The Devastating Effect of Ad-Blockers for Guru3D.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/the-devastating-effect-of-ad-blockers-for-guru3d-com.html <comment><USER3> I use uBlock Origin. I don't block ads - I block 3rd party requests. People that complain about ad blocking are indeed missing the mark. I'm fine with ads - really. But if you want them seen, you are going to have to serve them yourself. There is no going backwards - for reasons spelled out by others in this thread. So if your business depends on ads, then you are in the ad business. Web sites are going to have to become like magazines. When I look at a magazine, I don't see a page with the message "please go get this other publication and look at the ad on page 3". I see the ad - in the publication I am viewing. Really, stop wining and just create quality content and engage with advertisers and ad firms that will create quality ads FOR YOU that will be place IN YOUR web page. Nothing exists that I know of that can block such ads.

<comment><USER3> I just looked at the guru3d site. The content is the ad - there's no need to add more ads. You just need to monetize the "ads" you already have. You are promoting these products. Negotiate with the vendor or reseller directly to get your fair share.

<comment><USER4> That would have a deleterious effect on the editorial independence of their content, I imagine.

<comment><USER3> Yes it will. But if they are ad supported in the gaming hardware niche then they probably never had independence.

<comment><USER4> That probably depends on their ad model. For example, I would imagine that Google ads would not cause them to change their editorial model, while a referral-based network or a more niche banner network might exert some influence.

Further, whether they were truly independent to begin with is beside the question of whether it would make them less independent or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is so common for the many anti-adblock texts you see these days - <USER2> all avoid to talk about the major issues here. (I say that with the background that a significant part of my income comes from ad-financed news pages.)

That is:

* Security risk through ads (malvertising, ad networks not supporting https etc.).

* Ads killing performance (70% CPU for a flash ad is not uncommon).

* Privacy (Ad vendors having mostly stated that they won't accept user wishes through DNT or similar technologies).

Privacy is a tricky one, because data is in part where the income comes from. But the other two are fixable. I want to hear from everyone complaining about ad blockers what they intend to do to make ads less of a security risk and cpu cycle burner. That would be a good start of a proper conversation about the topic. Every text that ignores these issues is usually not worth recognizing.

<comment><USER6> Those are all valid reasons, but they are not the reason I first started to block ads:

• They impose a surprisingly huge cognitive load.

Even if you (like most people nowadays) are used to them and hence "do not notice them", that very habit of ignoring them actually takes more brain power than you'd think.

<comment><USER7> Not reading them is the same as blocking them. To gain moral high ground people who compare adblocking to theft are required to read every ad on every website they encounter. The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an illusion.

<comment><USER8> > The moral distinction between "I do not read ads" and "I block ads" is an > illusion.

Do not some ad networks pay content providers for "impressions", regardless of whether the ads are clicked? In that case, loading the ads without reading them is not the same as not loading them.

<comment><USER7> My prediction for the future: Ad blockers will load ads but not display them as more and more websites will block visitors who block them.

<comment><USER9> Right. We need a blocker that loads the ads and "sandboxes" them from the user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If your business model requires changes to reality, then your business model is probably dead. [If you have lobbying power, you can extend your business model for awhile, perhaps indefinitely ala content industry and copyright.]

In other words, adapt your business model to change or die.

It's not up to "reality", us, to change to support your business model. If there is demand for whatever you produce, someone will create a "business model" to supply it. If there is not enough demand to pay for any business model then so be it, we didn't actually need/want your product after all.

<comment><USER11> It's exactly this kind of attitude that is going to lead to paywalls for virtually every type of content on the Internet. And the people that use the most heavy-handed approaches with ad-blocking are going to be the same people that are screaming "NOT MY PROBLEM" while the ship goes down.

Their business model doesn't require changes to reality. Their business model requires the end-user to accept reality for what it is: you can't get a bunch of free stuff, ad infinitum, while simultaneously blocking the only feasible revenue model for said free stuff.

> It's not up to "reality", us, to change to support your business model.

Did you pat yourself on the back while you said that, or right after?

We are not reality. The reality is, ad-blocking will be the absolute death of currency-free content. This abuse of the word reality is truly odd to me.

You seem to think every choice we make as consumers is the current reality. What you call reality, I call a house of cards.

<comment><USER12> Most content is worthless. Content that has actual monetary value to someone, market research data for instance, has no trouble finding people willing to pay for it.

