Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

I hate AdBlock and I wish people would use it more carefully. But even I think this is a bad idea for Google.

They appear to be saying that ad-blockers "interfere with [...] in an unauthorized manner the devices, servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party"

Which is baffling, because I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine.

I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page?

I fully understand why people run ad-blockers. I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are.

View on HN

I don't think this is a browser extension, because Mobile Firefox is (AFAIK) the only browser on Android that supports extensions. This would have to block http connections or something, which would seem to be breaking the rule that Google claims it is.

I also think people should be able to run whatever they want on their phone, but I do understand the Android model of "apps should not touch one another", and pulling apps that don't follow that from the app store is at least somewhat understandable. You can always side load...and if you're running adblock, you're probably more ok with things like that. On the other hand, just getting an app that sets the equivalent of a hosts file should be ok for an official app store...

The real solution for adblock in particular is for Mobile Chrome to add support for extensions. Or use Firefox which already has support.

Dolphin supports addons

> I don't use ad blockers, so I know just how awful many ads are. What is your reason for not using AdBlock?

> [...] I wish people would use it more carefully. What does "carefully" in this context means?

These are genuine questions. I always recommend AdBlock to all my friends and everybody is delighted with it. I would like to have a point against AdBlock, though. Some times people come to me to install "that wired program that removes Ads in youtube"... you know what I mean.

Use carefully means "consider turning off ad block on the pages that you enjoy, so long as those pages are using reasonable adverts".

I don't use ad block because some people get paid by me seeing the ad, even if I never ever click the ads. I know I've never bought anything from an ad. I'm unlikely to ever click an ad but it does sometimes happen. (But this just proves to me that I'm never going to buy anything as a result of an ad).

AdBlock is the first extension I install in a fresh browser. I never click on ads anyway, so PPC ads are wasted on me. Unless they're large and intrusive, I don't tend to look at them either (banner blindness), so showing them to me doesn't help advertisers anyway.

I feel that usually ads ruin the experience for me far more than it would be justified by the $0.003 the site earns, so I can't say I feel bad.

A perfect situation for me would be to be able to pay those sites the amount they earn by showing me ads, without me seing them. I'd add a site to a list in AdBlock or some other extension; the site wouldn't show me the ads and ruin my experience, getting the $0.003 (automatically) from me, not the advertiser. Too bad such nanopayments (well, formally millipayments) are far from being simple.

It's OK because publishers have found a way around the masses doing this. "Native" advertising, a.k.a. sponsored content. Publishers wanna eat and it's a great way around ad blocking.

>"Native" advertising, a.k.a. sponsored content

Which is fine. If you're gonna have an ad I can't avoid but doesn't significantly slow down page load, fine with me.

>consider turning off ad block on the pages that you enjoy

I never understood that logic. If you don't enjoy a website then you shouldn't visit it. That way you will only visit websites that you do enjoy, so you have no reason to use ad block.

If you're browsing websites that you've never visited before then you shouldn't be using ad block at all until you've decided if you enjoy it or not. If you do then you should make a list of each website you visit with ad block enabled and send each of them compensation for the costs they made for your free entertainment.

About visiting websites that you've never visited before. It's understandable why people have ads turned off. I don't know if they have ads or not; I don't know what ad networks they're using; I don't know if the ads will have sound or not; I don't know if the ads are secure or serving malware.

I chose not to run an ad blocker, but when you have smiley ads that shout "Hello!" at you, or that mosquito ad, well, advertisers really need to put pressure on the creators of those lousy ads to just stop doing it.

I understand your point but in my case I don't like Ads and the propouse of the ads itself - they hack you brain and make you to buy things you problably don't need and you are not aware that even exists. Like everybody that surfs the internet nowadays, I have the "Brain-Ad-Filter" but that don't means that some Ads can be really annoying sometimes.

Not having AdBlock installed means that you are OK with the Ads and Ads Companies because you are not opting out.

The only downside is that the content creator is not receiving a little amount of money for my visit. That's right. And it's a pitty. But, most of the time, I would not pay parsonally most of the pages I visit with my money, and the fact that the creator of the content gets paid by a Ad company thanks to an arrangement that have done is something I don't care. If you really like the content of a page and you want to reward the author, send him some real moeny, or a beer (I have done it and it's awesome!).

> they hack you brain and make you to buy things you problably don't need

This a thousand times. I dumped my TV in 2006 and since I use AdBlock I don't see many ads - maybe when I go to the shops or at a friend's house. Thing is, I just don't have the urge to go and buy things any more. I've probably saved a fortune.

I'm doing the same (no TV, no radio and AdBlock), but found out this actually makes me more vulnerable in the situations where I can't escape the ads - IRL promotions, running TVs in bars, etc. I just sit there, staring at a washing machine commercial, not even moving... It's horrible. Otherwise, I haven't bought anything I didn't really need in years :P Although there's another test I do to stop myself from thinking I "need" something - whether I'll still enjoy it and use it after one year (or two).

