Ads are disgusting. | Hacker News Reader

Ads are disgusting.

22 pointsredxblood40 comments

I´ve used AdBlock for years. One of the first things i learned when i was introduced to the internet was about ad-blockers. Nowadays i use a number of them, including disconnect, adblock and a number of other extensions that make my browsing faster and my life easier.

But what about people who don´t care / don´t know about these little helpers who destroy all those intrusive little things? A while ago i went to my grandpa´s home, and at a certain moment i asked to use his computer to check my mail. I ended up going to several webpages because it was late at night and i was bored, and what i saw was devastating. Ads were cluttering my screen and restricting me from closing them. New windows were minimizing themselves and playing sound, and my favourite websites were telling me i was the 1.000.000th visitor and asking me to claim my prize. I would say just the fact that i had to see a youtube video stop to load an ad in the middle of it was enough to make me cringe.

Yes, i'm probably exagerating, but my grandpa is an avid internet user, and he is browsing in horrible conditions everyday, losing an insane amount of time closing popups and preventing his wife from seeing the porn ads.

The visual pollution that we have today is alarming. It seems that the non-tech savvy portion of the population is suffering a great deal with websites trying to catch users with no ad-blockers, and it's not only repelling this population from the wonders of the internet, but it's also hindering what it really should be: A means to provide either a service or information to a user.

Extra info: In google, two thirds of my screen was occupied by an ad or an ad-sponsored search. It's disgusting.

Disclaimer: My main language isn't english, so i apologize in advance for bad grammar. Also, i know many won't agree with my level of discomfort with ads, that's okay. I'm just giving my opinion.

As a content creator myself it's disappointing when I see Adblock rates as high as they are, but I absolutely get it. If I'm upset at anyone in the Adblock debate it's the advertisers; the people who introduced intrusive pop-ups, auto playing videos, and those obnoxious banners with the smileys that scream "OH MY GOD, NO WAY!"

Then there are the issues of ads causing videos to freeze, browsers to crash, and containing malware. Or what if the ads are offensive to you or you have young kids in the house? For me it's impossible to blame users who just want to view their content in the most optimal way, which is why I see Adblock as a barometer for how satisfied users are with the way websites are delivering both paid and organic content.

100% agree. Ads are being taken too far. But in moderation, i don't think they are a bad thing if they help the developer.

I think that if I wanted to help out a developer, I'd rather cut out as much middleman and pay directly or through kickstarter.

If there were a middleman, I would especially rather it have the character of an entity like kickstarter, as opposed to an entity that tries to get a piece of your attention so they can sell it to a group of bidders.

That barometer effect is why I've always considered adblock how end users can "negotiate" with the advertizement networks.

As ads become more intrusive and annoying, more users learn about and install adblockers. As ads become more tolerable, users getting new computers, switching browsers, etc... don't install again. They might not consciously turn blocking off once ads improve, but it's not like the ad industry is going to get significantly better overnight. So it doesn't really matter that users won't turn them off overnight.

Any stamping of feet from the Ad companies about AdBlock strikes me as sour grapes that they're in a weaker negotiation position than: "If you don't want to look at what we tell you to look at, don't visit any websites"

I love Ads. With out them I would have to pay for a lot of the services that I enjoy for free (like google). Some sites are worse than others, and I chose to avoid them rather than stealing their service as you are.

I'm not stealing. I ask for something with my browser, and these servers are giving me more than i ask. I don't think that's okay. The people behind ads know many will be blocked. Wikipedia survives on donations and doesn't stuff your mouth with ads.

That's a fairly convenient justification. You "ask for something"? How do you think the provider of that "something" has the means to provide it?

You should be thankful that people like your grandfather exist, such that they can subsidize your ad-free internet experience.

Legally you may be correct that it is not stealing, but at best you are altering a copyrighted work with out permission. Here there are a lot of web based businesses with money on both sides of the advertising game, so I will actually be surprised if you find much sympathy.

I agree with you that ads are good for the internet, but I'd very rapidly put myself against the idea of any legal issue with modifying a website on the client. There should be no question that I can do what I like with the HTML served while it remains on my machine - whether that's blocking a popup, removing an annoying advert or terribly placed menu from the DOM or anything else.

Man, if blocking ads is stealing, then walking away from the TV during commercial breaks is stealing too. What if you DVR something and ff through the commercials? Would that make you a thief?

Not by many definitions of the word.

Not that I disagree but Wikipedia has an ad asking for donations once in a while. I would categorize it as fairly obstructive.

Once a year, and doesn't have ads whatsoever.

Do you remember getting the Sunday paper, and how it would be stuffed chock full of advertisement flyers and just taking those out wholesale and tossing them in the recycle bin.

Sure, but I also remember paying for Sunday Papers

An additional option is to avoid sites that use practices, or a business model you don't like. For example: I like the forecast from weather.com, but they are one of the worst sites I have seen, and heaven help you if you have your speakers turned on when you visit them.

Now I use weather.gov and I am pretty happy with the result.

You sir are a life saver. I hate weather.com with such disgust but was too stupid to find alternatives. Weather.gov it is from now on.

The problem is not with the ads themselves. What you described here screams ADWARE at me. Somehow, your grandpa got an adware installed on his machine (maybe by clicking on every ad that says "boost your computer speed by 10x!"). That's what is causing him such a painful browsing experience.

