🥊 The sad state of internet advertising. 🍰

[Isaac]

Do advertisers really like being used like a boxing glove to boink all of us that refuse to pay for yet ANOTHER web service that's hosting their ad? Hosting? I mean punishing users with their ads. I have a limit to how many things I'm willing to pay for that I'll only use once in a while, so when I see an ad aggressively getting in my face, bypassing ublock origin via some hard-coded element in the html, I think "how the ★■◆● am I supposed to be happy to see your product when they're showing it to me like this??"

I have a solution....

... one you may even like.... and Krom, we might even try this new idea on the dbb...

I give you the ad gauntlet page: imagine a page dedicated to ads, so users who want to support the site can opt into going to this page and looking at the beautiful gallery of ads. This means the user would need to disable their ad blocker to enjoy the ad gauntlet. And the user is not punished by looking at the ads! No! In fact the user would be there FOR the ads to see what they say. Oh yes! Finally, the ads are not a boxing glove, but, for once, the cream cake.

[Tunnelcat]

They'd have to make that page enticing enough to attract clicks. But unless it's targeted to your interests, I'll bet a lot of people bypass it or keep their ad blockers on. And the only way advertisers know your tastes is through tracking, and most knowledgeable net surfers know how to block trackers. I'll admit I skip forward through commercials on my cable DVR. But sometimes, a single frame of something that interests me will pop up, so I'll stop and back up to see what it is. Something like that is needed. Not obtrusive, yet it catches your eye.

[Isaac]

They'd have to make that page enticing enough to attract clicks.

Not for the ad gauntlet/gallery. Imagine the top right of the page has a "Support us" and when you click you have two choices, to donate cash or to click on he ad gauntlet/gallery. So the user is doing it to support the page. There's no other motivation needed. And this means the user, because they're going out of their way participate in view the ads, they'll know on their own to disable their ad blocker.

You won't have to trick them into disabling their ad blocker. You don't have to push them to this ad gallery page. This page breaks the idea of pushing ads in people's faces.

The people that don't want to support the page at all just don't have to click "Support us". There would be nothing punishing those users. The users that want to support the page without paying cash, will have an option by just loading that page. But again, nothing is forcing the user to do this. They have to click "support us" then decide they want to click "Ad gallery". It's completely up to them.

[Jeff250]

I guess the question is, if you were trying to advertise your product, how much would you pay a Website to put your ad in their ad gauntlet?

[Isaac]

I guess the question is, if you were trying to advertise your product, how much would you pay a Website to put your ad in their ad gauntlet?

Most ad services like ad-sense require the ads be on every page. You could get your google ad-sense account suspended by running ads in a way they don't expect. So getting ads on an ad gauntlet would need to be from a provider that doesn't care about how many ads you load and if you only show them on one page with no user content.

That's the main difference: most ad providers care deeply about what's shown next to their content. Other ads next to their ads might be a deal breaker and a violation of the agreement between you and the ad host.

And so I'd expect the ad revenue to be low per clicks, but the difference might be people viewing the ads that normally would have their ad blockers on. So we have no idea what the actual revenue would be. Probably not great, but not nothing either.

[Tunnelcat]

The new great problem. How to monetize the internet that was formerly a freedom wild nerd ideal. They're still flailing at it. Looking at cable TV is a great example. We pay through the nose for cable, but still get hosed with advertising. I'm guessing out of an hour of any programing on any network, 40% is the show and 60% are the ads. We've long since surpassed the 50/50 point. On the national news, 95% of the ads are big pharma drug ads, ad nauseam. On the old fart's secondary over-the-air TV shows, 90% are either Medicare Advantage ads, health care ads, Consumer Cellar ads or Life Insurance ads.