The fact is most "news" and other article type sites do not serve a purpose other than satisfying some idle curiosity or passing time. Very little of it has a material impact on anyone's day to day life. The purpose can easily be filled by some alternate, free material. When the content can be easily leveraged to some profitable goal, people are usually more than willing to pay for it.

<comment><USER13> > Most content is worthless.

Which is why ads are the only way to monetize it and be able to actually have it somewhere.

> The purpose can easily be filled by some alternate, free material.

Except nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. If it's not ad networks and if it's not donations (again, mostly because most content is worthless, and probably also because most people are greedy), who will pay for it?

> Very little of it has a material impact on anyone's day to day life.

How old are you? I'm 23, my youth was spent on the internet learning. I wasn't able to pay any content at the time. The website I was reading from were living out of ads, some of them made by minor, that were later able to make a decent living out of it. Yeah we have a bunch of website getting enough donations, but they need to be in the top 100 to actually survive from it.

When Youtube Red was announced, I was freaking happy (except about the fact that I'm Canadian and I won't be able to enjoy it), most arguments I've seen against ads was that there was no alternative... except now people are simply complaining that Youtube is simply being greedy and that they can already get that using adblock...

It's probably too late to make people realize that content isn't free, that offering it isn't free either. We are in a world where ads and huge investment gave us the opportunity to share and produce really cheaply and it seems like it's all free... you remove the ads, you remove any way to pay for that cheap but existing cost.

I still have a little hope on donations though, seeing the amount some live streamers are able to make on Twitch, seeing how Patreon is a way to make a living, seeing how some crowdfunding is able to produce some really decent content (Tabletop, Conman, Fallout Nuka Break and VGHS to name a few), etc... I hope it will grow and allow us to keep at least the same amount of content as before.

<comment><USER12> > Which is why ads are the only way to monetize it and be able to actually > have it somewhere.

Why do we need to have it somewhere if nobody wants it enough to pay for it?

> Except nothing is free. Someone has to pay for it. If it's not ad networks > and if it's not donations (again, mostly because most content is worthless, > and probably also because most people are greedy), who will pay for it?

People who want to disseminate information will pay to do so. Hacker News doesn't have ads. YCombinator is paying for it because it serves their purposes to have an online community for hackers.

People write and create other content for a variety of reasons. Usually the best content is not created to maximize the amount of money it makes.

<comment><USER11> > Why do we need to have it somewhere if nobody wants it enough to pay for it?

Yes, because search engines are basically elitist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I remember a time on the Internet before ads, when the only websites were made by geeks who were passionate about the topic. Then came the popup ads, followed by the popup blockers, banners never worked, then came contextual ads. Google made it quick and easy to profit from content and made content a commodity. Currently they are the #1 financier of web spam, and pay off ad- blockers to whitelist their ads.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Ad-supported media is not free, it's costs are simply externalised. While we, the tech-savvy, may not click ads, somebody is buying those payday loans, lose 30 lbs in a month with this weird trick, get-rich-quick scams.

I'm more than happy to see ad-financed (mostly low-quality) content go the way of the popup. I have no problem paying for quality content (Netflix, Hulu Plus, Audible, etc.). The few high quality ad-supported blogs will then be able to charge for their content, since there will be no decent alternatives. As long as ad-supported content exists though, it will be a race to the bottom.

<comment><USER15> What you are describing is a world where only big, well financed, or well known entities can survive. In order to keep the amazing internet we actually have, we need to come up with a model that can be used by small upstarts to either serve smaller markets or to give them time to figure things out and become large over time. Requiring people to publish things for free will only result in the most extreme of views. Look at any Wikipedia article that remotely touches a controversial topic - it will likely present a strongly biased message towards whatever side the maintainer of that article feels strongly about.

<comment><USER14> The world where only the big players can win is the one we live in now. It's difficult for a small player to be heard when Buzzfeed-type click-bate headlines dominate the landscape. Switch it around, who would pay for access to Buzzfeed? On the other hand, I would pay for an expert's opinion on a topic I'm passionate about. You only need 1,000 people paying $10 a month to make a good living. To get $120k from ads, you'll need a whole lot of visitors.

<comment><USER16> But Buzzfeed et all will survive, since their content is already ads itself (see "native advertising").

