Hacker News Reader

So Google, Facebook, and Reddit might not exist, so what? Other services and models will take their place. It reminds me of this Jack Black clip on piracy[1] where he essentially claims if artists can't make loads of cash, there will be no more art.

This argument is simply a scare tactic employed by monopolies of every kind. "Too Big to Fail" banks say the economy won't exist without them. The MPAA claims art won't exist without them. Advertisers say internet content won't exist without them.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA

> Other services and models will take their place.

You're missing the point. You fail to grasp the scope and size of the reach that ads have on the internet. I saw what the internet was like before the masses arrived, I was here online back in 1995 and while the lack of ads was nice, "the internet" was a ghost town. Those sites wouldn't, couldn't exist without ads. Hell, google isn't a search engine, it's first and foremost an ad company. That's where 95% of their revenue comes from! Their search feature is just a vehicle to display ads. Literally.

> This argument is simply a scare tactic employed by monopolies of every kind.

Except it's not a scare tactic and it's not an argument, it's a fact. Even if it it was both, it doesn't make it any less true. Advertisements actually do spur innovation and there's tons of data and studies to back it up:

PDF warning: www.voez.at/download.php?id=1152

> Lots of people say that if we all start blocking ads, then lots of content will go away. I'm perfectly fine with that

I don't think people (hackernews users) really have thought about how much innovation on the internet is directly and indirectly related to ads

Both excellent arguments.

"Innovation" that harms society (such as anything dependent on advertising) isn't actually innovation we want. I'm very aware of all the supposed "innovation" that is largely greed cargo culting other successful businesses, or simply a scam.

I'm perfectly fine with all of this pathological "innovation" finally going away.

Please explain how advertising "harm"s society?

In my experience, well targeted advertising is highly beneficial in connecting you with products you may want. I have bought a handful of things I never would have known about from Facebook ads. Good advertising isn't intrusive and isn't harmful, it's genuinely wonderful.

I'm not going to say advertising harms society in and of itself but too much of anything is harmful. Unchecked, advertising serves to create an insatiable consumerism where enough is never enough and a general feeling of discontent in the target audience.

Wouldn't you have found these products by research, from people sharing the same interests, or through independant reports?

Every product I saw through an ad that looked remotely useful was either unactionable, critically flawed, overpriced or sub-par compared to the rival products.

For the harm to society, my go to example would be ad reads on podcasts. There will be products that the hosts of the shows have been personally using for a long time and happens to sponsor the show. Naturally the ad read will be overall positive, but if you followed the host for a while on other shows, it becomes clear that they are more or less stuck with the product for now but are looking for alternatives because of some critical shortcomming. It also means that any discussion surrounding the sponsor's field (other rival products, or problems occuring peripherically to the product) won't be happening.

Overall the more relevant the ad becomes, the more perverse effects it generates.

> Please explain how advertising "harm"s society?

While I feel of often does, that's not the claim I made which was about the harm from when you are dependent on advertising.

If your product is only profitable as a vehicle for advertisements, there is a conflict of interest between your goals with the product and advertisers goals. As we have seen in many cases over the last half-century, eventually the interests of the advertiser take over. The slide of TV shows from having only a few commercials between shows to the current idiocy of literally having more commercial than show on some channels is an obvious example of this trend.

> In my experience

I suspect you're engaging in selection bias. Most people don't even notice costs associated with advertising, because they already have high tolerance. Try isolating yourself away from any advertising for about two months; I doubt you will look upono advertising so favorably after that.

"Google wouldn't exist without ads, etc etc... Sure those sites exist now, and you take ads away, they're already entrenched, but what about the future google or reddit or facebook?"

Allow me to point out that you have just posted this comment on the future reddit.

Or some facsimile thereof.

> Allow me to point out that you have just posted this comment on the future reddit.

Hah, this place is not the future reddit. Not remotely close. This place has been around just as long as reddit and has never tried to be reddit. In fact, they work towards trying hard not to be reddit. This place is the old reddit. This is actually a lot like how reddit circa 2007 was. Reddit evolved, HN did not. Reddit and hackernews serve different purposes. HN isn't trying to grow larger like reddit was. Reddit became about community building while HN is trying to remain a tech oriented link aggregator.

> A lot of innovation has been spurred from people's passions and their hobbies, but much more innovation has taken place as a result of people trying to make a quick easy buck.

I'm not sure I believe that, but I do believe a lot more pointless/useless/malicious garbage has been produced by people trying to make a quick easy buck than people motivated by their passion or hobby.

> Everything from your favorite news website to your favorite android app wouldn't exist (or likely wouldn't exist) if not for ads.

If making money from ads is the primary motivation for a site or app, then it shouldn't exist.

If they need to make money to survive they should charge people directly and honestly, rather than cynically whoring eyeballs to the highest bidder; if it's something genuinely worth paying for, people will pay.

> If making money from ads is the primary motivation for a site or app, then it shouldn't exist.

So you're saying anyone designing a website or an android app needs to be creating their wares purely altruistically? And if not, their products shouldn't exist? Because that's essentially what you're saying.

Sure, some people create content or products because they are passionate about that particular thing. But those people are a tiny minority. Most people make things and create content for a paycheck.

Seeing it as anything else is a bit naive and idealistic. It's far removed from the reality in which we live.