The same happens to me, but I think it has the opposite of the intended effect. The "brain hack" does indeed work better at capturing my attention, but it just makes it all the more sickening to me and creates a strong negative association with the product. I suspect it even makes me more likely to actively avoid a product I would have otherwise bought.

You mean like this - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5374528 ? :) This was my other comment on this post, although I described mostly the practical, not emotional side of the issue.

The point against AdBlock is that it will block ads from website you like and that make most, if not all, their moneys from ads revenue.

You enjoy "free" content from someone and you block the only way they make enough money to stay alive and keep giving you this "free" content.

On the other hand, most ads are pay-per-click and some of us never click ads, so there's no real difference for the site. That said, I don't use Adblock either.

On smaller website that use Advertising networks like adsense most ads are pay-per-click.

On bigger website with a dedicated sale team most if not all ads are CPM payd per impression.

Edit: Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".

For Google AdSense, paid per impression is only for specific publisher sites which can deliver targeted ads to a specific market group. With that in mind, which/how many bigger publishing sites websites are we talking about here?

I can't tell you how many or which in the global market, because I have no idea and would only speculate.

I only have an idea on the numbers in the country I live where I work for an online only news website that makes all the revenue with only advertisement.

I think I'm safe to say that we are talking about websites that are big enough to have a small team with at least one "Ad Sales Rep".

The Sale representitive will go directly to companies and sell ads either by impression (CPM) or a flat rate for a fixed period of time.

Since the amount you can sell a flat rate for a week/day/month is based on your number of impressions/users is basically another kind of CPM sale.

> Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".

No, really, a lot of people just don't ever click on ads. They don't even really see the ads. There are sometimes parts of websites that I subconsciously filter out because I'm used to seeing ads in that area or they've made that bit look a bit too much like an ad.

For more extreme view-points there's the Boulder Pledge, and some people really do see any form of advertising as a type of spam. Like I say, this is a minority extreme viewpoint, but it does exist.

I agree but, as you sayd, is a minority.

Most people that say are not influenced by ads actually are even if they don't even notice.

And I'm confident that most of the people that are using adblock are not in that minority.

If you are not influenced by ADS because advertisement has no effect on you so much that you don't even notice why bother blocking them out ?

"Most people that say are not influenced by ads actually are even if they don't even notice.

And I'm confident that most of the people that are using adblock are not in that minority."

Is it not then their choice whether to view advertising? If they know it's likely to affect them, even just in terms of subconscious brand awareness, and don't want that to happen?

"If you are not influenced by ADS because advertisement has no effect on you so much that you don't even notice why bother blocking them out ?"

Popups, popunders, animations, annoying noises, things that get in the way, try to grab your attention.... All sorts of horrible annoyances. Also unintended consequences - I had genuine trouble finding a download button on a website a little while ago because they'd used a bright, perky-looking graphic that hit my mental ad filter. I really couldn't see it for a couple of minutes.

performance, bandwidth, less distraction, security

How's that for extreme: even if I originally wanted to buy something, if I EVER see it advertised, for me this means I'll be paying extra for that advertisement, so I look for a similar, alternative product. Especially if it's TV advertisement, these things cost A TON.

Also I don't really buy the "I've never in my life click on a website".

Maybe three times, ever. And not in the last 5+ years.

Advertising of any form provokes an annoyed reaction in me now. It doesn't grow your brand (with me), it doesn't make me think about your product, I don't care if it's cute or hip, it gets switched off or blocked or even just mentally filtered out. And if you do manage to break through my technological or mental walls I'll remember not to buy your products, ever.

I've only ever clicked on an ad by accident, mostly on mobile devices.

I work for a company where about 1/3 of our revenue is from ads... it's pay per view, not pay per click for most.. some direct-sold campaigns which tend to do better than the ad networks.. most well targeted. I personally don't like them, and would love to see a 2-ads per page limit.. (including services ads)...

What's the difference between direct-sold ads and spam?

Most of the direct campaigns are actually well targeted to our users. Products/Services that are useful, and likely to be used by those using our site.

I don't have a problem with targeted/useful ads... Hell, lots the posts in HN could be considered advertorials, just the same, I appreciate knowing about more... Where my problem is, I don't like highly intrusive ads, or far too many ads.

The ad business model is unsustainable and prices are falling rapidly so these people may as well come up with a better model. I have never clicked on an ad either except for testing, although I don't run ad block on all my machines although click for flash kills some too. I mainly install it if I get the particularly unpleasant weight loss ad that is common in the uk.

I don't think the ad business model is unsustainable for the simple reason that Advertising is too important for most Business to let go.

I do belive that advertising agency have not kept up with the new Technology and are playing catch up (as many other business are) and that the actual ad business model should probably be changed and right now is not what it should or will be.

Basic advertising is important in that you cannot sell a product without letting people know it exists.

However, I think the advertising industry grossly exaggerates the importance of advertising.

The trouble is, it's impossible to ask, "Does advertising work?" and get a conclusive scientific answer. There are usually far too many other factors in play to be able to look at a company or product and say, "X failed/succeeded because they didn't/did advertise." Is X successful because they advertise? Could they have been more successful if they'd invested their ad-campaign funding elsewhere? Did Y fail because of lack of advertising or simply because they tried to sell a rubbish product? Did they even fail because they devoted too much of their budget to advertising, not leaving enough to properly develop their product?

I don't use AdBlock for this reason. However, I do use Ghostery and Flashblock.

I don't like ads and I don't click on ads. I prefer to help content creators I enjoy in more direct ways, like buying their books, apps and donating to their projects. Advertising sets a very low minimum fee for content. Web advertising is why traditional news papers are going out of business. Some of us prefer to buy DVDs instead of watching commercial television.

I want to experience a site the way it was intended to be, not a manipulated version. When you create a site the placement of ads is a vital part of the actual design. Besides, nowadays with all the remarketing going on I am actually shown ads I care about.

Out of interest, why do you hate AdBlock?

>Which is baffling, because I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine.

The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.

I'm not saying I agree with that (I might, though), but that's they way one can read this Google dictum.

>I can think of a bunch of stuff that interferes with stuff - readability is an example. Why is it not okay to block ads, but is okay to drop CSS and reformat a page?

It's probably not OK, too, in Google's eyes. Just not as popular, so it's still tolerated.

> The idea is that as you visit a specific page (say, the NYT) and read their content, they can dictate that they want it read the way the serve it.

Yeah, I can't believe that logic or that the "do no evil" people can seriously claim it's wrong for you to run your own choice of code on your own computer. When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works. If NYT really doesn't like it they should render their pages to .png or .mp4 and display that (although it doesn't change anything fundamental, just makes it harder for users to find code that customizes it).

>When you make data available to someone, there is no obligation for them to use it how you want (except to not redistribute as per copyright law). That's how data works.

Well, that depends on the law of any given country.

For one, they could give the data with a specific licence -- "you can only view it on our site, with our theme and ads". One could even argue that you have a moral obligation to at least see their ads, as they are what pays them for the content you consume.

But the mere "that's how data works" I see as fatalistic. Data works the way we make it work. We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not.

>>Data works the way we make it work Who are "we" in this statement ? If you mean the distributors of the data, then you are wrong - just because you give some piece of data/information to another man, does not give you a right to force him to do anything with it. The receiver still has the free choice to do anything he pleases. Of course, you may ask politely, and make certain actions more probable, and most people will respect your wishes. But if you do not want people to do stuff with your data, just do not make it public ... it is that simple.

>>We should not let technology dictate to us if content creators should be compensated or not. Technology shapes the enviroment in which we thrive. Every law, including copyright law, should be adapted to it in time, or else it will cause much suffering, and then there will be rebellions against it, forcing the lawmakers to adapt the law to the new realities. Content creators will do well to think about sources of compensation, which benefit from the easier/instant copying and computation possible now.

> I as the operator of my web browser is the person who gives authorisation for code (including ad code) to run on my browser on my machine

There are actually two people who give authorisation for code to run on your browser: You and the code's copyright holder. Most web sites will say, "we authorise you to run our main content as long as you also run the ads". Running AdBlock means that you are running code in a way which is not authorised by the web page copyright holder.

I have never seen a web site require me to explicitly agree to something like that. There is certainly no implicit agreement that I must view any content they happen to send me.

There is no implicit agreement that you must view any content, but there is usually an implicit agreement that you must not modify the content. For example, the New York Times Terms of Service [1] says "You may not modify...any of the Content".

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/rights/terms/terms-of-se...

First of all, that's the terms of service that you agree to when signing up for an account. If you don't sign up for an account, you haven't agreed to that.

Additionally, you left out this from your quote "(except as provided in Section 2.3 of these Terms of Service)". Section 2.3 says "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein". All an adblocker does is download some of the content and decline to download some of the downloadable items. That's permissible under Section 2.3.

I hope you don't start saying that people who use adblock are guilty of copyright infringement. Or did you already say that?

Sadly, what you say is true and websites can add the no adblock requirement to their TOS. Then they can sue users who use adblock for unauthorised access (hacking!) or copyright infringement(running code that modifies their content). The next step will be to make a Blogging Industry Association. BIA can then approach ISPs for a "3 strikes followed by re-education" business deal.

The positives apart from the windfall in revenue - as governments/atittudes change BIA can push for imprisonment and bonded labour in lieu of the quantum of infringenent(based on number of pageviews with adblock on or based on bytes). Some countries will be even ready for stricter punishment. BIA then (with the help of sister organisations) can get into the lucrative prison industry.

You need to read up on what "copyright" actually is, and why it is not called authorisationright.

I thought copyright included the right to authorise someone to make a copy?

Are you saying that you don't need the permission of the copyright holder to view a web page?

they implicitly gave you permission by accepting you http request. what you do with the result of the request in private IVs is not anyone's business.

lol. You can also put "if you even accidentally see this page you owe me a quadrillion dollars" but that doesn't mean it's binding in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com