6 ms·

A response to some of the many arguments expressed in this thread: "Then don't listen to it". Alternatively, I'll do what I do now, which is listen to it but s

A response to some of the many arguments expressed in this thread: "Then don't listen to it". Alternatively, I'll do what I do now, which is listen to it but skip the ads and wait for software that can automatically skip them to come around, which is the same thing I did for websites. "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. Of course adblock software came after web browsers built in popup blockers in response to the X-10 Spycam being 50% of web advertising circa 2001-2003, so really you could argue the web browsers are selfish and we're all selfish if we don't turn off the popup blockers. Really, even if a website says "By using this website, we're going to install malware on your computer", you're selfish if you reject the malware. If selfish means that I make decisions that make things better for me at the expense of others, then yes, I am selfish when it comes to ads. I view ads as toxic and bad for my health, and I take measures to avoid them. "But it'll lead to the collapse of podcast publishing". Maybe. Of course publishers repeatedly said adblocking would lead to the collapse of the web, and as best as I can tell mostly idiots doing a pivot to Facebook Video caused what collapse did occur (because, as selfish actors, they pursued a greater revenue stream at the expense of quality and integrity -- oops, turns out there's no money there because the numbers are all fake.), Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. Certainly all the websites I read have found alternate revenue models just fine. Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice. If podcasting collapses and goes back to the dark ages of being a non-commercial hobby medium like it was three years ago, like, okay? "Stop comparing podcasts to websites, podcast ads aren't as bad" Maybe, but you don't get to decide for me my threshold for ignoring or blocking ads. Ads weren't as bad when I started using AdBlock Plus in 2004, but they were bad enough for me to decide to use it. Others may have had their breaking point later because they are less sensitive to ads. Some people might still browse the web with ads on and claim they don't care. You do you. The strange thing to me is people expressing that they'd rather block ads, but they're too noble to do so, so they get mad at others for blocking ads? Uh, okay?

