44 ms·

AdNauseam – Clicking Ads So You Don't Have To

175 points by ryanlol 9y ago

tannhaeuser 9y ago
Your "Google bans nauseam on Chrome" text appears on top of the time counter, thus unreadable, on FF mobile. "Read all about it" is only partially visible on smaller phones.
convery 9y ago
As someone whoms business largely relies on ad-revenue: please don't go out of your way to ruin advertising. It's a shitty system that is sometimes abused, but it's the best system we have as very few users actually want to open their wallet for their "free" content. Seriously, we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. EDIT: So the general consensus seems to be that one should not mention adblocking hurting small companies because these small companies should just: a) Invent their own advertising platform that can separate users from bots without any tracking or off-site processing, b) Invent a new payment method that appeals to everyone in the world, c) Make the content so exceptionally good that the users will literally throw money at their monitor, d) Look for investors that can shoulder the costs rather than the users, e) Just create additional sources of revenue so that adblocking users can still get their free content. This may be a controversial opinion, but I'd rather people just said "I don't want to pay" rather than making up impossible criteria for why they shouldn't pay. EDIT2: So there's a lot of replies basically saying: "just make content worth paying for". I do wonder, do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"?
- tomp 9y ago
  As someone else, I'd gladly ruin advertising and all businesses that rely on it; it's immoral (involuntary invasion of other people's minds) and a terrible business model and should die ASAP. Edit: most ad-blockers don't actually block ads; they just block cross-domain, spying widgets. Nothing is preventing you from showing a self-hosted, untracked image that's actually an ad. The fact that you complain about adblockers implies that you don't do that, which implies that you're using bad practices (e.g. spying on users).
  - zdkl 9y ago
    I dislike advertising too and would gladly see it and the related industry burn in a fire but it's neither immoral or a terrible business model. Many business benefit greatly from some amount of advertisement and it's a practical way to monetise people's attention. What is immoral is the cohort of brilliant minds who've made the optimisation of advertisement the quest of the century.
    - LukaD 9y ago
      So there is nothing wrong with involuntary invasion of other people's minds?
      - convery 9y ago
        I love how you people always find new ways of wording shit to gain some moral superiority. Can't wait for the logical conclusion, "Netflix's servers are heating up the planet while processing my request; I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS!! Thus my piracy is for the good of the land".
        icebraining 9y ago
        If sites warned that they will load trackers beforehand, your accusation would make sense: people could just not enter the site. But as it stands, even if you're willing to forgo using such sites, you have to load trackers to know that the site uses them. So an adblocker/anti-tracker is a necessary protection.
        LukaD 9y ago
        You got me. Gaining moral superiority is what I was after.
        yew 9y ago
        The only thing you'll achieve with that attitude is convincing people that there's no point in slowing down or talking things over.
        9y ago
- navs 9y ago
  With 85% of your userbase using adblockers, have you had to implement popups pleading users to unblock your ads or ask for donations? What initiatives have you implemented and how effective have they been in combatting what I presume to be a large decrease in revenue?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- blfr 9y ago
  It's unlikely that your users made an atomic decision to block ads on your site. They probably just block all ads (I certainly do) and don't know if your site has obtrusive blocks or how many you run.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  it's literally the only vector left for viruses to enter home systems, so no, not gonna unblock even once. sorry for your loss, some shit player are ruining it for everyone else, but it's not the blockers. it's those that sell prime space to questionable publishers, they had a chance to clean themselves from within, but failed. every now and then a new effort comes up with 'clean ads' or 'micro tips' but it's too late, you need to wait the next generation of techies to start not recommending adblockers in ten-twenty years, and it'll only happen if the industry as whole cleans
  - mavhc 9y ago
    So would you support (ie not block) an advertising company that followed some set of ethics? What would they be?
    - jackvalentine 9y ago
      I genuinely think that ship has sailed past practicality.
    - JetSpiegel 9y ago
      The concepts of "ethics" and "advertising" cannot be reconciled.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      wouldn't say "support" but would say I wouldn't mind ads that are a passive image link; you could still track the source by referrals/url without an active payload using less intrusive standards. the problem is twofold however: 1) I'm not managing my ad blocking list, that's too much of a task so I delegate it to list maintainers. list maintainers don't really want to have acceptable ads policies because at the first mishap they'd lose the hard earned trust completely. there was an attempt but they were white listing not just basic banners but active components, so thanks but no thanks. 2) as soon as you create a set of marchers/rules/something to allow certain ads trough, bad actors will try to exploit it, especially if the while policy does something like allowing scripts with the graphical payload. (also css can include fonts and fonts have been exploited multiple times, so there's also that - an acceptable ad is not something advertiser really like)
- tomjen3 9y ago
  I adblock all sites by default, and I think that is how most people use it.
  - convery 9y ago
    Exactly, and that's sort of the issue with the system right now. People like to argue that they are whitelisting the sites that they use regularly; e.g. Reddit and newssites. But in practice it seems like that's a minority going through with it. I've always likened it to how pirates used there being no good services around to justify their actions; yet after Steam and Netflix became popular the majority just found some new justification.
    - Rjevski 9y ago
      To be fair, I pirate video despite Netflix and other services because of the poor catalog or bullshit like region blocking. I've stopped pirating music though - Spotify became good enough for me to be worth it. So no, I bet a majority of your "pirates" will stop pirating if there was a decent legal alternative.
    - TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
      Meh, video streaming services are still pretty terrible. Just let me download a DRM-free file. That way I can play it offline on my preferred media device. If I decide to rewatch it a few days later, I don't have to worry about wasting extra bandwidth. I don't mind paying for content and services. I'm fully cognizant of the reality that things cost money. But when the content isn't being provided through a fair medium, or the service sucks... People will go through other means. Since I enjoy anime, I have paid subscriptions for both Crunchyroll and Funimation. Despite paying for their services, I always find it more convenient to download and play regular files. It's still worth maintaining a subscription, since it funnels some of that money to the studios. Surprisingly enough, this is something the porn industry gets right. AFAIK, most paid/premium porn websites let you download any movie. No bullshit.
- phatbyte 9y ago
  I can see your side, but unfortunately the vast majority of these ads are tracking my webpages visits and selling them to third party for top dollars. So no, not going to happen.
- jlg23 9y ago
  > As someone whoms business largely relies on ad-revenue It does not, it relies on selling user data to ad agencies that resell them via data brokers to .. well, not even you know, do you? > please don't go out of your way to ruin advertising I will go out of my way to ruin any business model that relies on tracking users. Even if it is the "best system we have" it is still abyssal. Not so much the content of the ads themselves, but the data collected by ad agencies. > very few users actually want to open their wallet for their "free" content Then either the content is not worth enough (and would not be consumed anyway if it was paid) or payment options are unacceptable. I regularly read between 2 (weekdays) and 5 newspapers (sunday) but I don't have any subscription. I buy them with cash in a shop, go to a cafe and have breakfast. None of the newspaper vendors ever followed me into the cafe for some up-selling, not one tried to trick me into a subscription, not one mailed me about "special offers". None of them ever tracked how much time I spent on which article.
  - usgroup 9y ago
    The controversial thing is "targeting" and it's profiling prerequisite. One may not realise the extent of this (say on FB) but have a look: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/27/facebook-ad-targeting-options-infographic http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/27/facebook-ad-tar... What worries folks is the disproportionate power to influence afforded to private interests. Not just advertising or political campaigns but constant influence on daily choice. It's an ethical question: should not the direction of society be determined through democratic means? Should we not vote, be equally informed and try to be good citizens? Does the control of information flow undermine this?
    - gfody 9y ago
      wow they really understand moms
  - dreamcompiler 9y ago
    This. There are two advertising business models: 1. Pay for ads to drive customers to your business selling widgets. 2. Sell customer data to advertising networks. The first is sustainable and is the foundation of all advertising. The second is only sustainable if it doesn't supplant the first. If it does so, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone and the whole enterprise falls apart. Sadly, that's where we are today.
- zakk 9y ago
  Call me idealistic, but I would rather pay for content whenever I decide to, rather than being spied in order to pay for my “free” content.
  - convery 9y ago
    Most sites offer some form of subscription service. Ours is currently 3$ a month and less than 5% seems to be using it. Most of our users seems to view it as a donation service though, might be something for any psych-major to do a study on.
    - peepopeep 9y ago
      What's your website?
    - snovv_crash 9y ago
