6 ms·

Ads are an attack, aimed at your brain. They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. That's horrible, worse tha

Ads are an attack, aimed at your brain. They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. That's horrible, worse than attacking a machine with malware, damaging persons and societies. Decades of ad propaganda have tricked people into seeing them as something 'normal'. But we shouldn't accept being under constant attack of brain worms. I propose a sane rule for all humans: if you see an ad somewhere, or if you suspect a hidden ad ('influencers' trying to promote something), close the tab immediately and never return to that site.

bkaae 2mo ago
We should also normalize paying for content at the same time then.
- Parae 2mo ago
  You think Meta would spy less on us and show us less ads if we payed to access their services ? They would just keep doing what they've been doing for ages and they would have even more money to keep their enshitification going. We are already paying too much for all the services with subscription. Like Spotify, Netflix and others...
  - crummy 2mo ago
    Plenty of other services (like Spotify) stop showing you ads if you pay them enough money.
    - fsflover 2mo ago
      Until they decide that ads can give some profit on top of your payment. See: youtube [0], Windows, Apple [1]. [0] https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416547/youtube-premium-subscribers-claim-ad-free-servic.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416547/youtub... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433
      - account42 2mo ago
        Not to mention cable TV, the OG "ad-free" premium model.
    - lostdog 2mo ago
      Spotify shoves podcast ads in your face. Amazon does the same with product ads.
    - tripzilch 2mo ago
      I don't think that actually counts as "paying for content". The musicians make the "content", and Spotify pays all but the biggest ones a pittance. That's more like "paying to not see ads" than "paying for content".
    - mrguyorama 2mo ago
      What do you think the constant reminders of "hey hey hey, use these autogenerated vibes based playlists that are more profitable to us because we filled them with AI generated fake artists" are? Meanwhile spotify also has at least two autogenerated playlists of the songs you have chosen to play more than a few times. Literally "Here's the songs you recently took an interest in", and they do not fill your front page with that autogenerated playlist! Because that copy they are shoving in your face is not Informing you of useful Features or Inviting you to try something we made, but is instead managed by the marketing department.
    - account42 2mo ago
      If such a plan exists its always just a temporary situation until they add ads back in to keep the line going up.
  - intended 2mo ago
    If we say ads are an attack on our attention, time and money - then it’s a different ball game entirely. Their incentives would be aligned to users, not advertisers. The ideological changes alone would be like living in a different world entirely. Heck, maybe micropayments would become viable at that point.
  - zelphirkalt 2mo ago
    It could be made a question of legislation. If it was forbidden, and the "cost of business" too high for them to dare, then it can work. We would need to do more than touch them with the satin gloves we are using now though.
  - wolvoleo 2mo ago
    They stop showing ads if you pay for Instagram in the EU. However they do not stop tracking you.
    - dwedge 2mo ago
      If you turn off personalised ads in the EU for insta they hijack your scrolling to give you "ad breaks" which is actually a really neat feature because it reminds me I've started doom scrolling and I close the app
      - wolvoleo 2mo ago
        Yep indeed. I just wish I had the option they have in the Netherlands. Where you can set the "Following" tab as the primary and it doesn't constanly revert back. A judge decreed that that must be done for users in the Netherlands but it's not available anywhere else.
- michaelt 2mo ago
  I for one pay for content I enjoy, when it's reasonably priced and available to pay for. Two sources of print journalism, a few dozen patreons, paid youtube, etc - not to mention one-off purchases like books. [1] And I'd encourage other people who can afford to, to do the same. I'm not sure how scalable my approach is within the status quo, though - I've never seen a subscribers-only article go viral on social media, and almost all of my subscriptions began with me enjoying a generous free tier. And I've tried a number of micropayment systems but none of them seem poised to take off for various reasons. [1] I don't pay for facebook, because fuck 'em
  - zelphirkalt 2mo ago
    Same here. I will add though, that the freemium model does not necessarily have to cease existing. Some platform for written articles can have articles available at no cost, and then put a paywall in front of other articles. I don't see the problem with that. It will be a careful balancing act of content creators, how much is in the freemium section, so that they attract a sufficient number of readers/fans/supporters.
- koito17 2mo ago
  All that achieves is companies introducing ads to boost revenue for next quarter's earnings. For a concrete example: LINE (most widely-used messaging app in Japan) has paid subscriptions, and even the highest tier subscription doesn't reduce ads. Other services (e.g. YouTube Premium) reduce ads, but do not eliminate them, no matter how much you pay.
  - dspillett 2mo ago
    Also, they still do the stalky part. Even if the paid service does remove the manifestation of ads on that site/service, chances are the tracking still happens so they can immediately target if you stop paying (instead of resuming collection at that point) and so the information can potentially be sold to 3rd parties or new owners (if the site/service itself is sold) or accidentally leaked (directly due to dumb decisions like sending the wrong data somewhere or indirectly due to dumb decisions resulting in poor security a black-hat can exploit).
  - everyday7732 2mo ago
    Exactly this. The people willing to pay a subscription are also the most valuable to advertisers.
  - sbarre 2mo ago
    > Other services (e.g. YouTube Premium) reduce ads, but do not eliminate them, no matter how much you pay. Hmm curious to know where you live that you still get Youtube-supplied ads with YT Premium? Because "ad-free" is literally the headline feature. Unless you're talking about in-video ads and sponsorships added in by the video creators themselves, and then that's not something in YT's control (although they provide the "skip commonly skipped sections" feature in Premium that helps with this).
    - 8note 2mo ago
      it is something in YTs control they can require ad and sponsor-free copies of videos to be uploaded in order to get YT premium revenue. they control the platform. that they choose not to make the premium experience ad free is up to them
- intended 2mo ago
  Sure - why not ? We are already paying for the externalities from ad tech. We’ve got entire worlds of predatory information behavior and near zero defenses for humans. If you are on HN, you hopefully know enough to keep yourself clean and safe, but the rest of humanity is essentially getting mugged, defrauded and addicted 24/7.
