4 ms·
If you’ve visited any of these sites recently it’s obvious that part of the issue is that you’re bombarded with pops, ads everywhere, autoplaying video, etc. It
by Aboutplants 8mo ago
If you’ve visited any of these sites recently it’s obvious that part of the issue is that you’re bombarded with pops, ads everywhere, autoplaying video, etc. It’s nauseating and a horrible user experience.
If all I’m looking for is straightforward content/info then I’m naturally using the most efficient way to get that content/information and visiting a website is not the most efficient way anymore
- camillomiller 8mo agoSo, Google promotes the enshittification you decry by monopolizing the way you make money on the internet. Then also Google cripples everyone’s ad-dependent business by sucking out the info these websites provide and have paid people to research and publish. Nonetheless, Google good, websites bad.
- wildrhythms 8mo agoThese news sites run ads that are borderline gore, disturbing images promoting snake oil weight loss or skin care treatments, and wonder why nobody wants to click into their site.
- ronsor 8mo agoBut I love internet chum! Don't forget "new law thing"; that's an important category.
- wlesieutre 8mo agoIf you live in California, insurance companies don't want you to know this
- sudoshred 8mo ago"internet chum" is a good one, it echoes "slop bowl".
- dredmorbius 8mo ago"Chumbox" has been a descriptive term since 2015: "A Complete Taxonomy of Internet Chum" (4 June 2015) <https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-internet-chum/ https://www.theawl.com/2015/06/a-complete-taxonomy-of-intern...> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chumbox>
- functionmouse 8mo agoCool Wikipedia read. These (chumboxes) are on our Windows 10 lock screens at work.
- mikestew 8mo agoWait a minute, what? What I read from your comment is that on your work machines the screen savers display ads? I mean, I’d heard Windows was getting bad with the ads, but surely it doesn’t work that way out of the box.
- dredmorbius 8mo agoOn Enterprise, configured by policy, no less, one would assume.
- dredmorbius 8mo agoThat is an absolute stone cold dead soul-sucking statement.
- tencentshill 8mo agoThat's bottom of the barrel advertisers. You're being punished because you likely don't allow them to track you.
- zeta0134 8mo agoThat the news sites allow bottom of the barrel advertisers on their site primarily reflects negatively on the news site, for not curating their partnerships. They decided to become a tabloid, and should lose an according amount of respect.
- visarga 8mo ago> These news sites run ads that are borderline gore, disturbing images promoting snake oil weight loss or skin care treatments And that doesn't raise an eye brow, but well worded AI articles based on sources is described as slop
- hypeatei 8mo agoWeren't those ads always there, though? The most obvious change is that a little AI popup appears on Google search providing a brief (even if hallucinated) overview of what the user queried. Unrelated, but I wouldn't expect this take on HN where I assumed everyone knew what an ad-blocker was.
- Aboutplants 8mo agoYes the ads were always there but that was the most efficient way to get the content/information. That has changed and even with ad blockers, websites are no longer the most efficient way to get to that content/infomation. That is what has changed
- hypeatei 8mo agoOkay, I see what point you were trying to make. I misinterpreted your comment as saying LLMs weren't the catalyst but instead the ads were.
- glenstein 8mo agoI also read it that way. I guess the synthesis/charitable interpretation is that the negative ad experience meant it was ripe for disruption should an alternative come along. But it raises a potential counterpoint: are there sites with non-terrible user experiences that are staying stable?
- idiotsecant 8mo agoWikipedia.
- structural 8mo agoMobile users (or other locked down devices where adblockers are forbidden) are still a decent chunk of traffic. It's much easier to just read the overview and not click through to the ad infestation, or even use a chatbot of choice as the search engine instead of going to Google, because "websites is how you get spammed with ads".
- dehrmann 8mo agoEvery time I visit the FT, the experience is reasonable enough.
- apparent 8mo agoThis article is about tech publications. I think of the FT as a financial/general news publication. Do others read them for their tech coverage?
- dredmorbius 8mo agoFT is (largely) subscriber-supported, AFAIU. Though I don't know their revenue breakdown. Somewhat famously, the similar (though unrelated) Economist relies on three revenue legs: subscriptions, advertising, and bespoke consulting through the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), roughly evenly distributed. The fact that these have different economic-cycle behaviours also helps stabilise the newspaper's income.
- afavour 8mo agoIt's a downward spiral. As views start to decline there's more pressure to make money from the views that remain.