      This works great until the owner decides to take money to do things like "sponsored content", or advertorials. Does this get shown to the people who payed to have ads removed? Ars Technica recently ran into this, with a major backlash against a Chevy advertorial which wasn't explicitly marked as such. Read the pages and pages of angry subscribers: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/07/why-did-chevy-bring-its-tahoe-and-us-to-a-firing-range/?comments=1&start=0 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/07/why-did-chevy-bring-its...
- PaulRobinson 9y ago
  People are not prepared to pay for your content, so you bemoan that when you give it to them for free (but in so doing destroy their privacy), they attempt to block that revenue stream. I'd like to suggest advertising has become a crutch, preventing you from innovating: why not try and find a way to produce product content that people wish to pay for? If you can't do that, you have two choices: continue as you are, but see it as a voluntary hobbyist project in which the content is given to the public domain and you do not monetise it; or, give up and let others decide. The best thing that could happen to the Internet today is the destruction of the advertising industry. Yes, it will change how Google and Facebook will need to make money. Some of these unicorns might struggle to survive and will die. It will cause a revolution down through the millions of smaller publishers as they have to think about how to make money without advertising: many will not be able to survive and will become nothing but memories on archive.org. So be it. This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. So, respectively, I'm going to have to decline your request. I'm installing AdNauseum and I sincerely hope that advertising industry is destroyed to the point that you have to find a new - better - revenue model. Good luck.
  - jbreckmckye 9y ago
    > This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. If you achieve this, the result will be that the only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests. They may be companies (who write content as marketing), plutocrats (who will publish pro-business propaganda) or the state. This is where we are heading: where the average citizen learns about their country from a Facebook feed, written by the Koch brothers. This is going to have incredibly harmful effects on our society, and - I will not mince words - it seems to me the blame will rest with _people like you_. That means YOU will be responsible for fake news and newspapers competing with the worst of the internet. That YOU will be responsible for advertisement disguised as news. All because you were too outraged to accept ads and too apathetic to pay a few dollars for paper news.
    - mrob 9y ago
      >only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests Here's a beautiful and informative website: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ According to Firefox's Network Monitor, that's 2.47kB of data transfer. It's static HTML, so server load is minimal. One small donation could cover the costs for years.
- bostik 9y ago
  Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage. Adblockers have become the norm because large enough a fraction of ad pushers have no morals. And because the ad industry tends to be concentrated, the blockers (rightly) target the observed ways used to push the ads. So if you use any of the blacklisted firehoses or their observed methods, you can expect to be blocked. > Seriously, we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. If 85% of your users have decided to use adblockers, I would take that a clear signal that the resources you use for serving ads have been deemed obnoxious in the extreme. YOU may not be shoveling unripened-manure-quality-ads to your users, but other parties in the business who use the same services obviously do. And before we go to the concept of whitelisting certain sites, please realise that there are still two major factors working against you. 1: An ad served will mean successful tracking. Sophisticated users refuse to give in here. 2: The moment some whitelisting method becomes easy, useful and accepted, the ad networks will do everything they can to abuse that to bypass blockers. This follows from human nature and ruthless business practises. And finally, I'm going to throw something I wrote nearly two years ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10521930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10521930 - that's my list of things that would qualify an ad as non-intrusive.
  - tobltobs 9y ago
    > Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage. If the small site owners are only collateral damage for you then you also welcome a internet which is dominated by big companies and people with enough money to push their agenda.
    - bostik 9y ago
      I sure as hell don't like it, but I believe that's been the case for a number of years already. Just like the offline world.
    - sago 9y ago
      This seems to be the current 'ad-positive' argument de jour. But I don't buy it. There is plenty and always has been plenty of free content on the web. It is very cheap to publish. But advertising has led to the collapse of the small business or hobby website. Realistically nobody will ever see your content unless you advertise heavily, or post on a platform that uses your content to sell its ads. Advertising, as far as I can see, has had a negative impact on the democracy of the web. And lead to an increase in the domination of big platform holders and brands.
- mess110 9y ago
  Ruin advertising? The companies are doing that by ignoring the do-not-track thing-of-a-bob-which-caches-that-pidgeon-or-they-loose-their-jobs
- executesorder66 9y ago
  I don't think I've ever met someone who enjoys being advertised to. Instead of being butthurt about your bad business model (selling stuff nobody wants) how about selling things people actually want to buy?
  - convery 9y ago
    How about rather than consuming content that is so bad that it's not worth 2Kb of extra bandwidth; maybe don't?
    - JetSpiegel 9y ago
      Heads I win, tails you lose. If you don't want people "stealing" your content, put it behind a paywall and watch user numbers plummet.
    - tomatsu 9y ago
      > 2Kb of extra bandwidth Images, animations, auto-playing videos... ads are much larger than 2KB. 2KB for the network overhead alone, maybe. Anyhow, my primary reason for blocking ads is that I seriously hate animated stuff next to text I want to read.
    - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
      Perhaps if you don't want people consuming your content, maybe you shouldn't have put it up on a web server that freely takes and communicates to their requests. Its like people forget (or just don't care about) history. The web started off advertising free. THEN people moved in because they thought they could use the communication medium for a business opportunity. NOW you're telling people not to consume from the medium that YOU moved in on. Its a ballsy position :)
      - fooker 9y ago
        > The web started off advertising free. The web started off as a very limited network funded by universities and the military. You did not have to pay to host anything for the first several years. Are you suggesting we return to that?
- SunShiranui 9y ago
  I consider all forms of advertising that distract me from the content I'm looking for bad for me. I don't want flashy colored banners telling me what I should buy. There's already plenty, plenty of distractions already, and advertising is one of the poorest forms of it. I don't think I'd mind if advertising, in its current form, died.
- _tulpa 9y ago
  How about you make something worth paying for instead?
- jstanley 9y ago
  I run a side project that entirely relies on ad revenue, and I run AdNauseum. Online advertising has become a horrible horrible thing and I want to see it die. That won't stop me from milking the cash cow while I can, but I'm not going to moralise to others about how they should help me keep the cow alive.
- mercer 9y ago
  > I do wonder, do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"? No, but if they follow me around, keep track of what I do, sell this information, or hand it over to a/the government, and occasionally accidentally sneeze in my face as they follow me, causing me to fall ill... well, I'd find it hard to resist kicking their hat as far as I could. I think the privacy issues kind of render all arguments in favor of (current-day) advertisements moot. I suspect many of us would happily have a few ads on a page if they weren't so obnoxious, privacy-invading, and occasionally downright dangerous. Furthermore, while I do sympathize with your situation, assuming that your ad is both unobtrusive and non-privacy-invading, surely you can see how guilt-by-association is not entirely unjustified in this case? How can we tell that your ads are the good kind? (FWIW I try turn off uMatrix/uBlock on sites that I like, but unfortunately it's just not worth the trouble unless I'm a repeat visitor. And even then I often turn it right back on when I see how much the experience degrades as a result!)
- Rjevski 9y ago
  Look into better ad performs like The Deck, or self-host the ads and sell ad space by how long the ad is there for (that way you don't need to track clicks, etc). Try and find local/small businesses, they're the most likely to accept such a deal and then it's a win-win for everyone.
- bnolsen 9y ago
  Hate to say i but that ship sailed a long time ago. A couple of years back I tried being nice to sites that asked me to unblock them and found pretty much all of them running tracking, malware and worse yet enough javascript to make the sites totally unusable with the small n2806 celeron/2gb system I use. Not any better on the other 2955u 2gb system either. With adblockers these 2 systems work just fine on the internet.
- aluhut 9y ago
  It's too late. This advertisement terror has gone too long. Now we have a quite good infrastructure to block ads and the advertisement industry will have to come up with something really fantastic to get us back. The methods people who rely on ads put up to counter that, will just hurt them because pointing the finger at the user of ad-blocking software is the wrong direction entirely.
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  should we also keep using COBOL such that those poor COBOL programmers aren't ending up unemployed? I know this is a contrived illustration ... but you get my point. it's good if bad bad bad infrastructure is teared down mercilessly. especially if the worst case consequences are first world problems. you're not going to die or starve. i work in ad industry and it's utterly mesmerising how zombiesque many people do their job ... best thing that could happen to poor schmucks making money by configuring ad network setups is to lose their job and be forced to think about the life and if there is maybe something more worthwhile.
- akerro 9y ago
