9 ms·

There’s this local newspaper. While I’m on a logged in account (EDIT: paid) the ads seem to take up at least 25% screen real estate at all times. The best ones

There’s this local newspaper. While I’m on a logged in account (EDIT: paid) the ads seem to take up at least 25% screen real estate at all times. The best ones are the ones that graciously show up while scrolling, dynamically—it’s like wathing TV (again)! My favorite place though is the gym. Which costs a lot when you just go there to use frickin’ weights and cardio equipment. LCD screens with ads running (for local businesses—how nice and cozy) so that your peripheral vision gets distracted by irrelevant stimuli (for some reason I automatically have to look when it seems like something is “happening” all of a sudden, an urge I have to repress). I wonder if this ad/paid dichotomy is some tech startup fairy tale. Like, [we burnt capital on building an effective monopoly]^W [gave away our product for free] but now the [entitled lusers]^W [users]^W don’t want to pay 10$ a month in order to be on a social network that mostly only their one-generation-or-older relatives are daily active on.

avgcorrection 3y ago
(author here) I’m sorry but this looks like fake news. :/ I visited the webpage again (it’s not every day) and there were barely any ads this time. Did I misremember? I usually notice when I log in since I can barely click on any stories without getting told that it’s for subscribers only.
DarkNova6 3y ago
But is this not a fundamental problem if you expect everything to be available for free? For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  sigh What? I just described two scenarios where I’m on a paid plan and I still get ads. > For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper. Printed, paid-for newspapers also have ads.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads, just not so commercial). That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. Unlike today, though, the ads in newspapers weren't annoying: they were just print, and didn't pop up dynamically in front of the article you were reading, and no one tried to shame you for not looking at them, unlike today's HN users.
    - 0x0203 3y ago
      Nor did they monitor what you looked at on the page, track how you "interacted" with them, and sell all that data about you to anyone who would give them a couple of bucks.
    - Shish2k 3y ago
      > That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. AFAIK for most newspapers and magazines, the cost on the label was mostly there so that readers would feel like the publication was serious - differentiating them from the free papers which were clearly spam and / or propaganda
      - shiroiuma 3y ago
        Interesting, thanks for the info. Yet, despite the newspaper being fully supported by plain, simple, black-and-white print ads (and maybe some color inserts later which were easily discarded), they managed to pay for serious journalists, and they didn't whine about how they need to track you and spy on you and force you to look at obnoxious pop-up ads to make enough money to survive.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    To be fair "logged in" doesn't imply paid. Might want to edit to clarify if you still can
    - 3y ago
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Hard to say, nobody has managed to replicate the old IRL newspaper business model. You used to be able to get a subscription, or just buy a single paper from a store or a box. The latter is much more convenient, but the former was the only one implemented for the web. For example, I don’t care to have a subscription to the economist, so I didn’t read this article. If I could pay like $1 for it, I probably would. But it would require a new service, I’m not going to make an account to pay $1, a good number of newspapers would have to work out a shared system before this sort of thing would be interesting. Unfortunately the ad-net has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for this kind of business model.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    What they need is to combine and meter. I.e. one $x0/mo subscription gets you access to a network of X newspapers, all with one log-in, no ads, and maybe coupons or some other perk. Then it gives you say 30 articles a month, and pays the publisher based on what you read. You're never going to get rid of freeloaders, so maybe have free-tier AI-generated articles and put thoughtful, detailed investigative reporting behind the paywall. Or (for the case of a local paper) have the free-tier not include photos, or grayscale photos, etc. Just tease them to pay for the real version. Another way to monetize is to make it interactive and bring back comments. Allow a well-regulated peanut gallery for each article, but have it actively moderated, require people to use their real names, and set a high bar for what comments are even allowed. Have journalists actively engage with them. A comment will only be published if it adds value. Then encourage people to have spirited discussion about each article. And guess what, actively commenting will cost you admission.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      I think a system of N articles per month invites these low-effort AI articles that you mention, and adds a huge inter-company political problem of policing what exactly a low effort article is. The incentive is to be the company that is engaging with the system, but putting in the least effort per article, while still passing the “worth money” bar. On top of financial motivations, newspapers often have different political alignments for example, I suspect some of them basically hate each other; a system where they get along and engage in good faith is too much. I’d rather see an account where you dump money in, the site can say “buy this article for $x”, and it asks your account for that money. It doesn’t even really need to be a centralized site, it could be an API that multiple services can implement, or whatever.
rambambram 3y ago