I'm assuming you'd be fine with paying for every Google search you make instead?

If all ads were like Google's I seriously doubt AdBlock would have been created or become as popular as it is.

Was coming here to say that ; I don't mind Adsense at all. Popover-unders-interstitials and that kind of mess is... But I don't mind paying as long as it's easy. I pay often if there is a donate button or a fee for removing ads if the product is actually worth paying for and if it's easy and convenient.

Google doesn't pay content providers from whom they take copyrighted IP (my own photographs for one example), those of us who make the results of others peoples' searches possible.

Let's see, Google purloins content, putatively in exchange for information provided to you at no cost as search results. But that doesn't account for where they get that information to populate their search returns in the first place. They're taking information from, or about, one person and giving it away for free without permission to zillions of others and, then, collecting billions of dollars from advertisers for the this "service." The net result is to compromises everyone's privacy.

I would much rather pay a micro fee every time I used Google to search; or be compensated for the data I provide, if it satisfies the results of someone else's search.

If you put a bunch of content on a public webserver, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy about that data. Besides which, Google abides by any robots.txt it finds, so if you're really that concerned about the data you provide google for free, maybe stop providing them that data?

To remove all images on your site from Google Images: User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: /

Or have you decided the traffic you get from people searching is worth it?

"If you put a bunch of content on a public web server, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy." That's my point: why shouldn't I expect it to be private?

The only reason that cockamamy "no-privacy" philosophy prevails is because Google says so, and people swallow that crap. Google's got a very big soapbox to stand on and proselytize.

I don't provide any data to Google for free; they TAKE it without my permission. To say that I should have to opt out is a morally reprehensible argument. And it's extremely difficult to accomplish. That's intentional. If I want them to have what's mine, I should be able to opt in. Google's position is anathema to creators. CREATORS. We are people who actually make things. It costs money to do so.

I get no traffic from Google. Don't need it. Again, I'd be happy to pay for any benefits I might derive from Google.

Yes...ads are annoying but they are not normally as annoying as the espericence you had at your grandpa house.

I think he may have a virus/malware installed that is feeding extra ads into the browsing session..particulary the aggressive pop-up windows are indicative of client-side malware

You should you do virus check/removal with a reputable program.

Thanks, he had around 3 viruses and a good dozen trojans. I formatted his machine after that.

Are you willing to pay for every website you visit? Oh yeah, you don't think you should pay for anything. Somehow money goes on trees for the websites owners, how dare they try to monetize their investments!

Again, why should i pay for every website i visit? Are all of them paid? Why do i have to accept erotic intrusive popups if my kids play around on the internet all day long? Do i have to let my experience and time be wasted and clogged by malware and auto playing videos?

Every website costs someone money. Someone's paying for the server. Someone's paying for the bandwidth and hosting. Every time you access a site you're using up someone's finite budget. Obviously, this is a dramatic simplification because some pockets are deeper than others, but I believe it's generally true - whether or not all of them are 'paid', all of them still have to be paid for.

So then the question is not whether ads are harmful or intrusive or downright malicious sometimes (they can be), but what better model is there to pay for the resources than advertising or direct fees?

Yes. Yes they are. You won't find a lot of support for that opinion on this website for websites which want to slurp up all your data just to sell it onto someone else.

My thoughts on ads:

I don't mind ads, as long as the following conditions are met:

* They don't present a security risk. * They don't impede the usability of the website (or, in the case of some ads, Firefox in general! Some Flash ads use absurd amounts of CPU) . * They don't leak information to third parties who may resell said information.

However, pretty much all ads in practice fall into one or more of these categories.

Is there anything more disgusting than ads that are disguised as mid-article section headers?

I agree. Advertising is a plague upon us, whether it finances free stuff or not.

And you would certainly be willing to pay for each free service that does not use ads for financing in return, right?

You are asuming everything on the internet should charge in one way or another.

How do you propose companies like Google purchase data centers to index the content of the internet so you can search it? Or offer everyone free storage and anti-spam processing for their emails? Or would your vision of the internet not include services like that?

You're missing my point. I'm not saying we should NOT have ads. I'm saying the level of quantity and aggresivity they have is intimidating. Google, one of the most powerful websites in the world, and only one third of it's page when presented are actual results.

I have a hard time believing that Google served so many ads that 2/3 of the screen were covered in ads. I just tried a few searches and in three fairly generic searches I only saw ads in one of them. The search with ads had three clearly marked ads, one above the search results and two to the right. What search terms are you using that give you these results?

Somewhere else in the thread you mentioned that you reformatted to get rid of some trojans and adware. Do you still see as many ads now that you've reformatted the machine? The descriptions of the types of ads you were seeing make me think that you had something on the machine that was actively inserting ads into html that it received.

Alternatively, the idea that the internet should be treated as a public utility could be extended to include certain fundamental core services: search and email, for instance. The server space could just be maintained by tax revenue, or through flat billing. Google would still be available, but additionally, so would a rigorously maintained ad-free option, supported not by profits but by state contributions.

The model of complementary public and private options, as exists in healthcare in many countries, might be an ideal way to carve out space for ad-free and low-cost access.

That's pretty much the only sustainable alternative to an ad-supported internet.

I probably would, yes.

Get a decent easy to use micropayment sustem set up and allow me to turn off ads when I pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com