5 ms·

Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

by TZubiri 6mo ago

estimator7292 6mo ago
What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table
- TZubiri 6mo ago
  It's simpler to do one thing than to do two. You make a choice and you do that. Could they be doing opaque ads right now and we wouldn't know? It's possible, that will probably eventually come to light and it might have legal consequences, but sure it's possible. But it's not a given, and your logic of "it would make zero sense to leave money on the table" is certainly not a QED, it's absolute reductionism.
  - duskdozer 6mo ago
    It sounds rational then to block as many non-opaque ads as possible, because that isn't their preferred choice.
  - Timon3 6mo ago
    It's even simpler to do zero things than to do one thing, so we should expect them not to introduce any ads, right? "Simplicity" isn't a relevant factor.
saghm 6mo ago
I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.
- TZubiri 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - lelandbatey 6mo ago
    Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free." People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side. Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.
    - TZubiri 6mo ago
      The user can choose not to use the service instead of breaking the terms and services, no? Presumably you wouldn't even want to use the service since it's so evil, so we probably agree that people ideally shouldn't use adblockers.
  - encom 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tomhow 6mo ago
      Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. It just makes things worse.
      - encom 6mo ago
        Oh no. Will you be adjusting my daily allotted posts further down? Yea I know about your shadow ban. Classy.
michaelt 6mo ago
> Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads. Doesn't history show us you just get both? You pay to get into the movies, then they show you adverts before the film, then the film includes paid product placement of cars, computers, phones, food, etc. You watch youtube ads, to see a video containing a sponsored ad read, where a guy is woodworking using branded tools he was given for free. You search on Google for reviews and see search ads, on your way to a review article surrounded by ads, and the review is full of affiliate links.
- otabdeveloper4 6mo ago
  > Doesn't history show us you just get both? No. "Opaque ads" are usually heavily regulated out of existence by government legislation.
  - cj 6mo ago
    Product placement in TV shows / movies is a $30 billion industry. They're opaque, and not regulated out of existence. They're so opaque that I'd wager 50%+ of people aren't aware it's happening. (Not fact checked) My favorite is Apple's "no villain" rule, where protagonists are allowed to use iPhone in movies, while antagonists are not.
    - otabdeveloper4 6mo ago
      > Product placement in TV shows / movies ...is a big exception in the advertising industry, not the norm.
      - TZubiri 6mo ago
        Very common in netflix shows btw. They know they will be pirated, so they do product placement to monetize anyways. So pirates get their wish of no ads granted, and they get propaganda instead.
pbasista 6mo ago
Your implication that "you will be fed" other ads if you block the main ones is unsubstantiated. But even if it was true, it does not matter. Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well. I think that in general blocking all ads is always a good idea. The reason is that there is no negative consequence in doing so. A person has absolutely no obligation, not even an implied one, to watch or otherwise consume any ad. I think that as long as there are ways to remove or block ads, people should use them. That being said, if the companies wish to intertwine their products with ads that are indistinguishable from the actual content and therefore unblockable, it is okay. They have the right to do that if they want. But, in the same fashion, the customers have every right to turn away from all such products. And never consider using them ever again.
- TZubiri 6mo ago
  >Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well You can't, that's one of the main purposes. Instead of having ads marked and delimited, the are woven into the content, even if you could detect them (as a plugin or gratis moderator), removing them would potentially corrupt the product. It may be a part of a joke or the plot itself.
WD-42 6mo ago
I’m not obligated to look at or listen to anything on my own devices, much less in my own home.
- TZubiri 6mo ago
  Right, and you are not obligated to use ChatGPT either. And ChatGPT is not obligated to serve you if you bypass their ToS. Works out for everyone, no?
  - WD-42 6mo ago
    Totally. I’ll get by fine without ChatGPT, and I guarantee I can go without whatever crappy products the ad network you shill for partner with. In the meantime I’ll keep blocking evey ad I can. In fact I’d be better off. It’s interesting that the most ad laden products are often the worst for you: YouTube, social media. Whereas the good uses of time: books, art, are ad free.
    - TZubiri 6mo ago
      I'm a shill, not of any ad network, but of the idea of respecting contracts and law, even those we don't read and click on an "I agree" box. Consider that stallman didn't encourage followers to pirate microsoft, he encouraged boycotting and made his own alternative software and contracts. Sounds like a better way to go about it no? Why would you want to be a part of a club that doesn't want you as a member, and to the extent it does, it develops unmarked unskippable ads mixed with content so as to keep monetizing from adblocking users. So yeah, I'm anti adblock but not pro ads, I don't do freemium or ads myself when selling, i do use free dependencies but donor based . I guess I'd be lawful neutral?who would have thunk there's more than 2 alignments!

Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

by TZubiri 6mo ago

Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

estimator7292 6mo ago

What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table

TZubiri 6mo ago
It's simpler to do one thing than to do two. You make a choice and you do that. Could they be doing opaque ads right now and we wouldn't know? It's possible, that will probably eventually come to light and it might have legal consequences, but sure it's possible. But it's not a given, and your logic of "it would make zero sense to leave money on the table" is certainly not a QED, it's absolute reductionism.
- duskdozer 6mo ago
  It sounds rational then to block as many non-opaque ads as possible, because that isn't their preferred choice.
- Timon3 6mo ago
  It's even simpler to do zero things than to do one thing, so we should expect them not to introduce any ads, right? "Simplicity" isn't a relevant factor.

saghm 6mo ago

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

TZubiri 6mo ago
[flagged]
- lelandbatey 6mo ago
  Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free." People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side. Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.
  - TZubiri 6mo ago
    The user can choose not to use the service instead of breaking the terms and services, no? Presumably you wouldn't even want to use the service since it's so evil, so we probably agree that people ideally shouldn't use adblockers.
- encom 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 6mo ago
    Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. It just makes things worse.
    - encom 6mo ago
      Oh no. Will you be adjusting my daily allotted posts further down? Yea I know about your shadow ban. Classy.

michaelt 6mo ago

> Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads. Doesn't history show us you just get both? You pay to get into the movies, then they show you adverts before the film, then the film includes paid product placement of cars, computers, phones, food, etc. You watch youtube ads, to see a video containing a sponsored ad read, where a guy is woodworking using branded tools he was given for free. You search on Google for reviews and see search ads, on your way to a review article surrounded by ads, and the review is full of affiliate links.

otabdeveloper4 6mo ago
> Doesn't history show us you just get both? No. "Opaque ads" are usually heavily regulated out of existence by government legislation.
- cj 6mo ago
  Product placement in TV shows / movies is a $30 billion industry. They're opaque, and not regulated out of existence. They're so opaque that I'd wager 50%+ of people aren't aware it's happening. (Not fact checked) My favorite is Apple's "no villain" rule, where protagonists are allowed to use iPhone in movies, while antagonists are not.
  - otabdeveloper4 6mo ago
    > Product placement in TV shows / movies ...is a big exception in the advertising industry, not the norm.
    - TZubiri 6mo ago
      Very common in netflix shows btw. They know they will be pirated, so they do product placement to monetize anyways. So pirates get their wish of no ads granted, and they get propaganda instead.

pbasista 6mo ago

Your implication that "you will be fed" other ads if you block the main ones is unsubstantiated. But even if it was true, it does not matter. Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well. I think that in general blocking all ads is always a good idea. The reason is that there is no negative consequence in doing so. A person has absolutely no obligation, not even an implied one, to watch or otherwise consume any ad. I think that as long as there are ways to remove or block ads, people should use them. That being said, if the companies wish to intertwine their products with ads that are indistinguishable from the actual content and therefore unblockable, it is okay. They have the right to do that if they want. But, in the same fashion, the customers have every right to turn away from all such products. And never consider using them ever again.

TZubiri 6mo ago
>Because the so-called "opaque" ads can and in my opinion should be blocked as well You can't, that's one of the main purposes. Instead of having ads marked and delimited, the are woven into the content, even if you could detect them (as a plugin or gratis moderator), removing them would potentially corrupt the product. It may be a part of a joke or the plot itself.

WD-42 6mo ago

I’m not obligated to look at or listen to anything on my own devices, much less in my own home.

TZubiri 6mo ago
Right, and you are not obligated to use ChatGPT either. And ChatGPT is not obligated to serve you if you bypass their ToS. Works out for everyone, no?
- WD-42 6mo ago
  Totally. I’ll get by fine without ChatGPT, and I guarantee I can go without whatever crappy products the ad network you shill for partner with. In the meantime I’ll keep blocking evey ad I can. In fact I’d be better off. It’s interesting that the most ad laden products are often the worst for you: YouTube, social media. Whereas the good uses of time: books, art, are ad free.
  - TZubiri 6mo ago
    I'm a shill, not of any ad network, but of the idea of respecting contracts and law, even those we don't read and click on an "I agree" box. Consider that stallman didn't encourage followers to pirate microsoft, he encouraged boycotting and made his own alternative software and contracts. Sounds like a better way to go about it no? Why would you want to be a part of a club that doesn't want you as a member, and to the extent it does, it develops unmarked unskippable ads mixed with content so as to keep monetizing from adblocking users. So yeah, I'm anti adblock but not pro ads, I don't do freemium or ads myself when selling, i do use free dependencies but donor based . I guess I'd be lawful neutral?who would have thunk there's more than 2 alignments!