Slightly off-topic, but a home gym pays back in no-time (if you only use weights and some simple equipment like a bench and a pullup rack, that is).
- Gareth321 3y ago
  With a little creativity it can work well. The essentials include an olympic bar and weights, barbells, squat rack, and bench. The upfront cost isn't too bad (maybe a few years worth of gym membership). The space requirements can be prohibitive. Setup can also be annoying with limited space because it can mean dragging all the equipment to another location to use, then back again to pack it up.
  - rambambram 3y ago
    True. I purchased my weights before covid and was very happy the moment the lockdowns started here. Ultimately, I started my home gym because this way I have no excuses to not train. It's next to my computer and everytime I feel the urge to train I can do that immediately (not on a training scheme right now). Put on some nice music (without ads) and defy gravity, usually without changing to gym clothing (yes, they go in the laundry afterwards). Depending on what you pay for a gym membership of course, I think I started saving money after 1,5 to 2 years (cheap gym membership compared to relatively cheap equipment at home).
- jerrre 3y ago
  This assumes you have the space
  - zemvpferreira 3y ago
    I prefer public gyms by far but you can build a very capable home gym that fits under half a bed. Forget squats, deadlifts and bench presses and bring in unilateral variations at higher rep counts and you won't need much more than a handle and a pair of 45's for years.
  - rambambram 3y ago
zigman1 3y ago
I'd even argue that internet, while it was seen as a counter-balance to the ad infected tv and radio space, has become WORST than watching a TV. If I want to show something on YT to my friend, and I don't know exactly which video is correct, well lots of luck to me to find it in first few tries, as EACH video I click on will first show me a two unskippable ads, no matter how short the video is
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Exactly right. Good luck using a for-reference video where you have to seek around a lot to exactly the parts you need. Have fun watching the same two unskippable ads every time. Meanwhile (on TV) my parents just record the shows they want and wind through the ad breaks that come up on a set schedule.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    One day we’re gonna have sandboxes that run through web assembly ad infested garbage dumps and then recreate it for you with ai directed obfuscated versions
- zo1 3y ago
  Something went wonky with ads in general and it may just be a coincidence that the internet happened at an overlapping time. I fondly remember memorable, interesting and funny ads. It's like shittification happened on the quality of ads, maybe they got lazy because they could just target a specific demographic, maybe it's all the incompetent and lazy gen-whatevers joining the workplace, or maybe we're all collectively not accepting of ads anymore because of their quantity and pervasiveness.
  - bregma 3y ago
    Maybe it's because the technology has progressed to the point where any idiot can make an ad, so now ads are made by idiots. It's not the first industry to be so affected.
- sigio 3y ago
voidnap 3y ago
> your peripheral vision gets distracted by irrelevant stimuli (for some reason I automatically have to look when it seems like something is “happening” all of a sudden, an urge I have to repress) If you figure out how to do this, please let everyone know. I don't think it's possible. I think humans have it baked in to them to pay attention to, for lack of a better word, information. I used to have a long commute driving along a highway with trees and mountains along the side and, some mornings, the sky would light up from the brilliance of sunrise. Billboards tracked the highway for kilometres. Billboards were always in view and somehow they were louder than everything else. Like, if you looked at an entire landscape and the billboard, with its clickbaity text, was an absolutely small area of your vision -- it would disproportionately occupy your attention and space in your mind. Just like how you can hear your heartbeat when it's very quiet. It's not gone when you can't hear it -- the quiet things are still there and unchanged but you can't experience them when something else is being loud. In the very same way you can no longer travel down that road and experience the joy of not being sold anything,
- mhaberl 3y ago
  > If you figure out how to do this, please let everyone know. I don't think it's possible. I think humans have it baked in to them to pay attention to, for lack of a better word, information. I agree, but more than that; if we would find a way to avoid paying attention, a more pervasive way of pushing the adds would be invented.
- black_puppydog 3y ago
  I observe this in myself. It's virtually impossible for me to be in a restaurant/bar that has a TV up on the wall, and really be present with my friends/family. I catch myself being drawn into TV content that I'm entirely uninterested in, drifting off, and I hate it.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Yeah your brain might be tuned in to that artifact that is projecting input which is unlike the expected environment and which is constantly changing. Oh news-cut to an explosion. Ugh.
e2le 3y ago
>so that your peripheral vision gets distracted by irrelevant stimuli As this becomes increasingly more common place, I'm left wondering if there is a risk of a reduced quality of life for those with neurological issues (ADHD for example), in the worst case their exclusion from society.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  If only we could get a right to use uBlock for such cases added to the ADA. (Then sue Chrome for breaking things with manifest v3.)

avgcorrection 3y ago

(author here) I’m sorry but this looks like fake news. :/ I visited the webpage again (it’s not every day) and there were barely any ads this time. Did I misremember? I usually notice when I log in since I can barely click on any stories without getting told that it’s for subscribers only.

