5 ms·

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that'

Bad idea, ads are also a way to support the site/service you are using. Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) so that's a sure way to kill the site. Google for instance wouldn't have existed without ads. Lots of people on HN saved millennia with help from Stackoverflow (ad supported) and so on. I'm now "ad-aware" so I know how to differentiate content from ads, but I will click on an ad if it's something that's of interest to me. I support the publisher this way and also get some value out of it. I don't like sites filled with ads but my way of "punishing" those is to avoid visiting that site.

MoOmer 12y ago
From another perspective, it's a way to punish publishers who work with ad companies which do not respect your privacy. I wonder if it can be disabled for ad networks that don't collect user data.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for the really great premium content. Well what if there was no free, good content? Would that lead to more great content? Probably not... but maybe! What if suddenly people expected to pay a small subscription fee to a small number of sites in exchange for great content. That'd be, well, great! How do you guys think it would play out? [1] I think they literally make the world a worse place but that's a separate discussion.
- sheetjs 12y ago
  I'm not convinced that StackOverflow is a good example. The economics of this "HuffPo" model (no ad revenue actually flows to the content producers) seem unsustainable in the long run.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  I would support this if I believed sites would start paying the people who write for them.
  - travoltaj 12y ago
    Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue. If you have to pay to access most sites, the only websites left would be owned by the already wealthy that can cover losses till they're big enough that people are willing to pay for the content.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      > Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue. Not in my experience. Most offer "exposure" to writers, who go on to die of exposure. Even the sites that pay don't pay much. $20-50 isn't bad for the effort, but you only get it if they accept your pitch.
- astrobe_ 12y ago
  > I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. It's called the GopherSphere.
- userbinator 12y ago
  I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. It's simple, think of all the completely-non-ad-supported sites you've used, and imagine an internet where those are the only ones around. Basically that would largely be sites hosted by the government, companies (whose profit comes from something else), educational institutions, nonprofits, and individuals. From my experience, I've seen a lot of great content on non-ad-supported (mostly personal) sites. Stackoverflow in its current incarnation would likely not exist, but I'd guess something similar would appear in its place. P2P systems might become more popular too. It's hard to say but I doubt such an internet would really be worse than the one we have today - it would just be different.
  - thesteamboat 12y ago
    Wikipedia doesn't have ads -- it follows fundraising/donations model of NPR which is far easier to bake in to relevant content. In a world without ads, this might be a model for Stackoverflow and other largish sites with largish communities.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- blumkvist 12y ago
  And what if you live in poor Romania and you don't have money? Or in even poorer Egypt? There is no model better than advertising. Nothing beats free. Get used to it. It's not going anywhere and such initiatives are futile. * blumkvist maximizes back the SAS Miner window and laughs.
- enimodas 12y ago
  With a bit of luck peer 2 peer web technology would take of, eliminating server costs, and the server software would be build like free software is build today.
- DanBC 12y ago
  It'd be interesting to see a mock-up of Stack Overflow with pay-to-play features. Search is 10 SOBucks; search using tags is 15 SOBucks; asking a question is 20 SOBucks; reading the answer is another 20 SOBucks.
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  In your hypothetical world, I would expect some technologies would rise where people contributed drive space and bandwidth to endeavours they care about, and distribute workload. Like a distributed stack overflow. Like a bittorrent for websites. This needs to exist for wikipedia. Frankly, if that existed, we would be so much better off, and them immediately after that got implemented, ISP's would go on a rampage with bandwidth clampdowns. Anyway, I'm not even remotely afraid of the world you posit.
perlgeek 12y ago
> Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) And that's a huge weakness that deserves more attention: You can easily ruin your competitor's ad business that way. Maybe this extension is a valid way to draw attention to that weakness?
- sheetjs 12y ago
  relevant: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains-competitors-online-ad-budget/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains-competitor... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8086937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8086937
tomp 12y ago
There's a big difference between Google's AdWords and other advertising (including Google's AdSense). I universally oppose all advertisements (in the seconds sense), I even think that billboards in public should be banned. Advertisement like that is just pollution of the mind. However, However, I don't consider AdWords or bulletin board ads "advertisement" in the same sense of the word, because it's just showing you something you already want to see. If I'm searching for upcoming concerts, I want to see information/ads about upcoming concerts :)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  So, in other words advertising you like should be allowed but advertising you don't like should not be.
  - tomp 12y ago
    No, advertising you want should be allowed, while the advertising you never requested shouldn't be.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

