Hacker News Reader

Well said. I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the advertising industry. I think they ruin everything. I also quit watching and listening to commercial broadcasters, and even quit working for one.

I have a sister who is a successful advertising creative and executive. Our wildly differing and strong opinions on the topic makes for interesting family dinners.

I am longing for the day that AR technology gets to the stage where lightweight sun-glass frames can have the ability to overlay classical art, or any other texture, over real-world ads in real-time.

I have also been wondering lately if some sort of Adnix [0] like device could be developed using the incredible machine learning software that is becoming widely available. I know very little about such things but I have been meaning to make time to see if it is within my abilities.

I'd love to scare my sister with it.

[0] Adnix - http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=2223

What do you think about the fact that the website you linked as a reference is ad-supported? Assuming that you use an ad-blocker, have you contributed money directly to the web site in compensation?

It seems that you got some value from the web site. Is this consistent with "advertising ruins everything"?

Without ads, do you think the web site would exist at all?

Maybe not, but it was the first result of many when I searched for "Adnix". It's not their content either. I did not compensate the site, and I don't feel bad about that at all.

I did, however, pay Carl Sagan for it many years ago, when he first published Contact.

> Without ads, do you think the web site would exist at all?

Quite likely. This kind of content is something people tend to maintain out of their own interest in the subject and willingness to share. Ads are added more like as a "why not?" thing.

Anyway, there are many ways to monetize that don't involve asking third parties to shove shit at your visitors.

Plenty of quality sites existed before advertisement flooded the internet. Plenty can exist without advertisements now as well.

Not quite small and light weight but: http://jonathandub.in/cognizance/

Also if you would like your phone to replace them with art: http://noad-app.com

>> I am longing for the day that AR technology gets to the stage where lightweight sun-glass frames can have the ability to overlay classical art, or any other texture, over real-world ads in real-time.

Don't hold your breath. The disgusting industry of marketing/advertising will happily pay the AR companies irrefusable sums of cash to have their firmware prevent you from overlaying their ads. Or worse, the ads will be projected directly onto your lenses without even needing to look at the real world. Walled garden AR will win out over any open-source equivalent, as the money involved will monopolize the industry with patented technology. Never underestimate their scummy practices; our obsession with capitalism has made this the status quo even before television ever hit us. Hell, newspapers and public posters were already pulling this crap in the 1800's. This has been our reality since the invention of the word "corporation".

Personally, I wish that any business that must advertise to even be viable should not exist. Unfortunately, every business owner who wants a piece of the pie disagrees and will do everything possible to force themselves onto us. Yes, force - it's tantamount to rape in my opinion. Unsolicited, unwanted, unwarranted, and inescapable - were any "person" to shove themselves at you like companies do, it would be considered rape. For example, "retargeting" is literally stalking you everywhere you go. How it is considered acceptable is beyond me.

> Yes, force - it's tantamount to rape in my opinion.

No wonder you and your sister don't get along. This is completely ridiculous.

You are incorrectly replying. I don't think he mentioned his sister. That was my anecdote.

I don't think advertising is tantamount to rape.

Rape IMO, is one of the most heinous crimes a human can perpetrate on another.

But I do think the advertising industry is already well over-the-line that I am comfortable with. The insane fact that we let advertisers track us and keep files on us should make anyone nervous.

> Walled garden AR will win out over any open-source equivalent, as the money involved will monopolize the industry with patented technology.

why? FOSS seems to be doing fairly well across the Internet at the moment.

> The worst offenders however, are the ones that require a payment to use, and still completely overwhelm you with the ads (Public transport in my case)

I'm with you on the concept, but public transit is just about the most wrong example you can come up with.

Every system that I'm aware of either loses money directly, or would do so if they lost government subsidies. Advertising revenue isn't something that any of them can do without.

You may be able to afford to pay a rate that would obviate the need to rely on advertising, but those who most depend on it could not

True, the Indian media channels show 60% ads and the same recycled "news" for 40% times. At times they show five minute news and 55 minute adverts, I'm serious, I've seen this happen!

I totally agree.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that the end game of ad blocking isn't an Internet without adverts.

It's an Internet of product placement and "sponsored content".

If everyone allowed normal ads through, advertisers wouldn't sit back and say "Well done everyone. Time for us to stop doing sponsored stories! Back to the old model!". They'd still be attacking on two fronts. Ad-blocking just prevents one avenue of attack.

The U.S. digital ad industry is about 140 billion usd. There are about 200 million working age people to divide that over. That means 700 usd per working age person. Granted, there are many factors that you could use to tweak these numbers up or down (international influence, ad spend roi, ad company margin, wage distribution, ...), but it serves as a ballpark figure.

To get rid of online ads would therefore require either everyone paying something on the order of 700 usd per year, or a lot less ad-funded content.

