[dzonga]

ads are not bad. if it's publisher ads/native ads.

the bad ad ecosystem is where there's whole demand, supply side platforms and ad exchanges that mine and sell your data.

now there's better tech to do native ads without the intrusion and massive bad experience.

you're reading some article about EV's - then boom the publisher themselves can serve you a small ad - not serve you an ad about weight loss or viagra or any other shit stuff.

[Altern4tiveAcc]

> ads are not bad.

Highly debatable, IMO. They're already a net negative for society on their own. We'd probably have a healthier Internet if ads didn't create incentives for social media companies to get their users addicted to serve them more ads.

[dzonga]

remove the internet - forget the internet didn't exist.

you will see why the publishing business runs on ads. see the world for what it is not what you want it to be.

once people started publishing books or whatever in the 1600s - the world runs on ads.

it's only in the last 30 years - when ads got a bad rap due to tech bros who don't didn't learn humanities

[lesostep]

>> once people started publishing books or whatever in the 1600s - the world runs on ads.

I remember seeing old books (early victorian era) that were printed with healthy "subsidize" from the ad revenue. They honestly looked very much alike any site without ad blocker looks now. And I had the feeling that some content of the book was sponsored as well. Kept mentioning specific shops by name.

I wonder what did we do right, to stop books from looking like that? Maybe it could help us fix internet issues.

[akersten]

> it's only in the last 30 years - when ads got a bad rap due to tech bros who don't didn't learn humanities

LOL, I take it you never saw the "doctors recommend Camel cigarettes" ads.

Advertising is a plague.

[Altern4tiveAcc]

>remove the internet - forget the internet didn't exist.

Advertising as it exists today is tied to the Internet.

> you will see why the publishing business runs on ads.

And I maintain that tying business interests with advertising inevitably results in a conflict of interest between people producing goods and services, and people consuming them.

>it's only in the last 30 years - when ads got a bad rap

It's only natural that ads started being viewed in a more negative way as their effects were amplified by tech.

> due to tech bros who don't didn't learn humanities

Name calling doesn't add much to this discussion. My background is in humanities anyway.

[dzonga]

my apologies if you felt I was name calling you.

I was putting it out as a generality - that most engineers/founders have no background in humanities. hence they don't tend to use 'logic' to make decisions that involve humans. when 'logic' doesn't work.

[II2II]

> now there's better tech to do native ads without the intrusion and massive bad experience .... the publisher themselves can serve you a small ad

This has always been possible and, from my recollections, was how some early online advertising was done. (I don't know if it was ever the dominant model, but it was certainly more common.)

I suspect the difficulty connecting content providers with advertisers is the root of them problem. After that, it takes effort to maintain that relationship. Having a third party handle everything is simply easier, especially for smaller web sites and smaller companies who want to advertise.

[matheusmoreira]

> ads are not bad

Ads are noise deliberately added to the signal. They're content you did not seek out and probably don't want. All advertisements are inherently untrustworthy: they're getting paid to sell you something, naturally they will exaggerate the positives and downplay the negatives. Conflicts of interest doesn't even begin to describe it.

That's the charitable interpretation. One could describe advertising as mind rape. You don't consent to it, you don't want it. They just keep trying to forcibly insert the data into your mind anyway. You block them, they bypass your blocker, which arguably makes them malware as well.

They feel entitled to our cognition, memories, attention. They think it's theirs to sell off to the highest bidder. They make it even harder for people with attention deficit to concentrate by trying to forcibly grab their attention. It's not only an accessibility problem, it's also a form of aggression, which makes uBlock Origin a form of justified self-defense.

[tensor]

100% agree. Everyone is susceptible to ads, even if few believe it. The ad pushers know it. It's a form of information warfare, not simply business. If I'm looking for a product and ask a vendor to give me pitch, great. But if I'm doing something else and vendor propaganda is forced on me interrupting my task, that's not ok in any way.

[dzonga]

If I put out a native ad - uBlock Origin won't work on it. since it's just an html <p> tag or any other element.

the ad industry at large has caused damage - for you to think ads are not beneficial and intrusive or mind rape as you call it - through excessive mining, data selling.

but like an example - I gave - there's an article about cars - and in there there's a text item that says BMW or Cadillac has released a new V8 or electric sedans. if you're a car enthusiast that's relevant to you, if you're not - it's still information that maybe a year down the line - you might find relevant.

not logical but it works. and that's what runs the world - whether you like it or not. see the world as it is.