- vkou 8mo agoIf views increased, there'd also be more pressure to make more money from them. The direction of views is irrelevant. What's relevant is the forward passage of time. As t -> infinity, shitty monetization -> infinity.
- josephg 8mo agoIt’s not inevitable. It’s just a specific form of leadership failure that comes from grabby short term business people being in charge of everything. As a counter example, the Economist or the NY Times don’t feel anywhere near this bad. They make you pay. But subscribers get a much nicer product in return.
- intended 8mo agoThe NYT is afloat because of its games. The Economist is the economist, and can ask for a higher subscription price given its target audience. AI summaries are reducing visits to Wikipedia, which shall drive down donations. Creating quality information for the average citizen is not a sustainable enterprise today.
- josephg 8mo ago> Creating quality information for the average citizen is not a sustainable enterprise today. It used to be. People used to subscribe to the newspaper. Unfortunately, the advertising model convinced a generation that they don’t need to pay for journalism or really any information online. Journalism is just as expensive as it’s ever been. But news is only written if someone is willing to pay journalists and editors.
- npilk 8mo agoInfinite Jest describes a very similar (fictional) development, albeit with network TV. As viewers leave, content producers are ever-more desperate to monetize remaining traffic, which worsens the experience and drives more viewers away, creating even more desperation to monetize... a vicious cycle.
- ProllyInfamous 8mo agoSamizdat, it's her voice, that lady on the radio... Having read &/or seen both, I would think modern advertising is closer to They Live.
- unglaublich 8mo agoIs anyone here actually browsing the internet without ad-blockers? As soon as I accidentally turn them off I am disgusted by the consumerist, snake-oil, sexist, shit-storm that's advertisement.
- shawn_w 8mo agoThe average viewer probably doesn't know ad blockers exist.
- dredmorbius 8mo agoRoughly one third to 40% of people worldwide "report using an ad blocker". I'd suspect that awareness is near, if not comfortably above, a majority. <https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users> (2024) <https://cropink.com/ad-blockers-usage-statistics https://cropink.com/ad-blockers-usage-statistics> (2026)
- mrweasel 8mo agoTechnically I run a tracking blocker, it just happens to block 90+% of all ads because they want to track me. I don't understand why ads aren't targeted towards the content of the page, rather than me as a person, that seems to be more correct in the majority of the cases. I did accidentally try to play a YouTube video without signing into my premium account. That platforms is completely impossible to watch without premium or an ad blocker. YouTube managers should be forced to watch a few hours of content with ads enabled.
- cyberax 8mo agoI run adblock, but it's been not very effective lately. Sites either work around it, or just outright refuse to work.
- schubidubiduba 8mo agoAre you using a chromium-based browser? Google crippled adblockers on those. I essentially never see ads on firefox
- ugh123 8mo agoAdd to that cookie accept popups and the www has really turned to junk lately
- rayiner 8mo agoThe WWW has been trending towards junk since the early 2000s. HN is still the pinnacle of web design.
- jmbwell 8mo agoYes, and this has been the case for years. Cnet, ZDnet, PCmag have been user-hostile since long before AI summaries. Pop-ups, “before you go,” back jacking, all the worst. The Verge is a surprise because it is relatively new and was relatively free of this crap for a long time. They’re all just empty brands now. They totally caved to advertisers, and now only advertisers care about them. I dare say AI’s popularity is a symptom of all this more than a cause.
- estsauver 8mo agoI have a recurring problem where I can't even read one of my favorite recipe websites (seriouseats.com) from my phone because the series of popups completely blocks the page, and can't be dismissed. But if I ask Claude or Gemini for a nice version of the recipe, it works perfectly. I think there's a lot of own goals out there.
- tracerbulletx 8mo agoMy tech tutorials blog never had any ads, still doesnt. Still lost more than half the traffic. That's not the reason, that's an excuse and a distraction from the topic that AI captures everyone's IP and removes a lot of their economic incentive to create it.
- ilamont 8mo agoI used to work as a technology journalist. A guy from the business side always used to say, “there’s no way we are leaving money on the table“ as justification for putting ad modules, video players, lead generation forms and other junk around our articles. We had no say in the matter. Someone from the financial times did a test about the impact of this garbage on read times and brand loyalty. This was maybe 15 years ago. Of course the more ads shoehorned onto the page, the worse the metrics were.