Hacker News Reader

Comment by chopin | Hacker News Reader

Serve un-obstrusive first party ads. I have no problem with that. Otherwise, go and die.

I'm okay with ads in newspapers because they are static and I can gloss over them. Ads on websites on the other hand often make the site much much slower to load and are animated. Few months ago I browsed the web without an adblocker. I visited a website that had a large ad on the right side that switched between high-contrast colors at irregular intervals so that it annoyed me even at peripheral vision. The goal is probably to draw attention to the ad which in fact worked. But I couldn't focus on the text. This made me enable the ad blocker again. If ads are static webp images or non-animated svg and without third-party tracking, I have no problem. But for me as a visitor, the current state is horrible.

Some YouTube channels already embed advertising straight into their videos. That's nontracking, nonpersonalized content I can live with.

If I can't block normal YouTube ads, I mute the sound and avert my eyes for the duration of the advert. I don't do that for embedded static advertising.

They are absolutely using tracking - the unique views counter in the analytics dashboard shows as much.

Many of these sponsored ads ask for access to the YT analytics data for these channels, without which they wouldn't even consider a sponsorship. Add to the fact they all use a tracking link.. etc.. So yes, they're not personalised, but that doesn't mean you're not being tracked.

Good point, but that's still a far cry from a tracking ad I feel. It can't be personalized to me, and my data isn't auctioned at the point of display. It's after-the-fact analytics, which sounds a lot more benign.

After the fact analytics cannot function without fingerprinting or user/client identification of some method. YouTube Analytics does everything people complain Google Analytics does and more.

So only the websites that are big enough to make deals with specific advertisers are allowed to make money on the internet?

Did local newspapers have a problem "making deals with specific advertisers"? I mean, if that's the business you're in, better get on it, right?

So you're only allowed to sell stuff nationwide if you're big enough? Oh wait, there's EBay... I am sure solutions for this will spring up if need be. There's money involved, after all.

Edit to add: These solutions will not be as convenient as the current state of affairs, I contest that.

"Oh wait"

Nobody needs to wait on the internet - you can just go right ahead and type!

"there's EBay..."

You're saying that for a business to be successful on the internet they need to get their money from buying and selling goods on eBay instead of running adverts? Or that they'll sell adverts on eBay? I'm puzzled.

No, I tried to give an analogous example. Selling goods <-> providing "free" content. I am old enough to remember a time without internet where any business had a really tough time to sell nationwide. Big players had a huge advantage. With Amazon Marketplace or EBay that's much easier now. therefore I am pretty sure when targeted advertizing gets more scrutiny that alternatives will pop up. Heck, even Google might then provide such a service if their current business model is at risk.

??????? The Google advert marketplace already exists.

Sure. Why not. Small sites can find another business model if they fail at being able to make deals with advertisers.

If ads are the only way to "make money on the internet" then we've created a monster whose only sustenance is advertising and it is its time to lay down and rest eternally.

If that means a third of the internet no longer exists... even sites I have at one time enjoyed, then so be it.

I highly doubt that smaller ones are able to sustain themselves using ads. I'd put the number in thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com