[matheusmoreira]

> If I put out a native ad - uBlock Origin won't work on it. since it's just an html <p> tag or any other element.

It absolutely will. I routinely block all sorts of elements on pages. If I think your <p> is annoying, it will get zapped with extreme prejudice.

> there's an article about cars - and in there there's a text item that says BMW or Cadillac has released a new V8 or electric sedans

That's just normal information. I don't consider it advertising. Users go to the site to read about cars, they're getting exactly what they wanted.

If I go to the market, it's because I want to see the products. If I open the app, it's because I want to see the offerings. If I come to HN, it's because I want to see submissions and comments.

In these cases, it's not advertising, it's the exact information I requested. It becomes advertising if they pay money to shove the products into my face while I'm trying to read a programming blog.

> not logical but it works. and that's what runs the world - whether you like it or not. see the world as it is.

Yeah, well the world sucks, the world is wrong and I'll fight it. I couldn't care less how much money they lose. My mind is sacred, and I don't have memory to waste on brands, slogans and jingles.

There is absolutely nothing stopping people from literally banning advertising. It's a very simple policy decision. People just have to develop the audacity to demand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/clean-city-law-secret...

[dzonga]

so when you come to HN - and there's a story on the 1st Page about a YC company hiring - that you can't comment on - but just click.

to you is that an AD ?

for all contexts and purposes it's an ad. is it intrusive ? no. that's just a native ad. are you gonna zap it ? most times - just leaving it there makes sense than going through the effort of using the ublock origin picker.

[matheusmoreira]

To me it's just a submission. No different than a Show HN.

Marketing people seem to think that everything you do that advances your interests is advertising. Maintaining a good appearance is advertising, because you're "selling yourself". I don't subscribe to that definition.

[WarmWash]

>You don't consent to it, you don't want it.

By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. That is the product being sold. If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content. It's very simple and plainly understandable.

People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want, kills the demand to create a product they do want.

So rather than a paywalled news org that has no ads on the other side of the wall, we have ublock origin and archive.is

[matheusmoreira]

> By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads.

I agree to absolutely nothing, least of all "inherently". Following a link to a website gives exactly no one the right to assault me with advertising. If they try, I will defend myself with every single technology at my disposal.

> That is the product being sold.

Not a single thing is being sold here. Browsers make requests, servers can decide whether to reply or not. They're the ones who send web pages to anyone who asks for free.

They do so under the assumption that we'll look at the ads they bundled with the pages. We're under exactly zero obligation to validate that assumption.

If they want money, they should charge people directly. If they send us ads, we'll delete them.

> If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content.

I'm under no obligation to "not load" anything whatsoever. Browsers make requests, that's how the web works. If they reply with free web pages, I'm only too happy to consume them. If they don't like it, they're free to return HTTP 402 Payment Required.

> It's very simple and plainly understandable.

Apparently not, since you believe they are "selling" web pages. They're making a bet that giving us free web pages loaded with ads will pay off. They're not entitled to win that bet.

> People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want

As is our god given right. Nothing "backdoor" about it either.

If someone hands me a magazine for free, I'm not obligated to look at the ads to "pay them back" or anything of the sort. In fact I can just rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash, where they belong, and then fully enjoy my free gift.

[WarmWash]

Ok, I follow.

Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands?

Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional.

So I can quickly evaluate that I should leave money for the produce I take, but I optionally can leave money for the articles I read. Or perhaps roadside stands are fair game for "they could put a lock and on door and a phone to the house if they want compensation for their goods"?

[matheusmoreira]

> Now why doesn't that logic apply to roadside farm stands?

Because they are completely different categories of business. Stands don't give out free products to anyone who asks. Unlike web servers, they are actually selling stuff. You don't get products unless you pay for them. There is no "I'll give everyone free stuff then hope it comes back to me" deal.

> Really I'd just like a general rule that we can apply to any [value transaction] to determine when compensation for that value is optional.

If they give you the product for free, then compensation is optional. If they charge you money before giving you the product, then compensation is not optional.

[WarmWash]

..but they are not giving the product for free, they are putting ads on it. You're the one deciding to ignore the money basket because no one stops you from taking the product for free.