[Isaac]

The new great problem. How to monetize the internet that was formerly a freedom wild nerd ideal. They're still flailing at it. Looking at cable TV is a great example. We pay through the nose for cable, but still get hosed with advertising. I'm guessing out of an hour of any programing on any network, 40% is the show and 60% are the ads. We've long since surpassed the 50/50 point. On the national news, 95% of the ads are big pharma drug ads, ad nauseam. On the old fart's secondary over-the-air TV shows, 90% are either Medicare Advantage ads, health care ads, Consumer Cellar ads or Life Insurance ads.

Web streaming services are about to do something similar. Even though you're paying the monthly fee streaming services like Hulu and Netflix want to start running ads in their content.

[Tunnelcat]

When is too much monetization outright greed? How much of the ad revenue we sit through pays for the content we watch? YouTube has an ad free subscription for around $10 a month, or about $100 a year. They don't produce most the content, users typically do, and most are regular people just posting stuff on that website for others to watch. Just to operate YouTube requires employees and power to run the servers, thus the ad revenue. The ads look pretty damn good in exchange for the access to regular user's content, so I'm not griping. But now I'm seeing professionally produced content on YouTube which definitely requires a new influx of money to produce and host. Personally, I prefer the user content over professionally produced content, but that's just me. However, the ad blitz will get worse as professional content arises.

Most of these internet companies are becoming giant media conglomerates. YouTube is no exception. The few cable companies around the country are most people's sole access to the internet and they've now become media empires producing content and worse, prefer you watch their content and not someone else's, which feeds the demand for corporate control over what you watch and profit. Comcast owns NBC. Disney owns ABC and so on. Their corporate policies affect the content they produce too. ABC had become Disneyfied. Their news is dumbed down and curated and cleansed of harsh content and it's all supported by big pharma money that's too expensive for most middle class people to afford. Control and supplicate the masses, hook them like fish and make them pay dearly to watch what you offer, whether through ads, subscriptions or both.

The race is on for more and more eyes to feed their money machines with fewer and fewer companies to choose from for us users and viewers. Meanwhile, Comcast sits on their already built and albeit aging infrastructure, while most new fiber broadband companies are having to build out their own new infrastructure mile by mile. In my suburban neighborhood, that means underground utility construction. Nothing is overhead. I'm not holding my breath for when they'll get around to installing fiber while Comcast bleeds people dry with their crappy service.

[Isaac]

When is too much monetization...

NEVER! There's no such thing.

They don't produce most the content, users typically do, and most are regular people just posting stuff on that website for others to watch.

Don't forget about all the copyright-protected content uploaded daily that requires the owners to claim it.... otherwise, Google/YouTube earns money from it as if it were user-made. In fact, it's in their interest when a large YouTube channel steals content from smaller channels because the same video makes more money on the big channel. Twitch is even more guilty of this.

[Tunnelcat]

The wild, west of the internet. The government hasn't caught up with making new rules and laws to regulate things and so much intellectual theft goes on that corporations and companies can't keep up with it. Of course, A.I. will make that problem nearly unsolvable. I'm sure most of them have full time content stealing sniffer employees now just to search the interwebs for thieves and pirates. But it's like swatting flies. Kill one and hundreds more show up.

I don't mind the ads if they're not intrusive or obnoxious or worse, contain malware. Something that sits to the side of the page in the periphery of my vision with a tempting image sometimes will catch my eye and I'll look or click on it. What I hate are loud, BIG, obnoxious ads that take over your whole screen and piss you off to no end for at least a minute with something you don't want. They're as bad as a door to door salesman who keeps knocking on your door and won't go away until you threaten to sick your dog on them. There are ads like that on YouTube. Worse, they repeat whenever I open another video, pissing me off even more. VRBO is the most recent one YouTube constantly stick in front of some video I want to watch, over and over. Not every video, but enough to be irritating. The game Evony, The King's Return is another, although I have to admit that I actually watch the game play for a bit, but I'm a gamer. A targeted ad, although I won't buy the game that's probably the king of micro transactions just to get past the first free levels. I think ad plastering is a turn off and has the opposite effect, making people avoid your products like the plague instead of purchase them.

