Hacker News Reader

Comment by paskozdilar | Hacker News Reader

> In general I consider ads to be unethical cognitive burden.

I agree.

> The exception is if the site owner keeps the lights on by incorporating non-tracking advertising, it would feel scummy to block off their ads and just take the good content.

I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway. Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.

View on HN

You mean if the content does not cater to people who are well-off enough to pay for it with money?

There are many people who simply don't have the financial means to support all the content they like. Does that content not deserve to exist? Should quality internet content really be a class question?

No, I'm just saying if it's important, someone will want to preserve it, and it will survive. If nobody does, then it's not important.

That's a very specific definition of important.

Thought experiment: what about a free website that shows people where their nearest food bank is?

they can appeal for grants and funds as a non-profit to keep it running. why does such a website need to make a profit?

I wasn't suggesting that they need to make a profit, just enough to pay for hosting and maintenance time.

This is a really disingenuous argument that can justify all sorts of ridiculous stuff, the least of which would be the predatory and toxic mobile game industry

Im pretty sure predatory and toxic mobile game industry would fall under the same (or worse) categorization as ads, so would fall under the same logic of "if you cant afford to run your website without doing something unethical, then your website doesnt deserve to run"

Amen to that. The toxic casino games have choked out 99.99% of the actual games, and that model is now spreading out to other platforms like a cancer.

Back to ads, it sounds like living in a corporate dystopian nightmare where your every move is tracked and you're constantly manipulated is somehow the "woke" option in this discussion. Great.

I could easily host a local Facebook-esque site for a hundred friends and family for less than $10 a month. I wouldn't need all their apps and every website they use to participate in a spy network to make it work, either.

> if content cannot survive without advertisement

Goodbye, niche knowledge sites, I suppose

Goodbye, 99.9% of content we all regularly read.

Speak for yourself.

Do it. I dare you. You won't take your site offline, nobody else will either.

Niche knowledge sites don't use a lot of bandwidth, and in a lot of cases can easily survive on the donations of niche knowledge fanatics (especially after the rise of patreon and substack.) The real niche knowledge sites who can't survive without advertisement are trade magazines, and if the ads are specific to the niche (rather than generic intrusive ad auction chum), their readers value the ads almost as much as they value the content.

Most niche sites I know are completely ad free. What are some that live off ads?

they don’t make enough off ads anyway

> I disagree - if content cannot survive without advertisement, then we're better off without it anyway.

So radio and TV should have never existed?

I think he meant advertising plus all the tracking that goes on.

the phrase I quoted is followed by:

> Non-tracking advertising is less bad than advertising, but it's still intrusive and not-called-for, just like all advertising.

So yeah, they are against all forms of ads

In the current form, yes.

s/So/& commercial/

There are noncommercial models for broadcast media, and the fact that some countries ended up with the vast wasteland[1] that is commercially-supported broadcast television and radio isn't an inevitability. It was made to happen, by commercial interests. It could well have been different in the US, and still is in numerous other regions.

See Robert W. McChesney's Telecommunications, mass media and democracy : the battle for control of U.S. broadcasting, 1928-35 (1995)

https://www.worldcat.org/title/telecommunications-mass-media...

https://archive.org/details/telecommunicatio00mcch

https://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=05E6FC47CE851CB143F1DD4...

________________________________

Notes:

1. FCC Commissioner Newton Minnow, 1961

https://vimeo.com/55481067

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-05-06/newton-min...

I mean, this is not a well thought out idea.

Google wouldn't exist if it couldn't support itself.

Neither would 99.99% of websites available.

Think of how many sites, are available just because they can cover their costs by putting adds on their site.

Think of how many of those sites are absolutely worthless vehicles who are really only available for the purposes of displaying ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com