're a dog" web.
petercooper 11y ago
if you type anything into the google search bar [..] you either get wikipedia [..] or clickbait ad-filled trash that gives you one sentence of content before you click "next", repeated 10 times downloading megabytes of data Hyperbolic to the extreme and rarely true.
callalex 11y ago

krupan 11y ago

I remember Google's unobtrusive text-only ads. Those were often actually helpful to me, letting me know of products or services that I might actually be interested in that I didn't otherwise know about. If all adds were like that plus fast-loading and not invasive of privacy or security, I'd be just fine with them.

kybernetikos 11y ago
"actually helpful" and "not invasive of privacy" are in tension.

thetmkay 11y ago

Agreed. Many of the use-cases for ads have been replaced by search engines, marketplaces and aggregator sites. There's troves of information and access out there for a consumer to make informed purchasing choices. If I need something, I can actively find it. The use-case for ads is: 1. I don't need the thing 2. I am not aware of my need for thing Advertisers probably claim (2) when almost certainly it's just (1)

inanutshellus 11y ago

I disagree... I find ads an extremely agreeable way for the web to run. I get what I want for free, you get money just simply because someone's ad showed up. Sweet. What I don't care for is the idea that one or two megacorps know everything about me. So I selectively use ad-block software to keep the Big Boys from overly tracking me. I find your version of the future--in which ad networks are gone and content proviers stay around because they provide their services "just for giggles" or require micro+ payments--unpalatable.

trevmckendrick 11y ago

Then you wouldn't know the best places to get food, water, or shelter.

branchless 11y ago

Yes! No surrender to the manipulative ad-men. I said that to my son the other day "it's a stupid advert because I don't need anything". Most adverts are trying to make you feel bad and that consuming their product will fill the hole they just made. Enough of these disgusting people.

tutuca 11y ago

Rio stripped street ads because of visual pollution [1]. Quito and some other cities in Ecuador did the same. It didn't impact the economy negatively. It makes the city way more pleasant to walk around. This is specially annoying in "newspaper" sites, where content should be king (I mean, guys, you are already ton of money selling your printed version) and you are welcomed with a full page ad that is not related to the content nor my interests. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/clean-rio-stripping-away-visual-pollution_n_1474502.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/clean-rio-stripping...

mschuster91 11y ago
> I mean, guys, you are already ton of money selling your printed version Not at all. Printed paper is definitely on the decline - just compare what's easier to do e.g. at a train or while drinking your morning coffee: holding a huge-ass 1 m² newspaper while the train is shaking and the crowd makes it impossible to stretch your arm, or, holding a notebook/tablet/phablet to read.
cowpewter 11y ago
Newspapers don't really make money selling their printed versions. That's why the printed version is full of ads in the first place. Advertisers pay for printed newspapers to exist.

mozumder 11y ago

> I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. I don't understand this argument. How are ads "manipulating" you? They're just ads. They're not an argumentative authority figure with a gun. The only reason to block ads is because of speed of user experience. The "manipulation" argument is the weakest reason to block ads. In any case, you manipulate other people for your own personal benefit. Everyone does. Just talking to people is "manipulation".

amorphid 11y ago
I am affected by my environment. Aren't you? A page full of ads for things that tend to make me feel slightly less optimal is, well, suboptimal.
- theg2 11y ago
  Are you that impressionable that you run out to buy every little thing that is shown to you? How do you propose that journalism, creative works, and other medias that are heavily supported by ads exist? Pretty much everyone in this thread says they won't do payment, will block ads, and seemingly has a problem with people earning a living who aren't software developers or startup owners.
  - punee 11y ago
    Oh but the livelihood of software developers and startup owners also depends on advertising, or even worse gasp... SALES (direct manipulation!!). They just can't admit it.
- nugget 11y ago
  In the absence of ads-that-are-obviously-ads don't you think that clever marketers would just migrate to native ads disguised as content? There's something to be said for a clear line of separation between ads and content. It seems naive to think that the concept of ''advertising'' would ever be eliminated full stop, given how human nature works. You might enjoy this read, which an MD friend of mine sent to me the other day: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/17/pharma-virumque/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/17/pharma-virumque/

sputr 11y ago

That's the exact case I just tried to make in a blog[1] yesterday. Ads are a BAD solution to the problem of financing content creation. There are business models out there, not fringe ones, but big examples, where free content with volunteer fan donations WORK. Ads were a quick fix, but if we want content created for consumers, money will have to come from consumers directly. Yes, these models can't yet support a creator by themselves, but the share has been getting better and there has been a quite noticeable effect on content. [1] http://thescepticalpirate.eu/adblock-destroying-ads-good/ http://thescepticalpirate.eu/adblock-destroying-ads-good/

specialist 11y ago

I block ads because I can.