And $10/month is a tremendous amount. Follow 10 sites and you've spent 1/10 of the average wage in my European country, and more than 1/6 of the minimum wage. It'll only lead to a balkanization of the web, with good sites pricing for wealthy American and northern European visitors, and everyone else being left out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This reminds me of the copyright/piracy debate. The copyright industry was screaming about lost profits , but would not change it business models. Well, it turns out, all they had to do was change their business models to something people actually wanted. Now piracy rates are falling where appropriate services are available.

Patreon (and youtube community in general) have, together with projects like gog.com, humblebundle etc. proved that people actually WANT to pay for content even if they don't have to. But only in the way _they_ want to. Especially if that means they'll get more _reader_ centric content, not advertiser centric.

<comment><USER18> Do you have anything for me to read about falling piracy rates ? (e.g. gamasutra)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> From the site: _" We review the Voyager Air 2 from Corsair, this portable storage unit allows you to connect it to USB 3.0 and WIFI. It actually comes in a 1 TB HDD model as well, which we review. This great looking device might be what you're looking for to move or stream your content from and with the latest Corsair Smartphone it might just be what the doctor ordered."_

 _" One of the CPU cooler makers we do adore, Noctua today celebrated its 10-year anniversary. Since the introduction of the first generation NH-U12 heatsink in October 2005, Noctua's products have received more than 6000 awards and recommendations from leading international hardware websites and magazines, making them a default choice for quiet cooling enthusiasts all over the world."_

That's the _content_.

This is not someone who has a legitimate right to complain about ad blocking.

<comment><USER20> I'm sure you could find plenty of negative reviews on the site as well.

Just because someone says a product is great doesn't mean they are being paid to do so, or even that they received it for free. It could just be that the product is great for the use case they reviewed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Blocking" ads is loaded language, and should be recognized as such. Not viewing ads can be done in a multitude of ways, but it's not like users are patching software to get there.

The web was always built to be adaptable to the end user device. The user agent was intended to act as the decision maker how to render the markup. For many years, browsers even respected the default foreground and background colors and font choices (sadly not many respect X resources anymore). CSS was designed to include an end user defined style sheet to override tiny fonts and other things that made web pages hard to read.

Not viewing animated banners isn't at all different from changing your base font, or not loading javascript. Had we chosen to call it "disabling" instead of "blocking" it would have been much more clear that this is an action that the user is and should be empowered to take. I do recognize that we're stuck with the loaded word for now, I just feel it's important not to forget that. The public discourse is dominated by media people, and their perspective is important too, but not more so than the technical one.

<comment><USER22> You bring up a terrific point. The ads are simply not loaded. The user is accessing an external server, and it's up to them what to load.

<comment><USER23> Indeed, a user could likewise load only the HTML and ignore all images, scripts, CSS and suchlike. The user is in control, and that's how it should be. I am not obligated to view ads any more than I'm obligated to view any other part of a website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am amazed that their response to adblockers is more targetted ads. My main reason for using an adblocker isn't to block ads, which don't bother me that much. It is to block tracking accross websites. Telling me that they will do more tracking in response isn't really going to change my mind...

<comment><USER25> Sites need to consider going back to the pre-Double-Click world, where they self hosted and self managed ads.

I'd accept that without issue. I don't mind ads, I just can't accept the intrusive tracking, including being retargeted.

<comment><USER26> I don't think that's what will happen. Ad firms will come up with a server side API you plug into your website so ads can come through your site. You've just made the security problem worse not better as coming from the same site they are allowed to read everything that site does vs coming from iframes from different domains in which case they are allowed to read nothing.

<comment><USER24> No, the tracking becomes specific to the site visited (same origin policy), not cross-websites, and I don't have a problem with that.

Now there is also the debate of whether all sites deserve to be able to run javascript. I say no. But some people here think that even rendering a blog article should require a lot of client side scripting.

<comment><USER27> > No, the tracking becomes specific to the site visited (same origin policy), > not cross-websites, and I don't have a problem with that.

You're assuming the server-side scripts won't share data with a central server.

<comment><USER24> They might but how would they correlate me on abc.com and me on xyz.com if they don't have some form of cookie?

Browser fingerprinting is the only way I can think of, and between the phasing out of flash, java and silverlight, and having javascript disabled by default, browser fingerprinting is pretty much toothless.

<comment><USER28> If they're talking to a central ad server they can tell it what cookies they're seeing.

<comment><USER24> Yes but how do you correlate the two cookies?

