6 ms·

> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use? > It's becau

> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use? > It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience. The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need. > As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. This is a step backwards, not progress. > It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves. Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

TheIronYuppie 10y ago
DISCLOSURE: I WORK AT GOOGLE ON NOTHING AD RELATED BUT IT CERTAINLY PAYS MY SALARY. >> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. > I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use? How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall. >> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience. > The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need. Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. "Trick"? What phone do you own? I guarantee you heard about it through some form of advertisement. And before you say that it's only because you read a review about it - I 1000% guarantee you saw an ad somewhere that primed you to even read the article. >> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. > This is a step backwards, not progress. Why? >> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves. > Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people. There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table. If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  > How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall. I'm not good at rhymes and I have no fucking clue. Riddle my fiddle. > Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. That's fucking cute. > There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table. What side? ABP isn't bringing anyone anywhere, they take kickbacks from companies like google in order to not block ads. > If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid. Really? A google employee telling me to pay for google contributor? Bud, 'If you don't like it', you can tickle my ballsack. Rofl.
  - dang 10y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do this with.
click170 10y ago
I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that this is not a step forward. Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk. I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem. We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't know what is.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising That's exactly the point. Advertising is necessary, but showing that we all agree to a better implementation of it will let us move forward rather than making things worse. The people in the industry know the reason, but again it's about incentives and lack of oversight. Far easier to just look the other way and make a few dollars than try to go against the grain.
  - mlmlmasd 10y ago
    > Advertising is necessary No it's not.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  > Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk. uBlock Origin does a good job of that :). > I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem. Exactly. And I don't see the advertising industry as 'trying to improve the situation' they are reacting to loss of revenue due to ad blocking.
manigandham 10y ago
ISP are providing access/transit, not content. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can go to any store and carry out merchandise for free. Advertising, and the greater marketing concept, is not that simple. It's about connecting customers looking for wants and needs with the companies that offer them. There is a certain amount of work in creating that desire (hence the wants and not just needs) but it's ultimately still the consumers choice. Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? ABP is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  > ISP are providing access/transit, not content. If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps. > Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me. > This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue. Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    Those companies are contracted and put in place by the content producers and owners to monetize their content, in exchange for giving it to you for free. Some content producers dont do this and charge you directly instead. There will not be an internet without ads. So that is not a logical or reasonable goal. The very vast majority are fine with advertising but the current situation is out of hand - so yes, working on standards that everyone agrees on and moves forward with will create progress.
    - mlmlmasd 10y ago
rustynails 10y ago
I run uBlock and I have nothing to do with this campaign (other than a strong dislike of multiple Conde Nast publications due to their one-sided gender prejudice on sites like Ars Technica. Conde Nast are part of the committee). Why give flippant answers like "which ISP is free?". I'm at a point where I have been antagonised and vilified by the MSM (because I have a penis) that I'd be willing to fund decent media that has a clean track record on being sexism free, especially if it openly goes against the current PC intolerance that has become the norm. If the ads are decent and non-intrusive, I'd support them. However, context makes the ads meaningful and more valuable. The easiest way to do that is to track users. That is a tricky catch 22 as I don't want my web habits tracked for the sake of ads (eg. I don't Facebook). You can try to pick your articles and place selected ads for that, but, I expect the miss ratio to be much higher. Maybe, you could specify a way to let users determine where the money goes. This may offer an incentive to reward or punish by the tick of a box.

TheIronYuppie 10y ago

DISCLOSURE: I WORK AT GOOGLE ON NOTHING AD RELATED BUT IT CERTAINLY PAYS MY SALARY. >> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. > I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use? How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall. >> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience. > The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need. Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. "Trick"? What phone do you own? I guarantee you heard about it through some form of advertisement. And before you say that it's only because you read a review about it - I 1000% guarantee you saw an ad somewhere that primed you to even read the article. >> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. > This is a step backwards, not progress. Why? >> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves. > Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people. There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table. If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid.

mlmlmasd 10y ago
> How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall. I'm not good at rhymes and I have no fucking clue. Riddle my fiddle. > Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. That's fucking cute. > There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table. What side? ABP isn't bringing anyone anywhere, they take kickbacks from companies like google in order to not block ads. > If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid. Really? A google employee telling me to pay for google contributor? Bud, 'If you don't like it', you can tickle my ballsack. Rofl.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do this with.

click170 10y ago

I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that this is not a step forward. Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk. I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem. We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't know what is.

manigandham 10y ago
> Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising That's exactly the point. Advertising is necessary, but showing that we all agree to a better implementation of it will let us move forward rather than making things worse. The people in the industry know the reason, but again it's about incentives and lack of oversight. Far easier to just look the other way and make a few dollars than try to go against the grain.
- mlmlmasd 10y ago
  > Advertising is necessary No it's not.
mlmlmasd 10y ago
> Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk. uBlock Origin does a good job of that :). > I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem. Exactly. And I don't see the advertising industry as 'trying to improve the situation' they are reacting to loss of revenue due to ad blocking.

manigandham 10y ago

ISP are providing access/transit, not content. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can go to any store and carry out merchandise for free. Advertising, and the greater marketing concept, is not that simple. It's about connecting customers looking for wants and needs with the companies that offer them. There is a certain amount of work in creating that desire (hence the wants and not just needs) but it's ultimately still the consumers choice. Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? ABP is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

mlmlmasd 10y ago
> ISP are providing access/transit, not content. If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps. > Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me. > This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue. Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.
- manigandham 10y ago
  Those companies are contracted and put in place by the content producers and owners to monetize their content, in exchange for giving it to you for free. Some content producers dont do this and charge you directly instead. There will not be an internet without ads. So that is not a logical or reasonable goal. The very vast majority are fine with advertising but the current situation is out of hand - so yes, working on standards that everyone agrees on and moves forward with will create progress.
  - mlmlmasd 10y ago

rustynails 10y ago

I run uBlock and I have nothing to do with this campaign (other than a strong dislike of multiple Conde Nast publications due to their one-sided gender prejudice on sites like Ars Technica. Conde Nast are part of the committee). Why give flippant answers like "which ISP is free?". I'm at a point where I have been antagonised and vilified by the MSM (because I have a penis) that I'd be willing to fund decent media that has a clean track record on being sexism free, especially if it openly goes against the current PC intolerance that has become the norm. If the ads are decent and non-intrusive, I'd support them. However, context makes the ads meaningful and more valuable. The easiest way to do that is to track users. That is a tricky catch 22 as I don't want my web habits tracked for the sake of ads (eg. I don't Facebook). You can try to pick your articles and place selected ads for that, but, I expect the miss ratio to be much higher. Maybe, you could specify a way to let users determine where the money goes. This may offer an incentive to reward or punish by the tick of a box.