4 ms·

This is the result of Cloudflare's eager.io acquisition. You might remember eager from some of their really awesome blog posts on the histories of various techs

by pfraze 9y ago

This is the result of Cloudflare's eager.io acquisition. You might remember eager from some of their really awesome blog posts on the histories of various techs [1][2]. 1 https://eager.io/blog/a-brief-history-of-weird-scripting-languages/ https://eager.io/blog/a-brief-history-of-weird-scripting-lan... 2 https://eager.io/blog/history-of-email/ https://eager.io/blog/history-of-email/

pfraze 9y ago
Now that I've said something nice, I'm going to follow that up with a big F U to this app: https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/noadblock https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/noadblock EDIT: a little pre-debate warmup for anybody that wants to get into it. Point 1: Users have the right to block. Counter-point: Content provider have the right to deny access. Point 2: Ads are bad for users. Counter-point: there is none, ads are bad for users.
- mrkurt 9y ago
  It's super tempting to label something "noadblock" because it sounds like money to publishers (I know this because I've been trying like crazy to get publishers to use proxy level middleware), but you're right. The reality is, you can inject advertisements into content at the proxy level that are better for peoples' privacy, keep pages fast, and are less disruptive for readers. The thing is, publishers have a ton of unsellable inventory that you can blame on ad blockers, but it's really the end result of shitty advertising and privacy overreaches. Doing better ads will get them around ad blockers, but doing better ads from the beginning may have prevented the rise of ad blockers at all.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Actual counter-point: blocking all ads is shortsighted. As more and more people do it, the sites you are currently blocking from showing you ads will have to switch to a paid model, with many probably failing. Only a select few news sources will survive. Local news in non-metropolitan areas will be even worse than it is now. People will start consuming news exclusively from the one or two (maximum) sources they pay for, whereas now they probably read at least one article from 50+ sources every month. Elections will happen, but very few people will actually have enough information. All political oversight will seize, because actual behaviour is no longer tied to re-election. But, at least, most politicians will have very nice names. Alternative scenario: smart blocking: start with allowing all, then blacklist individual ads based on the publisher, content/behaviour of the ad, and reputation of the ad network. That would incentive ads to actually get better.
  - pfraze 9y ago
    I'm glad you replied; I'm interested in this debate. I agree that content monetization is an important problem that ought to be solved in order to maintain quality of information. I disagree that current advertising models have elevated the quality of content. Fake news websites (literally - a made-up .coms that have BS stories, the equivalent of tabloids) exist specifically because advertising monetizes clicks/eyeballs, and so clickbait is the optimal strategy. I disagree that moderating ads will produce better ads, because I believe ads run counter to a well-functioning information system. An example: HN is an information system that's designed to put high quality links in front of the user. A paid placement makes it possible to skip the votes mechanism, thereby skipping the system's regulatory structure. If your link deserves to be at the top, it will get there the same way all other links do. I disagree that advertising or paywall are the only two options, though I will concede those are the only two that have happened so far.

by pfraze 9y ago

pfraze 9y ago

Now that I've said something nice, I'm going to follow that up with a big F U to this app: https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/noadblock https://www.cloudflare.com/apps/noadblock EDIT: a little pre-debate warmup for anybody that wants to get into it. Point 1: Users have the right to block. Counter-point: Content provider have the right to deny access. Point 2: Ads are bad for users. Counter-point: there is none, ads are bad for users.

mrkurt 9y ago
It's super tempting to label something "noadblock" because it sounds like money to publishers (I know this because I've been trying like crazy to get publishers to use proxy level middleware), but you're right. The reality is, you can inject advertisements into content at the proxy level that are better for peoples' privacy, keep pages fast, and are less disruptive for readers. The thing is, publishers have a ton of unsellable inventory that you can blame on ad blockers, but it's really the end result of shitty advertising and privacy overreaches. Doing better ads will get them around ad blockers, but doing better ads from the beginning may have prevented the rise of ad blockers at all.
matt4077 9y ago
Actual counter-point: blocking all ads is shortsighted. As more and more people do it, the sites you are currently blocking from showing you ads will have to switch to a paid model, with many probably failing. Only a select few news sources will survive. Local news in non-metropolitan areas will be even worse than it is now. People will start consuming news exclusively from the one or two (maximum) sources they pay for, whereas now they probably read at least one article from 50+ sources every month. Elections will happen, but very few people will actually have enough information. All political oversight will seize, because actual behaviour is no longer tied to re-election. But, at least, most politicians will have very nice names. Alternative scenario: smart blocking: start with allowing all, then blacklist individual ads based on the publisher, content/behaviour of the ad, and reputation of the ad network. That would incentive ads to actually get better.
- pfraze 9y ago
  I'm glad you replied; I'm interested in this debate. I agree that content monetization is an important problem that ought to be solved in order to maintain quality of information. I disagree that current advertising models have elevated the quality of content. Fake news websites (literally - a made-up .coms that have BS stories, the equivalent of tabloids) exist specifically because advertising monetizes clicks/eyeballs, and so clickbait is the optimal strategy. I disagree that moderating ads will produce better ads, because I believe ads run counter to a well-functioning information system. An example: HN is an information system that's designed to put high quality links in front of the user. A paid placement makes it possible to skip the votes mechanism, thereby skipping the system's regulatory structure. If your link deserves to be at the top, it will get there the same way all other links do. I disagree that advertising or paywall are the only two options, though I will concede those are the only two that have happened so far.