4 ms·

tragedy of your shitty website and the commons. "we need to monetize our site more" - proceeds to ruin the experience of the site, driving customers to adblock

tragedy of your shitty website and the commons. "we need to monetize our site more" - proceeds to ruin the experience of the site, driving customers to adblocking technologies, reducing engagements because adblocking applies to all sites, more sites push more and more intrusive ads, pushing the creation and use of more adblocking technologies. rinse and repeat until the internet is literally unusable without pihole, uBlock, a good VPN, and a browser that isn't owned google or microsoft. if real life had advertisements like the internet, we'd have advertisements painted onto the wall of apartments and landlords would get mad at us we cover it up with paint and art.

teamspirit 2y ago
Not to be pedantic but doesn't Google technically own Microsoft's browser? I agree with you though, we've all been pushed to this point and I just wonder if there's any going back - and how? I hate to say this but it feels like the more people got on the internet, the worse it got. Not their fault, but it's akin to a really good neighborhood market. It doesn't just attract honest shoppers but pickpockets and thieves too. Now we're all stuck in a crowded and increasingly crappy market wondering what happened to our beloved neighborhood hangout.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  If we're being pedantic, then no. Google has made the core of Edge, but doesn't own Edge itself. Just like how Epic doesn't own every game made with Unreal.
nine_k 2y ago
What makes me wonder is whether it is efficient. Very certainly, there are people who want to rain ads on you from every direction, even when you carry an umbrella and wear Wellington boots. But does this actually increase the sales of the products being so advertised? Is there a measurable effect? What kind of businesses see uptick in sales, and how real / scammy they are? Does it work in general, or only by hitting some especially gullible individuals, like "Nigerian spam" does? Is it a ruse to oversell ads to gullible business owners, maybe with some help of complicit marketing departments? I'd also note that not all ads are repulsive. It's mostly the obnoxiously intrusive ones that ruin it. Back in the day Google won a fortune by offering textual ads, that were unobtrusive and lightweight, so users did not jump.to block them, unlike the banner ads of the era. The minimal text ads are still there BTW, but now they seem to load heavyweight and more intrusive pieces of JS :(
- itronitron 2y ago
  I'd like a company to test out offering a separate tab of 'sponsored links' related to a list of search results. That would provide an advantage to advertisers as they are only charged for views when a person chooses to look at the ads (presumably because they are a more likely customer.) It would benefit users by giving them more actual search results and the choice to see ads, which should benefit the company taking this approach.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  It works. I have a friend who works for a small but stable independent company selling a consumer goods ( imagine 10 people selling hats online). 90+% of their revenue depends on marketing. Almost nobody goes to "coolhats.com" to see if there is a sale, and nobody stops by to casually browse hats and see if there is something interesting. Instead, you have to put a cool hat in front of someone on facebook or reddit and show them. Ideally someone who recently conducted a related keyword search or has otherwise been profiled as a likely buyer.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Since you mentioned Facebook, I find their ads most precisely targeted (seeing as a target audience member regularly presented with relevant ads). They are also not obnoxious, even though not very modest either. Sadly, many websites and ad networks do a much worse job, which, to my mind, should produce infuriation and make a negative brand image, rather than awareness and sales.
    - logicfiction 2y ago
      In a similar vein, Instagram was the first platform where I actually took a pause and realized someone had actually figured out how to give me appealing advertising over the internet. I don't use Facebook to know how they differ, it may be practically identical. My experience is that I use my Instagram account not to interact with my social group but to engage with content I like (primarily art content like sculpture, painting, light/projection, music, etc). It's actually a really pleasant experience and I'm doing my best to protect my groove in the recommendation algorithm. I basically get an effortless feed of art events in my area without me needing to subscribe to a newsletter. And it also engages me with a lot of independent artists selling unique items that I like.
kevincox 2y ago
> because adblocking applies to all sites I do wish that uBlock Origin had a opt-in mode per domain. I would disable blocking by default and only enable it on sites that were particularly obnoxious. This would in theory incentive sites to actually have reasonable ads (because they get some rather than no revenue).
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  IIRC Adguard? Ad-Bloc? Whoever the OG ad-block extension was tried something similar to this and I believe it was the cause of their downfall. Basically they struck a deal with advertisers to let some ads through that were deemed mild. The backlash was immense. Here is the core problem, and I promise you this is true. Most sites want to maximize ad-revenue. Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    That is not similar to what the parent user is asking for at all.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    What killed it was not the deal. The deal divided the uses into a group that abandoned it, and a group that decided to support it. The author then decided to take money to not block the mild advertisers. Then he stopped blocking worse and worse ads. At some point at the last step, enough people left that he stopped developing and sold the extension. and then, the buyer decided to use the extension to gather user data to sell to advertisers. At this point it still had enough users to be worthwhile.
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    > Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere. I don't actually mind seeing ads. I actually long for magazine ads. It was (mostly) obvious they were ads, they had to actually advertise a thing, and they didn't try to take me outside of the magazine. There was also a strong correlation between the type of content in the magazine and the ads themselves. Some ads were very creative or visually appealing so the point I still remember them years and decades later. What I do mind is advertisements trying to pull me away from the content I'm currently reading, tracking me all over the web, and showing me ads based on their tracking rather than related to the content I'm reading. I don't want a fucking video overlayed on a text article I'm trying to read. I don't want to be tracked everywhere on the web. If a site collects data about me, especially data I enter willingly into their system, I want a say in the governance of that data. The major problem I see with modern web advertising is a lack of informed consent. Just throwing up a boilerplate "we'll share with partners" is not sufficient for me to make an informed decision to consent to data collection. People can't make informed choices and that data sharing with partners means they're sharing that information with their partners and so on. All of that transitive sharing is done without express consent by the end users. It's not the ad I'm opposed to seeing but all of the bullshit behind the ad I can't see.
collingreen 2y ago
> if real life had advertisements like the internet, we'd have advertisements painted onto the wall of apartments and landlords would get mad at us we cover it up with paint and art. Let's not give anybody any ideas
thwarted 2y ago
Tragedy of the Commons Ruins Everything Around Me.
- distortedsignal 2y ago
  [flagged]

