undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBLKNSLVR7y ago0 comments

Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been.

The (bad actors within the) advertising industry are the enemy of people whose livelihoods depend on Internet advertising because they're the ones making ads either bandwidth-hogging, epilepsy-inducing, website-avoidingly annoying, privacy-invasive, or an actual virus/malware vector.

This is, directly, what has caused the popularity of ad blockers to skyrocket. Tech-savvy folks protecting their family from these dangers by installing ad-blocking software so they don't get regular family-tech-support calls about the various issues potentially arising from "bad" advertising.

Follow-up questions:

How many user ad clicks / views does it take for the revenue to be critical to one's livelihood?

Could you consider donations through any of the various options like Patreon?

0 pointsBLKNSLVR7y ago0 comments

Relying on Internet ads for their livelihood is a tenuous position to start with, and always has been.

Follow-up questions:

How many user ad clicks / views does it take for the revenue to be critical to one's livelihood?

Could you consider donations through any of the various options like Patreon?

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

kllrnohj7y ago· 3 in thread

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry.

Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website. The cost of the getting the web page's info was viewing the ads. Why should the browser help the user to commit virtual theft?

Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense. Lots of people make a living via web ads. Google makes billions on ads. It's a real source of real money. Alternatives could, and should!, be considered. But simply cutting off a revenue stream while arguing that the ability to cut off that revenue stream should be protected by regulators is weak at best.

giornogiovanna7y ago

> Chrome has a responsibility not just to the end user but also to the website.

Chrome is the user agent. It acts purely on behalf of the user. Browsers aren't trojans built to exploit my eyeballs. This "virtual theft" talk is as silly as claiming that spam filters should be illegal - your server sent me some markup, and I'm free to preprocess it in any way I want.

> Simply blanket dismissing ads as "tenuous position" is nonsense.

Not really. Advertising has always been about manipulating people into doing things they otherwise wouldn't do - if all ads were purely informative it'd hardly be a multibillion dollar industry.

BLKNSLVROP7y ago

Then you should aim regulators at the advertising industry

Yes, yes, yes, and more yes. That's the cause that needs treating. Apologies if I wasn't clear, that's definitely where I think the regulation should be looking towards.

WkndTriathlete7y ago

It's impossible to aim regulators at every single country on the planet.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse