3 ms·

>this will eventually make it impossible for small business owners to make a living through ads You say that like it's a bad thing. If a piece of content or a

>this will eventually make it impossible for small business owners to make a living through ads You say that like it's a bad thing. If a piece of content or a given website cannot survive without ads propping it up, was it ever worth anything in the first place? Ads are far from the only revenue-generating method available nowadays, they're just the easiest/laziest. When online advertising-as-we-know-it finally chokes to death under a mountain of its own waste, maybe we'll see a drop in blatant linkbait lowest-common-denominator garbage that drives up the S/N ratio. There may be less content overall, but I suspect the content that survives will be much higher quality as a result. Not that I particularly care which way things go, I run adblockers on all of my machines from a security standpoint as much as anything else.

bobby_9x 11y ago
"You say that like it's a bad thing." This is Ycombinator, a site for supposed future business owners. Yes, it's a bad thing. "If a piece of content or a given website cannot survive without ads propping it up, was it ever worth anything in the first place? Ads are far from the only revenue-generating method available nowadays, they're just the easiest/laziest." Sure. Instead, we will now have fully integrated advertising that can't be blocked. Would you rather see an advertisement or an entire article on a blog centered around a product? The average consumer isn't going to take a stand on things like this because they just don't care. It will only pollute the content that you actually enjoy even more. "There may be less content overall, but I suspect the content that survives will be much higher quality as a result." Higher quality content doesn't pay the bills alone. I don't mind because my business doesn't rely on ad revenue. However, when I see more and more people clamoring for something like a 'basic income', I really start to shake my head...because things like this are quickly destroying many jobs. It's not the first time the tech community has dug their own salary grave and then cried out to everyone when they can't pay the bills or they lose their house. This is why I'm not on the other side of this: I would rather take advantage of this foolishness than be forced into it.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  > Would you rather see an advertisement or an entire article on a blog centered around a product? A site that mixes ads in content won't be popular for long (it's bad content). It's also often illegal without disclosure in many places. And once you are producing this kind of ad-injected content you already have a personal connection with an advertiser and make non-targeted advertisements!(everyone sees your same blogpost about the same shoes). If a website can afford to do that they didn't need ad networks to begin with! They could have "magazine ads", I.e dumb images served from the source domain. Thats exactky what I'm hoping for - Internet ads being just like magazine ads.
  - tariqali34 11y ago
    >A site that mixes ads in content won't be popular for long (it's bad content). But what if the site is the ad? For example, a lawyer's blog would have lots of blog posts about law, but the whole purpose of the blog is to advertise the expertise of the lawyer and encourage you to buy the lawyer's service. Or maybe an artist wants to showcase his portfolio of his work online, in the hopes of later securing juicy contracts or donations. Or what if the site is simply a forum for people to "network" and self-promote themselves (i.e, LinkedIn, HN's Show Me, etc.) Those sites can indeed be popular (as people may go there to willingly consume ads), but they're all basically vehicles for advertising.
    - alkonaut 11y ago
      That also makes sense but in that case you don't need ads - you have another much larger income.
- daviross 11y ago
  an entire article on a blog centered around a product This is why I'm liking the slow rise of tools for blocking sponsored content as well. (Particularly when combined with FTC requirements about labeling, since if you can't tell the difference enough to block it, there's some investigators who'd like to have a word with you.) I encourage sites who feel like they need to to block adblocking users. Their demise will be that much quicker and better alternatives can rise in their place.

bobby_9x 11y ago

"You say that like it's a bad thing." This is Ycombinator, a site for supposed future business owners. Yes, it's a bad thing. "If a piece of content or a given website cannot survive without ads propping it up, was it ever worth anything in the first place? Ads are far from the only revenue-generating method available nowadays, they're just the easiest/laziest." Sure. Instead, we will now have fully integrated advertising that can't be blocked. Would you rather see an advertisement or an entire article on a blog centered around a product? The average consumer isn't going to take a stand on things like this because they just don't care. It will only pollute the content that you actually enjoy even more. "There may be less content overall, but I suspect the content that survives will be much higher quality as a result." Higher quality content doesn't pay the bills alone. I don't mind because my business doesn't rely on ad revenue. However, when I see more and more people clamoring for something like a 'basic income', I really start to shake my head...because things like this are quickly destroying many jobs. It's not the first time the tech community has dug their own salary grave and then cried out to everyone when they can't pay the bills or they lose their house. This is why I'm not on the other side of this: I would rather take advantage of this foolishness than be forced into it.

alkonaut 11y ago
> Would you rather see an advertisement or an entire article on a blog centered around a product? A site that mixes ads in content won't be popular for long (it's bad content). It's also often illegal without disclosure in many places. And once you are producing this kind of ad-injected content you already have a personal connection with an advertiser and make non-targeted advertisements!(everyone sees your same blogpost about the same shoes). If a website can afford to do that they didn't need ad networks to begin with! They could have "magazine ads", I.e dumb images served from the source domain. Thats exactky what I'm hoping for - Internet ads being just like magazine ads.
- tariqali34 11y ago
  >A site that mixes ads in content won't be popular for long (it's bad content). But what if the site is the ad? For example, a lawyer's blog would have lots of blog posts about law, but the whole purpose of the blog is to advertise the expertise of the lawyer and encourage you to buy the lawyer's service. Or maybe an artist wants to showcase his portfolio of his work online, in the hopes of later securing juicy contracts or donations. Or what if the site is simply a forum for people to "network" and self-promote themselves (i.e, LinkedIn, HN's Show Me, etc.) Those sites can indeed be popular (as people may go there to willingly consume ads), but they're all basically vehicles for advertising.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    That also makes sense but in that case you don't need ads - you have another much larger income.
daviross 11y ago
an entire article on a blog centered around a product This is why I'm liking the slow rise of tools for blocking sponsored content as well. (Particularly when combined with FTC requirements about labeling, since if you can't tell the difference enough to block it, there's some investigators who'd like to have a word with you.) I encourage sites who feel like they need to to block adblocking users. Their demise will be that much quicker and better alternatives can rise in their place.