10 ms·

Would you be willing to turn adblocker into a time tracker and you pay for the time on site via a monthly payout via something like PayPal? If not, would be in

Would you be willing to turn adblocker into a time tracker and you pay for the time on site via a monthly payout via something like PayPal? If not, would be interested on how you expect publishers to make money?

XorNot 8y ago
The problem is publishers assuming I care about this. That they're actually indispensable to the ecosystem, rather then what they are - a passing interest who's absence I wouldn't notice or care about. Most of internet media just isn't good enough.
- standardcitizen 8y ago
  Thanks for getting to the point I wanted. Then I guess ads on these sites don’t matter, as they are so pointless, you’re not Visiting these sites. However, you still do, so they have value. That value comes at a price, rather you think they are good or not good for the ego system. You’re actions speak in the camp of them being good. I think we can all agree, some porn and content is not good. However, the value walks with out attention And not our moral desires. Through out this thread I’ve seen people say they have no respect for Facebook or google and their ads, yet services they use daily. Unwilling to pay, the product is you. Either pay with your money or lack of attention and this seems like it’s no longer a problem. M The issue is, we want all this but want to provide them with little or not compensation for their value. We use to speak with our attention, we didn’t like this store, so we never went there. Today, this extension is merely still going to the store, but ignoring what we dislike. Thus is the debate.
  - toopsss 8y ago
    There’s no debate. I use ad supported services (like Facebook) and I block ads. End of story. If these services go away because of some ad revenue problem (unlikely) I just don’t care. Right now there is no ad supported service that I believe I would pay anything for other than google search itself. I don’t have to right now so the issue is moot. I had a pretty rich life before Facebook and MySpace, somehow I’ll survive and I think I speak for a sizable chunk of people. Some people might value fb enough to pay for it like compuserve in the 80s. Good on them. I can possibly see how these issues might matter to you if you make a living at google or a large content company, but I, like the vast majority of people do not. It is not my concern. I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.
    - tajen 8y ago
      Especially not newspapers. Not only their information often isn’t balanced, it is sometimes so much propaganda filled with verifiable false facts (e.g. on the wage gap) that I wish they would disappear. I mostly use them only to take snapshots and build videos about how the press publishes false information or correct information worded in such a way that the reader gets the wrong idea. I would pay for Youtube. Or rather, for good youtubers. In fact, I donate using Patreon on a monthly basis to a few youtubers who provide accurate news. QED... No wonder they are dubbed as “Washington Compost” or “Confabulated News Network”. And same for any social network (Twitter, Facebook and Youtube) who censor right-wing informtion, not only I don’t care about their ad revenue, but if they disappeared because of this, it would be a net win for society. Neither newspapers nor social networks will disappear, unfortunately.
    - e12e 8y ago
      I currently host my own email, at, if I only used the servers for email, considerable cost both in rent and time. I wouldn't use Gmail, but I'd probably consider Fastmail if/when I don't want to host my own email anymore. I might use Dropbox over Google drive (rather than store stuff on my server), and I might use Neocities.org to host a static Web site. So there are many ad supported services that live next to "for pay" equivalent services. As for content, I used to subscribe to lwn.net - but stopped when I realised I wasn't reading it closely enough to warrant the subscription. I might come back at a later date. I'd love to see a site like like lwn that syndicated news; a clean look, perhaps with ads/delayed publishing to non-subscribers, the "subscription link"-system (i could share what I read with non-subscribers). And with proper compensation for conrmtributers (individuals and institutions).
    - standardcitizen 8y ago
