6 ms·

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

by dx87 8y ago

skj 8y ago
Well, it does cost them money to serve you the site.
- gaius 8y ago
  Their bandwidth bills would be a lot cheaper if they weren’t sending megabytes of JS for every kb of actual content
  - cirenehc 8y ago
    You have no idea what you are talking about. JS doesn't nearly cost as much as images, and most ad-related JS are minified. For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players and don't have to worry about growing your user base.
    - gaius 8y ago
      For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players I was, until recently, a paying subscriber to the NYT, and there is no difference in the ads and tracking crap they pull. So I call shenanigans on that.
    - dang 8y ago
      > You have no idea what you are talking about. No personal swipes on HN, please. Your comment would be fine without that bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lotu 8y ago
    Bandwidth isn’t the main cost of running a website you also have to pay people to make content. Compared to that bandwidth is free.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
smudgymcscmudge 8y ago
Came here to make a similar point. That phrase reveals a mindset that they are entitled to force our browsers to execute whatever javascript they decide.
cirenehc 8y ago
But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).
- dmortin 8y ago
  Exactly. People don't get that getting rid of ads helps only the big players (because they can require subscriptions), while hurting the little guys. People may subscribe for big newspapers and such, but they won't subscribe to a lot of smaller blogs, for example, on various blogging platforms, which do provide value, but they are not big enough to warrant a subscription. Ads solve this case and I haven't heard any viable alternative for them for small players.
  - always_good 8y ago
    You can see this in action on HN when people constantly use big publications like The Verge and NYT when complaining about ads or suggesting that everyone needs to find a new business model. Meanwhile my forum now costs more money than it brings in. It's been giving teens a place to write collaborative fiction for over 10 years now. Seems a bit sad that we'll eventually just be left with the sites big enough to live without ads. We're in the middle of a great centralization which you'd think most of HN would be wary of. Instead I see the opposite, people basically welcoming it with a bloodlust in their eyes. What they don't realize is that their favorite examples of ad-dependent websites cast around HN like The Verge will be the last to die.
- shakna 8y ago
  I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.
  - kalcode 8y ago
    That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it. If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now. Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it. If they didn't want to hand over the rights they should've blocked me from viewing it. That kind of argument is an argument I expect in a non-tech site with people making excuses. You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all. The way the internet works doesn't create a vector that allows that. If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible. Those smaller sites would lose to bigger sites that can get away with slower response times or ignore pre-checking anyways.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

by dx87 8y ago

Gotta love their choice of wording, "recover lost revenue from ad blocking users", like blocking ads is equivalent to stealing money from the site owner.

skj 8y ago

Well, it does cost them money to serve you the site.

gaius 8y ago
Their bandwidth bills would be a lot cheaper if they weren’t sending megabytes of JS for every kb of actual content
- cirenehc 8y ago
  You have no idea what you are talking about. JS doesn't nearly cost as much as images, and most ad-related JS are minified. For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players and don't have to worry about growing your user base.
  - gaius 8y ago
    For many websites ad serving is the only profitable model. You won't make money off subscriptions unless you are one of the big players I was, until recently, a paying subscriber to the NYT, and there is no difference in the ads and tracking crap they pull. So I call shenanigans on that.
  - dang 8y ago
    > You have no idea what you are talking about. No personal swipes on HN, please. Your comment would be fine without that bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lotu 8y ago
  Bandwidth isn’t the main cost of running a website you also have to pay people to make content. Compared to that bandwidth is free.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

smudgymcscmudge 8y ago

Came here to make a similar point. That phrase reveals a mindset that they are entitled to force our browsers to execute whatever javascript they decide.

cirenehc 8y ago

But that's true isn't it? What's with this entitlement that sites should be ad-free while still providing value? I own a blog, there is no way I could have a profitable subscription based model (believe me, I tried).

dmortin 8y ago
Exactly. People don't get that getting rid of ads helps only the big players (because they can require subscriptions), while hurting the little guys. People may subscribe for big newspapers and such, but they won't subscribe to a lot of smaller blogs, for example, on various blogging platforms, which do provide value, but they are not big enough to warrant a subscription. Ads solve this case and I haven't heard any viable alternative for them for small players.
- always_good 8y ago
  You can see this in action on HN when people constantly use big publications like The Verge and NYT when complaining about ads or suggesting that everyone needs to find a new business model. Meanwhile my forum now costs more money than it brings in. It's been giving teens a place to write collaborative fiction for over 10 years now. Seems a bit sad that we'll eventually just be left with the sites big enough to live without ads. We're in the middle of a great centralization which you'd think most of HN would be wary of. Instead I see the opposite, people basically welcoming it with a bloodlust in their eyes. What they don't realize is that their favorite examples of ad-dependent websites cast around HN like The Verge will be the last to die.
shakna 8y ago
I understand your issues... But I'm downloading your code, how it is displayed, and whether I run it your way is up to me - I already requested it, and your server fulfilled the request. If you wanted contractual obligations, they need to happen before you hand over the content.
- kalcode 8y ago
  That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it. If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now. Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it. If they didn't want to hand over the rights they should've blocked me from viewing it. That kind of argument is an argument I expect in a non-tech site with people making excuses. You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all. The way the internet works doesn't create a vector that allows that. If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible. Those smaller sites would lose to bigger sites that can get away with slower response times or ignore pre-checking anyways.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]