Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

michaelt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Blocking transparent ads is not a good idea. The consequence is that you will be fed opaque ads.

Doesn't history show us you just get both?

You pay to get into the movies, then they show you adverts before the film, then the film includes paid product placement of cars, computers, phones, food, etc.

You watch youtube ads, to see a video containing a sponsored ad read, where a guy is woodworking using branded tools he was given for free.

You search on Google for reviews and see search ads, on your way to a review article surrounded by ads, and the review is full of affiliate links.

	▲	otabdeveloper4 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Doesn't history show us you just get both? No. "Opaque ads" are usually heavily regulated out of existence by government legislation.

▲

saghm 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't buy this premise. Nothing stops a company from trying to hide ads in the first place, and plenty of them do. Ad blockers for web content have been a thing for years, and using an ad blocker has continued to be strictly a better experience regardless of how many "organic" ads are present on a page.

▲

TZubiri 5 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomhow 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You've been asked before to make your points without swipes. Please make the effort to observe the guidelines; the only reason this is a place people want to discuss things is that we have them and others make the effort to observe them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're assuming 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

Even if they have 2, they can still make even more money by also including 3, so almost certainly will do so.

▲

lelandbatey 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free."

People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side.

Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.

▲

encom 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	tomhow 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. It just makes things worse.

▲

estimator7292 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What possible reason could they have to not always run both? It would make zero sense to leave that money on the table

▲

TZubiri 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's simpler to do one thing than to do two. You make a choice and you do that.

Could they be doing opaque ads right now and we wouldn't know? It's possible, that will probably eventually come to light and it might have legal consequences, but sure it's possible.

But it's not a given, and your logic of "it would make zero sense to leave money on the table" is certainly not a QED, it's absolute reductionism.

	▲	Timon3 34 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's even simpler to do zero things than to do one thing, so we should expect them not to introduce any ads, right? "Simplicity" isn't a relevant factor.
	▲	duskdozer 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It sounds rational then to block as many non-opaque ads as possible, because that isn't their preferred choice.