Comment by FussyZeus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by FussyZeus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Axel Springer is not the only publisher that’s taking a confrontational approach to dealing with ad blockers, The FT recently reported. U.K. newspaper City AM banned ad blockers from its website; U.K. broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 have now done the same; and the Washington Post redirects readers to a subscription page, or asks them to sign up to newsletters, or disable their ad-blocking software. Even Yahoo has gotten in on the action, blocking users from their email when they have AdBlock running.

This goes right to the heart of the issue so I felt it was worth highlighting: Who cares if they lock out their content? There are literally millions of news sources on the Internet, all (hilariously) copying each other's posts on what's trending in news, with often amusing (or horrifying) results when the stories are wrong. Oh, I can't read this story on Yahoo? Well I guess I'll just have to pick from the ten thousand freaking other copies of the same information available elsewhere.

We have TOO. MANY. NEWS. WEBSITES. The ad space isn't worth shit because the same ads are being pushed on millions of pages many times over, and the public is so desensitized to them at this point that the click rate is dropping like a safe.

If you work for one of these publishers, get a new job. Fast.

I'm totally in favor of this type of solution. The go-to justification around here is "it's my computer, I'll use it to display anything I want, just because you served me data over HTTP doesn't give you the right to dictate what's on my screen."

I think it's is a pretty compelling argument, but if we're being fair then the provider should have the right NOT to serve you data based on what you intend to do with it.

> I think it's is a pretty compelling argument, but if we're being fair then the provider should have the right NOT to serve you data based on what you intend to do with it.

As an ad-blocker: I absolutely agree, however, there's no shortage of people offering me the same exact content elsewhere. Basically, supply and demand end up in the consumer's favor.

Likewise: "...essentially all of the ad supported sites I visit are diversions" - https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/AdSupportedWebD...

> but if we're being fair then the provider should have the right NOT to serve you data based on what you intend to do with it.

Technology is a tool, and the world is not fair. I'm not sending you intention HTTP headers over. I make a request, you send me a response, I do what I want with that response. So sorry that ruins your business model.

It's kind of a non-solution when said data is available through so many other providers, though. I don't have an ethical issue with it at all, I just don't see it being effective.

I think part of the issue too is that on some of these sites even if you subscribe, you're not getting an ad-free experience.

Market Saturation: If there is too much product in the market, the product is worthless. News right now is worthless. Way too many providers not pushing enough quality.

Right? It always cracks me up when I see an paywall. It's like, who do you think you are? I don't care whatsoever about your site or business, I care about quickly finding the information I'm looking for.

And you shouldn't care! Their business success is none of your business, you're the customer and you are there for the content, not to help them out. If you're running a business and not making money then your business sucks and you need to do better.

Monetizing via ads is proving to NOT WORK yet so many businesses are still banking on it. I don't fucking get it.

> Even Yahoo has gotten in on the action, blocking users from their email when they have AdBlock running.

Wait, really? Users can't read their email if an adblocker is installed? I can't imagine what mother would do if she ran into a error message like that while trying to check her email (but she doesn't use yahoo).

Wow really? I hadn't heard that (and never used yahoo), that's just straight crazy.

I just logged into my all-but-abandoned yahoo account's webmail in Chrome with Ghostery set to block all, then in Chrome again but with AdBlock at default settings (and Ghostery disabled), then in Safari with uBlock (my default) and none of the sessions prevented me from seeing my mail. In fact, Ghostery and AdBlock in Chrome still displayed a Yahoo sponsored ad at the top of the list of unread messages much like GMail's top-ad. uBlock did not show that Ad.

I call false on this claim, but the sample size here is beyond insufficient to draw a wide conclusion.

>> U.K. broadcasters ITV and Channel 4 have now done the same

Have they? Just went to their sites, no indications there.... is it just mobile?

No. Try playing some video content on C4, if you're running any kind of adblock, it refuses to play. There was a bit of an 'arms race' back when it was first introduced between C4 and developers on the internet. C4 won, adblockers simply won't work on their site, video ads are unskippable and every 5 mins or so.

Yes, they have made a user-hostile service, that everyone I know avoids in favour of getting the content via another (ad-free) route. Good one.

Ah, ok, thanks. I'll have a look later from a computer that has a working flash install, this one does not...

Just to clarify: Every five minutes? How big are these ad spots, just curious?

I wonder if they're referring to video portions? I'm fairly sure both of them have attempted to block adblocking users from VOD for ages.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com