agumonkey 11y ago

I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target), I do respond a lot to efficiency arguments a lot. I felt delighted to find better adblockers (less lag, less heat, more battery). The ad problem won't go away, unless you're top tier brand your business rely on it. You may tame it but it's like weed, it comes back.

jbigelow76 11y ago
>I don't like ads at all (99.9% of the time not their target) That seems dubious unless you spend all your time browsing sites you have no interest in. If I spent all day browsing ad-supported sites about antique Czechoslovakian sewing thimbles, then yeah, I'll buy your argument (no pun intended), but the sites I view show ads that fit expected areas of interest for my demographic. Just because you don't ever act on ads doesn't mean you aren't still a target.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Then enjoy your doubting. Even on the geekiest websites I don't click on ads, I barely even see them; except when they slow down loading and rendering, Then I go mean in and pass it through printfriendly.com. And for other products well meh, I'm not a "consumer", and few ads will ever make me believe any product is really that valuable to me. I have soap and water thank you.
  - jbigelow76 11y ago
    I wasn't implying that I was dubious that you aren't interested in whatever is being advertised (though I see how it reads that way now). I was dubious that you aren't still a target no matter how futile the effort. If I throw a water balloon at you but don't hit you it doesn't mean you aren't the target.
    - agumonkey 11y ago
      Aight, I thought target meant clicking regularly or at least thinking about the product or brand shown.

manigandham 11y ago

Unless you have another way to subsidize content or are willing to pay directly (= micropayments, subscriptions, donations, taxes, purchases), then yes, it would be a massive problem for universally accessible internet content.

morgante 11y ago

If you don't want to see ads, don't use ad-supported content. Simple as that.

eli 11y ago

This startup might not be for you. That's ok and doesn't mean the author is doing something wrong.

necessity 11y ago

lol are you that easily maninupulated?

eli 11y ago

But this whole little website we're both posting on is essentially content marketing for a for-profit startup incubator. It even has "promoted content" in the form of job ads for YC backed companies. Why is that OK but display ads are not? If all sites switched to native ads does that make it better?

agentgt 11y ago

> I wonder what would happen if, as a society, we said, "enough, no more ads". Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe it would be? I'm not sure I agree all ads are associated with capitalism. Propaganda is one example. There are also ads for awareness and for non-profits. Also I have noticed that the best content that I like is typically ad free or at least doesn't have the buy-product-ads (e.g. PBS TV and NPR). This is the case with most media with the only exception being the Internet. The only time I have issues with ads is when I'm ironically either trying to buy something or I have decided to go low brow and click on some sleazy news.. (its like the South Park episode on ads.. they trick me..).

drumdance 11y ago

I want to browse content provided by companies that won't go out of business. I don't mind ads as long as they don't slow down the browser.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point. Not everything is about you. Some people are fine with seeing tasteful, non-intrusive ads to support content they really like (in my case, mostly smallish blogs and webcomics). By all means continue using the tools that serve your needs, and I'll do the same; but please stop acting like you're the only user who matters.

jldugger 11y ago

> Would it really be the capitalist apocalypse that the ad industry is trying to make us believe it would be? It kind of would. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. are all funded by selling ads. There's a few experiments with buying out ads, but when the current price is "free," any increase in price of these services to users is a huge increase in price with an expected equivalent decrease in users. As a fellow AdBlock user, we have a huge problem to reconcile: the sites we use by and large don't exist without someone clicking on ads. The Categorical Imperative Adblock would block not only the ads, but the website delivering them as well.

donatj 11y ago

I genuinely enjoy very well targeted advertising. It has actually made my life more enjoyable. It's happened to me on Facebook a couple times where there has been an advertisement for something that scratched an exact itch I didn't know there was a solution for. Honestly, I think if you're against ads, you just aren't getting good ones.

return0 11y ago

Then ads would slip into the "independent" news articles you read every day. All information disemination is advertising, it's part of our nature. Tin foil hats are not going to save you, but a good judgement will.

BurningFrog 11y ago

To anyone using the phrase "We, as a society, should do X": I don't understand what that means, and it makes me think you're babbling nonsense. If you mean a law should be passed, say that. If you mean something else, I honestly can't even guess what it is.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Terr_ 11y ago

They're all valuable, but IMO everybody assigns different weight to that suite of reasons, and even improving the privacy/security/speed aspects would be a net win.

echochar 11y ago

"Those are just nice-side effects." For me, not being baited into buying stuff is a nice side effect. I block ads because it's fun to see how badly Google, Apple, Microsoft, apps and websites want data about computer users. It's a game (I would guess that's how they see it); one that forces the user to be vigilant about networking.

tomcam 11y ago

"Enough, no more ads" == "Enough, no free speech" So no ads for Greenpeace? Your favorite political party? Your favorite union? Your favorite website?

