2 ms·

Why should I as a user get exposed to garbage that I don't care about in addition to the actual content I'm interested in? Well, one possible answer is that th

by kleiba 1y ago

Why should I as a user get exposed to garbage that I don't care about in addition to the actual content I'm interested in? Well, one possible answer is that the content provider only actually provides that content under the condition that I look at the ads. After all, a lot of content providers are businesses and they don't like to give out content for free. My stance has always been that for 99% of the stuff I consume on the internet, my condition is that I can access it the way I, as the end user / customer, prefer. And if you as the provider insist otherwise, my reaction will almost always be that I won't look at to your garbage ads but instead I'll just go somewhere else for content. Or just read a book, ad-free [0]. [0] https://archive.is/KHPwt https://archive.is/KHPwt

kstrauser 1y ago
I’m sympathetic to the idea that someone has to pay if they want to keep the site online. It costs money to create the site’s content, even if the marginal cost to deliver it to a visitor is approximately $0.00. But there’s an astounding amount of laziness in their approach. Seriously, renting rectangles on a site is the only way to get paid by non-paying visitors? Hogwash. For instance, they could be running affiliate links to online stores. “We reviewed these laptops: click here and we’ll get a commission.” “But that compromises our integrity!”, they might counter. But so does renting out space to advertisers! I genuinely don’t see the honest version as, well, less honest.
- danudey 1y ago
  Most websites use ad networks, and typically have no idea which ads are being shown on their sites unless users complain about something egregious; as such, it tends to be the case that telling an ad network "here's a rectangle for you to show something" doesn't really affect a site's journalistic integrity. If a site that reviews televisions was contracting directly with Sony to show ads then yes, that's definitely an issue, but if they're telling an ad network to pick some ads then (typically!) that's sufficiently arm's-length. Meanwhile, affiliate links can be much more directly bad; use offer code SCAMTOBER for 25% off this thing that I can assure you I've tried and tested and given a fair review, and which will definitely not turn out to have been a scam. Click here to purchase this laptop that I was sent for free and rated 9/10 and I'll get a 5% cut of whatever you buy. I guess this is where affiliate programs through retailers are slightly more trustworthy; if anything I buy from your Best Buy link gets you a 5% commission then it doesn't really matter all that much which laptop you recommend because you're getting a cut no matter what I buy. As soon as Alienware offers you a 10% commission on that $3500 laptop, though, things get dicey.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    But random JavaScript and GIFs from who knows where, with no transparency about how they got there and whether the owner is getting paid to run that specific ad, are no less bad. Did they sell my data to target me personally? Is Acer paying them to run ads on a page about HP laptops? Who knows. That’s completely opaque and untrustworthy today. You have to assume all in-page ads are compromising today because they largely are.
    - danudey 1y ago
      Oh of course, I was only discussing from a purely editorial integrity perspective. From a practical perspective it's all awful and I hate it, and is one of the main reasons I use content blockers.

by kleiba 1y ago

kstrauser 1y ago

I’m sympathetic to the idea that someone has to pay if they want to keep the site online. It costs money to create the site’s content, even if the marginal cost to deliver it to a visitor is approximately $0.00. But there’s an astounding amount of laziness in their approach. Seriously, renting rectangles on a site is the only way to get paid by non-paying visitors? Hogwash. For instance, they could be running affiliate links to online stores. “We reviewed these laptops: click here and we’ll get a commission.” “But that compromises our integrity!”, they might counter. But so does renting out space to advertisers! I genuinely don’t see the honest version as, well, less honest.

danudey 1y ago
Most websites use ad networks, and typically have no idea which ads are being shown on their sites unless users complain about something egregious; as such, it tends to be the case that telling an ad network "here's a rectangle for you to show something" doesn't really affect a site's journalistic integrity. If a site that reviews televisions was contracting directly with Sony to show ads then yes, that's definitely an issue, but if they're telling an ad network to pick some ads then (typically!) that's sufficiently arm's-length. Meanwhile, affiliate links can be much more directly bad; use offer code SCAMTOBER for 25% off this thing that I can assure you I've tried and tested and given a fair review, and which will definitely not turn out to have been a scam. Click here to purchase this laptop that I was sent for free and rated 9/10 and I'll get a 5% cut of whatever you buy. I guess this is where affiliate programs through retailers are slightly more trustworthy; if anything I buy from your Best Buy link gets you a 5% commission then it doesn't really matter all that much which laptop you recommend because you're getting a cut no matter what I buy. As soon as Alienware offers you a 10% commission on that $3500 laptop, though, things get dicey.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  But random JavaScript and GIFs from who knows where, with no transparency about how they got there and whether the owner is getting paid to run that specific ad, are no less bad. Did they sell my data to target me personally? Is Acer paying them to run ads on a page about HP laptops? Who knows. That’s completely opaque and untrustworthy today. You have to assume all in-page ads are compromising today because they largely are.
  - danudey 1y ago
    Oh of course, I was only discussing from a purely editorial integrity perspective. From a practical perspective it's all awful and I hate it, and is one of the main reasons I use content blockers.