teamspirit 2y ago

Not to be pedantic but doesn't Google technically own Microsoft's browser? I agree with you though, we've all been pushed to this point and I just wonder if there's any going back - and how? I hate to say this but it feels like the more people got on the internet, the worse it got. Not their fault, but it's akin to a really good neighborhood market. It doesn't just attract honest shoppers but pickpockets and thieves too. Now we're all stuck in a crowded and increasingly crappy market wondering what happened to our beloved neighborhood hangout.

fluoridation 2y ago
If we're being pedantic, then no. Google has made the core of Edge, but doesn't own Edge itself. Just like how Epic doesn't own every game made with Unreal.

nine_k 2y ago

What makes me wonder is whether it is efficient. Very certainly, there are people who want to rain ads on you from every direction, even when you carry an umbrella and wear Wellington boots. But does this actually increase the sales of the products being so advertised? Is there a measurable effect? What kind of businesses see uptick in sales, and how real / scammy they are? Does it work in general, or only by hitting some especially gullible individuals, like "Nigerian spam" does? Is it a ruse to oversell ads to gullible business owners, maybe with some help of complicit marketing departments? I'd also note that not all ads are repulsive. It's mostly the obnoxiously intrusive ones that ruin it. Back in the day Google won a fortune by offering textual ads, that were unobtrusive and lightweight, so users did not jump.to block them, unlike the banner ads of the era. The minimal text ads are still there BTW, but now they seem to load heavyweight and more intrusive pieces of JS :(