- Retric 2mo ago
  Paying for quality content has been normalized, the price floor for payment is way above what Facebook and the vast majority of Web content offers. That’s why movies and AAA games can clear a billion dollars, but the internet is still dependent on people failing to install ad blockers.
  - bialpio 2mo ago
    > That’s why movies (...) can clear a billion dollars, And yet somehow I still get 30 minutes of ads before a watching a goddamn movie in a cinema.
    - GlumWoodpecker 2mo ago
      Theatres need a piece of the pie too :^)
      - bialpio 2mo ago
        I'm already buying their overpriced popcorn and soda!
    - andsoitis 2mo ago
      Just take your seat 30mins later.
      - bialpio 2mo ago
        Just tell me when the movie starts, not when the ads start.
        andsoitis 2mo ago
        by your account roughly 20-30mins in. You could also just sit there and read a book while you wait.
        BobBagwill 2mo ago
- specproc 2mo ago
  I pay for content: gig and cinema tickets, merch and digital albums from artists I like or know. I buy loads of books, magazines, digital and physical games, art I can hang on my wall. I've even started a bit of a CD collection. At times I've had Spotify, Netflix and Mubi subscriptions. As a UK-resident with a TV, I pay for the BBC. I feel I more than adequately contribute to cultural production. In some ways, the current situation suits me fine. I take the free stuff where I'm technically capable. I'll block the ads, pirate to my hearts content, use yt-dlp, BPC, userscripts. I'm not not paying for stuff, but I've enough financial pressures already, thank you very much. I don't see why I should send all my money to (mostly) US corporations, who've farmed and resold user-generated content.
- tripzilch 2mo ago
  You must have grown up on the Internet during the > Decades of ad propaganda have tricked people into seeing them as something 'normal'. also wait, we're talking about a US company, should we be paying a US company, for "content"? Is all "content" produced by these US megacorps, I don't think so, they're purely extractive what are you gonna do, make more Marvel movies? lol
- dolphenstein 2mo ago
  There is a large cohort of people who will complain about ads but also don't want to pay. My little microSaaS is monetised with ads but I offer option to pay if you don't like the ads. Still get plenty of complaints about the ads.
  - mh- 2mo ago
    Yes. Anyone who has ever shipped a free mobile app can tell you that a $1 "remove all ads for life" offer will convert very poorly, even on sticky apps that people use every day. (Disclosure: my employer owns an ad network. Opinions my own.)
- engeljohnb 2mo ago
  What does "normalize" mean here? I don't think consumers have to do anything in this situation. If a business model isn't making enough money, it's on the business to change. If someday Google puts Youtube behind a hard paywall, no more "free with ads," I'd pay for it. I already pay for Nebula. But if I can get around the ads with uBlock, why wouldn't I? Just on principle? Because it's not fair that their business model doesn't make the revenue they want?
- urbnspacecowboy 2mo ago
  Only if we can also normalize not double-dipping via payment and ads. Too often, paying money to avoid "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product" just turns it into "You're paying for the product and you're still the product".
- okamiueru 2mo ago
  Nah. We should normalize public services and resources to develop knowledge and tools, that are made freely available. Provide incentive programs and reward those that take on such initiatives. There are many such services where I'm from. And the feeling when using them is refreshing. You're not looking for an ulterior motive to be misinformed. They're responsive as they don't load a 10 MiB JavaScript blob to track your interactions "for marketing". As an example, consider a service that gives you nutritional information of food. https://www.matvaretabellen.no/en/ https://www.matvaretabellen.no/en/ The software solution and hosting is not remotely as expensive as the lab work needed to gather the nutritional information. If this was made by a private company, it would be a subscription service, without a doubt. You'd find certain brands but not others because of deals under the table. It would have user profiles for collecting and selling data, not to mention integration with fitness and weight loss services. You might also wonder if part of the data is incorrect because of all that darn expensive lab analysis. Heck, maybe some CTO figured they could "predict" this information with an LLM. Here, it is covered by taxes, benefit all, full page load in about 0.2 seconds (or 0.5 seconds for nutritional value). This is how the internet could be.
  - mrngld 2mo ago
    So, steal from everyone (taxation) whether they want to support or use government-run Facebook, give the money to government-run Facebook, and everything will be great because Government? What incentive does that mechanism have to spur innovation for government-run Facebook? Does the government fund two Facebooks and scale funding based on market share? Or, like what virtually always happens in government, does it metastasize, realize it's actual "customer" isn't its "users" but is actually the government itself, and act accordingly to protect and grow its own budget? Everything about a subscription model is better. If it sucks, don't pay for it, and if no one thinks its a worthwhile bargain then they run out of money and it dies. Efficient. If people do like it, then great.
    - okamiueru 2mo ago
      Not sure to what extend, if at all, I should engage here, as you do have some strong preconceptions that probably makes it less likely productive. > Steal from everyone (taxation) [...] give the money to government-run Facebook, and everything will be great because Government Not touching this. As an exercise, take it upon yourself to figure out how much it cost per meter (or, I assume more familiar to you -- football field) for the road you last used, and where that money came from. > government-run Facebook? Yes. But, it depends what you think Facebook is, which I'm assuming isn't what Meta does with Facebook. They are in the business of collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests. All of this is of negative value to both end user and society. In a world with a "government run Facebook", it wouldn't exist. So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. And it would absolutely be a good case for something that could easily surpass the value of services provided by "facebook", if done right, without incentive beyond making good services. Not sure if you've noticed or paid much attention. None of the most important services do product development guided by <improving the service>. Google wouldn't have replaced Play Music. Your search result might be immediately useful but that would make you move on. I'd also wager that your YouTube client doesn't automatically skip the sponsor segments.
- Krasnol 2mo ago
  How can we normalise it even MORE? We are paying for digital products MONTHLY and they get more expensive and lose features AND we have to watch the ads too. What more do you want??
Frieren 2mo ago