[Isaac]

I think ad plastering is a turn off and has the opposite effect, making people avoid your products like the plague instead of purchase them.

Exactly my point and why I think the ad gallery solution is a better alternative. It still needs to be experimented with, though. We have no way of knowing if it will work or not without actually trying it.

[Tunnelcat]

What about free email hosting like Gmail? I don't see ads in their interface. How long before Google wants, or needs to, monetize that service? I'm sure I'll hit their storage limits and have to pay for more eventually.

[Isaac]

I've always assumed gmail makes money because it's the hub for your google account. It's the identifier that makes everything else work. It doesn't make money directly.

However, I also assume they're responsible for half the spam my gmail account gets...

[Tunnelcat]

I get very little spam. Most entities I do business with honor the unsubscribe request if they overdo emails. The only thing I get is a pesky car dealer's spam. I got sick of them sending me nags about buying one of their new cars, so I labeled them as spam out of frustration to shut them up. Jerks.

[Isaac]

I got my gmail account in my early 20s and used it for all kinds of applications, both web and in-person...

Go apply to 30 random jobs, most of which will force you to apply on their company's site, and watch how your spam will go from a trickle to a firehose.

[Tunnelcat]

I got mine in the early 20's as well, but since I'm a retired old lady, no job searching, fortunately.

Say, you're talking about advertising, how about what's going on in gaming? I think the first iteration of implementing ads were within the game itself years ago. Something like billboards on streets or even little ad brochures sitting on tables or desks. I think I started seeing that in an Ubisoft Splinter Cell game or even Grand Theft Auto games. However, I don't think that addition was enough revenue for developers. Now we're seeing micro transactions for additional game content or worse, forced purchases to actually advance levels, buff up your gaming character or even complete the game. Mobile games are the worst at doing this right now and they've become a drug fix to dedicated users. I don't fault them for wanting more monetary compensation since games are constantly being patched and updated with bug fixes and new content all the time. That's actual compensation for work. But I think forcing you to buy an extra item, weapon or level just to complete the game is insane. Making it a requirement to even have a chance in hell of winning, is going too far. I still don't mind purchasing the initial game at a reasonable cost, but I'd like to be able to finish it without throwing more money at it. If they offer more levels and equipment beyond the initial game, let me make the choice whether to purchase it or not, not as a a requirement. Often times, I will purchase anyway if I'm sufficiently addicted to a game.

Another thing I'm seeing is the dreaded monthly subscription service. Ubisoft is dipping their toes into that water with the testing of their new client, Ubisoft Connect, and I wonder how long before Steam, Epic or others jump on the bandwagon? Let the nickle and dime bleeding of the customer begin. Microsoft is already doing that for Office 365, so how long before the OS is treated that way? I'm guessing it's not very far off and I'll be gaming offline on my older games.

[Isaac]

I got mine in the early 20's as well, but since I'm a retired old lady, no job searching, fortunately.

I meant I was like 23 years years old. You mean you got yours in 2020??? I'm so confused.

...how about what's going on in gaming? ...

This is such a massive topic, it might even deserve its own thread, but I'll say this: I don't understand people that pay for loot boxes... Whatever part of their brain that makes that sound like "fun" is missing from mine. Though I used to be super against this, I'm actually pretty happy with this relationship that it gives users and developers, which is "The game is free and you can pay to gamble for skins". This is an awesome deal for me, because I'm too pessimistic to ever gamble.

[Tunnelcat]

I had to go look at my old password card for the creation date of my Google account. 2006. When I said early 20's, I meant early 2000's, so 2006. I had a Yahoo mail account earlier than that. My how time flies when we're having so much fun.

[Isaac]

I had to go look at my old password card for the creation date of my Google account. 2006. When I said early 20's, I meant early 2000's, so 2006. I had a Yahoo mail account earlier than that. My how time flies when we're having so much fun.