orionblastar 11y ago

I do not want to be manipulated into buying stuff I don't need either. Yet advertising is how free websites stay free, they also collect data and sell it. I don't mind some ads, but some websites go overboard on ads and have more ads than content. What really annoys me are pop-up ads or ads that launch a new web browser window. Then there are ads that play some video and has someone talking in it. Then there are free download sites but some of the download buttons are ads that download adware stuff. Only one download button is the correct one. I can resist most ads, and I really cannot afford to buy things I see advertising for. I use UBlock Origin because some sites started to detect Adblock and refuse to show content. This Brave web browser is just the next in a line of ad blockers it is a web browser with an ad blocker built in. Advertising has gotten out of control and I pity the person without some sort of ad blocker that doesn't know any better and clicks on ads to get tool bars and other stuff installed. In order to combat ad blockers some sites have gone behind a paywall and need an account with a subscription to view content. Going back to the newspaper business model of subscribers and away from the free website paid for with ads. Some advertising like Adsense are not so bad, I don't mind those ads so much because they are not annoying.

robbrown451 11y ago

> I will repeat this one more time, because Eich seems to be missing the point. Do you get the impression that you, and people whose values are identical to your own, are their only potential customer? I have no problem with ads, as long as they are not obnoxious and don't slow me down the site a lot. I accept the tradeoff. Some ads I actually like (such as an ad for a movie that seems interesting). It's not that rare for me to see an ad on YouTube that says "Skip Ad" and I watch it through till the end. I don't even mind some targeting and tracking, I just wish I had more control over it. Amazon does it, to show me things that they think I am interested in based on what I have looked at. It's not bothersome to me when they get it right. Although I was never as big on shopping as some people, I don't tend to mind looking at things I might like to own. Call it manipulation if you want....ok. I personally enjoy having a web that is mostly free, and don't begrudge people that try to make a living at producing content for me.

oxplot 11y ago

From top of my head, I can count 5 things I've purchased only after seeing an ad for it, that have improved my life immensely, solving issues that I'd never thought I had. One example is (be careful, I'm advertising here on someone's behalf) bellroy wallet. They aggressively advertised for a while. I bought one and I've kept it for years. Before that, I was purchasing one every half year and found no pleasure in using any after few weeks. So, I don't believe that I should buy things only when there is an existing "need". Just as is the case with science and technology.

ryan-allen 11y ago

I block ads after years of holding out because they have become too intrusive. I don't do it for privacy because I think there is none, but the speed is just a nice benefit. But I consider a site being slow because of ads as an intrusive effect.

johnnyfaehell 11y ago

The point of ads isn't actually to get you to go out and buy their goods. It's to get you to remember their name, so when you are buying goods and looking at that product range you're more likely to buy their goods. Because you know the name that some how that makes you more likely to buy it. So ads are all about getting you to know the name.

ionised 11y ago

In the end, I get to decide what the browser on my machine renders and displays to me. It's a piece of software under my control, and I am configuring it to avoid annoyances and manipulations. If advertisers don't like that then I'm not sure what I can say to assuage their concerns. Tough shit?

mattmanser 11y ago
In the next 3 years websites will increasingly block users with adblock. So the future is less tough shit and more total war.
- ionised 11y ago
  FuckFuckAdblock basically highlights that there are ways to avoid adblock detectors.

JadeNB 11y ago

> I don't adblock for privacy, security, or speed. Those are just nice-side effects. I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need. Surely, though, "this project does not fit my use case" is not the same as "this is a bad project and you should feel bad"? There are people who adblock just for those reasons, and who would (or claim that they would) allow through ads, to support content creators, if those concerns were obviated.

Grishnakh 11y ago

Fair enough, but speak for yourself. If ads were tiny, insignificant things that didn't chew up CPU and RAM resources (like with Javascript), didn't massively bloat the total size of a web page and use up my bandwidth, and didn't try to invade my privacy with tracking, then I simply wouldn't bother blocking them. If they were small, unobtrusive text-based ads like Google use to be really good at, then why would I care? Maybe you just can't stand advertising, but I don't think most people care as much as you do. I adblock precisely because of privacy, security, and speed. And without ads of any kind, it probably would be a capitalist apocalypse. How would Apple sell the iPhone or Samsung sell the Galaxy phones without advertising? Word of mouth? That's a pretty slow way to get the word out. Relying on the press? That might work for really big players (and how is that different from advertising anyway?), but it won't work for smaller firms selling more niche products. What if you're shopping on Amazon and you buy product X, but product Y would go really well with it? Right now, Amazon will frequently show you "other customers who bought this product also bought product Y". But without advertising, you wouldn't see that, so you'd be stuck only buying the exact thing you're looking for, and never getting any suggestions. I actually like getting those suggestions; I do buy things like that from time to time, things I wouldn't have thought of otherwise.