      Not hard to understand, you’re just the issue I’m referring to, a leech that is bad for the eco system. At least you admit to it. You’re general statement is, I want to use something and I don’t care if they make money. If you don’t want to see ads, don’t use something. Thanks for displaying my point on the issue with people’s mindset on the thai topic. They don’t matter to me, as I don’t make my living this way, but they do matter to me because poeple cant benefit from making cool things because of the mindset you’ve displayed here.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    We've had adblockers for fifteen years. It was reasonable to speculate that they might kill online publishing in the early 2010s maybe. But now? Print doesn't have easy adblocking, it's just you and a pair of scissors. Which is stronger, print or web publishing? How many years of adblockers not destroying the internet should we see before it's reasonable to reevaluate our initial assumptions about their impact? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
  - HumanHater 8y ago
    There are hundreds of articles for any topic on the internet. Even if 10% of them could survive without ads it would more than enough. The problem is right now there is no way to distinguish between them without visiting them all. And I am not going to open and close 5 websites before I could finally find the one without ads. Website owners could easily fix that problem by declaring some standard mandatory component of URL for every ad-supported page. I would happily write and use an extension that would erase all links that have e.g. string "/ads/" in them. That way I would never visit there part of the internet and wouldn't harm them in any way. However since they don't want to make this small step towards my needs they are welcome to go to hell.
quantummkv 8y ago
I still subscribe daily to print newspapers. Today they had a half page ad for an amazon sale. No clickbaity content, no jarring colors, looks good, is designed to integrate with the content, and contains useful information. How does it work? You want to publish an ad, you go directly to the publisher. You design the ad for the paper or the magazine. It looks good and works for everyone involved. Web ads, however, are a complete anti-pattern. I imagine that the advertisers and the publishers can save themselves a lot of money and goodwill if they directly work together like they do in print.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  The problem is how to finance the hundred thousand micropublishers. To avoid the adnetwork trash effect you’d need someone big, like medium, to implement some well integrated advertisement with revenue sharing, like youtube. Failing that affiliate and ad networks and maybe microfinancing like patreon are the only things to get something out of micropublishing. Doesn’t seem fair.
  - mateuszf 8y ago
    Bitcoin / Lightning / browser integration / one click article buy may solve the problem in the future.
    - madeofpalk 8y ago
      HOW? How would it actually solve it in a way that previous attempts at pay-per-read microtransactions haven’t? What the fuck does Bitcoin have to do with it? Keep in mind that the majority of browsers (Safari and Chrome) have built in payment mechanisms already.
      - mathgeek 8y ago
        > What does Bitcoin have to do with it? Previous poster was using it as an example of a medium for exchange used with micropayments.
jahvo 8y ago
All journalists are twisted liars. I want them all to go under.
- paublyrne 8y ago
  Journalism is pretty much a pillar of democracy. Without anyone to report on the activities of government, you get cronyism and corruption. Look at any country where the freedom of the press is restricted for examples of this.
  - jahvo 8y ago
    I already have free press, cronyism and corruption. They are perfectly compatible.
- joelcornett 8y ago
  I love sweeping generalizations presented without evidence to back them up.
Zanni 8y ago
I specifically whitelisted the ads on Daring Fireball (and a few other sites) because they're 1) relevant and 2) unobtrusive. I would whitelist any site with the same policies. Back when I bought magazines at news stands, the ads were a big part of the reason as they were targeted to my interests (without spying on me). I want to connect with relevant advertising. I just want to do it on my terms, with out spyware, malware, slow load times, autoplaying video and sound, distracting animation, etc.
alxlaz 8y ago
I am happy to pay directly for content that is interesting and useful to me. For a long time, I subscribed to computer magazines like Byte, even when I had Internet access and supposedly had all the information at my fingertips. These days, I can't remember the last time I've read a good article on technology someplace other than on a blog, a website of a group of enthusiasts. If I ever ended up on websites like Wired or The Verge in the last five years or so, it was definitely by mistake. Many publishers make money through ads because most people wouldn't pay a dime for that stuff. Catchy is good enough to make people waste time, but not money. Edit: oh -- it's not all black and white, either. I use an ad blocker, but I whitelist the pages where I think it's worthwile. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Publishers who put out quality content and whose ads don't try to serve me malware (eh, Forbes?) get whitelisted. Everyone else, to quote the famous nihilistic philosopher B. B. Rodriguez, can bite my shiny metal ass.
