You're saying "they'd have competitors" as if it is some kind of a downside. It's good thing if Google had competitors, it is also a good thing if the competitors had Google. Honest competition keeps participants honest and agile. Of course, honest competition is hard to achieve in a place where the most important proficiency required to achieve success in a business is proficiency in navigating a byzantine network of regulations, permits and requirements, and that, instead of delivering stellar service, becomes a core competency of a successful business.
As for Google monitoring web usage, you're saying it like it's unique for Google. All advertisers to that, and ISP is not the best place to do it anyway (content-side is more efficient and not confused by things like HTTPS/SSL/VPN). Moreover, targeting ads is by far not the most evil thing one might do - in fact, if the ads were as well-targeted as it has been rumored for decades now, I'd not have to install adblocker first thing I do on the new computer. Right now I have to because the ads shown to me are so annoying and irrelevant. I'd like to discuss our all-knowing perfectly-targeting advertising overlords, but we'd have to get some first. So far they are nowhere to be found, and in the meantime our internet connection sucks and costs an arm and a leg. Is it worth having sucky internet access so Google couldn't nefariously target their ads for me? Not for me.
I find it odd how vocal and numerous the ad blocker users are on HN. You "have to" install it because the ad are so annoying? How have you coped with TV advertising, or magazine advertising?
Simple - I don't watch scheduled TV (I either record it or watch it online via Hulu/Netflix/etc.) and magazine ads don't bother me because I can simply leaf through them. And, also, I don't read magazines that have too many random ads. Those that I do read either have relevant ads or have them nicely segregated so they don't bother me. I never saw a magazine that has an ad with auto-play video, high-frequency animations, auto-play sound or is placed in a way that makes other content unaccessible until I spend several minutes on it.
I don't know what I would do if I didn't have the modern options. Switch to DVD/reading books probably - that's what I did before I had DVR and online streaming.
I know that many sites rely on ads for their income stream. I do not feel an obligation to sacrifice my psychological well-being in order to make that model succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be doing just fine without me.
Comments
You're saying "they'd have competitors" as if it is some kind of a downside. It's good thing if Google had competitors, it is also a good thing if the competitors had Google. Honest competition keeps participants honest and agile. Of course, honest competition is hard to achieve in a place where the most important proficiency required to achieve success in a business is proficiency in navigating a byzantine network of regulations, permits and requirements, and that, instead of delivering stellar service, becomes a core competency of a successful business.
As for Google monitoring web usage, you're saying it like it's unique for Google. All advertisers to that, and ISP is not the best place to do it anyway (content-side is more efficient and not confused by things like HTTPS/SSL/VPN). Moreover, targeting ads is by far not the most evil thing one might do - in fact, if the ads were as well-targeted as it has been rumored for decades now, I'd not have to install adblocker first thing I do on the new computer. Right now I have to because the ads shown to me are so annoying and irrelevant. I'd like to discuss our all-knowing perfectly-targeting advertising overlords, but we'd have to get some first. So far they are nowhere to be found, and in the meantime our internet connection sucks and costs an arm and a leg. Is it worth having sucky internet access so Google couldn't nefariously target their ads for me? Not for me.
Well, it is to Google.
No, but in Seattle you have other options: live somewhere where you can get good internet access from someone who isn't Google. That's what I do.
I find it odd how vocal and numerous the ad blocker users are on HN. You "have to" install it because the ad are so annoying? How have you coped with TV advertising, or magazine advertising?
Simple - I don't watch scheduled TV (I either record it or watch it online via Hulu/Netflix/etc.) and magazine ads don't bother me because I can simply leaf through them. And, also, I don't read magazines that have too many random ads. Those that I do read either have relevant ads or have them nicely segregated so they don't bother me. I never saw a magazine that has an ad with auto-play video, high-frequency animations, auto-play sound or is placed in a way that makes other content unaccessible until I spend several minutes on it.
I don't know what I would do if I didn't have the modern options. Switch to DVD/reading books probably - that's what I did before I had DVR and online streaming.
I know that many sites rely on ads for their income stream. I do not feel an obligation to sacrifice my psychological well-being in order to make that model succeed. Fortunately, they seem to be doing just fine without me.
If you don't watch TV or read magazines and block online ads, you will start to find ads annoying as well. I can't stand TV.