  > we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. Well. I had an idea to fork µblock and add a function to white-list sites that are OK, not flooding me with ads and popups, don't have 4 trackers and have max. 3 social buttons. Whitelist would be made by a community, so you could add your domain, people would visit it and vote to whitelist or not.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Maybe ask gorhill if he would like to have this feature in the actual uBlock Origin? Users could be asked to installation if they want to block all ads, or use the community-maintained whitelist.
- proactivesvcs 9y ago
  I sympathise with your need to earn a living, and struggling to do that without advertising revenue, but asking people not to block advertising on the web is asking them to run their systems without a crucial component of their malware protection. However eloquent your case, I will not disable my anti-virus for your sake. If your site makes an effort to prevent my visit as a result of my security choices, I will respect it, otherwise I am ignorant of who runs third-party code on their site that has proven time and time again to be unsafe.
- gasull 9y ago
  The demise of online advertising will force the emergence of micropayments. Bitcoin is the our best bet at getting there. But low or near-zero fees are needed for that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ProxCoques 9y ago
  Can't you make content worth seeing ads for? Direct payment from readers is not required (as demonstrated by MailOnline https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/the-biggest-newspaper-in-the-world-is-the-dail https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/the-biggest-newspa...)
- danieldk 9y ago
  but I'd rather people just said "I don't want to pay" rather than making up impossible criteria for why they shouldn't pay But there is a market for content. E.g., a relatively small German newspaper (Taz) has a 'voluntary paywall' (which you can basically click through without paying) [1] and still they earned approximately 0.5 million Euro so far this year: https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5436670/ https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5436670/ This is besides regular subscriptions and a system where you can buy shares in a 'cooperative'. Another, more well-known example in these confines is Linux Weekly News, which besides relatively non-obtrusive ads, offers subscriptions [2] to see new content immediately (rather than after a week). [1] http://www.taz.de/!153704/ http://www.taz.de/!153704/ [2] https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#subs https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#subs
- sverige 9y ago
  From the creator side, the internet sidesteps the need for the huge investments needed by all other content-delivery systems. No need to print thousands or millions of books. No need to set up a TV or radio station, or a movie or recording studio, or convince someone who owns that infrastructure to publish your stuff. From the consumer side, the only investment is an Internet connection and the equipment needed to access it. More expensive than a single book or a movie ticket, but practically limitless once you have it. So yeah, no one wants to pay. I'm surprised that anyone pretends to be surprised by that. Advertisers are parasites. They need a host to survive. Almost no one cares if they don't survive, including the content creators and the companies with products to be advertised, if they can figure out how to make money without them. There's the rub. Your busker analogy is actually perfect, by the way. The content is freely available because the busker chose to make it so in an effort to get an audience. Then the busker is outraged when someone doesn't pay? Under what theory of justice is the busker outraged when people take him up on his offer of free content?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  > Make the content so exceptionally good that the users will literally throw money at their monitor And what’s wrong with that? If more entities focused on "exceptionally good” content and services, a lot more people would be willing to pay.
- daptaq 9y ago
  I'd agree, but luckely it's not the consumers responsibility for a company to turn in a profit - and I see no reason whatsoever to care about other companies by helping them invade the privacy of so many people. After all, they wouldn't care about me (or anyone else for that matter) either.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  I feel for you, I really do. Unfortunately, I can't risk the integrity of my privacy or machines by allowing all ads and taking the bad with the good. People have replied (not very politely, unfortunately) with some suggestions though. Self-hosting ads, using a banner asking people whitelist you, or just straight up using Patron might help. Again, I'm sorry you're in a situation like this, it really sucks :/
- James_Owens_69 9y ago
  >do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"? I ignore that guy and move along hoping that he would fuck off and that I won't see him again tomorrow.
- micheljones 9y ago
  "As someone whoms (sic) business largely relies on cigarettes, please don't go out of your way to stop smoking."
- malchow 9y ago
  You've posted a smart post, but it goes against tech religion which (contrary to science) holds that advertising is inherently evil because it is "brain hacking" or some such.
- ksrm 9y ago
  Nobody owes you a living. You are free to think up a better business model.
- azeirah 9y ago
  If there is a need for small businesses, and advertising dies, small businesses will survive because someone will come along to solve the problem of income for small businesses.
- zentropia 9y ago
  Ads spam your attention and makes you lose time and energy. It's a big cost for humanity.
- hvis 9y ago
  Some people do try to come up with alternatives. https://flattr.com/ https://flattr.com/ has been around for a while, but they're doing an overhaul of their model now, together with the company behind Adblock Plus. Here's the latest related post: https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-story-about-the-new-flattr-making-your-content-flattrable https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-story-about-the-new-flattr-...
- williamle8300 9y ago
  As a person who does stuff I wholeheartedly support doing whatever I want to stuff you put on my computer screen.
- featherverse 9y ago
  I'm a business owner and I rely on advertising, and I would still ruin advertising. 1. Advertising gives advantages to the largest richest corporations and stifles competition from superior small businesses. 2. It makes people stupid, they don't take the time to investigate products before buying, because they are literally brainwashed from hearing the same bullshit every day from advertisers. 3. It wastes our time. It is 2017, it is the information era, if you want a product you open a web search and look for it. Advertising is no longer necessary or relevant, and it is stealing moments from people. There are more reasons. Advertising is already dead, and if your business operates solely on advertising then your business is in real trouble. I started telling people this a year ago and they laughed at me. Get off that flaming wreck now while you still can, or sink and burn with the rest of them. The smart people are already looking for new revenue models. Adapting to new conditions is a critical part of survival skills, and if you can't do it you won't survive.
- f137 9y ago
  What did you expect, really? Most people are assholes online, and HN is no exception.
- Posibyte 9y ago
  Just as a quick response to your EDIT2, Twitch runs such a model where gamers and creative people have lots of people paying for otherwise free content. And it works really well. I think it'd be really cool if you dropped some of the defensiveness and used your position to help offer some suggestions to the problem. I know it's hard to see it from other angles that may not directly benefit you, but it'll help extend a resource that might disappear if people disagree with it hard enough en masse.
jakozaur 9y ago
[deleted]
- balazsdavid987 9y ago
  Who should decide which ads to block?
quuquuquu 9y ago
"There’s an emerging movement in the online ad industry to use sites that don’t track you. We collaborated with our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to make exceptions for ads on these sites. So in the rare event you see an ad while using AdNauseam, cherish it as it is probably being served by one of the good guys.” EHHHHHH i mean i'd like to agree 99% of the time with this, but since were being moralist and absolutist here.... why not just have absolutely no loopholes, and let the "good guys" do HTML text ads, or just a good ol image file?
- corobo 9y ago
  I hate the idea of AdNauseam clicking ads, like another thread says the big ad-covered sites will have the resources to protect against this. This just punishes the random bloggers who have slapped adsense on their site. Allowing loopholes though - Isn't that how Adblock Plus first introduced their pay to win system? My bet would be these guys are going to start taking payments for whitelisting.
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    I am absolutely inclined to agree and will never forgive Adblock Plus for such a busted and hypocritical business model! Fortunately for us, we have uBlock, which is open source and is also the basis for AdNauseum. If it really is futile to spam the spammers, then small blogs indeed will be the sole losers here. What is worse though, is that the internet is already a terrible place in aggregate for intelligent content to make money. It's basically given away for free, or sold to very specific buyers (usually people who are purchasing consulting or are hiring smart people for full time). So, not many people make ad money off of high quality content, for two reasons: too much bad content is drowning them out, and too much good content being given away for free
adsthrowaway12 9y ago
This is a very genuine question. To those what despise ads and want to see everyone who uses them destroyed and the ad industry destroyed. How do you currently make a living? Is it all through donation? If you work for an employer. Do they sell products or services? So, they must advertise right? If you work for google? Well, that's how they make their profits each year. If you work for a non-profit. How do the people who donate, earn their living? Can you be sure they also live from donations only? Bottom line is, if advertising goes away. How do you expect to make a living, if no one knows about products and is not buying? Advertising has been around far longer than a large portion of the audience of this website. The thinking that advertising can be changed to a tipping system is naive at best. ------------------- I'd love to hear what the stone throwers think. How do we replace this industry that must be destroyed at all costs. How will someone from the future, market their product without advertising of any kind. Must new products sit on the shelf or be used by a very few because any form of communication about a product IS ITSELF AN ADVERTISEMENT and must be STOPPED! Honestly, I'd like to know!