So many years for these corporations to mine our data. Seriously, google has so much data it can train off of that's technically theirs.

Also, back on topic, I think I'm going to try to use my ad gauntlet on my own site and see if it works.

[Tunnelcat]

What's your ad gauntlet? Sounds like a visitor to your site piss off machine.

[Isaac]

What's your ad gauntlet? Sounds like a visitor to your site piss off machine.

Just in case you skipped this part of the OP:

I give you the ad gauntlet page: imagine a page dedicated to ads, so users who want to support the site can opt into going to this page and looking at the beautiful gallery of ads. This means the user would need to disable their ad blocker to enjoy the ad gauntlet. And the user is not punished by looking at the ads! No! In fact the user would be there FOR the ads to see what they say. Oh yes! Finally, the ads are not a boxing glove, but, for once, the cream cake.

[Tunnelcat]

I gather your site will already be geared towards certain users or clientele, so you'd already know what kind of targeted ads to place in your gallery? I like that idea.

[Isaac]

I gather your site will already be geared towards certain users or clientele, so you'd already know what kind of targeted ads to place in your gallery? I like that idea.

I have zero users, so it's going to take time even after I'm able to launch. I think the idea is similar to last few pages of magazines, which had many tiny ads. You didn't have to view the last pages, but if you wanted to, you'd see hundreds of ads selling all kinds of products and services.
example of those ads:

You weren't obligated to look, given these would be found in the last several pages of the magazine, so they weren't intrusive. I think the add gauntlet page would look similar to this, except in color.

[Tunnelcat]

Actually, I used to look through those back in the day, so it's a viable idea. I think J.C. Whitney used to place ads in there, along with those ripoff Sea Monkey pet ads. Ha, ha, brine shrimp as pets, where you needed a magnifying glass to even see the little boogers.

[woodchip]

What about free email hosting like Gmail? I don't see ads in their interface. How long before Google wants, or needs to, monetize that service? I'm sure I'll hit their storage limits and have to pay for more eventually.

I just use the email by my internet provider. No ads ever.

[woodchip]

In the good ole days it was said that sex sells. Today I just use Amazon as they got just about everything you could want.

[Isaac]

In the good ole days it was said that sex sells. Today I just use Amazon as they got just about everything you could want.

A nsfw ad gauntlet would probably not do terrible.

[Tunnelcat]

What about free email hosting like Gmail? I don't see ads in their interface. How long before Google wants, or needs to, monetize that service? I'm sure I'll hit their storage limits and have to pay for more eventually.

I just use the email by my internet provider. No ads ever.

No ads in Gmail. Yahoo mail however....

[Nosferatu]

Anyone see the news that Youtube is testing server side ad injection?

I am not sure how I feel about this one. Yes it's more youtube attempting to push ads to people who are obviously not interested and even if they are forced to watch an ad, these people are much more likely to avoid the ad pushing company like the plague, instead of doing business with them.

On the other hand, with this idea, it is much harder if not impossible for ad pushing companies to sneak in (malware, trojens, data sniffers) which is why many people install ad blockers. (including me)

I don't mind ads if they don't come with that baggage.

I am also, wondering if youtube will be able to sell this to companies, since they wont be able to sneak in (malware, trojens, data sniffers) any more. (Boy would it be sweet if this new idea failed because no ad company wanted to use it )

[Ferno]

If you tube does that, the community will essentially create a TiVO extension to circumvent it.

[Isaac]

If you tube does that, the community will essentially create a TiVO extension to circumvent it.

After all my aggressive ad blocking, I fully expect to get a bill from Google for all the services I got that didn't get "paid" for when I blocked their ads.

Anyone see the news that Youtube is testing server side ad injection?

I always thought that's how their "video" ads worked. Or is this something else?