smacktoward 8y ago
> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. Yes, that's exactly correct! Just like them, you are selfish. Just because "millions of people" do something doesn't make it morally right. > Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. This would be news to most working journalists, of which there are a lot fewer now than there used to be (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/30/newsroom-employment-dropped-nearly-a-quarter-in-less-than-10-years-with-greatest-decline-at-newspapers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/30/newsroom-emp...). Even high quality publications like the New York Times have been struggling for a decade-plus now to figure out a way just to break even online. The ones that have done best are the ones that have put up paywalls, which is kind of ironic when you realize that the only thing HN readers hate more than seeing an ad is hitting a paywall. The only other model that has proved sustainable is selling the publication to become the personal toy of some billionaire, which is fine as long as you're OK with all the news you get being subject to the whims of a few billionaires. > If podcasting collapses and goes back to the dark ages of being a non-commercial hobby medium like it was three years ago, like, okay? At least you're honest about your entitlement to stuff you love being more important to you than whether or not the people who make that stuff can make a living at it. So there's that.
- iooi 8y ago
  > Even high quality publications like the New York Times have been struggling for a decade-plus now to figure out a way just to break even online. False. "New York Times Co. Reports $24 Million Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers" [1]. 3/4 of NYTimes subscribers are online-only. They take in $100mm in online subscriptions and $50mm in online ads per quarter. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-t...
  - nnd 8y ago
    NYTimes is also actively fighting against the use of the adblockers.
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      fwiw nytimes is much easier to read with my adblocker on than washingtonpost or wsj.
    - Nadya 8y ago
      Because they can pocket additional money at the low, low cost of other peoples' mental health and integrity. Why wouldn't they fight against Ad Blockers? Ads are mental warfare and take on various different forms of manipulation. Many ads are often based on emotional manipulation rather than trying to improve your life by informing you about a good or service, they attempt to belittle you or make it seem like you'd be happy if you just bought their product. Your life is miserable without this product. This product will make you happy. I'm lovin' it. Tell me what useful information about MetLife this very emotionally manipulative commercial conveys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII Their website URL? That's it. A 3 minute advertisement to emotionally manipulate you and provide you with a website URL.
      - nnd 8y ago
        Wouldn't publishers rather prefer if people paid for a subscription rather than shoving ads onto them? I think the real issue is that most users are not willing to pay for quality content. Instead, journalists are forced to produce click-bait junk that would give them lots of clicks and ad revenue. Am I missing some part of the picture here?
Dirlewanger 8y ago
I view ads as toxic and bad for my health Absolutely. The online advertising industry blew their goodwill with gross carelessness years ago, and have only continued to make things worse as revenues fall. Fuck 'em all. Aside from a handful of sites I can count on one hand, I'll never browse without an adblocker again. If innovations like this audio blocker catch on and start to kill podcasts too, well...sorry. Unfortunate collateral damage I guess. The strange thing to me is people expressing that they'd rather block ads, but they're too noble to do so, so they get mad at others for blocking ads? Uh, okay? I think most of the people doing this are playing the troll contrarian card and fishing for responses.
Hoasi 8y ago
> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock software on their browser. I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads. I think this "moral" argument is pushed by people who generally benefit from ads and have less incentive to considers ethical issues raised by ad tech. From their perspective, advertising is free money. Publishing has a cost and people's work and effort should be compensated, all right. But you are not ripping someone off just because they picked the wrong revenue model. You are just protecting yourself by preventing your data being used by thirds parties without your consent. And you should. And besides, there are ethical ads options. Given the choice, I would support publishers using these ads, in absence of a better solution.
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  A different way to think about it is to think of the web. Back when ads were just static banners, I never saw a point in blocking them. Then, ads started actively degrading my browsing experience. Some ads would make a web page load slowly, or not load at all. Other ads would cover up the page that I was reading. I can assume that the same can be said for some web radio ads?
- krelian 8y ago
  If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?
  - lelandbatey 8y ago
    The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins. You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.
wiz21c 8y ago
>> "But it'll lead to the collapse of podcast publishing". There's money and there's money. If one cool website gets money thanks to painful invasive advertising, I call that bad money. I'm paying them using bad money. They've chosen that I deserve that mean to pay them. Not very respectful, but I'm ok with it since I read it. If on the other they ask me a few bucks to access them, that's good money. They basically do me a favor. The favor to have a choice : is that site so good I'm willing to pay ? 30 years ago, I was spending say 6-7 euros a month to buy magazines, so it was possible to make content interesting enough for me to pay. And it wasn't dark ages, I had some very interesting information (Dr. Dobb's, Edge, Byte...)
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  Last time that I brought a (local) technology magazine it was filled with ads. Paying for content and ads are not exclusive.
  - dest 8y ago
    It's a pity in my opinion. But I understand magazine business is hard and you cannot give an alternative ad free format, more expensive, in kiosks.
    - hopler 8y ago
      If ads are a valid funding model and payment is a valid model, why wouldn't both together be valid? What matters is the total price, now how it is broken down.
      - dest 8y ago
        Here is a gross example to make my point. Imagine, when buying your groceries, you had to pay half cash, half by prostituting yourself. Nobody would want that. Though, prostitution is a valid funding model, as sex workers earn a living with it. To extend the metaphor, I see advertising as some kind of prostitution for my brain. I do not want that for my brain.
dominotw 8y ago
> Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice. what if something of value was lost?
ben509 8y ago
> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. If advertisers had gotten together and said, "people have limited tolerance for ads, so we need to work out a scheme to put limits on how much we throw at them," there never would have been any demand for adblockers. > Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. The new model of direct patronage is much better than advertiser funded content. They actually listen to their supporters, what a concept! > Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice. That's a major function of a market, forcing non-performing market entrants to shift their resources towards a function they're better suited to. It's not pretty, because it means going out of business, but it's necessary.
gameshot911 8y ago
>I view ads as toxic and bad for my health, and I take measures to avoid them. That's fine, but then your response should be to not visit the website at all. Not to take take what you want as you see fit.

smacktoward 8y ago

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. Yes, that's exactly correct! Just like them, you are selfish. Just because "millions of people" do something doesn't make it morally right. > Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. This would be news to most working journalists, of which there are a lot fewer now than there used to be (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/30/newsroom-employment-dropped-nearly-a-quarter-in-less-than-10-years-with-greatest-decline-at-newspapers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/30/newsroom-emp...). Even high quality publications like the New York Times have been struggling for a decade-plus now to figure out a way just to break even online. The ones that have done best are the ones that have put up paywalls, which is kind of ironic when you realize that the only thing HN readers hate more than seeing an ad is hitting a paywall. The only other model that has proved sustainable is selling the publication to become the personal toy of some billionaire, which is fine as long as you're OK with all the news you get being subject to the whims of a few billionaires. > If podcasting collapses and goes back to the dark ages of being a non-commercial hobby medium like it was three years ago, like, okay? At least you're honest about your entitlement to stuff you love being more important to you than whether or not the people who make that stuff can make a living at it. So there's that.