Retric 8y ago
Consider, you are posting on HN that does not have 3rd party advertisements the website is simply cheap enough to keep running that it does not matter. Personally, I would not mind if all the advertising supported publishers went away. There are enough people willing to make absolutely free content that as a consumer I really don't need more than that to be entertained. Still, there are a range of funding available that doesn't depend on advertising such as donations, subscribers, and or merchandising. What's at risk is really the lowest form of content that can't be supported with it's own merits and I really see the problem if it simply goes away.
- katzgrau 8y ago
  > Personally, I would not mind if all the advertising supported publishers went away. There are a large number of award winning hyperlocal news websites run by hardworking and talented local news journalists who rely on advertising to survive. With out them though, there's be no one to report or investigate the shady things going on in local government. This advertising is directly sold by them (which isn't easy to do in an Era of Google and FB), without networks. For 99% of them, it's the most practical way to pay the bills. Subscribers are possible, but only if you're established and you have a wide enough audience. For a small town you'd need 1000 subscribers at 5k just to make a 60k pretax salary which support 1-2 staff members. Advertising supports hard journalism, which supports a healthy democracy. Ask yourself if all publishers supported by advertising going away would truly be a good thing.
  - FigmentEngine 8y ago
    Such as http://www.onlondon.co.uk/ http://www.onlondon.co.uk/ though they raised money through a fund raising platform https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/on-london-co-uk https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/on-london-co-uk (Edit to add link to fundraising, disclaimer: also I personally know the main jornalist, but not finally connected)
  - crdoconnor 8y ago
    >Advertising supports hard journalism, which supports a healthy democracy. Hard journalism is corrupted by advertising. It leads to corporatocracy and an unhealthy democracy. Independent media with public funding and a charter to support the public good (e.g. like the BBC used to be run) works better.
emodendroket 8y ago
I'm not sure I'd agree to a "time tracker," but I am generally way more willing to pay to get content easily and donate to sites I like than I was when I was younger.
beojan 8y ago
By charging users. It's the only truly honest way.
wu-ikkyu 8y ago
>If not, would be interested on how you expect publishers to make money? Why is it our responsibility to find a way for all publishers to make money?
- tonyarkles 8y ago
  I'll start with the premise that underlies my thoughts here: I like content that some publishers put out, and I accept that it costs money to produce. I'm a fan of the book Extreme Ownership, and reading your question got me thinking (a bit laterally, admittedly) about the book. I'm in a situation right now where I read and enjoy content made by professional publishers, and I also generally hate the direction Internet Advertising has gone. This puts me in a bit of a pickle... I can use an ad blocker, fully accepting that I'm cutting off the revenue stream from people whose content I enjoy, or I can not use an ad blocker and waste my battery, get tracked, and be generally annoyed. But what can I do about this? I can sit and bitch about it, I can wait until someone else comes up with some solution (which may just be ad-blocker-pay-walls, urgh), or I can spend some of my brain cycles thinking about and sharing my thoughts on solutions that result in publishers still having revenue without the parts that annoy me. Maybe you don't enjoy content that publishers put out, and that's totally fine. In that case, it's probably not worth thinking about; the publishing industry having terrible flash ads and video popups and things doesn't affect you, and if they go broke from not coming up with an alternative revenue model, that won't affect you either.
amthewiz 8y ago
This. Would people be willing to shell say $5/mo towards their online news content consumption? A browser plugin could then track time spend (keep all data local), at the end of the month, present a simple dialog that says, your top 5 destinations were these, uncheck any that you don't want to pay, and rest will get your $5 divided by time spent. This way users would get to browse ad-free, thanks to the ad blocking solutions, while publishers would also get some revenue. Ideally the payment service could generate some revenue as well and pass some to further developement/maintenance of the ad blockers.