ge96 9y ago
Is this the one that clicks on random stuff to trick trackers from knowing your true interests? I heard about that
petepete 9y ago
As someone who now has a banner advert embedded in the menu of my TV, good. The advertising industry is awful and intrusive. Yes, businesses will have to adjust or rethink, and that's a good thing. It's a Samsung SUHD, by the way http://i.imgur.com/m3ePBkr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/m3ePBkr.jpg
- JetSpiegel 9y ago
  I have a similar model, mine is completely disconnected from the Internet. Still nags me about "Smart Hub" if I misclick some button on the remote named "Extra".
  - petepete 9y ago
    Currently I use the TV for YouTube, Amazon Prime and normal TV (through Sky). I could go the Amazon Fire route (Chromecast still won't play Amazon Prime) and disconnect the TV, but it's annoying because apart from the ad, the TV is great. The worst thing is that the ads weren't there when I bought the TV, they came (undocumented) in a software update that I can't roll back.
    - chrisper 9y ago
      Amazon fire has more ads than that.
jaclaz 9y ago
If I get this right, 85% customers use ad-blockers, and (roughly) 5% pay a subscription on convery's site. Does it mean that the site is profitable with only 10% of ads delivered?
- convery 9y ago
  Through advertising alone? No. From a purely business perspective, it's shit. But we subsidize it through our other ventures because we want the users to have access to the content.
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    Then I don't understand. If (say) 20% of the 85% now using ad-blockers were convinced that they are hurting you, and stop using the ad-blocker, what will change? I am assuming that the "conversion rate" (i.e. people actually clicking on the ads that they now see) will be very near to 0%.
    - convery 9y ago
      > and stop using the ad-blocker, what will change? The site would become less of a burden on our company. It would still not be profitable, but there's quite a difference between losing 100$ a month and losing 80$ a month to provide users content they've come to expect.
      - jaclaz 9y ago
        No, I was assuming (maybe wrongly) that those that currently use adblockers also never usually click on any ad. The question, if you prefer was: Is there a difference between preventing ads from showing on the page (adblocker) and seeing them but ignoring them?
fnl 9y ago
Ad blocking(edit: or obfuscation like this, obviously) technology that can be installed directly on the router, to protect everybody on my network.. Now that would be a thing! Does a usable option of that kind of tool exist?
- jerluc 9y ago
  There are definitely several ad-blocking VPNs out there. And then there's PiHole [1] if you have a spare raspberry pi laying around on your network. [1]: https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/
  - fnl 9y ago
    Now this solution looks really cool, as it doesn't even need more than changing the DNS on the router. Thanks!
- falcolas 9y ago
  Well, there are hosts files which blackhole requests to known ad domains, so it wouldn't be too much work to make that work as a local DNS router. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
  - fnl 9y ago
    Thanks, that looks like an interesting blacklist!
- johnwaynedoe 9y ago
  With OpenWRT/LEDE you can do that. However, it does not seem to work as well as a browser implementation. https://lede-project.org/docs/howto/ad-blocking https://lede-project.org/docs/howto/ad-blocking
  - fnl 9y ago
    Thanks! Yeah, I guess HTTPS everywhere is the "enemy" in this case... But at least it gives us some basic protection.
maxencecornet 9y ago
AdNauseam is just not a good approach to malware/ads/surveillance blocking. The creators clearly haven't been on both side of the ads spectrum: As content creators and intrusive ads blockers They don't know the inside of this market enough, they don't know what happens when a website get it's ads clickbombed Some websites really have no other way to finance themselves other then using ads, and use not intrusive ads network and AdNauseam will just get them banned AdNauseam is just about wrecking avok publishers revenues by getting them banned from ads networks, so like always, it's the small publishers that will get punished, and not the big shit ads companies. Buzzfeed-like companies will find a way to counter AdNauseam,they have the ressources for it, but not the smaller tech blogger that you like reading I wrote something about it a few months ago: https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/please-consider-carefully-what-using-adnauseam-really-means-c39c111b74a0 https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/please-consider-carefully-... I'll stick to ublock. If you hate ads but like some content, stick to ads blockers as well
- balazsdavid987 9y ago
  Something like that ran through my mind before I clicked on the install button. It's the small publishers and individual content creators who suffer from AdNauseam, not the big media companies. It just kills the small players and helps big companies grow bigger.
zb3 9y ago
It seems obvious that since this would damage Google, Google will defend themselves by detecting and blocking this kind of traffic. Optionally they may also suspend accounts.
ecomshopowner 9y ago
As someone who runs a business relying on driving customers via google adwords, I'd say use it. Right now, google adwords are the best way to get my products in front of people. It works and is worth it. I'd love for that not to be the case. Ads are intrusive. Conversion rates are low but the math still makes sense. As an aside, my business recently started more aggressively running email campaigns for previous (ecommerce) customers to get them back. We saw a huge return for emailing our customers multiple times in a month rather than once a month. This is awful, as the conversion rate from email to purchase is something like 0.5%. It's still worth it. All those people are opening email after email. So much wasted time. But in the end, email marketing works and is cheap. Marketing is one big tragedy of the commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- peepopeep 9y ago
  0.5% conversion on email? Wow.. you are doing something wrong. My clients have like a 15-21% conversion via email but it probably depends on what you're selling. So, what are you selling?
  - p0nce 9y ago
    15-21% conversion from email to purchase?
  - dpacmittal 9y ago
    You mean clicks or actual conversions?
- qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
  It's the same conversion rate as direct mail. And that works. How high should a conversion rate be?
gasull 9y ago
I would like to see how this compares in speed with uBlock Origin. I'm also not convinced you gain more privacy using AdNauseam than just blocking the ads. See this other discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/6lq3k6/is_it_safesecure_to_use_adnauseam_instead_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/6lq3k6/is_i...
James_Owens_69 9y ago
No money = no normies on the Internet. Imagine a world where people actually pay for Internet services without ads again. That would blow social media plankton out of the water.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
herbst 9y ago
Until recently I basically lived of Adsense. But i never use the Internet without adblocker myself. Even on my phone and I help all my friends to get ad free as well. The crazy thing for me is that I still did depend on ads to keep my free content alive. On the cheapest hosting option one of my sites would run into around $40 worth of hosting a month plus endless hours of moderation and 'fixing'. I did experiment with self hosted ads. Sorrily this is a pain in itself because for whatever reason a lot of adblockers block anything that appears like a obvious ad. Even self hosted images if they may are in a subdirectory called ads or have a id therelike. So I called everything 'meow' instead of ads. A month later a popular ad block list included a filter for my ads... (~3 million sessions/month) and my self hosted, non evil, non JS ads were blocked again. Not to mention that the income was not even a 10th. I still am undecided on the topic. But i want people to understand that especially Adsense is indeed important for small publishers. End of the story is i sold the site because Adsense started to pay less and less for more traffic and now a ad company is milking my back then only Adsense site with about 5 more trackers and ad networks...
- maxencecornet 9y ago
  >and my self hosted, non evil, non JS ads were blocked again. It's crazy that ad blockers would block self-hosted, non-js images ads, I mean, there's no tracking associated with it, it doesn't make any sense IMO What kind of traffic allowed you to live of Adsense? Millions hits a day? Or very targeted traffic with high CPC maybe?
  - Aissen 9y ago
    Some people are just in it for the saved screenspace and bandwidth. Still a weird decision.
  - herbst 9y ago
    A stupid gaming site. It wasn't that great I also live a rather simple life. Best month this site was $1900 or so, usually less. Also i dont know either. It really still bothers me. We can't fix the ad industry if we just turn a blind eye.
kwoff 9y ago
All of my addons are "Legacy" in Firefox now. How do we get updated versions of these?
craigds 9y ago
I'd love to use this, but I can't afford for Google to block my Google account. Yes, this is not really tied to my Google account, but would Google associate me with it and delete my account anyway? I think they might. For that reason I'm happy to continue just blocking ads, since that's much less likely to put me on their radar
dpacmittal 9y ago
I really hate to see HN's general attitude towards ads. As another poster said, ads are a shitty system and its abused, but it really is the only way some people can provide free content. When I started my first tech blog back in 2009, I was 18yo, living in Nepal. I had no means whatsoever to make money online but it was super easy to setup adsense account and in no time I was generating some revenue. I agree, the ad system is broken, but this is not a solution. This tool will do nothing but harm publishers, possibly get their adsense account banned for click fraud, and eventually cause them to shut down their website. Ad industry is huge and there ought to be better way to fix the problems than straight out blocking the ads, or tools like these which gets so much kudos on HN that it makes me sick. It is the same bunch of crowd who call themselves entrepreneurs and then they cheer for anti-entrepreneur tools like these. The ugly fact is we don't have a better system in place than what we have now, and tools like these don't make the situation any better.