> Ads are an attack, aimed at your brain. Ads are an attack aimed at your computer too. They download malicious code to spy on you and gather intelligence data about everything you like, you visit, you buy,... it is malicious software hacking into your computer. The fact that some of the richest companies in the world are the criminals does not make it less of a crime. The propaganda part is, of course, also totally true. Lies, manipulation, etc. has been normalized when a few years back will have been considered a crime.
- x______________ 2mo ago
  On your resources too! Your electricity, processing power and network bandwidth are all being abused without any incentives to cover the costs.
  - conmod278 2mo ago
    But Zuck has to put high-quality beef on his table which involves raising Wagyu and Angus cattle on a diet of macadamia nut meal and local beer. Zuck is not gonna do charity.
    - podocarp 2mo ago
      Do they actually raise cows on beer? I will believe the macadamia part.
- spider-mario 2mo ago
  > Ads are an attack aimed at your computer too. They download malicious code to spy on you and gather intelligence data about everything you like, you visit, you buy,... it is malicious software hacking into your computer. The ads themselves don’t do that. Some networks running those ads might.
  - jdiff 2mo ago
    The ads themselves have been known to do that on many an occasion.
fsflover 2mo ago
See also: What if we made advertising illegal? (simone.org) 1975 points by smnrg on April 5, 2025 | 1409 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...
skybrian 2mo ago
Skill issue? Some people are clearly more vulnerable than others. You can occasionally get useful information from ads.
- sevenzero 2mo ago
  Give me 1-2 examples of useful info we can get from ads?
  - TheDong 2mo ago
    There are some cases where ads are useful for sure. For example, I found out about the local farmer's market in my city via advertisements being hung up around town, and that helped me get fresh produce and find some community. I'm not sure if I ever would have found that farmer's market otherwise. I also found one job via a "Who's Hiring" hacker news post, and that's obviously an advertisement thread advertising open positions. Of course, these do not balance out the negative impact of ads, such as advertising credit cards and sports gambling and gacha gambling games to get people into debt, advertising tv shows and movies to waste people's time watching garbage, and generally advertising garbage that makes people who were otherwise happy waste money and time for no real gain in life satisfaction.
    - sevenzero 2mo ago
      I see, these are valid. Especially in smaller communities in rural areas ads can really help bringing people together. I live in a small village since about 2 years now and have NO idea what's going on here (as I don't watch/read ads). Sometimes thats sad, but usually I want to be left alone anyway. A farmers market sounds cool though. I'd categorize job postings a bit differently, if Facebook was full of (legitimate) job postings I think it would be less of an issue. I agree on all the gambling stuff you wrote.
    - carljungslabtek 2mo ago
      You basically pointed this out already but there’s a big difference between something designed to notify you about something you might not have known, similar to what you’d find on a community bulletin board, and something trying to manipulate you into buying something you don’t need at all. I think a lot of people use the term “ad” to refer solely to the latter category. This goes back to the origin of modern advertising (and even earlier with snake oil salesman and charlatans, which were scamming merchants using music and stage shows lol — sound familiar?) and using the term “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda”.
el1s7 2mo ago
That's quite paranoid, they surely are annoying, but certain ads can be relevant. Actually, from what I've noticed X/Twitter ads are way worse than the ones on Meta platforms. And I completely hate seeing ads on YouTube or when browsing random websites in general.
- surcap526 2mo ago
  [dead]
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
Ads are mind rape.
micw 2mo ago
> if you see an ad somewhere [...] close the tab immediately and never return to that site I would even extend this: if you are bugged by an ad, avoid the product, the vendor and tell everyone why you do so. Also tell it to the vendor, why you avoid their product (aggressive, non blockable ads at facebook for example).
brikym 2mo ago
This. At least you can switch them off on the web but now big-ad is putting bright flickering digital billboards in sight of every public place. Politicians won't do a thing because they're some of the biggest customers. Obey.
- account42 2mo ago
  > Obey. We do have the technology to make those glasses now.
  - brikym 2mo ago
    It's worse. You'll _have_ to use the glasses to block the billboard ads which will be replaced with more subtle ads.
wvh 2mo ago
It's insane to think how much brain power, computing power, electricity and component lifecycle wear have been wasted through the years, yelling random stuff at me; or even worse than random; often stuff that is directly harmful to me. As somebody who – not entirely willingly – is working mostly remote, the only interruption in the day I have from the outside world is the sudden loud inane noises of commercials.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
dghughes 2mo ago
I hate how normal ads seem to be to young people (under age 30). Just seeing TikTok videos secondhand on YouTube the videos seems stuffed with people pushing crap. YouTube channels none are without ads either by YouTube or by the channel owners. Plus the "oh you have an add blocker!!" whining if you dare try to slow the firehose of ads coming at you. Yes I do have an ad blocker because it seems my entire existence is fodder for your website or app's ad machine to capture and use.
- mrngld 2mo ago
  Lets be fair, here. Traditional TV was ~40 minutes of content with 20 minutes of ads. I still remember televised holiday movies "presented with limited commercial breaks by Folgers, where the best part of waking up..." or whoever was sponsoring it. Radio stations had to power their transmitters and pay their staff, so they had ads. Newspapers use ads to keep themselves affordable. This has always been a business model.
  - kavok 2mo ago
    I believe radio across Europe was largely ad free and had a different business model. The BBC for example.
    - brulx126 2mo ago
      You say "was" as if it was a thing of the past. But public broadcasting still exists in many countries in Europe, including radio and TV. They have either less or no ads and their quality is much higher than that of purely ad-funded private stations that nowadays are sometimes even completely automated.
      - account42 2mo ago
        > their quality is much higher Hard disagree. At least commercial entertainment providers have to work to retain their customers, unlike public broadcasters where they get funded (either via taxes or forced licenses) no matter how many people dislike them.
streetfighter64 2mo ago
> They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. Isn't your comment an attack as well by that line of thinking? Am I attacking you by arguing that people nowadays are way to quick to consider something "damaging" "attacks".
- 12345ieee 2mo ago