XorNot 8y ago

The problem is publishers assuming I care about this. That they're actually indispensable to the ecosystem, rather then what they are - a passing interest who's absence I wouldn't notice or care about. Most of internet media just isn't good enough.

standardcitizen 8y ago
Thanks for getting to the point I wanted. Then I guess ads on these sites don’t matter, as they are so pointless, you’re not Visiting these sites. However, you still do, so they have value. That value comes at a price, rather you think they are good or not good for the ego system. You’re actions speak in the camp of them being good. I think we can all agree, some porn and content is not good. However, the value walks with out attention And not our moral desires. Through out this thread I’ve seen people say they have no respect for Facebook or google and their ads, yet services they use daily. Unwilling to pay, the product is you. Either pay with your money or lack of attention and this seems like it’s no longer a problem. M The issue is, we want all this but want to provide them with little or not compensation for their value. We use to speak with our attention, we didn’t like this store, so we never went there. Today, this extension is merely still going to the store, but ignoring what we dislike. Thus is the debate.
- toopsss 8y ago
  There’s no debate. I use ad supported services (like Facebook) and I block ads. End of story. If these services go away because of some ad revenue problem (unlikely) I just don’t care. Right now there is no ad supported service that I believe I would pay anything for other than google search itself. I don’t have to right now so the issue is moot. I had a pretty rich life before Facebook and MySpace, somehow I’ll survive and I think I speak for a sizable chunk of people. Some people might value fb enough to pay for it like compuserve in the 80s. Good on them. I can possibly see how these issues might matter to you if you make a living at google or a large content company, but I, like the vast majority of people do not. It is not my concern. I don’t get why this is so hard to understand.
  - tajen 8y ago
    Especially not newspapers. Not only their information often isn’t balanced, it is sometimes so much propaganda filled with verifiable false facts (e.g. on the wage gap) that I wish they would disappear. I mostly use them only to take snapshots and build videos about how the press publishes false information or correct information worded in such a way that the reader gets the wrong idea. I would pay for Youtube. Or rather, for good youtubers. In fact, I donate using Patreon on a monthly basis to a few youtubers who provide accurate news. QED... No wonder they are dubbed as “Washington Compost” or “Confabulated News Network”. And same for any social network (Twitter, Facebook and Youtube) who censor right-wing informtion, not only I don’t care about their ad revenue, but if they disappeared because of this, it would be a net win for society. Neither newspapers nor social networks will disappear, unfortunately.
  - e12e 8y ago
    I currently host my own email, at, if I only used the servers for email, considerable cost both in rent and time. I wouldn't use Gmail, but I'd probably consider Fastmail if/when I don't want to host my own email anymore. I might use Dropbox over Google drive (rather than store stuff on my server), and I might use Neocities.org to host a static Web site. So there are many ad supported services that live next to "for pay" equivalent services. As for content, I used to subscribe to lwn.net - but stopped when I realised I wasn't reading it closely enough to warrant the subscription. I might come back at a later date. I'd love to see a site like like lwn that syndicated news; a clean look, perhaps with ads/delayed publishing to non-subscribers, the "subscription link"-system (i could share what I read with non-subscribers). And with proper compensation for conrmtributers (individuals and institutions).
  - standardcitizen 8y ago
    Not hard to understand, you’re just the issue I’m referring to, a leech that is bad for the eco system. At least you admit to it. You’re general statement is, I want to use something and I don’t care if they make money. If you don’t want to see ads, don’t use something. Thanks for displaying my point on the issue with people’s mindset on the thai topic. They don’t matter to me, as I don’t make my living this way, but they do matter to me because poeple cant benefit from making cool things because of the mindset you’ve displayed here.
- brownbat 8y ago
  We've had adblockers for fifteen years. It was reasonable to speculate that they might kill online publishing in the early 2010s maybe. But now? Print doesn't have easy adblocking, it's just you and a pair of scissors. Which is stronger, print or web publishing? How many years of adblockers not destroying the internet should we see before it's reasonable to reevaluate our initial assumptions about their impact? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
- HumanHater 8y ago
  There are hundreds of articles for any topic on the internet. Even if 10% of them could survive without ads it would more than enough. The problem is right now there is no way to distinguish between them without visiting them all. And I am not going to open and close 5 websites before I could finally find the one without ads. Website owners could easily fix that problem by declaring some standard mandatory component of URL for every ad-supported page. I would happily write and use an extension that would erase all links that have e.g. string "/ads/" in them. That way I would never visit there part of the internet and wouldn't harm them in any way. However since they don't want to make this small step towards my needs they are welcome to go to hell.

quantummkv 8y ago

I still subscribe daily to print newspapers. Today they had a half page ad for an amazon sale. No clickbaity content, no jarring colors, looks good, is designed to integrate with the content, and contains useful information. How does it work? You want to publish an ad, you go directly to the publisher. You design the ad for the paper or the magazine. It looks good and works for everyone involved. Web ads, however, are a complete anti-pattern. I imagine that the advertisers and the publishers can save themselves a lot of money and goodwill if they directly work together like they do in print.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
The problem is how to finance the hundred thousand micropublishers. To avoid the adnetwork trash effect you’d need someone big, like medium, to implement some well integrated advertisement with revenue sharing, like youtube. Failing that affiliate and ad networks and maybe microfinancing like patreon are the only things to get something out of micropublishing. Doesn’t seem fair.
- mateuszf 8y ago
  Bitcoin / Lightning / browser integration / one click article buy may solve the problem in the future.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    HOW? How would it actually solve it in a way that previous attempts at pay-per-read microtransactions haven’t? What the fuck does Bitcoin have to do with it? Keep in mind that the majority of browsers (Safari and Chrome) have built in payment mechanisms already.
    - mathgeek 8y ago
      > What does Bitcoin have to do with it? Previous poster was using it as an example of a medium for exchange used with micropayments.

jahvo 8y ago

All journalists are twisted liars. I want them all to go under.

paublyrne 8y ago
Journalism is pretty much a pillar of democracy. Without anyone to report on the activities of government, you get cronyism and corruption. Look at any country where the freedom of the press is restricted for examples of this.
- jahvo 8y ago
  I already have free press, cronyism and corruption. They are perfectly compatible.
joelcornett 8y ago
I love sweeping generalizations presented without evidence to back them up.