I go on site abc.com, which gives me the cookie abc:111 Then I go on xyz.com which gives me the cookie xyz:222

Because of the same origin policy, xyz.com can't access the cookies set by abc.com. Abc and xyz can communicate as much as they want on the server side, they will not be able to tell that abc:111 and xyz:222 are the same user (absent additional information: browser fingerprinting, email address if you have an account on both, etc).

<comment><USER29> Just a thought - if the ad network uses js code (hosted on abc.com and xyz.com servers), which loads images from the same domain (but it loaded in on a server-to-server link, and cached and served from the the domain you're visiting). Can they not just set a tracking cookie for that domain that they control with a unique ID, tied to browser fingerprinting, which is transmitted to the ad network?

So you visit abc.com for the first time, get an ad image served from the same domain (but was provided from the ad network), have the cookie set, the ID is noted by the ad network.

You then visit xyz.com, a new cookie is generated, which can be tracked by the ad network as the ID is the same.

So you now get tailored/tracking adverts without any third party domains being accessed by your browser...

<comment><USER24> Do you mean: I visit abc.com, abc.com serves me an abc cookie, then I visit xyz.com, and xyz.com makes a call to abc from my browser, so that they can use the abc cookie to track me?

Well, that is effectively using abc as a tracking server, and abc.com would quickly be added to the adblockers lists. Effectively this is the current model.

The other thing is that I may visit abc.com and xyz.com but this particular combination may be unique to me, i.e. I may visit nytime.com and ford.com which may use the same ad network, but you may not visit nytime.com at all and instead wsj.com.

Browser fingerprinting is a different problem. It does defeat the same origin policy. But I suggest you look at the sources of entropy: [https://panopticlick.eff.org/](https://panopticlick.eff.org/) With javascript off, there is virtually no entropy, just your user agent and HTTP_ACCEPT header. You can't fingerprint a browser at all.

If you enable javascript but not plugins, then the Browser Pluggin details give you some entropy, although looking at the list those a relatively generic and would likely be the same on many machines.

If you enable plugins (flash, silverlight, java) then you have a massive amount of entropy but realistically all of these plugins are almost gone from major browsers.

<comment><USER29> That's not quite what I meant - the ad network provides abc.com with a js file, hosted on the abc.com servers. That js file creates an ID from browser fingerprinting, which is saved in a separate cookie, or an additional data point within whatever abc.com sets.

The ad cookie/ID is then sent from the abc.com server to the ad network (along with whatever data they need to determine what ads were seen/clicked), who collate all the data from wherever their js file is running, thusly allowing them to track you, without any requests from your browser being sent to any other domains other than the ones you directly visit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Are you sure that ad blockers are the only variable in play here?

"(October 2014) we had nearly 4.5 million hits (read) on our articles. This year (October 2015) we are at 4.4 million hits... Where a year ago we served 375~400K pageviews per day, we now register just over 200K pageviews a day."

Is _pageviews_ the actual metric, or is ads served the metric? Given the recent discoveries in how many "ad views" were actually _never presented_ to the reader and were just phony revenue ticks, could it not be that you are also "suffering" from an ongoing reduction in phony ad presentations as the trickery is discovered and addressed?

I block ads _primarily_ to limit tracking and bogus traffic, not to dodge advertising per se. I heartily endorse jfoutz's suggestions here. If you continue to serve quality content, it's the more sustainable business model long-term anyway.

Years before the modern ad-network paradigm, many media sites were subscription from the outset (e.g. WSJ, mercurynews). Some later went free, using ad networks to pay the way. Now, the trend is moving back to a subscription model. Those sites that do the punitive block-ads-and-we-block- you (e.g. washingtonpost) will find that people just go elsewhere for those stories.

<comment><USER31> nah, I and many others directly block Google Analytics = no pageviews in google dashboard. I refuse to be tracked by third parties whenever I go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I turned off AdBlock on their site. A clean, attractive site immediately transformed into a supermarket sales flyer, except with animated ads. No thanks.

I don't know what the answer is. Display ads are dead or dying, though. I get a lot more revenue on my websites from Amazon affiliate links than I do from AdSense. Probably it's going to look more like paid reviews and advertising masquerading as content.

<comment><USER33> Don't people go to their sites for shopping purposes anyways?

What's the point of these sites if not to tell you what to buy?

People used to pay money to buy magazines like Computer Shopper just for the ads...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Don't care. Nothing shall be changed. You're on your own, guru3d.