itronitron 2y ago
I'd like a company to test out offering a separate tab of 'sponsored links' related to a list of search results. That would provide an advantage to advertisers as they are only charged for views when a person chooses to look at the ads (presumably because they are a more likely customer.) It would benefit users by giving them more actual search results and the choice to see ads, which should benefit the company taking this approach.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
It works. I have a friend who works for a small but stable independent company selling a consumer goods ( imagine 10 people selling hats online). 90+% of their revenue depends on marketing. Almost nobody goes to "coolhats.com" to see if there is a sale, and nobody stops by to casually browse hats and see if there is something interesting. Instead, you have to put a cool hat in front of someone on facebook or reddit and show them. Ideally someone who recently conducted a related keyword search or has otherwise been profiled as a likely buyer.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Since you mentioned Facebook, I find their ads most precisely targeted (seeing as a target audience member regularly presented with relevant ads). They are also not obnoxious, even though not very modest either. Sadly, many websites and ad networks do a much worse job, which, to my mind, should produce infuriation and make a negative brand image, rather than awareness and sales.
  - logicfiction 2y ago
    In a similar vein, Instagram was the first platform where I actually took a pause and realized someone had actually figured out how to give me appealing advertising over the internet. I don't use Facebook to know how they differ, it may be practically identical. My experience is that I use my Instagram account not to interact with my social group but to engage with content I like (primarily art content like sculpture, painting, light/projection, music, etc). It's actually a really pleasant experience and I'm doing my best to protect my groove in the recommendation algorithm. I basically get an effortless feed of art events in my area without me needing to subscribe to a newsletter. And it also engages me with a lot of independent artists selling unique items that I like.

kevincox 2y ago

> because adblocking applies to all sites I do wish that uBlock Origin had a opt-in mode per domain. I would disable blocking by default and only enable it on sites that were particularly obnoxious. This would in theory incentive sites to actually have reasonable ads (because they get some rather than no revenue).

Workaccount2 2y ago
IIRC Adguard? Ad-Bloc? Whoever the OG ad-block extension was tried something similar to this and I believe it was the cause of their downfall. Basically they struck a deal with advertisers to let some ads through that were deemed mild. The backlash was immense. Here is the core problem, and I promise you this is true. Most sites want to maximize ad-revenue. Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  That is not similar to what the parent user is asking for at all.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  What killed it was not the deal. The deal divided the uses into a group that abandoned it, and a group that decided to support it. The author then decided to take money to not block the mild advertisers. Then he stopped blocking worse and worse ads. At some point at the last step, enough people left that he stopped developing and sold the extension. and then, the buyer decided to use the extension to gather user data to sell to advertisers. At this point it still had enough users to be worthwhile.
- giantrobot 2y ago
  > Most users don't want to see a single ad anywhere. I don't actually mind seeing ads. I actually long for magazine ads. It was (mostly) obvious they were ads, they had to actually advertise a thing, and they didn't try to take me outside of the magazine. There was also a strong correlation between the type of content in the magazine and the ads themselves. Some ads were very creative or visually appealing so the point I still remember them years and decades later. What I do mind is advertisements trying to pull me away from the content I'm currently reading, tracking me all over the web, and showing me ads based on their tracking rather than related to the content I'm reading. I don't want a fucking video overlayed on a text article I'm trying to read. I don't want to be tracked everywhere on the web. If a site collects data about me, especially data I enter willingly into their system, I want a say in the governance of that data. The major problem I see with modern web advertising is a lack of informed consent. Just throwing up a boilerplate "we'll share with partners" is not sufficient for me to make an informed decision to consent to data collection. People can't make informed choices and that data sharing with partners means they're sharing that information with their partners and so on. All of that transitive sharing is done without express consent by the end users. It's not the ad I'm opposed to seeing but all of the bullshit behind the ad I can't see.

collingreen 2y ago

> if real life had advertisements like the internet, we'd have advertisements painted onto the wall of apartments and landlords would get mad at us we cover it up with paint and art. Let's not give anybody any ideas

thwarted 2y ago

Tragedy of the Commons Ruins Everything Around Me.

distortedsignal 2y ago
[flagged]