Hacker News Reader

Sometimes it's like we live in a parody of the real world.

I feel that the online video ad situation is akin to advertisers blasting loud commercial jingles in the middle of the night, while complaining that people are getting sound isolated walls and how that's hurting their business, some even going so far as to talk about how thick walls should be illegal.

When I navigate to an url I don't get a fully rendered webpage ready from the server, but instead I get served a bunch of HTML, CSS and JavaScript. It's then up to my computer to compose those things into the interactive website, using the rendering engine of my choice. How the website turns out being rendered can depend on a number of factors, like what screen resolution I use, what fonts I have on my system, etc. Maybe I'm using a text browser that can't render pictures or video.

So, it's so darn crazy to me that some people would say that I'm stealing or being dishonest by not rendering the ads in the website. Is it really my duty to render those ads, even if I don't intend to click on them? Would I still be stealing if I rendered them, but never moved my eyesight over to where the ad is placed? How far do I have to pretend?

> Would I still be stealing if I rendered them, but never moved my eyesight over to where the ad is placed?

No, because merely visiting the site and rendering the ad has done its job. The value of a web ad is in the information collected and profile built about you. You're going to see ads somewhere, even subconsciously, and you're going to buy something, somewhere. The hope is that retailers can place something in front of you where your task is buying instead of reading. Cell phones are going to be a huge assist to physical retailers in this area, because they carry your online trail into the store.

EDIT: I expect the day to come when advertising networks are subpoened for information on people.

I think the difficulty comes in when the two parties (us vs the site owners) come into the situation with different views about what the website IS.

You're viewing it, quite correctly, as a technical request that's made and some data that's passed back that you can use at your discretion.

They're viewing it as you entering a digital storefront where they need to take every opportunity to convert you into a customer.

In your mind, you're staying right where you are and the data you're getting back is just that: yours. In their mind, you're entering into their space and so they have certain expectations of you and your experience. You telling them what kind of advertising they are allowed to have is, in their minds, tantamount to walking in to one of their stores and telling them to change the displays they have out. Not saying that it justifies any claims about what should be legal, illegal, etc. but it does make sense why each party would have the opinions they do.

On a subset of the devices I use, I pay by the byte for my Internet service. In that case, blasting me with a bunch of video content that's much larger than the article I intended to read. Advertisers do not respect this, even though it has an impact on my finances. I reserve the right to choose whether I consent to paying for something, and I don't consent to the terms they're trying to offer me.

If they were to give me some opportunity to make a decision about this, in the same way that a real storefront does implicitly by me being able to look into the store before choosing to enter, that would be one thing. But such a mechanism does not exist, so as far as I'm concerned the analogy is invalid.

Valid point, I hadn't considered that the amount of data they're trying to send you may end up costing you more money than you were willing to allot to their site. However, I don't think that makes the entirety of the analogy invalid. They still think about their website differently than you, regardless of how you're being charged to view it.

It could also be argued that once you're in a store, there is a very real disrespect of your personal finances placed on you by the burden of advertising and product placement. An abuse of consumer psychology in a physical space is just as bad as an abuse of your phone data. Both cost you time and money. While it still stands that you couldn't have seen the video advertising coming ahead of time, you also can't see the psychological tricks that get you to purchase more coming ahead of time either. In both cases I think it's up to us to not get fooled again.

Another spot where the analogy breaks down is that I don't think of a non-ecommerce website as a kind of store. I think of it as being more equivalent to a magazine or newspaper. And in those cases advertising is certainly present, but the overall experience is much less overtly invasive to me, the consumer.

I also suspect that non-ecommerce website publishers really would rather think about their websites as being akin to magazines. They aren't really in control of what gets put on their page through the ad networks in the same way that print publishers are, and I can't imagine many editors are terribly thrilled about the things that ad networks place alongside the content they produce. I really kind off feel bad for them; they're caught up in a pretty terrible Faustian bargain.

Very true! Non ecommerce sites suffer just as badly as their users when an executive decision is made to increase the amount of advertising on their pages.

I wonder if the increase in adverts is based on someone thinking that it will pay for their site's cost or if they're doing it with the mindset that advertising is their business model rather than providing interesting content.