175 points by ryanlol 9y ago

Your "Google bans nauseam on Chrome" text appears on top of the time counter, thus unreadable, on FF mobile. "Read all about it" is only partially visible on smaller phones.

convery 9y ago

As someone whoms business largely relies on ad-revenue: please don't go out of your way to ruin advertising. It's a shitty system that is sometimes abused, but it's the best system we have as very few users actually want to open their wallet for their "free" content. Seriously, we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. EDIT: So the general consensus seems to be that one should not mention adblocking hurting small companies because these small companies should just: a) Invent their own advertising platform that can separate users from bots without any tracking or off-site processing, b) Invent a new payment method that appeals to everyone in the world, c) Make the content so exceptionally good that the users will literally throw money at their monitor, d) Look for investors that can shoulder the costs rather than the users, e) Just create additional sources of revenue so that adblocking users can still get their free content. This may be a controversial opinion, but I'd rather people just said "I don't want to pay" rather than making up impossible criteria for why they shouldn't pay. EDIT2: So there's a lot of replies basically saying: "just make content worth paying for". I do wonder, do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"?

tomp 9y ago
As someone else, I'd gladly ruin advertising and all businesses that rely on it; it's immoral (involuntary invasion of other people's minds) and a terrible business model and should die ASAP. Edit: most ad-blockers don't actually block ads; they just block cross-domain, spying widgets. Nothing is preventing you from showing a self-hosted, untracked image that's actually an ad. The fact that you complain about adblockers implies that you don't do that, which implies that you're using bad practices (e.g. spying on users).
- zdkl 9y ago
  I dislike advertising too and would gladly see it and the related industry burn in a fire but it's neither immoral or a terrible business model. Many business benefit greatly from some amount of advertisement and it's a practical way to monetise people's attention. What is immoral is the cohort of brilliant minds who've made the optimisation of advertisement the quest of the century.
  - LukaD 9y ago
    So there is nothing wrong with involuntary invasion of other people's minds?
    - convery 9y ago
      I love how you people always find new ways of wording shit to gain some moral superiority. Can't wait for the logical conclusion, "Netflix's servers are heating up the planet while processing my request; I DO NOT CONSENT TO THIS!! Thus my piracy is for the good of the land".
      - icebraining 9y ago
        If sites warned that they will load trackers beforehand, your accusation would make sense: people could just not enter the site. But as it stands, even if you're willing to forgo using such sites, you have to load trackers to know that the site uses them. So an adblocker/anti-tracker is a necessary protection.
      - LukaD 9y ago
        You got me. Gaining moral superiority is what I was after.
      - yew 9y ago
        The only thing you'll achieve with that attitude is convincing people that there's no point in slowing down or talking things over.
      - 9y ago
navs 9y ago
With 85% of your userbase using adblockers, have you had to implement popups pleading users to unblock your ads or ask for donations? What initiatives have you implemented and how effective have they been in combatting what I presume to be a large decrease in revenue?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
blfr 9y ago
It's unlikely that your users made an atomic decision to block ads on your site. They probably just block all ads (I certainly do) and don't know if your site has obtrusive blocks or how many you run.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
it's literally the only vector left for viruses to enter home systems, so no, not gonna unblock even once. sorry for your loss, some shit player are ruining it for everyone else, but it's not the blockers. it's those that sell prime space to questionable publishers, they had a chance to clean themselves from within, but failed. every now and then a new effort comes up with 'clean ads' or 'micro tips' but it's too late, you need to wait the next generation of techies to start not recommending adblockers in ten-twenty years, and it'll only happen if the industry as whole cleans
- mavhc 9y ago
  So would you support (ie not block) an advertising company that followed some set of ethics? What would they be?
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    I genuinely think that ship has sailed past practicality.
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    The concepts of "ethics" and "advertising" cannot be reconciled.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    wouldn't say "support" but would say I wouldn't mind ads that are a passive image link; you could still track the source by referrals/url without an active payload using less intrusive standards. the problem is twofold however: 1) I'm not managing my ad blocking list, that's too much of a task so I delegate it to list maintainers. list maintainers don't really want to have acceptable ads policies because at the first mishap they'd lose the hard earned trust completely. there was an attempt but they were white listing not just basic banners but active components, so thanks but no thanks. 2) as soon as you create a set of marchers/rules/something to allow certain ads trough, bad actors will try to exploit it, especially if the while policy does something like allowing scripts with the graphical payload. (also css can include fonts and fonts have been exploited multiple times, so there's also that - an acceptable ad is not something advertiser really like)
tomjen3 9y ago
I adblock all sites by default, and I think that is how most people use it.
- convery 9y ago
  Exactly, and that's sort of the issue with the system right now. People like to argue that they are whitelisting the sites that they use regularly; e.g. Reddit and newssites. But in practice it seems like that's a minority going through with it. I've always likened it to how pirates used there being no good services around to justify their actions; yet after Steam and Netflix became popular the majority just found some new justification.
  - Rjevski 9y ago
    To be fair, I pirate video despite Netflix and other services because of the poor catalog or bullshit like region blocking. I've stopped pirating music though - Spotify became good enough for me to be worth it. So no, I bet a majority of your "pirates" will stop pirating if there was a decent legal alternative.
  - TheAceOfHearts 9y ago
    Meh, video streaming services are still pretty terrible. Just let me download a DRM-free file. That way I can play it offline on my preferred media device. If I decide to rewatch it a few days later, I don't have to worry about wasting extra bandwidth. I don't mind paying for content and services. I'm fully cognizant of the reality that things cost money. But when the content isn't being provided through a fair medium, or the service sucks... People will go through other means. Since I enjoy anime, I have paid subscriptions for both Crunchyroll and Funimation. Despite paying for their services, I always find it more convenient to download and play regular files. It's still worth maintaining a subscription, since it funnels some of that money to the studios. Surprisingly enough, this is something the porn industry gets right. AFAIK, most paid/premium porn websites let you download any movie. No bullshit.
phatbyte 9y ago
I can see your side, but unfortunately the vast majority of these ads are tracking my webpages visits and selling them to third party for top dollars. So no, not going to happen.
jlg23 9y ago
> As someone whoms business largely relies on ad-revenue It does not, it relies on selling user data to ad agencies that resell them via data brokers to .. well, not even you know, do you? > please don't go out of your way to ruin advertising I will go out of my way to ruin any business model that relies on tracking users. Even if it is the "best system we have" it is still abyssal. Not so much the content of the ads themselves, but the data collected by ad agencies. > very few users actually want to open their wallet for their "free" content Then either the content is not worth enough (and would not be consumed anyway if it was paid) or payment options are unacceptable. I regularly read between 2 (weekdays) and 5 newspapers (sunday) but I don't have any subscription. I buy them with cash in a shop, go to a cafe and have breakfast. None of the newspaper vendors ever followed me into the cafe for some up-selling, not one tried to trick me into a subscription, not one mailed me about "special offers". None of them ever tracked how much time I spent on which article.
- usgroup 9y ago
  The controversial thing is "targeting" and it's profiling prerequisite. One may not realise the extent of this (say on FB) but have a look: http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/27/facebook-ad-targeting-options-infographic http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2016/06/27/facebook-ad-tar... What worries folks is the disproportionate power to influence afforded to private interests. Not just advertising or political campaigns but constant influence on daily choice. It's an ethical question: should not the direction of society be determined through democratic means? Should we not vote, be equally informed and try to be good citizens? Does the control of information flow undermine this?
  - gfody 9y ago
    wow they really understand moms
- dreamcompiler 9y ago
  This. There are two advertising business models: 1. Pay for ads to drive customers to your business selling widgets. 2. Sell customer data to advertising networks. The first is sustainable and is the foundation of all advertising. The second is only sustainable if it doesn't supplant the first. If it does so, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone and the whole enterprise falls apart. Sadly, that's where we are today.
zakk 9y ago
Call me idealistic, but I would rather pay for content whenever I decide to, rather than being spied in order to pay for my “free” content.
- convery 9y ago
  Most sites offer some form of subscription service. Ours is currently 3$ a month and less than 5% seems to be using it. Most of our users seems to view it as a donation service though, might be something for any psych-major to do a study on.
  - peepopeep 9y ago
    What's your website?
  - snovv_crash 9y ago
    This works great until the owner decides to take money to do things like "sponsored content", or advertorials. Does this get shown to the people who payed to have ads removed? Ars Technica recently ran into this, with a major backlash against a Chevy advertorial which wasn't explicitly marked as such. Read the pages and pages of angry subscribers: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/07/why-did-chevy-bring-its-tahoe-and-us-to-a-firing-range/?comments=1&start=0 https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/07/why-did-chevy-bring-its...
PaulRobinson 9y ago
People are not prepared to pay for your content, so you bemoan that when you give it to them for free (but in so doing destroy their privacy), they attempt to block that revenue stream. I'd like to suggest advertising has become a crutch, preventing you from innovating: why not try and find a way to produce product content that people wish to pay for? If you can't do that, you have two choices: continue as you are, but see it as a voluntary hobbyist project in which the content is given to the public domain and you do not monetise it; or, give up and let others decide. The best thing that could happen to the Internet today is the destruction of the advertising industry. Yes, it will change how Google and Facebook will need to make money. Some of these unicorns might struggle to survive and will die. It will cause a revolution down through the millions of smaller publishers as they have to think about how to make money without advertising: many will not be able to survive and will become nothing but memories on archive.org. So be it. This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. So, respectively, I'm going to have to decline your request. I'm installing AdNauseum and I sincerely hope that advertising industry is destroyed to the point that you have to find a new - better - revenue model. Good luck.
- jbreckmckye 9y ago
  > This, in the opinion of many people including myself, will be for the betterment of us all as a society. If you achieve this, the result will be that the only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests. They may be companies (who write content as marketing), plutocrats (who will publish pro-business propaganda) or the state. This is where we are heading: where the average citizen learns about their country from a Facebook feed, written by the Koch brothers. This is going to have incredibly harmful effects on our society, and - I will not mince words - it seems to me the blame will rest with _people like you_. That means YOU will be responsible for fake news and newspapers competing with the worst of the internet. That YOU will be responsible for advertisement disguised as news. All because you were too outraged to accept ads and too apathetic to pay a few dollars for paper news.
  - mrob 9y ago
    >only people who can publish on the net are those with deep pockets and other interests Here's a beautiful and informative website: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ According to Firefox's Network Monitor, that's 2.47kB of data transfer. It's static HTML, so server load is minimal. One small donation could cover the costs for years.
bostik 9y ago
Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage. Adblockers have become the norm because large enough a fraction of ad pushers have no morals. And because the ad industry tends to be concentrated, the blockers (rightly) target the observed ways used to push the ads. So if you use any of the blacklisted firehoses or their observed methods, you can expect to be blocked. > Seriously, we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. If 85% of your users have decided to use adblockers, I would take that a clear signal that the resources you use for serving ads have been deemed obnoxious in the extreme. YOU may not be shoveling unripened-manure-quality-ads to your users, but other parties in the business who use the same services obviously do. And before we go to the concept of whitelisting certain sites, please realise that there are still two major factors working against you. 1: An ad served will mean successful tracking. Sophisticated users refuse to give in here. 2: The moment some whitelisting method becomes easy, useful and accepted, the ad networks will do everything they can to abuse that to bypass blockers. This follows from human nature and ruthless business practises. And finally, I'm going to throw something I wrote nearly two years ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10521930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10521930 - that's my list of things that would qualify an ad as non-intrusive.