MoOmer 12y ago

From another perspective, it's a way to punish publishers who work with ad companies which do not respect your privacy. I wonder if it can be disabled for ad networks that don't collect user data.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. First of all, you're right that it would totally kill sites. Let's say it happens. What's next? I would be ecstatic if sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker died. That'd be great[1]. But it also kills good sites like Stackoverflow. That sucks. Right now people don't have to pay for content. Almost everything is ad based. Because of this people almost never pay for the really great premium content. Well what if there was no free, good content? Would that lead to more great content? Probably not... but maybe! What if suddenly people expected to pay a small subscription fee to a small number of sites in exchange for great content. That'd be, well, great! How do you guys think it would play out? [1] I think they literally make the world a worse place but that's a separate discussion.

sheetjs 12y ago
I'm not convinced that StackOverflow is a good example. The economics of this "HuffPo" model (no ad revenue actually flows to the content producers) seem unsustainable in the long run.
mkr-hn 12y ago
I would support this if I believed sites would start paying the people who write for them.
- travoltaj 12y ago
  Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue. If you have to pay to access most sites, the only websites left would be owned by the already wealthy that can cover losses till they're big enough that people are willing to pay for the content.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    > Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue. Not in my experience. Most offer "exposure" to writers, who go on to die of exposure. Even the sites that pay don't pay much. $20-50 isn't bad for the effort, but you only get it if they accept your pitch.
astrobe_ 12y ago
> I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. It's called the GopherSphere.
userbinator 12y ago
I often wonder what the internet would be like without ads. It's simple, think of all the completely-non-ad-supported sites you've used, and imagine an internet where those are the only ones around. Basically that would largely be sites hosted by the government, companies (whose profit comes from something else), educational institutions, nonprofits, and individuals. From my experience, I've seen a lot of great content on non-ad-supported (mostly personal) sites. Stackoverflow in its current incarnation would likely not exist, but I'd guess something similar would appear in its place. P2P systems might become more popular too. It's hard to say but I doubt such an internet would really be worse than the one we have today - it would just be different.
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  Wikipedia doesn't have ads -- it follows fundraising/donations model of NPR which is far easier to bake in to relevant content. In a world without ads, this might be a model for Stackoverflow and other largish sites with largish communities.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
blumkvist 12y ago
And what if you live in poor Romania and you don't have money? Or in even poorer Egypt? There is no model better than advertising. Nothing beats free. Get used to it. It's not going anywhere and such initiatives are futile. * blumkvist maximizes back the SAS Miner window and laughs.
enimodas 12y ago
With a bit of luck peer 2 peer web technology would take of, eliminating server costs, and the server software would be build like free software is build today.
DanBC 12y ago
It'd be interesting to see a mock-up of Stack Overflow with pay-to-play features. Search is 10 SOBucks; search using tags is 15 SOBucks; asking a question is 20 SOBucks; reading the answer is another 20 SOBucks.
GhotiFish 12y ago
In your hypothetical world, I would expect some technologies would rise where people contributed drive space and bandwidth to endeavours they care about, and distribute workload. Like a distributed stack overflow. Like a bittorrent for websites. This needs to exist for wikipedia. Frankly, if that existed, we would be so much better off, and them immediately after that got implemented, ISP's would go on a rampage with bandwidth clampdowns. Anyway, I'm not even remotely afraid of the world you posit.

perlgeek 12y ago

> Automatic ad clicks can get that site banned (i.e. Adsense will surely do that) And that's a huge weakness that deserves more attention: You can easily ruin your competitor's ad business that way. Maybe this extension is a valid way to draw attention to that weakness?

sheetjs 12y ago
relevant: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains-competitors-online-ad-budget/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains-competitor... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8086937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8086937

tomp 12y ago

There's a big difference between Google's AdWords and other advertising (including Google's AdSense). I universally oppose all advertisements (in the seconds sense), I even think that billboards in public should be banned. Advertisement like that is just pollution of the mind. However, However, I don't consider AdWords or bulletin board ads "advertisement" in the same sense of the word, because it's just showing you something you already want to see. If I'm searching for upcoming concerts, I want to see information/ads about upcoming concerts :)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vonmoltke 12y ago
So, in other words advertising you like should be allowed but advertising you don't like should not be.
- tomp 12y ago
  No, advertising you want should be allowed, while the advertising you never requested shouldn't be.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]