I am not sure how I feel about this one. Yes it's more youtube attempting to push ads to people who are obviously not interested and even if they are forced to watch an ad, these people are much more likely to avoid the ad pushing company like the plague, instead of doing business with them.

I'm already at that point. My breaking point broke in the late 90s. I just canceled my Youtube Premium, because I just am getting sucked dry from all of these subscription services. I'm done with those too.

There was a time I thought p2p Browsers were going to replace these media sites and have content that's no longer centralized, meaning you no longer needed "hosts", except for the community hosts. I realized p2p was ★■◆● for media and the Tor network barely functions.

On the other hand, with this idea, it is much harder if not impossible for ad pushing companies to sneak in (malware, trojens, data sniffers) which is why many people install ad blockers. (including me)

I don't mind ads if they don't come with that baggage.

Manifest V3 is supposed to push back against ad blockers.

I am also, wondering if youtube will be able to sell this to companies, since they wont be able to sneak in (malware, trojens, data sniffers) any more. (Boy would it be sweet if this new idea failed because no ad company wanted to use it )

What they normally do is try to get you to click on the ad with some kind of false advertising. Once you're on the site, the page runs the exploit and the payload. So the ads themselves don't need to have any danger.

[Nosferatu]

I always thought that's how their "video" ads worked. Or is this something else?

I think the current system is like a java script that just overlays the ad, which is why ublock origin can remove them.

The server side injection they want to use, sticks the ad in at the server which makes it tough to filter.

But if the announcements are correct, they are making a huge mistake.

Apparently when the ad hits, its going to stop the video timer. If that is the case, its not going to take long for Ferno's Tivo suggestion to happen.

[Jeff250]

What about free email hosting like Gmail? I don't see ads in their interface. How long before Google wants, or needs to, monetize that service? I'm sure I'll hit their storage limits and have to pay for more eventually.

I just use the email by my internet provider. No ads ever.

I think the ISP's angle in providing you a "free" email address these days is to get you locked in and reluctant to switch to a better-priced competitor, lest you change email addresses.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, it's working. No ads in Gmail and I'm now using the Androidverse for everything, even my phone. I put up with the ads in YouTube, although I have the option of a paid subscription to avoid that. Yahoo sprinkles ads within their email and I hate it. It almost looks like spam. So much so that I'm going to drop it.

[Isaac]

What about free email hosting like Gmail? I don't see ads in their interface. How long before Google wants, or needs to, monetize that service? I'm sure I'll hit their storage limits and have to pay for more eventually.

I just use the email by my internet provider. No ads ever.

I think the ISP's angle in providing you a "free" email address these days is to get you locked in and reluctant to switch to a better-priced competitor, lest you change email addresses.

I've been making all kinds of ML python apps and I'm confident I could make my own email service that uses my own models for identifying spam. I'm pretty confident that I could do it, so why can't google do it? My models are low memory and very fast and use reinforced learning. Why is google so bad at this with gmail?

[Jeff250]

Google has to deal with an adversarial threat model where the adversary is allowed to adapt their strategy in response to changes Google makes to theirs. Specifically, spammers are studying Google's methods and evolving their tactics to compensate for whatever improvements Google makes. Even if your ML code is effective now, if your filter became popular enough it likely wouldn't be for long.

[Isaac]

Google has to deal with an adversarial threat model where the adversary is allowed to adapt their strategy in response to changes Google makes to theirs. Specifically, spammers are studying Google's methods and evolving their tactics to compensate for whatever improvements Google makes. Even if your ML code is effective now, if your filter became popular enough it likely wouldn't be for long.

This is a good answer, but find it frustrating that the idiots that write this scam don't seem all that smart and get past the filters. Also, I'm willing to be that 80% of the spam comes from 20% of the spam servers. They know the IPs and where they trace to. That itself would easily be rolled into the tensor for training. What I'm saying is, I'm accusing them of not doing enough. One of the biggest companies in the world has no excuse.