5 ms·

3rd party javascript ads hosted on ad servers should be blocked. The majority of them disrespect web site viewers, so it is a rational decision for web site vi

3rd party javascript ads hosted on ad servers should be blocked. The majority of them disrespect web site viewers, so it is a rational decision for web site viewers to block them. If a site is running ads that they don't mind being associated with and are worthy of reader's attention, they shouldnt mind hosting them directly from their webserver as content.

natrius 17y ago
Inform sites which you enjoy of this opinion. If you don't, you're just reducing the probability of sites you like existing in the future, which is stupid.
- Tichy 17y ago
  This would all be very well, if I cared enough about the majority of sites. For example if HN would start popup ads, I might communicate. Most other sites first have to make me like them enough, and they don't do that by pushing obnoxious ads. For what it's worth, I wish all those people complaining would indeed just block their entire site for people with ad blockers. I don't even want to see their sites anymore. Or at least they should have a warning splash page: "warning, if you proceed to this site, you are stealing from us - OK/Cancel".
- metamemetics 17y ago
  I won't need to, technology will naturally evolve this way. Sites will just make a simple technology switch and host ads from their own domain rather than from 3rd party ad servers in the same manner as they host content. -The sites will make more money as there is no way to block the ads. -The sites will make more money as they will not allow low click through spam. -The viewers will have a more pleasant experience. The site will be less likely to host malicious ads, scams, and annoying attention grabbers on their own servers. In conclusion, AdBlockers are a disruptive technology that are actually making the web a better place.
  - DennisP 17y ago
    Hmm, can't do impression-based ads because the advertiser would have to trust the website to accurately report impressions. But click-based ads should work fine.
  - natrius 17y ago
    It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to justify their actions. If you actually believe passively blocking ads is increasing the probability that content you enjoy will be produced in the future, you're delusional. Sharing your feelings with the sites you enjoy would clearly be a much better thing to do. You are a programmer. If you have so much faith in the model you're suggesting, build and sell software that will allow publishers to do it.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      already working on the design doc ;)
zaphar 17y ago
How does hosting the ad from their own website increase the chance an ad won't disrespect web site viewers? Just because the ad is hosted elsewhere doesn't mean the ads will be any better. If thy host them themselves then the website has to develop trusted analytics on the who saw the ad. Who clicked on the ad. Who bought something using the ad. All of these analytics are what make internet advertising worth it. Without it most companies wouldn't bother. And that just increases the cost for the content producer. Now instead of just being a content producer he has to be an advertising analytics expert. What you suggest is not a solution it's a step backward. People seem to want to have their cake and eat it too whenever this comes up. The fact is your favorite site has to make money in 99% of the cases. It has only 2 potentially viable ways to do this. And of the 2 only 1 has been shown to be consistently viable in almost every place it's tried. That 1 is advertising. Subscriptions and micropayments have only worked in few outlier cases. So if you like your favorite site and want to use it then suck it up and live with the fact that they have to advertise in order to be there.
- metamemetics 17y ago
  They WILL advertise. Just not via ridiculously-easy-to-block 3rd party javascript streaming ads. If the ads are displayed by the same method as the content, then they are obviously unblockable. Sites will instead become a direct seller of the commodity of time units of ad space. The buyers will be advertisers. How can commodities be efficiently allocated between many buyers and sellers? It's called a market. If you've read one economics book you'll be able to come up with 10 possible business ideas from here.
  - zaphar 17y ago
    Those same economics books also will show the inevitability of middle men. The internet started with exactly the model you describe and evolved to it's current state. Expecting it to devolve back down is not a strategy I would back.
    - metamemetics 17y ago
      Correct by posting these comments I have been promoting the idea of middle men such as ourselves to create ad markets for direct participation by buyers and sellers (individuals and firms). I meant that the flavor, i.e. whether modelled after matchmaking services, auction sites, or the stock market doesn't matter there are plenty of options for ideas that could work.

natrius 17y ago

Inform sites which you enjoy of this opinion. If you don't, you're just reducing the probability of sites you like existing in the future, which is stupid.

Tichy 17y ago
This would all be very well, if I cared enough about the majority of sites. For example if HN would start popup ads, I might communicate. Most other sites first have to make me like them enough, and they don't do that by pushing obnoxious ads. For what it's worth, I wish all those people complaining would indeed just block their entire site for people with ad blockers. I don't even want to see their sites anymore. Or at least they should have a warning splash page: "warning, if you proceed to this site, you are stealing from us - OK/Cancel".
metamemetics 17y ago
I won't need to, technology will naturally evolve this way. Sites will just make a simple technology switch and host ads from their own domain rather than from 3rd party ad servers in the same manner as they host content. -The sites will make more money as there is no way to block the ads. -The sites will make more money as they will not allow low click through spam. -The viewers will have a more pleasant experience. The site will be less likely to host malicious ads, scams, and annoying attention grabbers on their own servers. In conclusion, AdBlockers are a disruptive technology that are actually making the web a better place.
- DennisP 17y ago
  Hmm, can't do impression-based ads because the advertiser would have to trust the website to accurately report impressions. But click-based ads should work fine.
- natrius 17y ago
  It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to justify their actions. If you actually believe passively blocking ads is increasing the probability that content you enjoy will be produced in the future, you're delusional. Sharing your feelings with the sites you enjoy would clearly be a much better thing to do. You are a programmer. If you have so much faith in the model you're suggesting, build and sell software that will allow publishers to do it.
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    already working on the design doc ;)

zaphar 17y ago

How does hosting the ad from their own website increase the chance an ad won't disrespect web site viewers? Just because the ad is hosted elsewhere doesn't mean the ads will be any better. If thy host them themselves then the website has to develop trusted analytics on the who saw the ad. Who clicked on the ad. Who bought something using the ad. All of these analytics are what make internet advertising worth it. Without it most companies wouldn't bother. And that just increases the cost for the content producer. Now instead of just being a content producer he has to be an advertising analytics expert. What you suggest is not a solution it's a step backward. People seem to want to have their cake and eat it too whenever this comes up. The fact is your favorite site has to make money in 99% of the cases. It has only 2 potentially viable ways to do this. And of the 2 only 1 has been shown to be consistently viable in almost every place it's tried. That 1 is advertising. Subscriptions and micropayments have only worked in few outlier cases. So if you like your favorite site and want to use it then suck it up and live with the fact that they have to advertise in order to be there.

metamemetics 17y ago
They WILL advertise. Just not via ridiculously-easy-to-block 3rd party javascript streaming ads. If the ads are displayed by the same method as the content, then they are obviously unblockable. Sites will instead become a direct seller of the commodity of time units of ad space. The buyers will be advertisers. How can commodities be efficiently allocated between many buyers and sellers? It's called a market. If you've read one economics book you'll be able to come up with 10 possible business ideas from here.
- zaphar 17y ago
  Those same economics books also will show the inevitability of middle men. The internet started with exactly the model you describe and evolved to it's current state. Expecting it to devolve back down is not a strategy I would back.
  - metamemetics 17y ago
    Correct by posting these comments I have been promoting the idea of middle men such as ourselves to create ad markets for direct participation by buyers and sellers (individuals and firms). I meant that the flavor, i.e. whether modelled after matchmaking services, auction sites, or the stock market doesn't matter there are plenty of options for ideas that could work.