Zanni 8y ago

I specifically whitelisted the ads on Daring Fireball (and a few other sites) because they're 1) relevant and 2) unobtrusive. I would whitelist any site with the same policies. Back when I bought magazines at news stands, the ads were a big part of the reason as they were targeted to my interests (without spying on me). I want to connect with relevant advertising. I just want to do it on my terms, with out spyware, malware, slow load times, autoplaying video and sound, distracting animation, etc.

alxlaz 8y ago

I am happy to pay directly for content that is interesting and useful to me. For a long time, I subscribed to computer magazines like Byte, even when I had Internet access and supposedly had all the information at my fingertips. These days, I can't remember the last time I've read a good article on technology someplace other than on a blog, a website of a group of enthusiasts. If I ever ended up on websites like Wired or The Verge in the last five years or so, it was definitely by mistake. Many publishers make money through ads because most people wouldn't pay a dime for that stuff. Catchy is good enough to make people waste time, but not money. Edit: oh -- it's not all black and white, either. I use an ad blocker, but I whitelist the pages where I think it's worthwile. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Publishers who put out quality content and whose ads don't try to serve me malware (eh, Forbes?) get whitelisted. Everyone else, to quote the famous nihilistic philosopher B. B. Rodriguez, can bite my shiny metal ass.

Retric 8y ago

Consider, you are posting on HN that does not have 3rd party advertisements the website is simply cheap enough to keep running that it does not matter. Personally, I would not mind if all the advertising supported publishers went away. There are enough people willing to make absolutely free content that as a consumer I really don't need more than that to be entertained. Still, there are a range of funding available that doesn't depend on advertising such as donations, subscribers, and or merchandising. What's at risk is really the lowest form of content that can't be supported with it's own merits and I really see the problem if it simply goes away.

katzgrau 8y ago
> Personally, I would not mind if all the advertising supported publishers went away. There are a large number of award winning hyperlocal news websites run by hardworking and talented local news journalists who rely on advertising to survive. With out them though, there's be no one to report or investigate the shady things going on in local government. This advertising is directly sold by them (which isn't easy to do in an Era of Google and FB), without networks. For 99% of them, it's the most practical way to pay the bills. Subscribers are possible, but only if you're established and you have a wide enough audience. For a small town you'd need 1000 subscribers at 5k just to make a 60k pretax salary which support 1-2 staff members. Advertising supports hard journalism, which supports a healthy democracy. Ask yourself if all publishers supported by advertising going away would truly be a good thing.
- FigmentEngine 8y ago
  Such as http://www.onlondon.co.uk/ http://www.onlondon.co.uk/ though they raised money through a fund raising platform https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/on-london-co-uk https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/on-london-co-uk (Edit to add link to fundraising, disclaimer: also I personally know the main jornalist, but not finally connected)
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  >Advertising supports hard journalism, which supports a healthy democracy. Hard journalism is corrupted by advertising. It leads to corporatocracy and an unhealthy democracy. Independent media with public funding and a charter to support the public good (e.g. like the BBC used to be run) works better.

emodendroket 8y ago

I'm not sure I'd agree to a "time tracker," but I am generally way more willing to pay to get content easily and donate to sites I like than I was when I was younger.

beojan 8y ago

By charging users. It's the only truly honest way.

wu-ikkyu 8y ago

>If not, would be interested on how you expect publishers to make money? Why is it our responsibility to find a way for all publishers to make money?

tonyarkles 8y ago
I'll start with the premise that underlies my thoughts here: I like content that some publishers put out, and I accept that it costs money to produce. I'm a fan of the book Extreme Ownership, and reading your question got me thinking (a bit laterally, admittedly) about the book. I'm in a situation right now where I read and enjoy content made by professional publishers, and I also generally hate the direction Internet Advertising has gone. This puts me in a bit of a pickle... I can use an ad blocker, fully accepting that I'm cutting off the revenue stream from people whose content I enjoy, or I can not use an ad blocker and waste my battery, get tracked, and be generally annoyed. But what can I do about this? I can sit and bitch about it, I can wait until someone else comes up with some solution (which may just be ad-blocker-pay-walls, urgh), or I can spend some of my brain cycles thinking about and sharing my thoughts on solutions that result in publishers still having revenue without the parts that annoy me. Maybe you don't enjoy content that publishers put out, and that's totally fine. In that case, it's probably not worth thinking about; the publishing industry having terrible flash ads and video popups and things doesn't affect you, and if they go broke from not coming up with an alternative revenue model, that won't affect you either.

amthewiz 8y ago

This. Would people be willing to shell say $5/mo towards their online news content consumption? A browser plugin could then track time spend (keep all data local), at the end of the month, present a simple dialog that says, your top 5 destinations were these, uncheck any that you don't want to pay, and rest will get your $5 divided by time spent. This way users would get to browse ad-free, thanks to the ad blocking solutions, while publishers would also get some revenue. Ideally the payment service could generate some revenue as well and pass some to further developement/maintenance of the ad blockers.