Hacker News Reader

Comment by WarmWash | Hacker News Reader

>Maybe take a moment to consider why people are choosing to use adblockers in the first place.

So they can get content without compensating for it.

I've been on this train since the beginning. I was there when ad-block-plus read the writing on the wall 15 years ago and decided to make a truce with advertisers. It was clearly unsustainable for 50% of web users to be effectively parasites, so maybe we can negotiate on acceptable ad practices. But to the users, a truce with advertisers!?!? Ublock Origin was born days later.

View on HN

Users do not compensate websites for serving ads. Your argument just doesn't make any sense.

Also - negotiating 'a truce with advertisers'? What does that even mean? Granting the ads industry even more power and control over the internet?

Can you come up with an idea that isn't a dystopian hellhole on its face?

>Users do not compensate websites for serving ads.

Are you confused or being sarcastic?

I'll admit the system is one step larger than a typical transaction, which could be hard to understand for some, but the views -> ads -> dollars pipeline is the still straightforward to understand. Maybe not. I don't know when things get too complicated here.

I think a lot of us object to the opacity and scale of it all.

These aren’t simply commercials running like OTA tv in the days of old. They are basically fracking our data and then selling it to other people without any oversight or ability to stop it. You are basically under assault from the moment you walk through the metaphorical door. Why does a host need my device info, my demographics, every app I’m on, my router info, all this incredibly personal and granular data just so I can watch a damn video? They just start probing and sucking up every bit of information they can get their hands on and they put a lot of effort into making sure I don’t know it’s happening or where it’s going. I will never forget the first time I fired up little snitch mini on my Mac years ago and watched all those little lines light up like the Fourth of July.

They are the parasites when you get down to it. If the transaction was clearer and we had the ability to get out of it ultimately I think people would be a lot more willing to deal with ads. But again, it’s not simply ads. This is sophisticated network data mining and reselling that vastly outstrips the value we are getting out of visiting a friggin news site or whatever, and it happens basically every single time you travel to a URL. It’s absolutely relentless, and it certainly doesn’t benefit creators 99.99% of the time.

TL;DR: framing this as people simply not wanting to watch ads is not fair at all.

No, my actual framing is that people don't want to pay for what they use, and ad-block created this generational illusion that you can have things of value made by others for free, and it's a good thing.

The system would topple rapidly if people went back to paying directly.

But there is a huge caveat. The ad internet created a classless egalitarian internet where everyone can pay with attention, rather than money. Almost everyone has equal attention, not everyone has equal money. This is taken for granted, but it's very real.

A payment based internet, devoid of ads and tracking, would be back to the rich people having all the coolest services.

But nowhere in any scenario is "free riders counting on suckers to cover their costs".

I don’t know why you’re reducing our options to so few. There are so many ways for people to make a living creating beyond advertising. It’s not even a capitalism thing, this is such a narrow American mindset, especially the idea that everyone objecting to the current state of “advertising” (data fracking and selling) is just entitled.

Also a lot of people are very happy creating things without consistent/“making a living” (or any!) compensation, but they are often exploited by large corporations that want a free ride - or worse, use them as a building block and then find ways to wall them out as they take advantage of people who would otherwise use their tool. See: the FOSS community. Where would we be without VLC?

An example I always use is the Indie rock boom in Canada in the 2000’s, which bled into the US in a very concrete way . A lot of that was actually possible because of the Canadian government funding the arts.

Do you understand the difference between a user compensating someone directly vs an ad agency or platform doing so?

Or do you think users actually think 'i don't want this creator to be compensated so I'll use an ad blocker'?

Let me know which part is so confusing/complicated for you.

>Do you understand the difference between a user compensating someone directly vs an ad agency or platform doing so?

No, I don't. From a business perspective its all the same revenue line item. However it does determine who I am working for.

>Or do you think users actually think 'i don't want this creator to be compensated so I'll use an ad blocker'?

I don't think they are thinking at all, besides "Wow this is cool I can bypass ads!". But I can tell you, from the creator side, it's a massive problem. 30-40% of your customers have this idea that your time has no value (and ~99% if you go the donation route, 90-95% if you paywall)

Also keep in mind, any creator can give away their work for free, but they don't. I don't think it's controversial at all to say that's intentional.

When you upload your content to the internet to be freely viewable/downloadable by anyone - you are giving it away for free. Also realistically small artists/creators (which are the vast majority) are not making any real money from ads - it's the platforms and advertisers who are actually making most of the money and promoting the anti-ad blocker propaganda, as I'm sure you're aware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com