  Then by OP's suggestion, you should close this page. Wording aside, once you feel the other party is trying to force a certain line of thinking in you for their gain you should close the tool.
  - diogocp 2mo ago
    So your suggestion is to be a hermit? What is the point of communication if not to change what others think?
gucci-on-fleek 2mo ago
> I propose a sane rule for all humans: if you see an ad somewhere, or if you suspect a hidden ad ('influencers' trying to promote something), close the tab immediately and never return to that site. But this very site has lots of ads on it. Up until a few days ago, there was an "Apply to YC Fall 2026" link at the bottom of every page, and the front page usually has ads on it too [0]. So it seems tricky to strictly follow your proposed rule while simultaneously posting here. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Another%20kind%20of%20job%20ad%20is%20reserved%20for%20YC%2Dfunded%20startups%2E%20These%20appear%20on%20the%20front%20page%2C%20but%20are%20not%20stories https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Another%20...
- abirch 2mo ago
  The difficult thing is people don't want to pay for things. Ads are a way to mitigate that so that people/companies can capture some value that they create.
  - techdmn 2mo ago
    Yes and no. It's hard to escape ads even by paying for things, with cable TV being a common (though increasingly outdated) example.
    - nekusar 2mo ago
      In European countries websites (various, mostly news), I'm seeing more of "Accept all cookies and ads" OR "sign up and pay".
      - account42 2mo ago
        Always remember the third option: "close the tab and don't give them your time" If they are willing do sell you to data harvesters then that won't be the only unethical thing they are willing to do. Be thankful that they have voluntarily outed their publication as untrustworthy and move on.
    - 2mo ago
c7b 2mo ago
There is some utility to ads. Knowing that my favorite shop has a promotion, that a movie, game or book I've been waiting for is out, or something other that might interest me has some usefulness. The problem isn't the ad per se, it's optimization through A/B-tests and the like, mass psychological experiments with all the rigor of scientific studies and none of the academic ethical safeguards for human subject experimentation.
- account42 2mo ago
  All those cases can be served you you voluntarily signing up to relevant notifications. The problem is the push model that incentivizes companies to show you things that will serve them and not you.
  - c7b 2mo ago
    The way push notifications work today is a result of said optimization. Smartphones didn't start out with constant notifications, nor did any major desktop OS have them built in the way they do today.
- pull_my_finger 2mo ago
  I agree with this take. Sites used to sell banner space, negotiate a price and place the ad themselves. There was human review of what was being placed. Now apps and sites just let ad providers inject whatever they want, seemingly without oversight from the app owner and different ~~ads~~ payload depending on who's viewing. I have no issue with the tech blog I'm reading advertising the web host they use and support, or a wiki site advertising merch for the subject of the wiki. I'd bet those kind of ads get better returns on their investment too. What I find unconscionable is when my kids are playing some kids game on a tablet and they're bombarded with ads for GTA-like games idealizing violence and meaningless chaos interspersed with overly sexualized dress-up games or even political advertisements depending on your geolocation. Totally outrageous and I am eternally grateful for people like R. Gorhil (uBO) and Steven Black (for his curated hosts lists) that at least help me mitigate as much as I can, knowing that without 100% standing over the shoulder of my kids at all times when they touch a device it's almost impossible to otherwise avoid.
BiteCode_dev 2mo ago
It's way worse than that, it's an attack to the entire society. The vast majority of ads lie; therefore, they are actively harmful. They create a situation where being surrounded by false things is normal. They promote the improvement of tools to make deception and tracking better and better. On top of that, they install evil incentives for the medias, the news, and business models, influencing consumption, public options and opinions. Finally, they concentrate power in those who already have enough money to pay for ads. You may have the better product, but a big player with better PR will win. Ads are one of our most destructive creations. It's much, much more dangerous than it looks.
woodrowbarlow 2mo ago
my least favorite part of flying is the part where i'm strapped to a chair during taxi with a screen and speaker inches from my face and they use that moment to force a few ads into my eye socket. it feels very Citizen Kane. pumping gas is another one that takes advantage of captivity to force ads. i hate it.
augustk 2mo ago
Bill Hicks on Marketing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0
mannanj 2mo ago
This doesn’t just apply to ads. It’s been a single piece of a larger systematic attack on your thinking. Have people become more or less free over time as technology and progress came to help improve our lives and make things easier or more efficient? The average person, the same one most exposed to ad propaganda, are also exposed to propaganda in various forms in other areas of life. Even tv and music serve as propaganda for thinking malware and “worms”. Spend a moment analyzing some popular mainstream music from the last decade for themes of culture, worldviews and others. The big gotcha here is this: many people think OTHERS are under propaganda; and you yourself are not. And now you can get censored for pointing things out about this on social media. In Covid I posted a nazi scientists quote on propaganda and got censored. Try it yourself.
consensus1 2mo ago
I just can't take this seriously. I grew up with TV being literally 1/3 ads and there was absolutely no way to skip them. People complained idly, but nobody really had a problem with it because we knew that TV isn't free. Nothing on the internet comes close to that level of ad intrusiveness, but I often hear unhinged statements like "They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. That's horrible, worse than attacking a machine with malware, damaging persons and societies."
surcap526 2mo ago
[dead]
simonsarris 2mo ago
Your first line is just as true of every single internet comment you have ever read, including your own. > I propose a sane rule You know this is untenable. You would be unable to use search engines for over a decade, or walk into a Target, or a gas station, or almost any public square if you truly believed this. You don't believe it. You're being hopelessly histrionic and that's not productive for anyone.
samspot 2mo ago
Your comment is also an attack aimed to manipulate my worldview and actions. The only difference is the corporate ad is more sophisticated.
sterlind 2mo ago
alternatively, keep using ad blockers. Facebook may have won this round, but AI tilts the balance overwhelming in favor of ad blockers. consider: you can (in principle) scrape the entire screen, find the ads with machine vision and paste black rectangles over them. or simply have an AI use playwright to scrape the page and rerender it for you. these are excellent, pro-user use cases for AI.

