Hacker News Reader

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use Adblock software on their browser.

I don't see this as selfish, not when it comes online ads. I think this "moral" argument is pushed by people who generally benefit from ads and have less incentive to considers ethical issues raised by ad tech. From their perspective, advertising is free money. Publishing has a cost and people's work and effort should be compensated, all right. But you are not ripping someone off just because they picked the wrong revenue model. You are just protecting yourself by preventing your data being used by thirds parties without your consent. And you should.

And besides, there are ethical ads options. Given the choice, I would support publishers using these ads, in absence of a better solution.

A different way to think about it is to think of the web. Back when ads were just static banners, I never saw a point in blocking them.

Then, ads started actively degrading my browsing experience. Some ads would make a web page load slowly, or not load at all. Other ads would cover up the page that I was reading.

I can assume that the same can be said for some web radio ads?

If there was a paywall and it was priced too high in your view , what would you do? I assume you'd simply decide not to pay and move on. Online ads are essentially an honor system: I'll let you consume my content but you'll need to watch ads. Yet here you decide to circumvent the system instead of just walking away. Why?

The idea that there's an "honor system" always surprises me. Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads? That's not how ads work: nearly universally, what I'm told is "HEY, come get this great free content!" But when I reach for the content it's snatched away and the "but first a word from our sponsors" diatribe begins.

You can't have it both ways, either the content is free and I can consume it on my terms, or inform me of what's expected for this exchange and I'll make a decision about whether I want to pay the cost or not.

>Where is it stated that the cost of the content is watching the ads?

Does it need to be stated? When I leave my bike outside where is it stated that it's mine and you are not allowed to take a ride? Where is it stated that you shouldn't have loud conversations in the theater?

You know full well that ads pay for the content but choose to play the ignorant. You're doing this simply because you can and there are no consequences and, as of now, those that do watch the ads are financing the service you consume.

I view ads as toxic and bad for my health

Absolutely. The online advertising industry blew their goodwill with gross carelessness years ago, and have only continued to make things worse as revenues fall. Fuck 'em all. Aside from a handful of sites I can count on one hand, I'll never browse without an adblocker again. If innovations like this audio blocker catch on and start to kill podcasts too, well...sorry. Unfortunate collateral damage I guess.

The strange thing to me is people expressing that they'd rather block ads, but they're too noble to do so, so they get mad at others for blocking ads? Uh, okay?

I think most of the people doing this are playing the troll contrarian card and fishing for responses.

> "That's selfish" Yes, just like the millions of people who use adblock software on their browser.

If advertisers had gotten together and said, "people have limited tolerance for ads, so we need to work out a scheme to put limits on how much we throw at them," there never would have been any demand for adblockers.

> Adblocking also ushered in sustainable models for journalism, blogging, etc.

The new model of direct patronage is much better than advertiser funded content. They actually listen to their supporters, what a concept!

> Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice.

That's a major function of a market, forcing non-performing market entrants to shift their resources towards a function they're better suited to. It's not pretty, because it means going out of business, but it's necessary.

>> "But it'll lead to the collapse of podcast publishing".

There's money and there's money.

If one cool website gets money thanks to painful invasive advertising, I call that bad money. I'm paying them using bad money. They've chosen that I deserve that mean to pay them. Not very respectful, but I'm ok with it since I read it.

If on the other they ask me a few bucks to access them, that's good money. They basically do me a favor. The favor to have a choice : is that site so good I'm willing to pay ? 30 years ago, I was spending say 6-7 euros a month to buy magazines, so it was possible to make content interesting enough for me to pay. And it wasn't dark ages, I had some very interesting information (Dr. Dobb's, Edge, Byte...)

Last time that I brought a (local) technology magazine it was filled with ads. Paying for content and ads are not exclusive.

It's a pity in my opinion. But I understand magazine business is hard and you cannot give an alternative ad free format, more expensive, in kiosks.

If ads are a valid funding model and payment is a valid model, why wouldn't both together be valid? What matters is the total price, now how it is broken down.

Here is a gross example to make my point.

Imagine, when buying your groceries, you had to pay half cash, half by prostituting yourself. Nobody would want that.

Though, prostitution is a valid funding model, as sex workers earn a living with it.

To extend the metaphor, I see advertising as some kind of prostitution for my brain. I do not want that for my brain.

>I view ads as toxic and bad for my health, and I take measures to avoid them.

That's fine, but then your response should be to not visit the website at all. Not to take take what you want as you see fit.

> Maybe that's because the ones that didn't went under, but I apparently didn't notice.

what if something of value was lost?