[YuriNiyazov]

Yea no kidding.

"AppNexus helps brands connect with consumers, empowering agencies and advertisers with a uniquely powerful approach to programmatic online advertising."

Thanks for working on Ad Tech, the very thing that powers this bubble by trading attention as a commodity. Other people work on silly startups, but this shit is akin to HFT.

[jbooth]

Unless microtransactions for content take off, and they haven't, ad tech is necessary to incentivize content on the web. 90% of the websites you read could not exist without the ecosystem that appnexus is a big player in. Hacker News, being one big ad for ycombinator, doesn't need to bother.

So he's doing a real thing that provides real value to the web. And it's actually a sustainable business, to boot.

Lastly, there's absolutely no need to get so personal -- if his article offended you, discuss the article.

[YuriNiyazov]

See, whether a startup is silly or not is an opinion. I happen to have an opinion that adtech is evil. Whether it has a side benefit like allowing "content" to exist is tangential.

I usually keep that opinion to myself because it's not a popular one, but in this particular subthread we are not discussing the article, we are discussing the author who volunteered his "I am very hypocritical" comment.

Elsewhere in this comment thread I discuss the article.

[bduerst]

I don't get it - are you arguing that because you think your opinion is unpopular it's okay to be facetious?

[YuriNiyazov]

No, I am stating the following (maybe unclearly):

1) In a thread where the author shows up and says "I am very hypocritical", standard rules like "discuss the article, not the author" do not apply. The author is fair game for discussion.

2) I don't usually crap on other peoples' industries, but not in this case, because (1).

[ktRolster]

"90% of the websites you read could not exist without the ecosystem that appnexus is a big player in."

That's ok. The internet would be better off without most junk websites, and the ones I like, I'm willing to pay for.

[jbooth]

Funnily enough, a big side effect of the ad tech's evolution over the last 10 years is that junk websites tend to get junk ads with junk CPM and quality websites get the higher-value stuff.

[taurath]

You don't need to incentivize content on the web. People's interests and need for collaberation and sharing should incentivize content on the web.

We're in enough of a media bubble already - there's so much media and so few trusted sources that its impossible to filter content anymore. Ads inject themselves after people's ability to filter burn out like a virus. Its not good for society.

[bpchaps]

We like to call out politicians and such for who sponsors them. What's wrong with calling out our information sources in the same way? (serious question)

[Kinnard]

You know, this might be the year when microtransactions for content actually take off.

[FussyZeus]

We would be ok without 90% of websites. Too much redundancy and junk content.

[throwupper247]

I could do without 90% of those websites, i suppose

[Animats]

Interestingly, this bubble is not powered by ads. Only one of the top 25 "unicorns" worldwide, Snapchat, is ad-based. The others provide a good or service paid for directly by their customers.

[1] http://fortune.com/unicorns/

[wheaties]

Advertising is a necessary part of selling a product. Selling a product is a necessary part of being profitable. Why hate on that? Way better than waste-my-time Farmville or an enhanced "like" button. Adtech actually helps commerce.

[macavity23]

Many products succeed with zero advertising.

[ojr]

Facebook stock value is doing well and it is because many products are using it to advertise

[shostack]

And they are by far the exception and not the rule.

Too many fall into the "Field of Dreams" fallacy thinking that if you build it, they will come. Most of the time it doesn't work like that.

[bcg1]

To be fair... he's not working... he's on sabbatical :)