bkaae 2mo ago

We should also normalize paying for content at the same time then.

Parae 2mo ago
You think Meta would spy less on us and show us less ads if we payed to access their services ? They would just keep doing what they've been doing for ages and they would have even more money to keep their enshitification going. We are already paying too much for all the services with subscription. Like Spotify, Netflix and others...
- crummy 2mo ago
  Plenty of other services (like Spotify) stop showing you ads if you pay them enough money.
  - fsflover 2mo ago
    Until they decide that ads can give some profit on top of your payment. See: youtube [0], Windows, Apple [1]. [0] https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416547/youtube-premium-subscribers-claim-ad-free-servic.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/416547/youtub... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46322556, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433
    - account42 2mo ago
      Not to mention cable TV, the OG "ad-free" premium model.
  - lostdog 2mo ago
    Spotify shoves podcast ads in your face. Amazon does the same with product ads.
  - tripzilch 2mo ago
    I don't think that actually counts as "paying for content". The musicians make the "content", and Spotify pays all but the biggest ones a pittance. That's more like "paying to not see ads" than "paying for content".
  - mrguyorama 2mo ago
    What do you think the constant reminders of "hey hey hey, use these autogenerated vibes based playlists that are more profitable to us because we filled them with AI generated fake artists" are? Meanwhile spotify also has at least two autogenerated playlists of the songs you have chosen to play more than a few times. Literally "Here's the songs you recently took an interest in", and they do not fill your front page with that autogenerated playlist! Because that copy they are shoving in your face is not Informing you of useful Features or Inviting you to try something we made, but is instead managed by the marketing department.
  - account42 2mo ago
    If such a plan exists its always just a temporary situation until they add ads back in to keep the line going up.
- intended 2mo ago
  If we say ads are an attack on our attention, time and money - then it’s a different ball game entirely. Their incentives would be aligned to users, not advertisers. The ideological changes alone would be like living in a different world entirely. Heck, maybe micropayments would become viable at that point.
- zelphirkalt 2mo ago
  It could be made a question of legislation. If it was forbidden, and the "cost of business" too high for them to dare, then it can work. We would need to do more than touch them with the satin gloves we are using now though.
- wolvoleo 2mo ago
  They stop showing ads if you pay for Instagram in the EU. However they do not stop tracking you.
  - dwedge 2mo ago
    If you turn off personalised ads in the EU for insta they hijack your scrolling to give you "ad breaks" which is actually a really neat feature because it reminds me I've started doom scrolling and I close the app
    - wolvoleo 2mo ago
      Yep indeed. I just wish I had the option they have in the Netherlands. Where you can set the "Following" tab as the primary and it doesn't constanly revert back. A judge decreed that that must be done for users in the Netherlands but it's not available anywhere else.
michaelt 2mo ago
I for one pay for content I enjoy, when it's reasonably priced and available to pay for. Two sources of print journalism, a few dozen patreons, paid youtube, etc - not to mention one-off purchases like books. [1] And I'd encourage other people who can afford to, to do the same. I'm not sure how scalable my approach is within the status quo, though - I've never seen a subscribers-only article go viral on social media, and almost all of my subscriptions began with me enjoying a generous free tier. And I've tried a number of micropayment systems but none of them seem poised to take off for various reasons. [1] I don't pay for facebook, because fuck 'em
- zelphirkalt 2mo ago
  Same here. I will add though, that the freemium model does not necessarily have to cease existing. Some platform for written articles can have articles available at no cost, and then put a paywall in front of other articles. I don't see the problem with that. It will be a careful balancing act of content creators, how much is in the freemium section, so that they attract a sufficient number of readers/fans/supporters.
koito17 2mo ago
All that achieves is companies introducing ads to boost revenue for next quarter's earnings. For a concrete example: LINE (most widely-used messaging app in Japan) has paid subscriptions, and even the highest tier subscription doesn't reduce ads. Other services (e.g. YouTube Premium) reduce ads, but do not eliminate them, no matter how much you pay.
- dspillett 2mo ago
  Also, they still do the stalky part. Even if the paid service does remove the manifestation of ads on that site/service, chances are the tracking still happens so they can immediately target if you stop paying (instead of resuming collection at that point) and so the information can potentially be sold to 3rd parties or new owners (if the site/service itself is sold) or accidentally leaked (directly due to dumb decisions like sending the wrong data somewhere or indirectly due to dumb decisions resulting in poor security a black-hat can exploit).
- everyday7732 2mo ago
  Exactly this. The people willing to pay a subscription are also the most valuable to advertisers.
- sbarre 2mo ago
  > Other services (e.g. YouTube Premium) reduce ads, but do not eliminate them, no matter how much you pay. Hmm curious to know where you live that you still get Youtube-supplied ads with YT Premium? Because "ad-free" is literally the headline feature. Unless you're talking about in-video ads and sponsorships added in by the video creators themselves, and then that's not something in YT's control (although they provide the "skip commonly skipped sections" feature in Premium that helps with this).
  - 8note 2mo ago
    it is something in YTs control they can require ad and sponsor-free copies of videos to be uploaded in order to get YT premium revenue. they control the platform. that they choose not to make the premium experience ad free is up to them
intended 2mo ago
Sure - why not ? We are already paying for the externalities from ad tech. We’ve got entire worlds of predatory information behavior and near zero defenses for humans. If you are on HN, you hopefully know enough to keep yourself clean and safe, but the rest of humanity is essentially getting mugged, defrauded and addicted 24/7.
Retric 2mo ago
Paying for quality content has been normalized, the price floor for payment is way above what Facebook and the vast majority of Web content offers. That’s why movies and AAA games can clear a billion dollars, but the internet is still dependent on people failing to install ad blockers.