- tobltobs 9y ago
  > Even at the risk of coming off as an arsehole: I'm sorry, but you are collateral damage. If the small site owners are only collateral damage for you then you also welcome a internet which is dominated by big companies and people with enough money to push their agenda.
  - bostik 9y ago
    I sure as hell don't like it, but I believe that's been the case for a number of years already. Just like the offline world.
  - sago 9y ago
    This seems to be the current 'ad-positive' argument de jour. But I don't buy it. There is plenty and always has been plenty of free content on the web. It is very cheap to publish. But advertising has led to the collapse of the small business or hobby website. Realistically nobody will ever see your content unless you advertise heavily, or post on a platform that uses your content to sell its ads. Advertising, as far as I can see, has had a negative impact on the democracy of the web. And lead to an increase in the domination of big platform holders and brands.
mess110 9y ago
Ruin advertising? The companies are doing that by ignoring the do-not-track thing-of-a-bob-which-caches-that-pidgeon-or-they-loose-their-jobs
executesorder66 9y ago
I don't think I've ever met someone who enjoys being advertised to. Instead of being butthurt about your bad business model (selling stuff nobody wants) how about selling things people actually want to buy?
- convery 9y ago
  How about rather than consuming content that is so bad that it's not worth 2Kb of extra bandwidth; maybe don't?
  - JetSpiegel 9y ago
    Heads I win, tails you lose. If you don't want people "stealing" your content, put it behind a paywall and watch user numbers plummet.
  - tomatsu 9y ago
    > 2Kb of extra bandwidth Images, animations, auto-playing videos... ads are much larger than 2KB. 2KB for the network overhead alone, maybe. Anyhow, my primary reason for blocking ads is that I seriously hate animated stuff next to text I want to read.
  - ACow_Adonis 9y ago
    Perhaps if you don't want people consuming your content, maybe you shouldn't have put it up on a web server that freely takes and communicates to their requests. Its like people forget (or just don't care about) history. The web started off advertising free. THEN people moved in because they thought they could use the communication medium for a business opportunity. NOW you're telling people not to consume from the medium that YOU moved in on. Its a ballsy position :)
    - fooker 9y ago
      > The web started off advertising free. The web started off as a very limited network funded by universities and the military. You did not have to pay to host anything for the first several years. Are you suggesting we return to that?
SunShiranui 9y ago
I consider all forms of advertising that distract me from the content I'm looking for bad for me. I don't want flashy colored banners telling me what I should buy. There's already plenty, plenty of distractions already, and advertising is one of the poorest forms of it. I don't think I'd mind if advertising, in its current form, died.
_tulpa 9y ago
How about you make something worth paying for instead?
jstanley 9y ago
I run a side project that entirely relies on ad revenue, and I run AdNauseum. Online advertising has become a horrible horrible thing and I want to see it die. That won't stop me from milking the cash cow while I can, but I'm not going to moralise to others about how they should help me keep the cow alive.
mercer 9y ago
> I do wonder, do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"? No, but if they follow me around, keep track of what I do, sell this information, or hand it over to a/the government, and occasionally accidentally sneeze in my face as they follow me, causing me to fall ill... well, I'd find it hard to resist kicking their hat as far as I could. I think the privacy issues kind of render all arguments in favor of (current-day) advertisements moot. I suspect many of us would happily have a few ads on a page if they weren't so obnoxious, privacy-invading, and occasionally downright dangerous. Furthermore, while I do sympathize with your situation, assuming that your ad is both unobtrusive and non-privacy-invading, surely you can see how guilt-by-association is not entirely unjustified in this case? How can we tell that your ads are the good kind? (FWIW I try turn off uMatrix/uBlock on sites that I like, but unfortunately it's just not worth the trouble unless I'm a repeat visitor. And even then I often turn it right back on when I see how much the experience degrades as a result!)
Rjevski 9y ago
Look into better ad performs like The Deck, or self-host the ads and sell ad space by how long the ad is there for (that way you don't need to track clicks, etc). Try and find local/small businesses, they're the most likely to accept such a deal and then it's a win-win for everyone.
bnolsen 9y ago
Hate to say i but that ship sailed a long time ago. A couple of years back I tried being nice to sites that asked me to unblock them and found pretty much all of them running tracking, malware and worse yet enough javascript to make the sites totally unusable with the small n2806 celeron/2gb system I use. Not any better on the other 2955u 2gb system either. With adblockers these 2 systems work just fine on the internet.
aluhut 9y ago
It's too late. This advertisement terror has gone too long. Now we have a quite good infrastructure to block ads and the advertisement industry will have to come up with something really fantastic to get us back. The methods people who rely on ads put up to counter that, will just hurt them because pointing the finger at the user of ad-blocking software is the wrong direction entirely.
blubb-fish 9y ago
should we also keep using COBOL such that those poor COBOL programmers aren't ending up unemployed? I know this is a contrived illustration ... but you get my point. it's good if bad bad bad infrastructure is teared down mercilessly. especially if the worst case consequences are first world problems. you're not going to die or starve. i work in ad industry and it's utterly mesmerising how zombiesque many people do their job ... best thing that could happen to poor schmucks making money by configuring ad network setups is to lose their job and be forced to think about the life and if there is maybe something more worthwhile.
akerro 9y ago
> we have a single unobtrusive banner yet 85% of our users are adblocking; it's not an issue of 'bad ads' as so many like to argue. Well. I had an idea to fork µblock and add a function to white-list sites that are OK, not flooding me with ads and popups, don't have 4 trackers and have max. 3 social buttons. Whitelist would be made by a community, so you could add your domain, people would visit it and vote to whitelist or not.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Maybe ask gorhill if he would like to have this feature in the actual uBlock Origin? Users could be asked to installation if they want to block all ads, or use the community-maintained whitelist.
proactivesvcs 9y ago
I sympathise with your need to earn a living, and struggling to do that without advertising revenue, but asking people not to block advertising on the web is asking them to run their systems without a crucial component of their malware protection. However eloquent your case, I will not disable my anti-virus for your sake. If your site makes an effort to prevent my visit as a result of my security choices, I will respect it, otherwise I am ignorant of who runs third-party code on their site that has proven time and time again to be unsafe.
gasull 9y ago
The demise of online advertising will force the emergence of micropayments. Bitcoin is the our best bet at getting there. But low or near-zero fees are needed for that.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ProxCoques 9y ago
Can't you make content worth seeing ads for? Direct payment from readers is not required (as demonstrated by MailOnline https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/the-biggest-newspaper-in-the-world-is-the-dail https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/the-biggest-newspa...)
danieldk 9y ago
but I'd rather people just said "I don't want to pay" rather than making up impossible criteria for why they shouldn't pay But there is a market for content. E.g., a relatively small German newspaper (Taz) has a 'voluntary paywall' (which you can basically click through without paying) [1] and still they earned approximately 0.5 million Euro so far this year: https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5436670/ https://www.taz.de/Archiv-Suche/!5436670/ This is besides regular subscriptions and a system where you can buy shares in a 'cooperative'. Another, more well-known example in these confines is Linux Weekly News, which besides relatively non-obtrusive ads, offers subscriptions [2] to see new content immediately (rather than after a week). [1] http://www.taz.de/!153704/ http://www.taz.de/!153704/ [2] https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#subs https://lwn.net/op/FAQ.lwn#subs
sverige 9y ago
From the creator side, the internet sidesteps the need for the huge investments needed by all other content-delivery systems. No need to print thousands or millions of books. No need to set up a TV or radio station, or a movie or recording studio, or convince someone who owns that infrastructure to publish your stuff. From the consumer side, the only investment is an Internet connection and the equipment needed to access it. More expensive than a single book or a movie ticket, but practically limitless once you have it. So yeah, no one wants to pay. I'm surprised that anyone pretends to be surprised by that. Advertisers are parasites. They need a host to survive. Almost no one cares if they don't survive, including the content creators and the companies with products to be advertised, if they can figure out how to make money without them. There's the rub. Your busker analogy is actually perfect, by the way. The content is freely available because the busker chose to make it so in an effort to get an audience. Then the busker is outraged when someone doesn't pay? Under what theory of justice is the busker outraged when people take him up on his offer of free content?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
LeoNatan25 9y ago
> Make the content so exceptionally good that the users will literally throw money at their monitor And what’s wrong with that? If more entities focused on "exceptionally good” content and services, a lot more people would be willing to pay.
daptaq 9y ago
I'd agree, but luckely it's not the consumers responsibility for a company to turn in a profit - and I see no reason whatsoever to care about other companies by helping them invade the privacy of so many people. After all, they wouldn't care about me (or anyone else for that matter) either.
PrimHelios 9y ago
I feel for you, I really do. Unfortunately, I can't risk the integrity of my privacy or machines by allowing all ads and taking the bad with the good. People have replied (not very politely, unfortunately) with some suggestions though. Self-hosting ads, using a banner asking people whitelist you, or just straight up using Patron might help. Again, I'm sorry you're in a situation like this, it really sucks :/
James_Owens_69 9y ago
>do you people stand around street-musicians for 45min and when they nudge their hat just say "fuck you, your content is not good enough to pay for; now shut up and continue playing"? I ignore that guy and move along hoping that he would fuck off and that I won't see him again tomorrow.
micheljones 9y ago
"As someone whoms (sic) business largely relies on cigarettes, please don't go out of your way to stop smoking."
malchow 9y ago
You've posted a smart post, but it goes against tech religion which (contrary to science) holds that advertising is inherently evil because it is "brain hacking" or some such.
ksrm 9y ago
Nobody owes you a living. You are free to think up a better business model.
azeirah 9y ago
If there is a need for small businesses, and advertising dies, small businesses will survive because someone will come along to solve the problem of income for small businesses.
zentropia 9y ago
Ads spam your attention and makes you lose time and energy. It's a big cost for humanity.
hvis 9y ago
Some people do try to come up with alternatives. https://flattr.com/ https://flattr.com/ has been around for a while, but they're doing an overhaul of their model now, together with the company behind Adblock Plus. Here's the latest related post: https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-story-about-the-new-flattr-making-your-content-flattrable https://adblockplus.org/blog/the-story-about-the-new-flattr-...
williamle8300 9y ago
As a person who does stuff I wholeheartedly support doing whatever I want to stuff you put on my computer screen.
featherverse 9y ago
I'm a business owner and I rely on advertising, and I would still ruin advertising. 1. Advertising gives advantages to the largest richest corporations and stifles competition from superior small businesses. 2. It makes people stupid, they don't take the time to investigate products before buying, because they are literally brainwashed from hearing the same bullshit every day from advertisers. 3. It wastes our time. It is 2017, it is the information era, if you want a product you open a web search and look for it. Advertising is no longer necessary or relevant, and it is stealing moments from people. There are more reasons. Advertising is already dead, and if your business operates solely on advertising then your business is in real trouble. I started telling people this a year ago and they laughed at me. Get off that flaming wreck now while you still can, or sink and burn with the rest of them. The smart people are already looking for new revenue models. Adapting to new conditions is a critical part of survival skills, and if you can't do it you won't survive.
f137 9y ago
What did you expect, really? Most people are assholes online, and HN is no exception.
Posibyte 9y ago
Just as a quick response to your EDIT2, Twitch runs such a model where gamers and creative people have lots of people paying for otherwise free content. And it works really well. I think it'd be really cool if you dropped some of the defensiveness and used your position to help offer some suggestions to the problem. I know it's hard to see it from other angles that may not directly benefit you, but it'll help extend a resource that might disappear if people disagree with it hard enough en masse.

