10 ms·

"It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it." This encapsulates the entire problem with the current state of digita

"It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it." This encapsulates the entire problem with the current state of digital advertising in 1 simple sentence.

keyle 7y ago
But you know, we wouldn't stop serving ads until we work it out... no no imagine the loss in revenues.
- craftinator 7y ago
  Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page, and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue.
  - keyle 7y ago
    I want to agree with you, but "passive ads sit on the edges of the page" is a false argument.
  - muckrakerz 7y ago
    No. We got content without this in the past, and we can do this in the future. And I will note THEY admit this is bad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      You didn't get Stackoverflow, and barely any of the content today. You may be fine with the internet of the early 90s but most people are not.
      - zrobotics 7y ago
        Who paid for the content I actually visit StackOverflow for? It surely wasn't SO; they provide a nice platform but they also get that content for free. This isn't a journalism site, the value in SO comes from freely provided user answers. Yes, SO provides some value vs. forums via their q/a platform, but it is a marginal amount of value. Sure, SO is easier than parsing a forum thread, but the actual value that I care about is the answers provided for free by their users. I could easily return to 90's era usenet, it wasn't as convenient but it worked. What I couldn't deal with is a lack of a platform where people ask technical questions & get answers, I remember being on dial-up and reading paper manuals that were out-of-date/incomplete. But SO isn't irreplaceable, and I am oftentimes frustrated with finding questions closed for incorrect reasons, normally my answer is buried 2 links deep in SO because my DDG search (and Google too) takes me to an improperly closed question where the 'previously addressed' question is adjacent to my query. StackOverflow does not provide an irreplaceable service; like github they do some nice things but there isn't any reason they must be the dominant platform. And the real value is in the answers, which SO gets for free.
        manigandham 7y ago
        SO doesn't pay for the content, they pay for the space to host that content and community. Since users aren't paying, SO needs to monetize it somehow and that's what the ads are for. I'm sure you could return to the old internet, but many billions of other internet users enjoy the content they consume for free. Use your adblocker and stick with paywall/subscription sites because we're unlikely to ever go back to a pre-commercial internet.
        arpa 7y ago
        A tiny nitpick: nothing is free, the internet users just pay with a different currency: their data and attention. Both of these things are much more valuable than most internet users think. As far as a non-commercial internet goes... well, we can always hope. We just have to wrangle the means of content production and control (heh, heh, see what I did there?). The resources are there to do that and have a free (both as in beer and in freedom) and high-quality internet, what we are missing is... attention of the masses, the most expensive thing.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Google ads are anything but passive.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    They could “solve” the issue by not having third party ads. Of all the sites on the internet, StackOverflow has the demographics that any advertiser would crave. How large of an inside ads sales force would you need to target higher than average income earners? How large reputable sites trust third party ad servers is a mystery to me. Besides, native ads that could be served from StackOverFlows own servers would be harder to block.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      That's just not how digital ad campaigns are run. Advertisers, agencies, media buyers and the rest of the supply chain don't negotiate with individual sites like that, not at any scale that can sustain a site like SO.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Stack Overflow has a known demographic and is not some unknown site. Are you really saying that companies like Amazon (AWS),Microsoft, JetBrains, Google (GCP), Slack, etc would ignore a sales pitch from SO?
        manigandham 7y ago
        It doesn't work like that is what I'm saying. You dont just pitch those companies. They have layers of agencies (a master agency of record, creative agencies, media buying agencies) that handle all the advertising duties. These shops create and traffic these ad campaigns in demand-side platforms (DSPs) which connect and bid on inventory in adexchanges and supply-side platforms (SSPs). Then there's layers of targeting, accountability, measurement, and insurance that gets requested and bought from anti-fraud, brand-safety and verification vendors. That's likely where this fingerprinting came script came from. Going to individual agencies with your own different supply path is not going to get any attention and nobody is going to change the way they buy millions in advertising just for you. No single publisher has that much power these days, not even Stackoverflow.
        7y ago
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    We're talking about this precisely because the ads are becoming less passive.
  - DJHenk 7y ago
    > Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page If we're adults, lets also acknowledge that this relationship between me and SO is not really symmetrical and that forcing me as a user to accept privacy invading ads has a hint of blackmail in it. This is not about supporting the site's content. If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. Hell, my employer would likely want to foot the bill, so they wouldn't even have to be modest with their pricing. Why is this not an option, I ask you. Why keep sites like this insisting on their surveillance model? > and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue. It's very hard not to be cynical about this. They care about their image. I'm not convinced that they care about my feelings. They is absolutely no evidence for that.
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      > If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. And then do that and then suddenly users think it's not worth the money for reason X and they tank. It has happened many times before and few companies can pull that off when their products were established as free.
  - anbop 7y ago
    Users gave StackOverflow its entire business by making it the #1 place for programming. Now it’s StackOverflow’s responsibility to treat those users fairly. Since companies in this position often renege on this social contract, users have to turn to Big Government to regulate those who refuse to self-regulate.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    > Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page Any ad that fingerprints and tracks users is not "passive".
- oconnor663 7y ago
  Easy to say when it's not my loss in revenues.
- PopeDotNinja 7y ago
  Or you could just not use Stack Overflow.
  - haasted 7y ago
    Right. And he could ditch his keyboard as well.
    - m_mueller 7y ago
      some money changed hands to acquire that keyboard though. paid model has failed for Q&A content, see experts exchange - they need to live somehow.
- JohnBooty 7y ago
  They have to pay a bunch of engineers and pay for a bunch of servers to keep things running. And they certainly do contribute a massive amount of value to our community -- and as far as I can tell, they've always tried their very best to be good folks. I'm not going to tell you how to think, but they have built up a lot of trust and goodwill in my book over the past decade. I believe them when they say they'll work hard to do the right thing.
manigandham 7y ago
It is straightforward, but not for publishers. The adexchanges know, and do business with shady companies on both sides because they make money from volume without any consequences.
m463 7y ago
It's like targeted advertising with a flash suppressor.
ehnto 7y ago
It's amazing to me that an advert can run arbitrary javascript at all. It wasn't long ago that this would have been seen as a massive security risk by site owners and ad platforms alike. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps it's a structured service provided by the ad network, and the ad buyer just checks a box. But as a site owner even that would be too much for me. I've been playing around with ideas about more ethical analytics and advertising, and I think they're pretty easily built platforms. But the question is are they marketable? Would GloboCorp and MarketingCo give up the ability to track consumers so closely in favor of a more ethical approach, or has it been too valuable for them to give up?
- vbsteven 7y ago
  It’s not the internet we want but it is the one we have. In the end it is your own responsibility for which code gets executed on your machine. I run NoScript with all JS blocked by default and only whitelist the domains I want. On most sites you can get by with no JS or just scripts from the same domain whitelisted. Maybe a CDN from time to time
  - kowdermeister 7y ago
    It's indirectly what most people wanted: good content for free.
    - vbsteven 7y ago
      In a way yes, but for me it's not about that. It's about not letting everyone and their mother execute their code on my machine for whatever reason. Ads, tracking, cryptomining, surveillance. Mind you that I am only running NoScript and not a "real" adblocker. Show me ads in a static image and I'm fine with that. Selfhost the ads on your own domain and you are also going to get whitelisted. I mainly do it for cases like this where Stackoverflow has enabled an ad network that is pushing code to all of their users that is doing some weird things (like querying/opening audio devices) and stackoverflow is not even aware that it is doing that. What if it was a cryptominer?
  - 7y ago
dang 7y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289590.