<comment><USER35> Why is this down voted? Its what most people who use ad-blockers think. Its probably the most honest comment in this thread. HN members might not like it, but so what?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of these websites:

"This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website."

instead of

"This website uses cookies to track your behaviour across this and other websites to better target and retarget you with ads. Identifying and segmenting you ensures higher advertising rates. Thanks."

Still waiting for the first website with an honest cookie warning.

</comment><comment><USER36> _" Where a year ago we served 375~400K pageviews per day, we now register just over 200K pageviews a day. That's right, nearly 50% of the readers are blocking ads."_

I'm not saying ad blockers had no effect on their business, but I find it extremely hard to believe 50% of their visitors discovered and started using ad blockers in the past year.

</comment><comment><USER37> What would happen if I lazily assumed that Guru3D will follow the advertisement laws that exist in my country, and if the ad-network which they subcontract the delivery of ads breaks the law, Guru3D will then take full responsibility?

As it stand, most web users block ads and most web publisher block legal responsibility. Neither side want to take the hit when malware is spread through ads, people personal information is being illegally stored, and when laws that govern advertisement in news papers, radio, and TV is ignored on the web. Both side want all the benefits with none of the draw backs, and advertisement through websites will run closer and closer to the fate of advertisement through email.

</comment><comment><USER38> AdBlock is one thing. However,

> Ghostery

These guys are complaining that users don't want to be tracked. I honestly can't take a single word in the entire article seriously.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's getting tiresome doing this.

"We understand perfectly that some of you might find ads annoying" "Our pledge: we do not serve intrusive ads like pop-downs/pop-ups and takeovers."

From one page load of www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/guru3d-rig-of-the-month- october-2015,1.html this list excludes the dozen or so trackers and adverts that I don't have record of serving malware.

googletagservices.com (Angler, Neutrino exploit kits, to mention just the most recent)

doubleclick.net (Angler, Neutrino exploit kits, to mention just the most recent)

adnxs.com (Angler exploit kit, Flash 0-days on MSN.com)

openx.net (don't get me started on the cesspit of openx)

serving-sys.com

</comment><comment><USER7> Main reason for ad-blockers for me: They try to distract you from reading the text you came for.

While in print ads don't (can't) do this.

Online they open to the whole page after some time, they constantly animate things to draw your attention from the text, some play sound, videos, left, right, above, below and in the text between paragraphs and capturing links.

Main reason probably because they don't really work.

<comment><USER40> I am also not a fan of annoying ads and maybe I am just a crotchety old guy, but, IMO, using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft.

If one is concerned with privacy, there are alternative measures such as cookie blocking options, legislation, etc.

If the ad formats are annoying then the right thing to do is to let the publisher know and work out a way to pay for the content ad-free or just stop using the site.

I also feel the same way about the bit-torrents and downloading copyrighted content. But, maybe I am the only one who feels this way.

<comment><USER41> > using an Ad Blocker and viewing content is theft.

Here's a different POV. Using an ad blocker is not theft: it's a negotiation.

When I click on a link to your site from a site like HN, I have not implicitly agreed to whatever terms you would like to impose on me. I can't even really know them ahead of time.

Instead, I'm sending my User Agent to negotiate fetching some resources. If I decline to fetch your ads, you can feel free to decline to serve me your content. Or you can give the content to me anyway. Your choice.

<comment><USER42> Really? What header does your browser send to my server informing me that you are blocking ads so that I know to deny you my content?

<comment><USER41> Response 1: whether this question already has a technical answer that you find satisfying does not affect whether using an ad blocker is theft.

Response 2: a few sites are already popping up messages asking you to turn off your ad blocker, which is at least a partial existence proof.

Response 3: if you want to know whether I got your ads, use cookies or make the request url unique to me, and then check that your ad servers served the appropriate requests before allowing your content servers to serve me content.

But seriously, I shouldn't be required to solve all these problems for you as a user in order to not be called a thief. If you want a more explicit contract, then require a log in. If that adds too much friction, invent a better a better solution.

*Edited to remove the inflammatory suggestion to go out of business if you refuse to negotiate.

<comment><USER42> So, your viewpoint boils down to either I allow my content to be viewed solely on your terms or I go out of business.

Sounds like the type of negotiation the mob engages in. But, hey, as long as you get what you want, I guess it is ok.