Nowadays, advertising is their business model and producing quality content is merely a means to an end.

The rule of thumb is pretty simple: If you're not paying them money then you couldn't possibly be their customer. You're probably actually their product.

> You're probably actually their product.

In some cases - like GMail and other communications services where other people are involved - you and the people you communicate with are their product.

The "second hand smoke"-style effect of these "free" services has been largely ignored. Making a (bad) decision to trade your privacy for some service can be morally justifiable. Making that decision for the friends/family you communicate with is another thing entirely.

If so, I'm gonna start charging them for my CPU usage. If what's going on in my computer, using my electricity, isn't under my ownership, I'll be darned if I'm gonna pay for it's execution.

The problem with this approach is it's only arguable because your computer gives you more control over how you use the content you are requesting from them.

When you watch TV, you are requesting the broadcast from your provider, and that comes with embedded ads that you have no way of removing (ignoring TIVO and all that). You don't charge back the electricity used by your TV to your provider, right?

When you access someone's website, you are requesting that they send you the data. They are not forcing it on you, so they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for.

You are of course able to refuse to request more, or using your computer you can modify and dissect it (like using ad blockers) but that's a different issue.

Anyways.. all I'm saying is that expecting 100% control over how someone else's data is delivered to your computer is a position just as bad as the advertisers who say you should not be able to block their ads.

The right solution is somewhere in the middle.

> requesting the broadcast from your provider

This is identical with HTML. I request a page via HTTP, and they send it to me. What I do with that page is up to me. Just like I can mute a commercial on TV, change the channel, or shut the TV off[1].

> they have some say as to how they package up the data you ask for.

Correct. The problem comes when this is extended to include what someone does with that data after it changes hands. We have historically described this situation as the publisher's rights ending at the "1st sale"[2].

Anybody that wants rights to restrict what someone does with the data they are sent should get a contract that describes these requirements. (an EULA, writing at the bottom of a previously-requested page, and the HTTP headers are not contracts)

As for paying by CPU usage: I'll run the javascript and load the image or video files only after I receive a payment for electricity usage (CPU time) and compensation for my lost personal time. Hourly rates are available upon request.

> The right solution is somewhere in the middle.

The right solution respects users instead of trying to move the Overton Window[3].

[1] Max Headroom, Episode 1.6 "The Blanks"

    Janie Crane: "An off switch?"
    Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!"

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

If I taped the content on my old VHS, and then fast forwarded past the ads, and they argued that I shouldn't be allowed to do this, then sure, I would argue they should pay for my electricity for showing that ad, since apparently they are the ones who are in charge of how my VHS should be used. I'd say the argument I'm making isn't something new that just appeared with computers.

To drag this point out, imagine if in addition to the video ad, the website included one of those fancy bitcoin miners that is written in JavaScript. Should it be illegal for me to prevent it from running while I read their article? If it MUST run, then surely it's fair that they foot the extra electricity I end up using?

There is no rational world where they control the usage and I foot the bill. That sort of system would require slavery to be logically consistent.

I see this is a lost cause on you. You're not willing to see (willfully or obliviously) that the content provider gets a say in all this as well, since they foot the bill for producing the content you are consuming.

Yet you are somehow surprised or insulted when they argue you should not have a say (which is your exact argument but in reverse), and that you should be 100% in control of how you consume their content, regardless of whether or not it contradicts the business model they've chosen to implement.

The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.

>The correct approach should be to not consume their content if you don't like how it's being delivered.

Now they have 0 consumers as ad-blocking numbers increase. They lose revenue and go out of business due to a bad business model.

The correct approach would be for them to find a sustainable business model. Your "correct approach" puts them out of business.

But your approach makes the ads worthless (because nobody views them), and they still go out of business.

Of course, you don't claim that your approach keeps them in business...

My use of an adblocker is not an "approach" to the problem. My suggested approach is to find a sustainable business model, which could keep them in business.

The business model is their problem - not mine. Even if I'm the cause of why their business model is failing, it's not my problem to solve.