"It's not very straightforward to find where it's coming from, but we are working on it." This encapsulates the entire problem with the current state of digital advertising in 1 simple sentence.

keyle 7y ago

But you know, we wouldn't stop serving ads until we work it out... no no imagine the loss in revenues.

craftinator 7y ago
Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page, and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue.
- keyle 7y ago
  I want to agree with you, but "passive ads sit on the edges of the page" is a false argument.
- muckrakerz 7y ago
  No. We got content without this in the past, and we can do this in the future. And I will note THEY admit this is bad. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    You didn't get Stackoverflow, and barely any of the content today. You may be fine with the internet of the early 90s but most people are not.
    - zrobotics 7y ago
      Who paid for the content I actually visit StackOverflow for? It surely wasn't SO; they provide a nice platform but they also get that content for free. This isn't a journalism site, the value in SO comes from freely provided user answers. Yes, SO provides some value vs. forums via their q/a platform, but it is a marginal amount of value. Sure, SO is easier than parsing a forum thread, but the actual value that I care about is the answers provided for free by their users. I could easily return to 90's era usenet, it wasn't as convenient but it worked. What I couldn't deal with is a lack of a platform where people ask technical questions & get answers, I remember being on dial-up and reading paper manuals that were out-of-date/incomplete. But SO isn't irreplaceable, and I am oftentimes frustrated with finding questions closed for incorrect reasons, normally my answer is buried 2 links deep in SO because my DDG search (and Google too) takes me to an improperly closed question where the 'previously addressed' question is adjacent to my query. StackOverflow does not provide an irreplaceable service; like github they do some nice things but there isn't any reason they must be the dominant platform. And the real value is in the answers, which SO gets for free.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        SO doesn't pay for the content, they pay for the space to host that content and community. Since users aren't paying, SO needs to monetize it somehow and that's what the ads are for. I'm sure you could return to the old internet, but many billions of other internet users enjoy the content they consume for free. Use your adblocker and stick with paywall/subscription sites because we're unlikely to ever go back to a pre-commercial internet.
        arpa 7y ago
        A tiny nitpick: nothing is free, the internet users just pay with a different currency: their data and attention. Both of these things are much more valuable than most internet users think. As far as a non-commercial internet goes... well, we can always hope. We just have to wrangle the means of content production and control (heh, heh, see what I did there?). The resources are there to do that and have a free (both as in beer and in freedom) and high-quality internet, what we are missing is... attention of the masses, the most expensive thing.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Google ads are anything but passive.
- scarface74 7y ago
  They could “solve” the issue by not having third party ads. Of all the sites on the internet, StackOverflow has the demographics that any advertiser would crave. How large of an inside ads sales force would you need to target higher than average income earners? How large reputable sites trust third party ad servers is a mystery to me. Besides, native ads that could be served from StackOverFlows own servers would be harder to block.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    That's just not how digital ad campaigns are run. Advertisers, agencies, media buyers and the rest of the supply chain don't negotiate with individual sites like that, not at any scale that can sustain a site like SO.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Stack Overflow has a known demographic and is not some unknown site. Are you really saying that companies like Amazon (AWS),Microsoft, JetBrains, Google (GCP), Slack, etc would ignore a sales pitch from SO?
      - manigandham 7y ago
        It doesn't work like that is what I'm saying. You dont just pitch those companies. They have layers of agencies (a master agency of record, creative agencies, media buying agencies) that handle all the advertising duties. These shops create and traffic these ad campaigns in demand-side platforms (DSPs) which connect and bid on inventory in adexchanges and supply-side platforms (SSPs). Then there's layers of targeting, accountability, measurement, and insurance that gets requested and bought from anti-fraud, brand-safety and verification vendors. That's likely where this fingerprinting came script came from. Going to individual agencies with your own different supply path is not going to get any attention and nobody is going to change the way they buy millions in advertising just for you. No single publisher has that much power these days, not even Stackoverflow.
