6 ms·

I wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind se

I wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind seeing ads. I hate being tracked.

phkahler 7y ago
I think the issue is verification that an ad has actually been shown to a human. Even print and TV advertisers can have companies do audits to verify ads get run as expected. Thing is, nobody ever said ad supported sites have to be viable.
- throwsprtsdy 7y ago
  > Thing is, nobody ever said ad supported sites have to be viable. That's true, but if a site is not ad-supported, and "paywall" is almost an epithet (and circumvented to boot), how is any site supposed to remain viable?
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    Think of the poor buggy whip makers! Not every desirable activity in life is profitable. If your business plan is "make website -> get money" then perhaps you're in the wrong business.
    - throwsprtsdy 7y ago
      I was thinking more about investigative reporters and news outlets than buggy-whip makers.
      - ohithereyou 7y ago
        If you're going to treat investigative reporting and news gathering as a profit making venture then you can only charge what the market is willing to pay, and for the vast majority of people, that's nothing.
        mcv 7y ago
        Investigative reporting is in a tough spot in a capitalist democracy. In a democracy, good reporting is a vital part of the system, but in capitalism, people pay for what they want to see and hear, and that's not always the truth. Advertisers directly or indirectly impacting the kind of news that gets reported doesn't help.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    >> but if a site is not ad-supported, and "paywall" is almost an epithet (and circumvented to boot), how is any site supposed to remain viable? They're not. Think about news sites that rewrite stories from paywalled sites and collect ad revenue. They are parasites that make money from other peoples work. Same thing for all those YouTube channels (though they are not other sites) that repackage other peoples content and make money doing so. What we need is not so much a way to advertise on the net, but a way to make small payments and subscriptions simple. If sites needed their users to pay them, the quality of the content might go up dramatically. Places like HN could still exist just fine too. Having said that, I think there are ways to verify ads without cookies and such. It's just that it takes more effort on the server side.
    - throwsprtsdy 7y ago
      > If sites needed their users to pay them, the quality of the content might go up dramatically What do you mean by "if"? There are already many sites that require users to pay them (e.g. The New York Times) but everyone simply circumvents their paywalls. Every method that high-quality sites use to generate the revenue they need to operate is defeated either by ad blockers or someone reproducing their content outside their paywalls. You may be right that news and reporting are not viable, but it is a shame.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  >verification that an ad has actually been shown to a human Is it useful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness
ryantgtg 7y ago
I pay for the LA Times, and I also block ads. A couple weeks ago they updated the site so that I got a giant “you are blocking ads!!” banner even when I was logged in. I complained to them (directly), saying that I pay for a subscription so that I can give them money without viewing ads. And... they agreed that paying readers should not see those warnings! And they updated the site within the same day. I thought that was cool.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  I just block the “you’re not seeing my ads!” div itself. Some of us have issues that prevent us from focusing on the content when there are highly contrasting alerts screaming something.
mcv 7y ago
Some sites handle their own advertising, and a few do it in a really cool way. For example, the Penny Arcade web comic only advertises games they like[0], and they hand-draw their own ads for it in the same style as the comics. Sounds like incredibly valuable advertising for those games, and it fits the style of the site. [0] Or used to. I haven't checked them in years.
a3n 7y ago
The reason it's worth it for advertisers to pay sites for placing ads is because of the data they collect. You only buy something because of an ad occasionally. But data is collected each and every time.

I wish there was simply a way where ad-supported sites I visit could collect their revenue without having me submit to advertiser surveillance. I don't mind seeing ads. I hate being tracked.

phkahler 7y ago

I think the issue is verification that an ad has actually been shown to a human. Even print and TV advertisers can have companies do audits to verify ads get run as expected. Thing is, nobody ever said ad supported sites have to be viable.

throwsprtsdy 7y ago
> Thing is, nobody ever said ad supported sites have to be viable. That's true, but if a site is not ad-supported, and "paywall" is almost an epithet (and circumvented to boot), how is any site supposed to remain viable?
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  Think of the poor buggy whip makers! Not every desirable activity in life is profitable. If your business plan is "make website -> get money" then perhaps you're in the wrong business.
  - throwsprtsdy 7y ago
    I was thinking more about investigative reporters and news outlets than buggy-whip makers.
    - ohithereyou 7y ago
      If you're going to treat investigative reporting and news gathering as a profit making venture then you can only charge what the market is willing to pay, and for the vast majority of people, that's nothing.
      - mcv 7y ago
        Investigative reporting is in a tough spot in a capitalist democracy. In a democracy, good reporting is a vital part of the system, but in capitalism, people pay for what they want to see and hear, and that's not always the truth. Advertisers directly or indirectly impacting the kind of news that gets reported doesn't help.
- phkahler 7y ago
  >> but if a site is not ad-supported, and "paywall" is almost an epithet (and circumvented to boot), how is any site supposed to remain viable? They're not. Think about news sites that rewrite stories from paywalled sites and collect ad revenue. They are parasites that make money from other peoples work. Same thing for all those YouTube channels (though they are not other sites) that repackage other peoples content and make money doing so. What we need is not so much a way to advertise on the net, but a way to make small payments and subscriptions simple. If sites needed their users to pay them, the quality of the content might go up dramatically. Places like HN could still exist just fine too. Having said that, I think there are ways to verify ads without cookies and such. It's just that it takes more effort on the server side.
  - throwsprtsdy 7y ago
    > If sites needed their users to pay them, the quality of the content might go up dramatically What do you mean by "if"? There are already many sites that require users to pay them (e.g. The New York Times) but everyone simply circumvents their paywalls. Every method that high-quality sites use to generate the revenue they need to operate is defeated either by ad blockers or someone reproducing their content outside their paywalls. You may be right that news and reporting are not viable, but it is a shame.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
>verification that an ad has actually been shown to a human Is it useful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness

ryantgtg 7y ago

I pay for the LA Times, and I also block ads. A couple weeks ago they updated the site so that I got a giant “you are blocking ads!!” banner even when I was logged in. I complained to them (directly), saying that I pay for a subscription so that I can give them money without viewing ads. And... they agreed that paying readers should not see those warnings! And they updated the site within the same day. I thought that was cool.

ComputerGuru 7y ago
I just block the “you’re not seeing my ads!” div itself. Some of us have issues that prevent us from focusing on the content when there are highly contrasting alerts screaming something.

mcv 7y ago

Some sites handle their own advertising, and a few do it in a really cool way. For example, the Penny Arcade web comic only advertises games they like[0], and they hand-draw their own ads for it in the same style as the comics. Sounds like incredibly valuable advertising for those games, and it fits the style of the site. [0] Or used to. I haven't checked them in years.

a3n 7y ago

The reason it's worth it for advertisers to pay sites for placing ads is because of the data they collect. You only buy something because of an ad occasionally. But data is collected each and every time.