Presumably everyone is already paying on the order of 700 USD per year, since the money has to come from somewhere and most of it will come out of the sales of the advertised products

> a lot less ad-funded content.

I've never understood why this is always seen as such a bad thing. It worked well before, it works well now, and it can work well in the future. I'd even argue that most sites were better before advertisement-based funding became common.

I'm thankful that the UK is pretty strict in regards to advertising in the UK and we don't have as many signs ruining everything.

Cities look increasingly like Blade Runner LA.

Blade Runner LA was quite a bit worse, with giant airships floating around blasting audio.

No wonder everyone went to the offworld colonies.

I wonder why that doesn't happen today. It's technically accessible. I've seen a blimp with a banner in the past once. No audio. What stops ad people from jumping at this medium?

It's probably against the law to annoy residents with audio ads from blimps and for a good reason.

I bet rednecks would shoot their rifles at would be audio ad blimps passing over their property without thinking twice - like they do now with drones. And I don't blame them, because I'd do the same any day.

I'd buy a rifle for that reason myself. Or revive my high-school hobby of building solid fuel rocket engines. I'm just curious what stops ad blimps from appearing in big cities.

I'm pretty sure the audio would fall afoul of noise ordinances. If not, you'd probably hear it from strip malls.

I suspect what stops us from seeing more blimps is cost. They're expensive to operate, and billboards are cheap.

Most of us are employed producing goods and services for which people are not born with an innate desire.

Approximately the only people who can bash advertising without hypocrisy are subsistence farmers. The rest of us are paid to satisfy artificially inseminated needs. Perhaps our specific industries and employers use classier, higher-quality, and more subtle forms of advertisement, but in a truly ad-free world, we'd not spend money on anything but staying fed, warm, and reproductive.

I'm curious what led you to such conclusions. That depiction does not match how I view the world at all.

Just because an item doesn't prevent one from starving or freezing to death does not mean it is an "artificially inseminated need".

Sure, GDP might drop 10% in the short-term if all advertising was banished. Who knows. What I do know is that people won't stop wanting things that make their life better, and in general will continue to buy such things.

Advertising is not what keeps us from a peasant lifestyle.

I don't buy for a second that the end of advertising would harm GDP. It would take generations of cultural turnover to move people away from consumerism. If people were not being psychologically manipulated into buying certain products they don't need or want, they will just buy what they want instead.

How will people know where or how to buy what they want without advertising?

How do people know where to find/make the things they do have an innate need for without advertisement as you seem to define it?

Advertising does not equal flow of information.

Sure it does. Advertising is the flow of information about what products and services are available, how much they cost, and where to purchase them. Some are crass, some are subtle, some are sprayed, some are targeted, and the very best (personal recommendations and such) aren't even paid for. They are all advertisements.

The way your post comes across, given the context: "It's impossible to learn about things in the world that one might pay money for without advertising"

Is this what you actually mean? Because that's an absurd statement. Unless you dilute the meaning of the word "advertising" such that it covers literally every human action. But then we aren't having a useful conversation anymore.

You're aware that a small number of years ago, in the scope of human civilization, most objects were not branded, billboards didn't exist, etc?

> people won't stop wanting things that make their life better, and in general will continue to buy such things.

This is nonsensical.

You can only buy something if you know that it exists for sale and where.

The process by which you acquire this information is, by definition, advertising.

I wanted a Bluetooth speaker. I sought out non-paid reviews by third parties (some of the being fellow consumers who had already bought the device), and then decided which speaker I thought would work best for me. I didn't make use of advertising in the process.

How did you know you wanted a Bluetooth speaker, or that such a thing exists?

In your specific case it's possible that you knew what speakers are, and you knew what Bluetooth is, and you extrapolated from there that the combination might exist and you went looking for one (carefully avoiding paid reviews in the process).

But it's also possible that you saw a post on techcrunch or HN years ago when Bluetooth speakers were first being developed that seeded the concept in your mind. Something changed between then and now such that you recently wanted to buy one, and that kicked off your ad-free research and purchasing process. Are you positive that no ads were involved in that original, long-past inception of the concept "Bluetooth speaker" in your mind? Or maybe one of those fellow consumers whose reviews you recently read originally bought their speaker because of an ad they saw.

If I make a better mousetrap, but then tell no one and never leave my farm, will the world beat a path to my door?

I think you might argue that there is a distinction between word of mouth flow of information and advertising, but the devil is in the details. Is publishing a peer-reviewed paper advertising? Is updating a blog about your project advertising? Is posting a limited number of access codes on a forum you don't own to a service you are launching advertising? Is cold calling advertising? Is sending unsolicited emails advertising?

What makes advertising advertising, and how is it different from telling people about this thing you made that they don't know about but might add value to their lives? I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with fuzzy concepts like social capital.

You are forgetting some really simple cases like:

1) My friend has one

2) I saw one at a party or work function

3) I was at the store a while back, browsing around (of my own volition), and learned about them

I could go on, but you get the idea. There are very many ways to learn about new things other than overt advertising. If we are being lenient, it's actually not too different from asking "how does culture spread and evolve?" Humans have been doing this stuff for thousands of years.

To address the second half of your post, I do agree 100% that it's impossible and unreasonable to draw a really hard line against all advertising. But I think we can certainly do way, way better than we do now.

>1) My friend has one

Having your product out in the world with a brand name on it is a form of advertising, and it works really well because people don't recognize it as such.

Some people do recognize it, which is why they'll do stuff like de-badge their cars, to avoid being an agent of the "my friend has one" or "I saw one" form of advertising. My grandparents found this terrifyingly insidious and tried to be cognizant of and reject it whenever possible. Now we all wear logos without a second thought.

>3) I was at the store a while back, browsing around (of my own volition), and learned about them

Manufacturers jockey with retailers for prominent shelf space (or shelf space at all) as part of their advertising efforts.

Similarly, a storefront with signage in a heavily (foot) trafficked area is one of the most expensive (per impression) ad placements that money can buy.

> Having your product out in the world with a brand name on it is a form of advertising

I didn't say the product had a branded logo on it. Many products do these days, but not all.

It's not hard to imagine a world where logos aren't everywhere. Even today, I don't buy clothing with prominent logos.

You are completely missing my broader point here. Advertising is a small, superficial part of culture. People have participated in culture for thousands of years, acquiring items and ways of doing things. They don't need advertising to do this.

> How did you know you wanted a Bluetooth speaker, or that such a thing exists?

Because I want a speaker and my phone supports Bluetooth.

> you knew what speakers are, and you knew what Bluetooth is

Umm, yeah. And if I didn't know what Bluetooth was I'd still know I wanted a speaker. The fact that my phone supports it - even if I didn't know what it was - would lead me to wanting a speaker that supported it.

> If I make a better mousetrap, but then tell no one and never leave my farm, will the world beat a path to my door?

The ads proclaiming best mousetrap ever, never are. So from my PoV all I lose by you not advertising is another rip-off.

Try renting the mousetraps with a "Purchase if we catch X mice per month" agreement. Prove their efficacy instead of spewing empty words.

> but the devil is in the details. Is [...] advertising?

An argument that there are shades of gray isn't a valid answer for the complaint that people enthusiastically push the boundaries of black-hat.

> What makes advertising advertising, [...]? I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with fuzzy concepts like social capital.

The fact that someone pays to force it on you. Also, that the people writing the advertising would say anything for the sale, rather than being honest.

Apparently history counts for nothing. If you are trying to claim the entirety of the human experience as some kind of living advertisement you have one hell of a claim to prove. Entire cultures lived and died before the first word was ever even writen. They sang, they made language, they created art, all without even thinking about the concept of money. Advertisement, as is being discussed, is relatively new, and to try to muddle the discussion by positioning it as the cornerstone of civilization is to miss entirely the point.

If you believe the human experience before modern technology and economics was good enough, why aren't you living it? What in the world are you doing on a computer?

Yes, many people lived and died in an era when there was no time for economic activity beyond extracting dinner from local fauna or the land. The process by which they first learned about and acquired farm implements, giving them the time to do other things, is called advertising.

Nonsense. All you said is nonsense.

> If you believe the human experience before modern technology and economics was good enough

No rational person can take what I originally said and twist it to sound like this.

> Yes, many people lived and died in an era when there was no time for economic activity beyond extracting dinner from local fauna or the land.

Learn history. Art is older, if not as old as agriculture.

> The process by which they first learned about and acquired farm implements, giving them the time to do other things, is called advertising.

Farm implements first had to be invented. They first invented them.

Everyone on this thread knows what is meant when the word Advertisement is used. It is not even close to what you are proposing.

Ironically, there's really good evidence to suggest humans only worked an hour or two a day to feed themselves before the advent of civilization.

The guys who spent money building on, say, the Colossus of Rhodos, on the development of scientific instruments and the pursuit of science itself, and generally, in every aspect of science and culture would beg to differ.

Besides, nobody is bashing advertising because it's advertising things. We're bashing that advertising activity that's based on lies and deceit -- you know, like the flashing neon signs that invite you to buy this pill that's gonna make you beautiful like the other girls and it's basically half a gram of sugar mixed with ten grams of Matcha tea, and the sort of dubious activity that it mixes up in this scheme, like user tracking and outright malware (remember Forbes' blunder?). And I'm not even going to get into the part where it advertises stuff like cigarettes (and I'm a smoker, I'd just rather not see this vice being frickin' advertised!). I have every intention to keep bashing this shitty industry until it grows a spine.