- bialpio 2mo ago
  > That’s why movies (...) can clear a billion dollars, And yet somehow I still get 30 minutes of ads before a watching a goddamn movie in a cinema.
  - GlumWoodpecker 2mo ago
    Theatres need a piece of the pie too :^)
    - bialpio 2mo ago
      I'm already buying their overpriced popcorn and soda!
  - andsoitis 2mo ago
    Just take your seat 30mins later.
    - bialpio 2mo ago
      Just tell me when the movie starts, not when the ads start.
      - andsoitis 2mo ago
        by your account roughly 20-30mins in. You could also just sit there and read a book while you wait.
        BobBagwill 2mo ago
specproc 2mo ago
I pay for content: gig and cinema tickets, merch and digital albums from artists I like or know. I buy loads of books, magazines, digital and physical games, art I can hang on my wall. I've even started a bit of a CD collection. At times I've had Spotify, Netflix and Mubi subscriptions. As a UK-resident with a TV, I pay for the BBC. I feel I more than adequately contribute to cultural production. In some ways, the current situation suits me fine. I take the free stuff where I'm technically capable. I'll block the ads, pirate to my hearts content, use yt-dlp, BPC, userscripts. I'm not not paying for stuff, but I've enough financial pressures already, thank you very much. I don't see why I should send all my money to (mostly) US corporations, who've farmed and resold user-generated content.
tripzilch 2mo ago
You must have grown up on the Internet during the > Decades of ad propaganda have tricked people into seeing them as something 'normal'. also wait, we're talking about a US company, should we be paying a US company, for "content"? Is all "content" produced by these US megacorps, I don't think so, they're purely extractive what are you gonna do, make more Marvel movies? lol
dolphenstein 2mo ago
There is a large cohort of people who will complain about ads but also don't want to pay. My little microSaaS is monetised with ads but I offer option to pay if you don't like the ads. Still get plenty of complaints about the ads.
- mh- 2mo ago
  Yes. Anyone who has ever shipped a free mobile app can tell you that a $1 "remove all ads for life" offer will convert very poorly, even on sticky apps that people use every day. (Disclosure: my employer owns an ad network. Opinions my own.)
engeljohnb 2mo ago
What does "normalize" mean here? I don't think consumers have to do anything in this situation. If a business model isn't making enough money, it's on the business to change. If someday Google puts Youtube behind a hard paywall, no more "free with ads," I'd pay for it. I already pay for Nebula. But if I can get around the ads with uBlock, why wouldn't I? Just on principle? Because it's not fair that their business model doesn't make the revenue they want?
urbnspacecowboy 2mo ago
Only if we can also normalize not double-dipping via payment and ads. Too often, paying money to avoid "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product" just turns it into "You're paying for the product and you're still the product".
okamiueru 2mo ago
Nah. We should normalize public services and resources to develop knowledge and tools, that are made freely available. Provide incentive programs and reward those that take on such initiatives. There are many such services where I'm from. And the feeling when using them is refreshing. You're not looking for an ulterior motive to be misinformed. They're responsive as they don't load a 10 MiB JavaScript blob to track your interactions "for marketing". As an example, consider a service that gives you nutritional information of food. https://www.matvaretabellen.no/en/ https://www.matvaretabellen.no/en/ The software solution and hosting is not remotely as expensive as the lab work needed to gather the nutritional information. If this was made by a private company, it would be a subscription service, without a doubt. You'd find certain brands but not others because of deals under the table. It would have user profiles for collecting and selling data, not to mention integration with fitness and weight loss services. You might also wonder if part of the data is incorrect because of all that darn expensive lab analysis. Heck, maybe some CTO figured they could "predict" this information with an LLM. Here, it is covered by taxes, benefit all, full page load in about 0.2 seconds (or 0.5 seconds for nutritional value). This is how the internet could be.
- mrngld 2mo ago
  So, steal from everyone (taxation) whether they want to support or use government-run Facebook, give the money to government-run Facebook, and everything will be great because Government? What incentive does that mechanism have to spur innovation for government-run Facebook? Does the government fund two Facebooks and scale funding based on market share? Or, like what virtually always happens in government, does it metastasize, realize it's actual "customer" isn't its "users" but is actually the government itself, and act accordingly to protect and grow its own budget? Everything about a subscription model is better. If it sucks, don't pay for it, and if no one thinks its a worthwhile bargain then they run out of money and it dies. Efficient. If people do like it, then great.
  - okamiueru 2mo ago
    Not sure to what extend, if at all, I should engage here, as you do have some strong preconceptions that probably makes it less likely productive. > Steal from everyone (taxation) [...] give the money to government-run Facebook, and everything will be great because Government Not touching this. As an exercise, take it upon yourself to figure out how much it cost per meter (or, I assume more familiar to you -- football field) for the road you last used, and where that money came from. > government-run Facebook? Yes. But, it depends what you think Facebook is, which I'm assuming isn't what Meta does with Facebook. They are in the business of collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests. All of this is of negative value to both end user and society. In a world with a "government run Facebook", it wouldn't exist. So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. And it would absolutely be a good case for something that could easily surpass the value of services provided by "facebook", if done right, without incentive beyond making good services. Not sure if you've noticed or paid much attention. None of the most important services do product development guided by <improving the service>. Google wouldn't have replaced Play Music. Your search result might be immediately useful but that would make you move on. I'd also wager that your YouTube client doesn't automatically skip the sponsor segments.
Krasnol 2mo ago
How can we normalise it even MORE? We are paying for digital products MONTHLY and they get more expensive and lose features AND we have to watch the ads too. What more do you want??

