4 ms·
AdNauseam: Clicking ads so you don't have to
- Nifty3929 2y ago[flagged]
- nemomarx 2y agoads targeted to me are more likely to convince me to spend money - so it's in my interest to make sure ads know less about me so I make less impulse purchases?
- mrighele 2y agoAlso, well targeted ads catch your attention more, so they have an higher chance to distract you from whatever you are doing.
- Spooky23 2y agoFrankly, because the “high value” ads are intrusive and gross. Getting retargeted for something I bought two months ago on Amazon is annoying. Having Facebook notice I’m no longer in proximity to my wife’s phone and target forensic accountant and dating ads to me is creepy. It’s gross and offensive when it turns out we’re not together because she’s just succumbed to cancer.
- axiosgunnar 2y ago[dead]
- codedokode 2y agoBuying something because you saw it in ads is a wrong choice. If you need something, it is better to make an objective comparison and choose the product with the best properties. I think that for a rational buyer ad should be worthless. Product makers don't want you to make a rational choice though. For example, take speakers: cheap ones do not have a response curve published at all (so assume worst), and more expensive ones often have a small blurred graph that is averaged to an octave, doesn't show the deviation between different samples of a product and is only for on-axis sound. And guitars have no spec regarding sound at all except for trivial things like scale length, weight etc.
- billyp-rva 2y agoIf you saw a product in an ad, but aren't aware of any alternatives because you didn't see ads for them, that kind of limits your choices.
- bsza 2y agoLiterally every source of information that lets you know about the existence of a product is, by definition, an ad. How do you make a rational decision about something you don’t know exists?
- codedokode 2y agoYou go to an imaginary price comparison website, choose "speakers" for example, and see all the kinds of products that exist. What do you need an ad for?
- brulard 2y agoDon't you see "sponsored" products at the top? But I agree not everything is an ad, just most of stuff.
- lucianbr 2y agoThat's so obviously false. There are wikipedia pages about products, and they are not ads, either by definition or extension or induction or by anything. You don't know what "ad" means. Maybe look up the actual definition of a word before talking about what it means by definition.
- bsza 2y agoWas Wikipedia your first exposure to some product you previously didn’t know existed? Your “counterexample” makes no sense. Also, I’m pretty sure I make more money from advertising than you do, so I’ll stick with my understanding of what it is, thank you very much.
- munch117 2y agoBefore you look up something on wikipedia, you need to know that it exists in the first place.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> We've adopted a model where we expect most content we consume to be free, paid for by ads. I didn't adopt this. I wasn't consulted about it, and whenever possible I (and many others) voice very strongly our hatred of this model. We want it gone and will do everything in our meager power to avoid/disrupt/disengage from it.
- grvdrm 2y ago> We want it gone and will do everything in our meager power to avoid/disrupt/disengage from it. What do you do to avoid it? I assume some combo of ad-blockers, etc. What else is covered in "everything"
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoThe power being as meager as it is, sometimes its just posting comments in HN hoping that the tech elite see them and have it trigger some sort of deep introspection along the lines of "are we the baddies?" leading to a complete rethink and undoing of the ad/surveillance construct.
- _trampeltier 2y agoAds per se are not the problem. The problem is, they tracking and loading Gigabytes of data and make every website slow.
- iamtedd 2y agoWhere is this choice? I don't have control over what certain qualities ad companies deduce and store about me. I can't even ask them to pretty please show me fewer ads if I give them all my data. Do you think someone with a Google account, using every one of their products and being tracked every which way sees less advertising across the web, as opposed to someone without an account? I do, however, have direct control over whether ads are shown to me or not, through blockers. This is the only leverage I have in this unfair deal, so I'm damn well going to exercise it.
- iamacyborg 2y agoYou don’t need to track individuals to provide contextually useful adverts based on the website and webpage someone is on.
- lucianbr 2y agoDo you understand why the Cambridge Analytica scandal was a scandal? Advertisers target you in their interest, not yours.
- icandoit 2y agoI get straight up porn (for porn games and explicit AI gf chat apps) sent to me. I report it each time. What else can I do about it?
- roelschroeven 2y agoBest is no ads. Second best is ads for things that I have no interest in, that I'm never going to buy anyway. Anything else has the potential to influence my buying decisions, which I don't want.
- belorn 2y agoI don't think the advertisement companies (or rather, their lawyers) like to see it as consumer that pay for content by watching adds. Any transaction between a company and a consumer of monetary value need to be accounted and taxed, and advertisement based industries has an EU exception that explicitly states that content/products that has advertisement attached is not a transaction, since the viewer may watch 0 seconds, watch the whole add, or anything between, and thus there is no expectations of payment between a producer and consumer. There is also none of the usually consumer protection when dealing with such products. The model that those companies deploy is that they give away, for free, the product, in the statistically prediction that enough people will happen to watch the ads in order to make it profitable. That is the deal.
- postalrat 2y agoI don't care what ads they want me to see. Only that they are blocked.
- beejiu 2y agoUsing this would be unlawful in the UK.
- selfhoster11 2y agoCould you share which specific UK law using something like this would violate?
- beejiu 2y agoComputer Misuse Act 1990. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/3 (1)A person is guilty of an offence if— (a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer; (b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and (c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies. (2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act— (c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data;
- RandomBacon 2y agoInteresting, depending on how someone interprets 1c2c, it looks like the U.K. made it illegal to lie on the internet. I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., I would think that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
- _trampeltier 2y agoIn the US even the president lies every day, so I guess the US can't forbid to lie.
- c16 2y agoWould running an ad blocker not fall under 2.c?
- beejiu 2y agoAd blocking happens on your own computer, which you are authorised to make changes to. But simulating a click, therefore making an entry in another person's computer is what makes it unlawful.
- cj 2y agoObligatory caution that's shared whenever AdNauseam is promoted on HN: Indiscriminately clicking links to ads on web pages will get you flagged as a bot or for "unusual behavior" and you may start seeing more captchas and things like that as your IP / browsing behavior are flagged.
- guerrilla 2y agoThis is kinda good if you think about it since it'd create more friction in using ad-laden websites. Those that aren't blnuts with ads will be more likely rewarded with your attention. Seems fair.
- nvr219 2y agoWhat can i use to get rid of the admiral pop ups?