4 ms·

> commerce & ads are the backbone of the internet I'm sorry, what? Everyone uses Wikipedia, and probably so much, that they don't consciously realize it...

oska 7y ago
I think what the GP is referring to is the dominant narrative over the last 15+ years that every website has to be 'monetised' with varying degrees of advertising based user abuse. Wikipedia has obviously been a conspicuous counter-example to that but it's been the large exception that proves the rule (in terms of narrative). It's always refreshing to see new examples of the web being used as a medium to freely disseminate information and culture without any form of user abuse attached. Commerce is fine but I personally see any form of push advertising as user abuse (even without the user tracking that nearly always comes with it). Edit to add: I see that another reply (from jimmaswell) is still running the advertising 'business model' narrative.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  ...the dominant narrative of people who want to sell you advertising technology, yes. A shopping website will want to do two things: Provide the customer with the most comfortable shopping experience while cutting down the cost of providing it. Advertising is a null-sum game in this case (cuts down costs by adding additional revenue, but makes user experience worse, thus leading to fewer customers), so it only makes sense if that's all you're selling. How the internet nonetheless became "infested" with ads is obviously a mystery to me...
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Categorizing ads as "user abuse" is hyperbolic and I doubt any significan fraction of users feel they're being abused when they see a banner ad for potato chips. Bringing customers and companies together is a basic and necessary aspect of living in a market economy. I've seen commercials for new food offered at restaurants, wanted it, gotten it, and felt good about the whole chain of events; have I been abused? Further if "tracking" makes ads more relevant then all the better for everyone involved. Some electrons in a server in a rack on the other side of the country, that you'd never know existed if people didn't stir up a hysteria over, not even directly correlated to your real identity or containing anything more important than a preference for high end silverware, can't hurt you and have no just cause to be demonized.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    I agree that not all ads are "abuse", but some either are or are borderlining it, depending on your definition. If you're genuinely interested in the advertising industry's development the last 100 years or have a few hours to spare, check out the 4-part documentary "The Century of the Self" by the BBC made in the early-2000s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
  - oska 7y ago
    > Categorizing ads as "user abuse" is hyperbolic Push advertising is deliberate mind pollution. You are pushing information onto people that they are not seeking and doing it in highly manipulative ways. It's fine to market your services or products in places that people go to to seek out that information; it's not fine to push it on them. > and I doubt any significan fraction of users feel they're being abused when they see a banner ad for potato chips. Victims (I use the term loosely) of the obesity epidemic may disagree. How dominant would junk foods like potato chips be in our diet today without the extensive advertising campaigns over the last 70+ years? With regards to your second paragraph on user tracking, the fact that you use the word 'hysteria' to discount concerns indicates to me that it's not even worth engaging with you there.
    - briandear 7y ago
      > Victims (I use the term loosely) of the obesity epidemic may disagree. Come on. Victims? They were forced to eat too much? Do people not have any agency at all? We still have junk food advertising and we have people that aren’t obese. So are they immune to the messages? Or perhaps, is the “epidemic” one of a sedentary lifestyle? Perhaps the rise of the information economy and the lack of having to go plow a field? Classing fat peoples as victims is ridiculous unless they were attacked by a spoon.
      - henriquemaia 7y ago
        OP was careful to frame the term. It's not a later edit, as you quote the framing too. So the intention there is clearly a rhetorical one, that not being the point, but that advertising has managed to manipulate people against their better judgment. In that sense, yes, they are victims. Besides, believing that people suffering from an ill that is destroying their lives are free to choose (when reality clearly shows they aren't) is a callous remark. Eating disorders are very complicated. Eating is such a low level activity that easily supersedes any rationalisations. That's why it's a good example of how bad advertising can be. So again OP is right in calling those people victims.
jimmaswell 7y ago
A handful (probably already the maximum that the model supports) of websites can get by on donations (and then have their hands tied as to how to use the money, potentially preventing expansion or major changes), and a website that's nothing but "<primarily offline company>'s website" doesn't need ads or anything in the first place because it's just for information on the main business (but if they'd profit more from running some ads on it I wouldn't blame them; optimally that would lower prices but in reality it would just go to the CEO's bonuses); these do not disprove that the ad/subscriprion models are the most viable way for most internet businesses to operate.
- mopsi 7y ago
  The internet is more than just internet businesses. It costs me 70€ per year (paid in small monthly installments) to run a site to share my thoughts and info & tips related to hobbies. I don't need ads & tracking, donations nor any other form of monetization to run the site.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    ...and in some countries, those costs (assuming hobbies have any alignment with work skills) can be reclaimed via tax reclamation as well. Apart from that, self-hosting is even cheaper, and easier, than ever.
blackbrokkoli 7y ago
You are absolutely right, it is not all bleak out there of course. Most people also use a lot of open source software without realizing as well, to give another example. I merely wanted to express how delighted I was when I clicked on this particular HN link, which did stand out as remarkably bullshit-free at least for me.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  I agree, the website looks nice, the content is great, thank you American tax dollars for this contribution to human history. I just didn't want to leave that statement there and have people unconsciously take that statement about "commerce & ads" to heart without consciously realizing, that Wikipedia is probably our most popular counterexample. Depending on your definition of 'backbone'... it's maybe not a truth humanity is particularly proud of, but I have this figure in my mind that 75% of the web's bandwidth is used by porn? Was that ever true, is that still true, are those numbers accurate? Or is that just a common myth?

