11 ms·

Re: blocking ads guilt free: Not that long ago someone posted this beautiful Banksy quote about it on HN: > “People are taking the piss out of you everyday. T

Re: blocking ads guilt free: Not that long ago someone posted this beautiful Banksy quote about it on HN: > “People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.” - Banksy I’ll damn well block all shitty ads on every site. You’re a newspaper site and want to block me for using an ad blocker? Feel free, I’ll leave your site. You’re an advertiser who refuses to bid on ad space as too many people block the ads anyway? Please stop bidding then. But don’t pretend that by offering your site for free and me using it for free somehow requires me to see shitty ads. If you want my money, ask for it. If your content is worth it I’ll pay for it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ElFitz 5y ago
> But don’t pretend that by offering your site for free and me using it for free somehow requires me to see shitty ads. If you want my money, ask for it. If your content is worth it I’ll pay for it. One of my personal favorites: movie theatres. You pay, a handsome amount of money, to see a movie, once, and if you happen to have the weird idea of not be just late enough to the movie, you get the wonderful, once in a lifetime opportunity… to get ads shoved in your face. Ads for food, ads for random stuff, and ads for other movies. The best of both worlds, really. Used to drive me crazy. Now I simply don’t go anymore.
- smegger001 5y ago
  I went to the theatre last weekend (first time since before the late unpleasantness) and showed up about ten minutes after the posted showtime. The attendant at the ticket booth confused asked "are you sure you don't want the next showing that one has already started". I confirmed no I wanted the one that had "started". I didn't miss any movie though just the ads.
  - darknavi 5y ago
    And then there is my girlfriend, who makes use show up 10 minutes early to make sure we are in our seats for the trailers! Honestly I don't mind the pre-movie trailers. I like movies and they give me time to go pee and stuff.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      Trailers are the kind of ad targeting that I don’t object to. Advertising movies to me right before I see a movie is: * Relevant. You know I’m interested in movies, since I’m at one, so you don’t have to spy on me to do it. Some theaters might be spying on me, I dunno, but they don’t have to in principle. * Not directly interfering with my original purpose. The movie hasn’t started yet. The only thing you might be showing me before the movie is, maybe, cartoon shorts? I guess that would be more fun than ads, but the ads aren’t going to give me malware or pretend to be from the FBI when they’re not, so it’s not as bad as internet ads. * If the theater starts advertising scams, they have a brick-and-mortar address, they’re in the same legal jurisdiction as the visitors, and everyone sees the same ads, so suing them should be an option. Everybody who visited the movie saw the same set of ads, so if it’s a scam, there’s plenty of witnesses.
      - fossuser 5y ago
        Trailers were originally at the end of the movie (hence the name). They got converted to pre-views pretty early on though because at the end of the movie people didn't stick around to watch them.
      - 5y ago
TheAceOfHearts 5y ago
In the same spirit, I saw this post recently[0]: "All institutions & organizations must shut the hell up. To all egregores: you do not speak unless spoken to, and I will NEVER speak to you. I do not want to hear 'thank you' from a corporation. I am a divine being : you are a construct. You have no right to speak in my holy tongue." [0] https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/1413780183283294208 https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/1413780183283294208
fossuser 5y ago
A complete collapse of the viability of targeted advertising would be totally fine with me. The business models that would become viable in that reality would be a better equilibrium and the incentives would be better aligned between software companies and their users.
- awillen 5y ago
  I don't think you're right about this. Highly targeted advertising disproportionately benefits the little guy. I say this as a little guy, running a small dog treat e-commerce company. Almost all of my new customer acquisition is by way of Facebook ads. If you get rid of Facebook ads and go back to the non-targeted, TV commercial and newspaper type ads, my company might not survive. Purina, though? They'd be fine. They can afford to spend enormous amounts, and they've got a range of products that means their potential customer base is much bigger than mine. Your local vet can affordably reach pet owners in their area with targeted advertising. If it goes away, that will hurt them and greatly benefit VCA (huge, nationwide chain of vet hospitals). You're right in the sense that my business model would become inviable, but the result is that you're going to concentrate power even more heavily among the largest corporations. Is that really a good thing?
  - no_time 5y ago
    The cancer of targted advertising has only been with us for like 20 years. Small companies have existed way before that. Blaming people who want to protect those who don't even know what a server or a company is from their data being harvested because you can't sell them dog food is just ridiculous. That being said, if you are concerned about monopolies, there are better ways to fight them. Unfortunately they have been neglected in the last few decades. Perhaps channeling your money/influence towards that instead of ads would be better for everyone.
    - awillen 5y ago
      To channel my money towards anything I have to make money. To make money I have to sell things to customers. The world prior to 20 years ago was a very different one in terms of the scale and reach companies could achieve. Pretending as though the situation now is comparable is just naive on your part. And honestly, the drama of calling it a cancer is just silly and dramatic. If you think this is all so terrible, go live in a commune instead of posting on a message board that is run by an organization that is deeply connected to big tech and all the things you're complaining about. I guess you probably can't see that connection all the way up there on your high horse, though.
snappyTertle 5y ago
You're coming from privilege. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean everyone else has money to spend on entertainment.
- leokennis 5y ago
  So just because someone’s poor it’s ok that Facebook treats them like a chump (invade their privacy and show them dumb ads), because they offer their product for free? Facebook doesn’t give a rats ass about equity. If they did they’d copy a model like Apple’s App Store: as developer you pick a price tier for your app or subscription. That same tier translates into for example €2,99 per month in Europe, but the equivalent of €0,25 in less privileged markets. So the luckier people of the world subsidize the less fortunate, as it should be.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ElFitz 5y ago