iooi 8y ago
> Even high quality publications like the New York Times have been struggling for a decade-plus now to figure out a way just to break even online. False. "New York Times Co. Reports $24 Million Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers" [1]. 3/4 of NYTimes subscribers are online-only. They take in $100mm in online subscriptions and $50mm in online ads per quarter. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-times-earnings-subscriptions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/business/media/new-york-t...
- nnd 8y ago
  NYTimes is also actively fighting against the use of the adblockers.
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    fwiw nytimes is much easier to read with my adblocker on than washingtonpost or wsj.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    Because they can pocket additional money at the low, low cost of other peoples' mental health and integrity. Why wouldn't they fight against Ad Blockers? Ads are mental warfare and take on various different forms of manipulation. Many ads are often based on emotional manipulation rather than trying to improve your life by informing you about a good or service, they attempt to belittle you or make it seem like you'd be happy if you just bought their product. Your life is miserable without this product. This product will make you happy. I'm lovin' it. Tell me what useful information about MetLife this very emotionally manipulative commercial conveys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bdm4NBYxII Their website URL? That's it. A 3 minute advertisement to emotionally manipulate you and provide you with a website URL.
    - nnd 8y ago
      Wouldn't publishers rather prefer if people paid for a subscription rather than shoving ads onto them? I think the real issue is that most users are not willing to pay for quality content. Instead, journalists are forced to produce click-bait junk that would give them lots of clicks and ad revenue. Am I missing some part of the picture here?

Dirlewanger 8y ago

I view ads as toxic and bad for my health Absolutely. The online advertising industry blew their goodwill with gross carelessness years ago, and have only continued to make things worse as revenues fall. Fuck 'em all. Aside from a handful of sites I can count on one hand, I'll never browse without an adblocker again. If innovations like this audio blocker catch on and start to kill podcasts too, well...sorry. Unfortunate collateral damage I guess. The strange thing to me is people expressing that they'd rather block ads, but they're too noble to do so, so they get mad at others for blocking ads? Uh, okay? I think most of the people doing this are playing the troll contrarian card and fishing for responses.

Hoasi 8y ago

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock software on their browser. I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads. I think this "moral" argument is pushed by people who generally benefit from ads and have less incentive to considers ethical issues raised by ad tech. From their perspective, advertising is free money. Publishing has a cost and people's work and effort should be compensated, all right. But you are not ripping someone off just because they picked the wrong revenue model. You are just protecting yourself by preventing your data being used by thirds parties without your consent. And you should. And besides, there are ethical ads options. Given the choice, I would support publishers using these ads, in absence of a better solution.

gwbas1c 8y ago
A different way to think about it is to think of the web. Back when ads were just static banners, I never saw a point in blocking them. Then, ads started actively degrading my browsing experience. Some ads would make a web page load slowly, or not load at all. Other ads would cover up the page that I was reading. I can assume that the same can be said for some web radio ads?
krelian 8y ago
If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?
- lelandbatey 8y ago
  The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins. You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.

wiz21c 8y ago

>> "But it'll lead to the collapse of podcast publishing". There's money and there's money. If one cool website gets money thanks to painful invasive advertising, I call that bad money. I'm paying them using bad money. They've chosen that I deserve that mean to pay them. Not very respectful, but I'm ok with it since I read it. If on the other they ask me a few bucks to access them, that's good money. They basically do me a favor. The favor to have a choice : is that site so good I'm willing to pay ? 30 years ago, I was spending say 6-7 euros a month to buy magazines, so it was possible to make content interesting enough for me to pay. And it wasn't dark ages, I had some very interesting information (Dr. Dobb's, Edge, Byte...)

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
Last time that I brought a (local) technology magazine it was filled with ads. Paying for content and ads are not exclusive.
- dest 8y ago
  It's a pity in my opinion. But I understand magazine business is hard and you cannot give an alternative ad free format, more expensive, in kiosks.
  - hopler 8y ago
    If ads are a valid funding model and payment is a valid model, why wouldn't both together be valid? What matters is the total price, now how it is broken down.
    - dest 8y ago
      Here is a gross example to make my point. Imagine, when buying your groceries, you had to pay half cash, half by prostituting yourself. Nobody would want that. Though, prostitution is a valid funding model, as sex workers earn a living with it. To extend the metaphor, I see advertising as some kind of prostitution for my brain. I do not want that for my brain.

dominotw 8y ago

> Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice. what if something of value was lost?

ben509 8y ago

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser. If advertisers had gotten together and said, "people have limited tolerance for ads, so we need to work out a scheme to put limits on how much we throw at them," there never would have been any demand for adblockers. > Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc. The new model of direct patronage is much better than advertiser funded content. They actually listen to their supporters, what a concept! > Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice. That's a major function of a market, forcing non-performing market entrants to shift their resources towards a function they're better suited to. It's not pretty, because it means going out of business, but it's necessary.

gameshot911 8y ago

>I view ads as toxic and bad for my health, and I take measures to avoid them. That's fine, but then your response should be to not visit the website at all. Not to take take what you want as you see fit.