DarkNova6 3y ago

But is this not a fundamental problem if you expect everything to be available for free? For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper.

avgcorrection 3y ago
sigh What? I just described two scenarios where I’m on a paid plan and I still get ads. > For journalism, this has become an existential threat as web-users generate nowhere near as much revenue than selling printed paper. Printed, paid-for newspapers also have ads.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Not only that, but back in those days, the ads probably generated the lion's share of their revenues, along with the "classified ads" section (which is also ads, just not so commercial). That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. Unlike today, though, the ads in newspapers weren't annoying: they were just print, and didn't pop up dynamically in front of the article you were reading, and no one tried to shame you for not looking at them, unlike today's HN users.
  - 0x0203 3y ago
    Nor did they monitor what you looked at on the page, track how you "interacted" with them, and sell all that data about you to anyone who would give them a couple of bucks.
  - Shish2k 3y ago
    > That $0.10 you paid for the paper only really covered the cost of printing and distribution, if that. AFAIK for most newspapers and magazines, the cost on the label was mostly there so that readers would feel like the publication was serious - differentiating them from the free papers which were clearly spam and / or propaganda
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the info. Yet, despite the newspaper being fully supported by plain, simple, black-and-white print ads (and maybe some color inserts later which were easily discarded), they managed to pay for serious journalists, and they didn't whine about how they need to track you and spy on you and force you to look at obnoxious pop-up ads to make enough money to survive.
- rezonant 3y ago
  To be fair "logged in" doesn't imply paid. Might want to edit to clarify if you still can
  - 3y ago
bee_rider 3y ago
Hard to say, nobody has managed to replicate the old IRL newspaper business model. You used to be able to get a subscription, or just buy a single paper from a store or a box. The latter is much more convenient, but the former was the only one implemented for the web. For example, I don’t care to have a subscription to the economist, so I didn’t read this article. If I could pay like $1 for it, I probably would. But it would require a new service, I’m not going to make an account to pay $1, a good number of newspapers would have to work out a shared system before this sort of thing would be interesting. Unfortunately the ad-net has sucked all the oxygen out of the room for this kind of business model.
- gosub100 3y ago
  What they need is to combine and meter. I.e. one $x0/mo subscription gets you access to a network of X newspapers, all with one log-in, no ads, and maybe coupons or some other perk. Then it gives you say 30 articles a month, and pays the publisher based on what you read. You're never going to get rid of freeloaders, so maybe have free-tier AI-generated articles and put thoughtful, detailed investigative reporting behind the paywall. Or (for the case of a local paper) have the free-tier not include photos, or grayscale photos, etc. Just tease them to pay for the real version. Another way to monetize is to make it interactive and bring back comments. Allow a well-regulated peanut gallery for each article, but have it actively moderated, require people to use their real names, and set a high bar for what comments are even allowed. Have journalists actively engage with them. A comment will only be published if it adds value. Then encourage people to have spirited discussion about each article. And guess what, actively commenting will cost you admission.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    I think a system of N articles per month invites these low-effort AI articles that you mention, and adds a huge inter-company political problem of policing what exactly a low effort article is. The incentive is to be the company that is engaging with the system, but putting in the least effort per article, while still passing the “worth money” bar. On top of financial motivations, newspapers often have different political alignments for example, I suspect some of them basically hate each other; a system where they get along and engage in good faith is too much. I’d rather see an account where you dump money in, the site can say “buy this article for $x”, and it asks your account for that money. It doesn’t even really need to be a centralized site, it could be an API that multiple services can implement, or whatever.

rambambram 3y ago

Slightly off-topic, but a home gym pays back in no-time (if you only use weights and some simple equipment like a bench and a pullup rack, that is).