> But don’t pretend that by offering your site for free and me using it for free somehow requires me to see shitty ads. If you want my money, ask for it. If your content is worth it I’ll pay for it. One of my personal favorites: movie theatres. You pay, a handsome amount of money, to see a movie, once, and if you happen to have the weird idea of not be just late enough to the movie, you get the wonderful, once in a lifetime opportunity… to get ads shoved in your face. Ads for food, ads for random stuff, and ads for other movies. The best of both worlds, really. Used to drive me crazy. Now I simply don’t go anymore.

smegger001 5y ago
I went to the theatre last weekend (first time since before the late unpleasantness) and showed up about ten minutes after the posted showtime. The attendant at the ticket booth confused asked "are you sure you don't want the next showing that one has already started". I confirmed no I wanted the one that had "started". I didn't miss any movie though just the ads.
- darknavi 5y ago
  And then there is my girlfriend, who makes use show up 10 minutes early to make sure we are in our seats for the trailers! Honestly I don't mind the pre-movie trailers. I like movies and they give me time to go pee and stuff.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    Trailers are the kind of ad targeting that I don’t object to. Advertising movies to me right before I see a movie is: * Relevant. You know I’m interested in movies, since I’m at one, so you don’t have to spy on me to do it. Some theaters might be spying on me, I dunno, but they don’t have to in principle. * Not directly interfering with my original purpose. The movie hasn’t started yet. The only thing you might be showing me before the movie is, maybe, cartoon shorts? I guess that would be more fun than ads, but the ads aren’t going to give me malware or pretend to be from the FBI when they’re not, so it’s not as bad as internet ads. * If the theater starts advertising scams, they have a brick-and-mortar address, they’re in the same legal jurisdiction as the visitors, and everyone sees the same ads, so suing them should be an option. Everybody who visited the movie saw the same set of ads, so if it’s a scam, there’s plenty of witnesses.
    - fossuser 5y ago
      Trailers were originally at the end of the movie (hence the name). They got converted to pre-views pretty early on though because at the end of the movie people didn't stick around to watch them.
    - 5y ago

TheAceOfHearts 5y ago

In the same spirit, I saw this post recently[0]: "All institutions & organizations must shut the hell up. To all egregores: you do not speak unless spoken to, and I will NEVER speak to you. I do not want to hear 'thank you' from a corporation. I am a divine being : you are a construct. You have no right to speak in my holy tongue." [0] https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/1413780183283294208 https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/1413780183283294208

fossuser 5y ago

A complete collapse of the viability of targeted advertising would be totally fine with me. The business models that would become viable in that reality would be a better equilibrium and the incentives would be better aligned between software companies and their users.

awillen 5y ago
I don't think you're right about this. Highly targeted advertising disproportionately benefits the little guy. I say this as a little guy, running a small dog treat e-commerce company. Almost all of my new customer acquisition is by way of Facebook ads. If you get rid of Facebook ads and go back to the non-targeted, TV commercial and newspaper type ads, my company might not survive. Purina, though? They'd be fine. They can afford to spend enormous amounts, and they've got a range of products that means their potential customer base is much bigger than mine. Your local vet can affordably reach pet owners in their area with targeted advertising. If it goes away, that will hurt them and greatly benefit VCA (huge, nationwide chain of vet hospitals). You're right in the sense that my business model would become inviable, but the result is that you're going to concentrate power even more heavily among the largest corporations. Is that really a good thing?
- no_time 5y ago
  The cancer of targted advertising has only been with us for like 20 years. Small companies have existed way before that. Blaming people who want to protect those who don't even know what a server or a company is from their data being harvested because you can't sell them dog food is just ridiculous. That being said, if you are concerned about monopolies, there are better ways to fight them. Unfortunately they have been neglected in the last few decades. Perhaps channeling your money/influence towards that instead of ads would be better for everyone.
  - awillen 5y ago
    To channel my money towards anything I have to make money. To make money I have to sell things to customers. The world prior to 20 years ago was a very different one in terms of the scale and reach companies could achieve. Pretending as though the situation now is comparable is just naive on your part. And honestly, the drama of calling it a cancer is just silly and dramatic. If you think this is all so terrible, go live in a commune instead of posting on a message board that is run by an organization that is deeply connected to big tech and all the things you're complaining about. I guess you probably can't see that connection all the way up there on your high horse, though.

snappyTertle 5y ago

You're coming from privilege. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean everyone else has money to spend on entertainment.

leokennis 5y ago
So just because someone’s poor it’s ok that Facebook treats them like a chump (invade their privacy and show them dumb ads), because they offer their product for free? Facebook doesn’t give a rats ass about equity. If they did they’d copy a model like Apple’s App Store: as developer you pick a price tier for your app or subscription. That same tier translates into for example €2,99 per month in Europe, but the equivalent of €0,25 in less privileged markets. So the luckier people of the world subsidize the less fortunate, as it should be.