Frieren 2mo ago

> Ads are an attack, aimed at your brain. Ads are an attack aimed at your computer too. They download malicious code to spy on you and gather intelligence data about everything you like, you visit, you buy,... it is malicious software hacking into your computer. The fact that some of the richest companies in the world are the criminals does not make it less of a crime. The propaganda part is, of course, also totally true. Lies, manipulation, etc. has been normalized when a few years back will have been considered a crime.

x______________ 2mo ago
On your resources too! Your electricity, processing power and network bandwidth are all being abused without any incentives to cover the costs.
- conmod278 2mo ago
  But Zuck has to put high-quality beef on his table which involves raising Wagyu and Angus cattle on a diet of macadamia nut meal and local beer. Zuck is not gonna do charity.
  - podocarp 2mo ago
    Do they actually raise cows on beer? I will believe the macadamia part.
spider-mario 2mo ago
> Ads are an attack aimed at your computer too. They download malicious code to spy on you and gather intelligence data about everything you like, you visit, you buy,... it is malicious software hacking into your computer. The ads themselves don’t do that. Some networks running those ads might.
- jdiff 2mo ago
  The ads themselves have been known to do that on many an occasion.

fsflover 2mo ago

See also: What if we made advertising illegal? (simone.org) 1975 points by smnrg on April 5, 2025 | 1409 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

matheusmoreira 2mo ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secrets-sao-paulo-uncovered-outdoor-advertising-ban/ https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

skybrian 2mo ago

Skill issue? Some people are clearly more vulnerable than others. You can occasionally get useful information from ads.

sevenzero 2mo ago
Give me 1-2 examples of useful info we can get from ads?
- TheDong 2mo ago
  There are some cases where ads are useful for sure. For example, I found out about the local farmer's market in my city via advertisements being hung up around town, and that helped me get fresh produce and find some community. I'm not sure if I ever would have found that farmer's market otherwise. I also found one job via a "Who's Hiring" hacker news post, and that's obviously an advertisement thread advertising open positions. Of course, these do not balance out the negative impact of ads, such as advertising credit cards and sports gambling and gacha gambling games to get people into debt, advertising tv shows and movies to waste people's time watching garbage, and generally advertising garbage that makes people who were otherwise happy waste money and time for no real gain in life satisfaction.
  - sevenzero 2mo ago
    I see, these are valid. Especially in smaller communities in rural areas ads can really help bringing people together. I live in a small village since about 2 years now and have NO idea what's going on here (as I don't watch/read ads). Sometimes thats sad, but usually I want to be left alone anyway. A farmers market sounds cool though. I'd categorize job postings a bit differently, if Facebook was full of (legitimate) job postings I think it would be less of an issue. I agree on all the gambling stuff you wrote.
  - carljungslabtek 2mo ago
    You basically pointed this out already but there’s a big difference between something designed to notify you about something you might not have known, similar to what you’d find on a community bulletin board, and something trying to manipulate you into buying something you don’t need at all. I think a lot of people use the term “ad” to refer solely to the latter category. This goes back to the origin of modern advertising (and even earlier with snake oil salesman and charlatans, which were scamming merchants using music and stage shows lol — sound familiar?) and using the term “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda”.

el1s7 2mo ago

That's quite paranoid, they surely are annoying, but certain ads can be relevant. Actually, from what I've noticed X/Twitter ads are way worse than the ones on Meta platforms. And I completely hate seeing ads on YouTube or when browsing random websites in general.

surcap526 2mo ago
[dead]

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

Ads are mind rape.

micw 2mo ago

> if you see an ad somewhere [...] close the tab immediately and never return to that site I would even extend this: if you are bugged by an ad, avoid the product, the vendor and tell everyone why you do so. Also tell it to the vendor, why you avoid their product (aggressive, non blockable ads at facebook for example).

brikym 2mo ago

This. At least you can switch them off on the web but now big-ad is putting bright flickering digital billboards in sight of every public place. Politicians won't do a thing because they're some of the biggest customers. Obey.

account42 2mo ago
> Obey. We do have the technology to make those glasses now.
- brikym 2mo ago
  It's worse. You'll _have_ to use the glasses to block the billboard ads which will be replaced with more subtle ads.

wvh 2mo ago

It's insane to think how much brain power, computing power, electricity and component lifecycle wear have been wasted through the years, yelling random stuff at me; or even worse than random; often stuff that is directly harmful to me. As somebody who – not entirely willingly – is working mostly remote, the only interruption in the day I have from the outside world is the sudden loud inane noises of commercials.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

dghughes 2mo ago

I hate how normal ads seem to be to young people (under age 30). Just seeing TikTok videos secondhand on YouTube the videos seems stuffed with people pushing crap. YouTube channels none are without ads either by YouTube or by the channel owners. Plus the "oh you have an add blocker!!" whining if you dare try to slow the firehose of ads coming at you. Yes I do have an ad blocker because it seems my entire existence is fodder for your website or app's ad machine to capture and use.

mrngld 2mo ago
Lets be fair, here. Traditional TV was ~40 minutes of content with 20 minutes of ads. I still remember televised holiday movies "presented with limited commercial breaks by Folgers, where the best part of waking up..." or whoever was sponsoring it. Radio stations had to power their transmitters and pay their staff, so they had ads. Newspapers use ads to keep themselves affordable. This has always been a business model.
- kavok 2mo ago
  I believe radio across Europe was largely ad free and had a different business model. The BBC for example.
  - brulx126 2mo ago
    You say "was" as if it was a thing of the past. But public broadcasting still exists in many countries in Europe, including radio and TV. They have either less or no ads and their quality is much higher than that of purely ad-funded private stations that nowadays are sometimes even completely automated.
    - account42 2mo ago
      > their quality is much higher Hard disagree. At least commercial entertainment providers have to work to retain their customers, unlike public broadcasters where they get funded (either via taxes or forced licenses) no matter how many people dislike them.

streetfighter64 2mo ago

> They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. Isn't your comment an attack as well by that line of thinking? Am I attacking you by arguing that people nowadays are way to quick to consider something "damaging" "attacks".