        7y ago
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  We're talking about this precisely because the ads are becoming less passive.
- DJHenk 7y ago
  > Let's be adults here. This is SO, and I imagine you've used and enjoyed the use of their services just like the rest of us. Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page If we're adults, lets also acknowledge that this relationship between me and SO is not really symmetrical and that forcing me as a user to accept privacy invading ads has a hint of blackmail in it. This is not about supporting the site's content. If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. Hell, my employer would likely want to foot the bill, so they wouldn't even have to be modest with their pricing. Why is this not an option, I ask you. Why keep sites like this insisting on their surveillance model? > and appreciate that they are actually trying to solve this issue. It's very hard not to be cynical about this. They care about their image. I'm not convinced that they care about my feelings. They is absolutely no evidence for that.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    > If they would introduce a paid service that lets me have the exact same site, but without ads, I would sign up in a second. And then do that and then suddenly users think it's not worth the money for reason X and they tank. It has happened many times before and few companies can pull that off when their products were established as free.
- anbop 7y ago
  Users gave StackOverflow its entire business by making it the #1 place for programming. Now it’s StackOverflow’s responsibility to treat those users fairly. Since companies in this position often renege on this social contract, users have to turn to Big Government to regulate those who refuse to self-regulate.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  > Support them by letting passive ads sit on the edges of the page Any ad that fingerprints and tracks users is not "passive".
oconnor663 7y ago
Easy to say when it's not my loss in revenues.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
Or you could just not use Stack Overflow.
- haasted 7y ago
  Right. And he could ditch his keyboard as well.
  - m_mueller 7y ago
    some money changed hands to acquire that keyboard though. paid model has failed for Q&A content, see experts exchange - they need to live somehow.
JohnBooty 7y ago
They have to pay a bunch of engineers and pay for a bunch of servers to keep things running. And they certainly do contribute a massive amount of value to our community -- and as far as I can tell, they've always tried their very best to be good folks. I'm not going to tell you how to think, but they have built up a lot of trust and goodwill in my book over the past decade. I believe them when they say they'll work hard to do the right thing.

manigandham 7y ago

It is straightforward, but not for publishers. The adexchanges know, and do business with shady companies on both sides because they make money from volume without any consequences.

m463 7y ago

It's like targeted advertising with a flash suppressor.

ehnto 7y ago

It's amazing to me that an advert can run arbitrary javascript at all. It wasn't long ago that this would have been seen as a massive security risk by site owners and ad platforms alike. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps it's a structured service provided by the ad network, and the ad buyer just checks a box. But as a site owner even that would be too much for me. I've been playing around with ideas about more ethical analytics and advertising, and I think they're pretty easily built platforms. But the question is are they marketable? Would GloboCorp and MarketingCo give up the ability to track consumers so closely in favor of a more ethical approach, or has it been too valuable for them to give up?

vbsteven 7y ago
It’s not the internet we want but it is the one we have. In the end it is your own responsibility for which code gets executed on your machine. I run NoScript with all JS blocked by default and only whitelist the domains I want. On most sites you can get by with no JS or just scripts from the same domain whitelisted. Maybe a CDN from time to time
- kowdermeister 7y ago
  It's indirectly what most people wanted: good content for free.
  - vbsteven 7y ago
    In a way yes, but for me it's not about that. It's about not letting everyone and their mother execute their code on my machine for whatever reason. Ads, tracking, cryptomining, surveillance. Mind you that I am only running NoScript and not a "real" adblocker. Show me ads in a static image and I'm fine with that. Selfhost the ads on your own domain and you are also going to get whitelisted. I mainly do it for cases like this where Stackoverflow has enabled an ad network that is pushing code to all of their users that is doing some weird things (like querying/opening audio devices) and stackoverflow is not even aware that it is doing that. What if it was a cryptominer?
- 7y ago

dang 7y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20289590.