4 ms·

> what do you mean by "that ship sailed long ago"? That Google should just close up shop and go home? If that's the only alternative that the brilliant minds

> what do you mean by "that ship sailed long ago"? That Google should just close up shop and go home? If that's the only alternative that the brilliant minds at the Big G can come up with, then that sounds fine to me. I'm sure they can think of something more creative though, like "make a product and sell it." Without the snark, what I mean specifically is that I will never browse the web without an adblocker, no matter how "fast", "clean from malware", "acceptable", or "organic and free-range" Google claims their ads are. It's just out of the question. They take up my bandwidth, use my device battery power, execute code on my machine that I don't need, jeopardize my privacy, and put my operational security at risk. I personally also think advertising is distasteful and manipulative. So, I empower myself to prevent this unwanted interference to my mental and digital autonomy to the greatest possible extent. I don't really sympathize with sites that "rely" on ad revenue either. The Web existed before them, the Web will exist after them. > And I'm having trouble understanding how you say their conclusion (which simply said it "may" decrease the incentive) is so bizarre. Are you assuming that everyone out there views ads the way you do? I made a different comment about why the conclusion is bizarre to me: I don't think ad-block users are sensitive to changes in ad speed, that they wouldn't be able to notice in the first place on account of using an ad-blocker. Non-ad-block users probably don't care in the first place, and if they do, they install an ad-blocker for the myriad other reasons that happen to include speed.

robbrown451 7y ago
> The Web existed before them, the Web will exist after them. That's a bit more black and white that my view. I don't care if the web "exists" per se, I don't think I'd use if very much if it was still like it was in 1995. >I don't think ad-block users are sensitive to changes in ad speed, that they wouldn't be able to notice in the first place on account of using an ad-blocker. Wait, so you are only considering in the equation people who are currently already using ad blockers? Ummm, ok. It seems weird that I have to say this, but I think the idea is that every person who uses an ad blocker was once a person who didn't use an ad blocker, and that there is some threshold of annoyance that must be surpassed before they typically install an ad blocker. I don't think Google's attempt to speed up ads is intended to improve the experience for those who are already using ad blockers. Is this not obvious, or am I missing something?
Buge 7y ago
>"make a product and sell it." So put journalism behind a paywall? That was suggested yesterday and was highly downvoted. People on HN hate the idea of paywalls. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393146
- lifthrasiir 7y ago
  I think people is typically annoyed about articles disguised as a typical link but link to a paywall, not the paywall itself. If the content is valuable enough content creators do not need to resort to SEO and disguise a link to trick people. Such content will be still protected by a paywall, and that sounds fine. But the organic growth and paywall simply don't mix well.

robbrown451 7y ago

> The Web existed before them, the Web will exist after them. That's a bit more black and white that my view. I don't care if the web "exists" per se, I don't think I'd use if very much if it was still like it was in 1995. >I don't think ad-block users are sensitive to changes in ad speed, that they wouldn't be able to notice in the first place on account of using an ad-blocker. Wait, so you are only considering in the equation people who are currently already using ad blockers? Ummm, ok. It seems weird that I have to say this, but I think the idea is that every person who uses an ad blocker was once a person who didn't use an ad blocker, and that there is some threshold of annoyance that must be surpassed before they typically install an ad blocker. I don't think Google's attempt to speed up ads is intended to improve the experience for those who are already using ad blockers. Is this not obvious, or am I missing something?

Buge 7y ago

>"make a product and sell it." So put journalism behind a paywall? That was suggested yesterday and was highly downvoted. People on HN hate the idea of paywalls. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21393146

lifthrasiir 7y ago
I think people is typically annoyed about articles disguised as a typical link but link to a paywall, not the paywall itself. If the content is valuable enough content creators do not need to resort to SEO and disguise a link to trick people. Such content will be still protected by a paywall, and that sounds fine. But the organic growth and paywall simply don't mix well.