12345ieee 2mo ago
Then by OP's suggestion, you should close this page. Wording aside, once you feel the other party is trying to force a certain line of thinking in you for their gain you should close the tool.
- diogocp 2mo ago
  So your suggestion is to be a hermit? What is the point of communication if not to change what others think?

gucci-on-fleek 2mo ago

> I propose a sane rule for all humans: if you see an ad somewhere, or if you suspect a hidden ad ('influencers' trying to promote something), close the tab immediately and never return to that site. But this very site has lots of ads on it. Up until a few days ago, there was an "Apply to YC Fall 2026" link at the bottom of every page, and the front page usually has ads on it too [0]. So it seems tricky to strictly follow your proposed rule while simultaneously posting here. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Another%20kind%20of%20job%20ad%20is%20reserved%20for%20YC%2Dfunded%20startups%2E%20These%20appear%20on%20the%20front%20page%2C%20but%20are%20not%20stories https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Another%20...

abirch 2mo ago
The difficult thing is people don't want to pay for things. Ads are a way to mitigate that so that people/companies can capture some value that they create.
- techdmn 2mo ago
  Yes and no. It's hard to escape ads even by paying for things, with cable TV being a common (though increasingly outdated) example.
  - nekusar 2mo ago
    In European countries websites (various, mostly news), I'm seeing more of "Accept all cookies and ads" OR "sign up and pay".
    - account42 2mo ago
      Always remember the third option: "close the tab and don't give them your time" If they are willing do sell you to data harvesters then that won't be the only unethical thing they are willing to do. Be thankful that they have voluntarily outed their publication as untrustworthy and move on.
  - 2mo ago

c7b 2mo ago

There is some utility to ads. Knowing that my favorite shop has a promotion, that a movie, game or book I've been waiting for is out, or something other that might interest me has some usefulness. The problem isn't the ad per se, it's optimization through A/B-tests and the like, mass psychological experiments with all the rigor of scientific studies and none of the academic ethical safeguards for human subject experimentation.

account42 2mo ago
All those cases can be served you you voluntarily signing up to relevant notifications. The problem is the push model that incentivizes companies to show you things that will serve them and not you.
- c7b 2mo ago
  The way push notifications work today is a result of said optimization. Smartphones didn't start out with constant notifications, nor did any major desktop OS have them built in the way they do today.
pull_my_finger 2mo ago
I agree with this take. Sites used to sell banner space, negotiate a price and place the ad themselves. There was human review of what was being placed. Now apps and sites just let ad providers inject whatever they want, seemingly without oversight from the app owner and different ~~ads~~ payload depending on who's viewing. I have no issue with the tech blog I'm reading advertising the web host they use and support, or a wiki site advertising merch for the subject of the wiki. I'd bet those kind of ads get better returns on their investment too. What I find unconscionable is when my kids are playing some kids game on a tablet and they're bombarded with ads for GTA-like games idealizing violence and meaningless chaos interspersed with overly sexualized dress-up games or even political advertisements depending on your geolocation. Totally outrageous and I am eternally grateful for people like R. Gorhil (uBO) and Steven Black (for his curated hosts lists) that at least help me mitigate as much as I can, knowing that without 100% standing over the shoulder of my kids at all times when they touch a device it's almost impossible to otherwise avoid.

BiteCode_dev 2mo ago

It's way worse than that, it's an attack to the entire society. The vast majority of ads lie; therefore, they are actively harmful. They create a situation where being surrounded by false things is normal. They promote the improvement of tools to make deception and tracking better and better. On top of that, they install evil incentives for the medias, the news, and business models, influencing consumption, public options and opinions. Finally, they concentrate power in those who already have enough money to pay for ads. You may have the better product, but a big player with better PR will win. Ads are one of our most destructive creations. It's much, much more dangerous than it looks.

woodrowbarlow 2mo ago

my least favorite part of flying is the part where i'm strapped to a chair during taxi with a screen and speaker inches from my face and they use that moment to force a few ads into my eye socket. it feels very Citizen Kane. pumping gas is another one that takes advantage of captivity to force ads. i hate it.

augustk 2mo ago

Bill Hicks on Marketing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

mannanj 2mo ago

This doesn’t just apply to ads. It’s been a single piece of a larger systematic attack on your thinking. Have people become more or less free over time as technology and progress came to help improve our lives and make things easier or more efficient? The average person, the same one most exposed to ad propaganda, are also exposed to propaganda in various forms in other areas of life. Even tv and music serve as propaganda for thinking malware and “worms”. Spend a moment analyzing some popular mainstream music from the last decade for themes of culture, worldviews and others. The big gotcha here is this: many people think OTHERS are under propaganda; and you yourself are not. And now you can get censored for pointing things out about this on social media. In Covid I posted a nazi scientists quote on propaganda and got censored. Try it yourself.

consensus1 2mo ago

I just can't take this seriously. I grew up with TV being literally 1/3 ads and there was absolutely no way to skip them. People complained idly, but nobody really had a problem with it because we knew that TV isn't free. Nothing on the internet comes close to that level of ad intrusiveness, but I often hear unhinged statements like "They try to inject malware into your thinking, manipulating your worldview and your actions. That's horrible, worse than attacking a machine with malware, damaging persons and societies."

surcap526 2mo ago

[dead]

simonsarris 2mo ago

Your first line is just as true of every single internet comment you have ever read, including your own. > I propose a sane rule You know this is untenable. You would be unable to use search engines for over a decade, or walk into a Target, or a gas station, or almost any public square if you truly believed this. You don't believe it. You're being hopelessly histrionic and that's not productive for anyone.

samspot 2mo ago

Your comment is also an attack aimed to manipulate my worldview and actions. The only difference is the corporate ad is more sophisticated.

sterlind 2mo ago

alternatively, keep using ad blockers. Facebook may have won this round, but AI tilts the balance overwhelming in favor of ad blockers. consider: you can (in principle) scrape the entire screen, find the ads with machine vision and paste black rectangles over them. or simply have an AI use playwright to scrape the page and rerender it for you. these are excellent, pro-user use cases for AI.