Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

The source is here:

This actively poisons the advertiser/publisher relationship, which in my opinion is a much harder stance than simply blocking ads.

edit: I've tried it using the abp/adnauseam combo but it only worked on one out of 5 heavily ad laden pages. It's funny, I have so many layers of this stuff running that it took me quite a while before I managed to see any ads at all and then to re-enable just ABP. So, on FF at least, not really recommended by me, maybe someone else has a different experience. (tried it on two different machines)

View on HN

By poisoning the advertiser/publisher relationship they are also poisoning the publisher/user relationship. Like it or not publishers have to pay the bills and these types of efforts are either going to result in paywalls (which users of this plugin will no doubt try to circumvent) or by the content going away all together.

I think a much better option for those opposed to advertising is to just not visit those publishers. Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service.

> Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service.

How so?

Theft of service requires a couple of other bits to flip in my view, after all, you're not actually required to view the ads on webpages when they're there, you're not required to click and you're not required to buy any products. It's no more theft of service than zapping to another channel when there are ads on the TV or switching off the radio when advertising starts.

Excepts adds are often sold on a cost-per-click basis so you are causing a transaction with the advertiser for which they got nothing (no visit to their website to at least consider their wares for a few seconds).

But that's not what the GGP said, he said that "anything other that not visiting those sites is theft of services", that is definitely not limited to false clicking ads, but it also includes simple ad blocking.

Except why whould I care? The rules of transaction between the advertiser and the website owner are their business, in which I have no say except being its victim (er, resource), so why should I cater to their needs? I get appeals to decency, but it definitely does not warrant calling it "theft of service" or "fraud".

I'd be totally cool with a paywall instead of slow and distracting ads.

Here's an idea - why don't a bunch of publishers (or a third party) get together and build a subscription service for a reasonable monthly fee that automatically gets me through their paywall when I visit their sites. In theory it would be open for any publisher to join, and they get to split my monthly fee based on pageviews.

It would be 10 or 100 such subscriptions to various "networks" of sites, and in the end these micropayment-networks would live more from selling the visitors' behaviour patterns than from the fees themselves (just like ad networks are in the bulk information collection business).

The solution imho is a good micropayment system where I can choose to view a page for $.01 or view it for free with ads.

I personally wouldn't mind. They could track me all day long (except why would they - they aren't doing ads any more) as long as the Internet gets free of the shit that's eating everyone's bandwidth, battery power, CPU cycles and sanity.

If your sanity is so easily upset by advertising, I suggest you get off the internet, and avoid TV, radio and print altogether.

I avoid TV, radio and print already. But why should I get off the Internet when I can just use an ad blocker?

Being on the internet or not is no longer optional. In lots of places governments now require that you communicate with them via their website, it's the way people stay in touch with each other (and you'll be left out if you don't) and it is the way companies do business, hire people and communicate between each other.

Advertising is not an essential part of the internet, but everything else is. Remember: the internet was doing just fine before advertising rolled along.

You'd think that would exist already: A service that costs, say, 8$ a month. It should remove ads and paywalls, and pay the publishers some amount relative to how much I've browsed their site.

There is! It's called Google Contributor - https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/ - and people seem to like it. I'm not sure it's gained a lot of traction, but it's a good idea, and Google's the one to do it, given their domination of the ad market.

It doesn't remove the paywall though?

It would be nice if it did but the incumbents seem to be more interested in all out war against the internet as opposed to finding a workable solution?

$8 a month is a pittance. You can't even get the NYT alone for that. You can't get the WSJ either. You can, just barely, get the Linux Weekly Newsletter for that much.

This is like the GMail-without-ads idea. The provider and the user are far out of sync with each other. You _can_ get a Gmail without ads today, if you want. It'll cost you $50 / year.

To make it worse, that decreases the value of your advertising space. When you have a free-only service, the value of your advertising is the benefit of showing the people who can afford things ads. If you have a free and a paid ad-free service, the value of your advertising is significantly lower, because the people with money (and willing to spend it) are no longer going to be shown the ads.

Great, now I'm going to advertise to a bunch of poor people and skinflints. There's no chance I'm going to pay the publisher an equal amount for those ads as I'm going to pay them for the rest. So that publisher will have to charge paying users enough to make up the shortfall.

I dunno how many sites I visit each month, maybe a couple thousand? And what's the CPM these days, maybe 2$? So 10$ per month doesn't seem unreasonable at least for ad supported websites.

For paywalled websites, I'd say that the cost is set very high because the number of paying customers compared to the total number of readers is small.

> $8 a month is a pittance. You can't even get the NYT alone for that. You can't get the WSJ either. You can, just barely, get the Linux Weekly Newsletter for that much.

It would work poorly for the regular NYT readers, but I'd argue that's not most of the Internet. People don't browse websites, they read articles they found using a search engine or were linked to somewhere. I'm not paying NYT, the Economist, WSJ, The Atlantic, and a hundred other websites $10 each, when I read on average one article every two month on each of those sites. So I think the idea mostly works, but we need to make sure that those who read more articles from a single site pay correspondingly more to it.

> Great, now I'm going to advertise to a bunch of poor people and skinflints. There's no chance I'm going to pay the publisher an equal amount for those ads as I'm going to pay them for the rest. So that publisher will have to charge paying users enough to make up the shortfall.

So the system stabilizes at some price point and there are no ads? I'd say "mission accomplished" :).

Blendle [0] aims to do something like this - actually a pay-per-article model. I'm waiting for it to launch in the UK.

[0] https://launch.blendle.com/

One of the nordic countries has done exactly that, if I recall right. I can't remember the name of it though?

I was under the impression there is already widespread automated ad clicking [1] - if that's the case perhaps this merely makes public a problem that advertisers have known about in private for ages.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud

Click fraud hasn't been a user choice thus far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com