jakozaur 9y ago

[deleted]

balazsdavid987 9y ago
Who should decide which ads to block?

quuquuquu 9y ago

"There’s an emerging movement in the online ad industry to use sites that don’t track you. We collaborated with our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to make exceptions for ads on these sites. So in the rare event you see an ad while using AdNauseam, cherish it as it is probably being served by one of the good guys.” EHHHHHH i mean i'd like to agree 99% of the time with this, but since were being moralist and absolutist here.... why not just have absolutely no loopholes, and let the "good guys" do HTML text ads, or just a good ol image file?

corobo 9y ago
I hate the idea of AdNauseam clicking ads, like another thread says the big ad-covered sites will have the resources to protect against this. This just punishes the random bloggers who have slapped adsense on their site. Allowing loopholes though - Isn't that how Adblock Plus first introduced their pay to win system? My bet would be these guys are going to start taking payments for whitelisting.
- quuquuquu 9y ago
  I am absolutely inclined to agree and will never forgive Adblock Plus for such a busted and hypocritical business model! Fortunately for us, we have uBlock, which is open source and is also the basis for AdNauseum. If it really is futile to spam the spammers, then small blogs indeed will be the sole losers here. What is worse though, is that the internet is already a terrible place in aggregate for intelligent content to make money. It's basically given away for free, or sold to very specific buyers (usually people who are purchasing consulting or are hiring smart people for full time). So, not many people make ad money off of high quality content, for two reasons: too much bad content is drowning them out, and too much good content being given away for free

adsthrowaway12 9y ago

This is a very genuine question. To those what despise ads and want to see everyone who uses them destroyed and the ad industry destroyed. How do you currently make a living? Is it all through donation? If you work for an employer. Do they sell products or services? So, they must advertise right? If you work for google? Well, that's how they make their profits each year. If you work for a non-profit. How do the people who donate, earn their living? Can you be sure they also live from donations only? Bottom line is, if advertising goes away. How do you expect to make a living, if no one knows about products and is not buying? Advertising has been around far longer than a large portion of the audience of this website. The thinking that advertising can be changed to a tipping system is naive at best. ------------------- I'd love to hear what the stone throwers think. How do we replace this industry that must be destroyed at all costs. How will someone from the future, market their product without advertising of any kind. Must new products sit on the shelf or be used by a very few because any form of communication about a product IS ITSELF AN ADVERTISEMENT and must be STOPPED! Honestly, I'd like to know!

ge96 9y ago

Is this the one that clicks on random stuff to trick trackers from knowing your true interests? I heard about that

petepete 9y ago

As someone who now has a banner advert embedded in the menu of my TV, good. The advertising industry is awful and intrusive. Yes, businesses will have to adjust or rethink, and that's a good thing. It's a Samsung SUHD, by the way http://i.imgur.com/m3ePBkr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/m3ePBkr.jpg