Companies with better business models will eventually replace the companies that go out of business. If an ad-supported site goes offline, I do not care. A site with similar content and a more sustainable business model will replace them. If their content was valued enough - a donation funded site will replace it.

I can turn the TV off during that time. But, because it's such a small cost, and so minimally invasive, I just mute it instead.

Ads that are minimally invasive and minimal bandwidth I have no problem with. The problem is that no ad provider guarantees that ads will be under a given size per page load, and be minimally invasive to the content I want to consume. Hence, they all get turned off.

Personal, but fun anecdote: my girlfriend works in marketing and kept away from ad blockers for a long time, partly due to professional sympathy, partly simply because she wanted to see the ads, since she has a professional interest in that sort of stuff.

She eventually caved about a year ago and installed ABP. No matter how interesting it was, nor how much she sympathized with the folks working in media agencies, browsing the web simply became completely impossible, especially over an occasionally flimsy 3G connection.

Simple ads are "collateral damage" in this case, but even those can be worth blocking, e.g. to protect against tracking.

It really just comes down to greed. The publishers had a good thing. They were making some profit, and they were finding ways to innovate (better tech, better subscription penetration, etc.), and then they had to go and get greedy with all our personal data. That's what sparked the war. We simply aren't willing to pay that much for the content we consume.

I'd agree with everything you say if I'd cross out "with our personal data". I don't think this is what started the war - most people don't care or even understand the nuances of this issue. But they experience publishers' greed directly in form of more ads, more annoying ads, more scammy ads, malware installed by ads, etc. Nowadays ads are offensive actions - annoying at best, costing lot of time and money at worst (if you catch that ransomware because some asshole put the thing you're looking for inside a "value-add" bundle). It's enough to piss everyone off even without bringing up the topic of data they're collecting and what they're doing with it.

You're right.

I think the personal data aspect of it really angers some of us, but in reality the sheer volume and annoyance of ads these days is more of a slap in the face than anything else. Perhaps privacy concerns have helped to push us over a tipping point.

I think that privacy concerns may be what caused the recent increase in the development of ad-blocking and anti-tracking tools. Tech people seem to care disproportionally more about on-line privacy than the rest, and they're the ones who develop tools to stop it.

This. I have no problem with ad per se. They are a annoying but necessary part of life. After all, products and brand needs to make themselve known.

However, I do have a problem with tracking. I'd rather have ads that are of no interest to me than having a ad network gathering huge of amount of data about me.

The day ad network will stop tracking, I will stop blocking.

Rather, the problem lies in the need to generate increasing returns without charging anyone for a service. Facebook's recovery model has been to acquire and monetize anything with a growing userbase, Google's has been to sprawl across as many verticals as possible in a wild goose chase for long term sustenance.

It's going to be a sad day for Silicon Valley when advertisers stop getting their money's worth – which seems inevitable at this point. Products reach their saturation point and you can either kill the user experience (and subsequently kill the userbase) or you can start charging (and subsequently kill the userbase).

We do still have a few more years left of pseudo-charitable "Internet-giving initiatives" to get the rest of the world's loyal consumer-to-be population online. That way we can shove ads for the local ebola clinic in front of people in need of real help. That should sustain SF housing prices for another decade or so.

...and here comes dot-com bubble 2.0

The active campaigns that award ephemeral internet points actually seem fairly effective. Those are what worry me most though, as it seems like the making of a tragedy of the commons.

> I wonder how many executives and ad-network people use ad blockers personally

I can tell you ;)

Executives don't use ad blockers - they've usually drunk enough of the cool-aid to not be bothered by the ads.

Others, like the devs, for sure would have ad blockers installed (but disable when they need to do dev relating to ads)

I suspect if companies tracked the actual return for various adds, it would put an end to the obnoxiousness fairly quick. It's easy to why so many companies are willing to engage in click-fraud.

Exactly. There seems to be a huge disconnect between what ad executives assume people will engage with and what people will actually tolerate. I think people will tolerate small banners and images and interstitial video ads that are 3-4 seconds at the very most (on video sites). If you can't get your message across in that time then prepare to have your ads blocked by a generation that expects the internet to be instant.