oska 7y ago

I think what the GP is referring to is the dominant narrative over the last 15+ years that every website has to be 'monetised' with varying degrees of advertising based user abuse. Wikipedia has obviously been a conspicuous counter-example to that but it's been the large exception that proves the rule (in terms of narrative). It's always refreshing to see new examples of the web being used as a medium to freely disseminate information and culture without any form of user abuse attached. Commerce is fine but I personally see any form of push advertising as user abuse (even without the user tracking that nearly always comes with it). Edit to add: I see that another reply (from jimmaswell) is still running the advertising 'business model' narrative.

klingonopera 7y ago
...the dominant narrative of people who want to sell you advertising technology, yes. A shopping website will want to do two things: Provide the customer with the most comfortable shopping experience while cutting down the cost of providing it. Advertising is a null-sum game in this case (cuts down costs by adding additional revenue, but makes user experience worse, thus leading to fewer customers), so it only makes sense if that's all you're selling. How the internet nonetheless became "infested" with ads is obviously a mystery to me...
jimmaswell 7y ago
Categorizing ads as "user abuse" is hyperbolic and I doubt any significan fraction of users feel they're being abused when they see a banner ad for potato chips. Bringing customers and companies together is a basic and necessary aspect of living in a market economy. I've seen commercials for new food offered at restaurants, wanted it, gotten it, and felt good about the whole chain of events; have I been abused? Further if "tracking" makes ads more relevant then all the better for everyone involved. Some electrons in a server in a rack on the other side of the country, that you'd never know existed if people didn't stir up a hysteria over, not even directly correlated to your real identity or containing anything more important than a preference for high end silverware, can't hurt you and have no just cause to be demonized.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  I agree that not all ads are "abuse", but some either are or are borderlining it, depending on your definition. If you're genuinely interested in the advertising industry's development the last 100 years or have a few hours to spare, check out the 4-part documentary "The Century of the Self" by the BBC made in the early-2000s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
- oska 7y ago
  > Categorizing ads as "user abuse" is hyperbolic Push advertising is deliberate mind pollution. You are pushing information onto people that they are not seeking and doing it in highly manipulative ways. It's fine to market your services or products in places that people go to to seek out that information; it's not fine to push it on them. > and I doubt any significan fraction of users feel they're being abused when they see a banner ad for potato chips. Victims (I use the term loosely) of the obesity epidemic may disagree. How dominant would junk foods like potato chips be in our diet today without the extensive advertising campaigns over the last 70+ years? With regards to your second paragraph on user tracking, the fact that you use the word 'hysteria' to discount concerns indicates to me that it's not even worth engaging with you there.
  - briandear 7y ago
    > Victims (I use the term loosely) of the obesity epidemic may disagree. Come on. Victims? They were forced to eat too much? Do people not have any agency at all? We still have junk food advertising and we have people that aren’t obese. So are they immune to the messages? Or perhaps, is the “epidemic” one of a sedentary lifestyle? Perhaps the rise of the information economy and the lack of having to go plow a field? Classing fat peoples as victims is ridiculous unless they were attacked by a spoon.
    - henriquemaia 7y ago
      OP was careful to frame the term. It's not a later edit, as you quote the framing too. So the intention there is clearly a rhetorical one, that not being the point, but that advertising has managed to manipulate people against their better judgment. In that sense, yes, they are victims. Besides, believing that people suffering from an ill that is destroying their lives are free to choose (when reality clearly shows they aren't) is a callous remark. Eating disorders are very complicated. Eating is such a low level activity that easily supersedes any rationalisations. That's why it's a good example of how bad advertising can be. So again OP is right in calling those people victims.

jimmaswell 7y ago

A handful (probably already the maximum that the model supports) of websites can get by on donations (and then have their hands tied as to how to use the money, potentially preventing expansion or major changes), and a website that's nothing but "<primarily offline company>'s website" doesn't need ads or anything in the first place because it's just for information on the main business (but if they'd profit more from running some ads on it I wouldn't blame them; optimally that would lower prices but in reality it would just go to the CEO's bonuses); these do not disprove that the ad/subscriprion models are the most viable way for most internet businesses to operate.

mopsi 7y ago
The internet is more than just internet businesses. It costs me 70€ per year (paid in small monthly installments) to run a site to share my thoughts and info & tips related to hobbies. I don't need ads & tracking, donations nor any other form of monetization to run the site.
- klingonopera 7y ago
  ...and in some countries, those costs (assuming hobbies have any alignment with work skills) can be reclaimed via tax reclamation as well. Apart from that, self-hosting is even cheaper, and easier, than ever.

blackbrokkoli 7y ago

You are absolutely right, it is not all bleak out there of course. Most people also use a lot of open source software without realizing as well, to give another example. I merely wanted to express how delighted I was when I clicked on this particular HN link, which did stand out as remarkably bullshit-free at least for me.

klingonopera 7y ago
I agree, the website looks nice, the content is great, thank you American tax dollars for this contribution to human history. I just didn't want to leave that statement there and have people unconsciously take that statement about "commerce & ads" to heart without consciously realizing, that Wikipedia is probably our most popular counterexample. Depending on your definition of 'backbone'... it's maybe not a truth humanity is particularly proud of, but I have this figure in my mind that 75% of the web's bandwidth is used by porn? Was that ever true, is that still true, are those numbers accurate? Or is that just a common myth?