JetSpiegel 9y ago
I have a similar model, mine is completely disconnected from the Internet. Still nags me about "Smart Hub" if I misclick some button on the remote named "Extra".
- petepete 9y ago
  Currently I use the TV for YouTube, Amazon Prime and normal TV (through Sky). I could go the Amazon Fire route (Chromecast still won't play Amazon Prime) and disconnect the TV, but it's annoying because apart from the ad, the TV is great. The worst thing is that the ads weren't there when I bought the TV, they came (undocumented) in a software update that I can't roll back.
  - chrisper 9y ago
    Amazon fire has more ads than that.

jaclaz 9y ago

If I get this right, 85% customers use ad-blockers, and (roughly) 5% pay a subscription on convery's site. Does it mean that the site is profitable with only 10% of ads delivered?

convery 9y ago
Through advertising alone? No. From a purely business perspective, it's shit. But we subsidize it through our other ventures because we want the users to have access to the content.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  Then I don't understand. If (say) 20% of the 85% now using ad-blockers were convinced that they are hurting you, and stop using the ad-blocker, what will change? I am assuming that the "conversion rate" (i.e. people actually clicking on the ads that they now see) will be very near to 0%.
  - convery 9y ago
    > and stop using the ad-blocker, what will change? The site would become less of a burden on our company. It would still not be profitable, but there's quite a difference between losing 100$ a month and losing 80$ a month to provide users content they've come to expect.
    - jaclaz 9y ago
      No, I was assuming (maybe wrongly) that those that currently use adblockers also never usually click on any ad. The question, if you prefer was: Is there a difference between preventing ads from showing on the page (adblocker) and seeing them but ignoring them?

fnl 9y ago

Ad blocking(edit: or obfuscation like this, obviously) technology that can be installed directly on the router, to protect everybody on my network.. Now that would be a thing! Does a usable option of that kind of tool exist?

jerluc 9y ago
There are definitely several ad-blocking VPNs out there. And then there's PiHole [1] if you have a spare raspberry pi laying around on your network. [1]: https://pi-hole.net/ https://pi-hole.net/
- fnl 9y ago
  Now this solution looks really cool, as it doesn't even need more than changing the DNS on the router. Thanks!
falcolas 9y ago
Well, there are hosts files which blackhole requests to known ad domains, so it wouldn't be too much work to make that work as a local DNS router. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
- fnl 9y ago
  Thanks, that looks like an interesting blacklist!
johnwaynedoe 9y ago
With OpenWRT/LEDE you can do that. However, it does not seem to work as well as a browser implementation. https://lede-project.org/docs/howto/ad-blocking https://lede-project.org/docs/howto/ad-blocking
- fnl 9y ago
  Thanks! Yeah, I guess HTTPS everywhere is the "enemy" in this case... But at least it gives us some basic protection.

maxencecornet 9y ago

AdNauseam is just not a good approach to malware/ads/surveillance blocking. The creators clearly haven't been on both side of the ads spectrum: As content creators and intrusive ads blockers They don't know the inside of this market enough, they don't know what happens when a website get it's ads clickbombed Some websites really have no other way to finance themselves other then using ads, and use not intrusive ads network and AdNauseam will just get them banned AdNauseam is just about wrecking avok publishers revenues by getting them banned from ads networks, so like always, it's the small publishers that will get punished, and not the big shit ads companies. Buzzfeed-like companies will find a way to counter AdNauseam,they have the ressources for it, but not the smaller tech blogger that you like reading I wrote something about it a few months ago: https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/please-consider-carefully-what-using-adnauseam-really-means-c39c111b74a0 https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/please-consider-carefully-... I'll stick to ublock. If you hate ads but like some content, stick to ads blockers as well

balazsdavid987 9y ago
Something like that ran through my mind before I clicked on the install button. It's the small publishers and individual content creators who suffer from AdNauseam, not the big media companies. It just kills the small players and helps big companies grow bigger.

zb3 9y ago

It seems obvious that since this would damage Google, Google will defend themselves by detecting and blocking this kind of traffic. Optionally they may also suspend accounts.

ecomshopowner 9y ago

As someone who runs a business relying on driving customers via google adwords, I'd say use it. Right now, google adwords are the best way to get my products in front of people. It works and is worth it. I'd love for that not to be the case. Ads are intrusive. Conversion rates are low but the math still makes sense. As an aside, my business recently started more aggressively running email campaigns for previous (ecommerce) customers to get them back. We saw a huge return for emailing our customers multiple times in a month rather than once a month. This is awful, as the conversion rate from email to purchase is something like 0.5%. It's still worth it. All those people are opening email after email. So much wasted time. But in the end, email marketing works and is cheap. Marketing is one big tragedy of the commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

peepopeep 9y ago
0.5% conversion on email? Wow.. you are doing something wrong. My clients have like a 15-21% conversion via email but it probably depends on what you're selling. So, what are you selling?
- p0nce 9y ago
  15-21% conversion from email to purchase?
- dpacmittal 9y ago
  You mean clicks or actual conversions?
qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
It's the same conversion rate as direct mail. And that works. How high should a conversion rate be?

gasull 9y ago

I would like to see how this compares in speed with uBlock Origin. I'm also not convinced you gain more privacy using AdNauseam than just blocking the ads. See this other discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/6lq3k6/is_it_safesecure_to_use_adnauseam_instead_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/comments/6lq3k6/is_i...

James_Owens_69 9y ago

No money = no normies on the Internet. Imagine a world where people actually pay for Internet services without ads again. That would blow social media plankton out of the water.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

herbst 9y ago

Until recently I basically lived of Adsense. But i never use the Internet without adblocker myself. Even on my phone and I help all my friends to get ad free as well. The crazy thing for me is that I still did depend on ads to keep my free content alive. On the cheapest hosting option one of my sites would run into around $40 worth of hosting a month plus endless hours of moderation and 'fixing'. I did experiment with self hosted ads. Sorrily this is a pain in itself because for whatever reason a lot of adblockers block anything that appears like a obvious ad. Even self hosted images if they may are in a subdirectory called ads or have a id therelike. So I called everything 'meow' instead of ads. A month later a popular ad block list included a filter for my ads... (~3 million sessions/month) and my self hosted, non evil, non JS ads were blocked again. Not to mention that the income was not even a 10th. I still am undecided on the topic. But i want people to understand that especially Adsense is indeed important for small publishers. End of the story is i sold the site because Adsense started to pay less and less for more traffic and now a ad company is milking my back then only Adsense site with about 5 more trackers and ad networks...

maxencecornet 9y ago
>and my self hosted, non evil, non JS ads were blocked again. It's crazy that ad blockers would block self-hosted, non-js images ads, I mean, there's no tracking associated with it, it doesn't make any sense IMO What kind of traffic allowed you to live of Adsense? Millions hits a day? Or very targeted traffic with high CPC maybe?
- Aissen 9y ago
  Some people are just in it for the saved screenspace and bandwidth. Still a weird decision.
- herbst 9y ago
  A stupid gaming site. It wasn't that great I also live a rather simple life. Best month this site was $1900 or so, usually less. Also i dont know either. It really still bothers me. We can't fix the ad industry if we just turn a blind eye.

kwoff 9y ago

All of my addons are "Legacy" in Firefox now. How do we get updated versions of these?

craigds 9y ago

I'd love to use this, but I can't afford for Google to block my Google account. Yes, this is not really tied to my Google account, but would Google associate me with it and delete my account anyway? I think they might. For that reason I'm happy to continue just blocking ads, since that's much less likely to put me on their radar

dpacmittal 9y ago

I really hate to see HN's general attitude towards ads. As another poster said, ads are a shitty system and its abused, but it really is the only way some people can provide free content. When I started my first tech blog back in 2009, I was 18yo, living in Nepal. I had no means whatsoever to make money online but it was super easy to setup adsense account and in no time I was generating some revenue. I agree, the ad system is broken, but this is not a solution. This tool will do nothing but harm publishers, possibly get their adsense account banned for click fraud, and eventually cause them to shut down their website. Ad industry is huge and there ought to be better way to fix the problems than straight out blocking the ads, or tools like these which gets so much kudos on HN that it makes me sick. It is the same bunch of crowd who call themselves entrepreneurs and then they cheer for anti-entrepreneur tools like these. The ugly fact is we don't have a better system in place than what we have now, and tools like these don't make the situation any better.