Gareth321 3y ago
With a little creativity it can work well. The essentials include an olympic bar and weights, barbells, squat rack, and bench. The upfront cost isn't too bad (maybe a few years worth of gym membership). The space requirements can be prohibitive. Setup can also be annoying with limited space because it can mean dragging all the equipment to another location to use, then back again to pack it up.
- rambambram 3y ago
  True. I purchased my weights before covid and was very happy the moment the lockdowns started here. Ultimately, I started my home gym because this way I have no excuses to not train. It's next to my computer and everytime I feel the urge to train I can do that immediately (not on a training scheme right now). Put on some nice music (without ads) and defy gravity, usually without changing to gym clothing (yes, they go in the laundry afterwards). Depending on what you pay for a gym membership of course, I think I started saving money after 1,5 to 2 years (cheap gym membership compared to relatively cheap equipment at home).
jerrre 3y ago
This assumes you have the space
- zemvpferreira 3y ago
  I prefer public gyms by far but you can build a very capable home gym that fits under half a bed. Forget squats, deadlifts and bench presses and bring in unilateral variations at higher rep counts and you won't need much more than a handle and a pair of 45's for years.
- rambambram 3y ago

zigman1 3y ago

I'd even argue that internet, while it was seen as a counter-balance to the ad infected tv and radio space, has become WORST than watching a TV. If I want to show something on YT to my friend, and I don't know exactly which video is correct, well lots of luck to me to find it in first few tries, as EACH video I click on will first show me a two unskippable ads, no matter how short the video is

avgcorrection 3y ago
Exactly right. Good luck using a for-reference video where you have to seek around a lot to exactly the parts you need. Have fun watching the same two unskippable ads every time. Meanwhile (on TV) my parents just record the shows they want and wind through the ad breaks that come up on a set schedule.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  One day we’re gonna have sandboxes that run through web assembly ad infested garbage dumps and then recreate it for you with ai directed obfuscated versions
zo1 3y ago
Something went wonky with ads in general and it may just be a coincidence that the internet happened at an overlapping time. I fondly remember memorable, interesting and funny ads. It's like shittification happened on the quality of ads, maybe they got lazy because they could just target a specific demographic, maybe it's all the incompetent and lazy gen-whatevers joining the workplace, or maybe we're all collectively not accepting of ads anymore because of their quantity and pervasiveness.
- bregma 3y ago
  Maybe it's because the technology has progressed to the point where any idiot can make an ad, so now ads are made by idiots. It's not the first industry to be so affected.
sigio 3y ago

voidnap 3y ago

> your peripheral vision gets distracted by irrelevant stimuli (for some reason I automatically have to look when it seems like something is “happening” all of a sudden, an urge I have to repress) If you figure out how to do this, please let everyone know. I don't think it's possible. I think humans have it baked in to them to pay attention to, for lack of a better word, information. I used to have a long commute driving along a highway with trees and mountains along the side and, some mornings, the sky would light up from the brilliance of sunrise. Billboards tracked the highway for kilometres. Billboards were always in view and somehow they were louder than everything else. Like, if you looked at an entire landscape and the billboard, with its clickbaity text, was an absolutely small area of your vision -- it would disproportionately occupy your attention and space in your mind. Just like how you can hear your heartbeat when it's very quiet. It's not gone when you can't hear it -- the quiet things are still there and unchanged but you can't experience them when something else is being loud. In the very same way you can no longer travel down that road and experience the joy of not being sold anything,

mhaberl 3y ago
> If you figure out how to do this, please let everyone know. I don't think it's possible. I think humans have it baked in to them to pay attention to, for lack of a better word, information. I agree, but more than that; if we would find a way to avoid paying attention, a more pervasive way of pushing the adds would be invented.
black_puppydog 3y ago
I observe this in myself. It's virtually impossible for me to be in a restaurant/bar that has a TV up on the wall, and really be present with my friends/family. I catch myself being drawn into TV content that I'm entirely uninterested in, drifting off, and I hate it.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Yeah your brain might be tuned in to that artifact that is projecting input which is unlike the expected environment and which is constantly changing. Oh news-cut to an explosion. Ugh.

e2le 3y ago

>so that your peripheral vision gets distracted by irrelevant stimuli As this becomes increasingly more common place, I'm left wondering if there is a risk of a reduced quality of life for those with neurological issues (ADHD for example), in the worst case their exclusion from society.

red_admiral 3y ago
If only we could get a right to use uBlock for such cases added to the ADA. (Then sue Chrome for breaking things with manifest v3.)