<comment><USER41> I edited my response because I realized it was inflammatory. But to be clear, my viewpoint is that the client/server and viewer/publisher relationship is a negotiation. The publisher should make content available under terms they find acceptable, and the user should be free to refuse to view things that they find unacceptable.

I don't think it's right that publishers seem to view me showing up at their front door as carte blanche to abuse my network and system resources to the full extent that JavaScript allows. And I think it's wrong to characterize user pushback as theft. Other kinds of "theft" are criminal behavior. Pick better terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want some of my money you need to get it from the people who charge me every month for accesing you web page: My ISP.

They are the ones making money off the fact that I want to get on the internet and access content.

Too bad there is no reliable, independent mechanism for taking some of that money and putting it in a large pool to be ditributed to content creators. The amount you get is based on how popular your site is. The ISPs know exactly how popular your site is.

(Too bad I'm late to the thread. Nobody is going to read this)

<comment><USER44> Sounds like a good idea at first, but... Who did we pay for TV content prior to cable/satellite? No one. You bought the hardware and thereafter the content was all free, supported by ads.

Cable access providers promised ad-free content, so people paid for it. Paying the access provider worked well. So well that it mostly wiped out the ad- supported over-the-air competition and left the cable cos as monopolies. Which enabled them to raise their prices _and_ become filled with ads. While controlling what you could see and when, charging extra for some content vs other content, etc.

Making ISPs more like cable companies doesn't seem like a good idea for the consumer. And it won't make the ads go away.

<comment><USER45> Well in TV jargon "content" refers to advertisement and "feel" refers to what you think as content.

Isn't public TV paid for by taxes?

Anyways, I second you, the ISP should not collect money for accessing content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Dude,

Just charge _money_. Have we all forgotten how commerce worked for ~5000 years before the ad-supported model came along?

<comment><USER47> Websites used to ask you to click the links because they got a fraction of a penny for your clicks. I'll send them my check for $0.001 to look at their page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> If they can't survive without advertising then let them die. Personally I don't see the problem. The few sites I care about that produce quality stuff (like [https://lwn.net/](https://lwn.net/)) I pay for and that's just fine. The rest are nice to have (without ads) but if they go away it doesn't really matter - I'll just read something else or (shock, horror) nothing at all - I'm sure my life will continue even if they go under. Can't honestly say I care a great deal.

Edit: and as I guessed they would; the downvotes now flow in. Seems like people never like to hear that one can just stop using "stuff" and do something else.

</comment><comment><USER49> I use ad blockers because certain streaming sites I visit are the worst in terms of pop ups. I feel bad that using a blocker for these types of sites by default blocks all other sites. Publishers need to get paid and we as consumers don't want to pay for web content. Non intrusive ads and ads are needed and should be respected in terms of allowing us the opportunity to make a living creating content and or enjoying content.

If we continue down this path it's truly going to be a wall gardened app world controlled a ton by Apple.

<comment><USER50> Lost of their income due to their bad service is not a your problem. You are just helping them to understand their mistake. Feel good.

<comment><USER50> The anonymous coward, who silently downvoted me: read «Gemba Kaizen», please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Maybe you should start building a sustainable business model, instead of whining because people who are annoyed with ads and trackers started effectively blocking them.

If your content adds value to your visitors' lives, then charge for it. If the only revenue stream you can rely on is ads, then probably there is a problem with the stuff you offer not being valuable enough to people.

I don't want this to sound grumpy, and I don't mean to say your content is not good or valuable. It's just that I've discussed this topic a lot of times with friends and colleagues and there seems to be a common agreement that ads and trackers have become so invasive (visually and privacy-wise) that people are not wanting to see them anymore or to be tracked.

As always, it's about survival of the fittest and those who know how to adapt quickest. Find a way to charge for your content and build a sustainable business.

<comment><USER52>
        > If the only revenue stream you can rely on is ads,
        > then probably there is a problem with the stuff you
        > offer not being valuable enough to people.

Not quite.

What people are willing to pay for has a large social/cultural/conditioned element. It's a crux of the entire problem.

The vast majority of people still attribute zero cost to ads. When you start charging $1 for your offering, now you're the one site among your competitors that's charging money. Maybe some HN nerds will care. Whoopdee doo. Nobody else does. The rest of the world isn't going to take their credit card out of their wallet when they can endure a banner ad instead.

Oh wait, they can just install an ad blocker the day they actually do care. Or maybe when their kid or significant other or buddy installs an adblocker on their browser like I did for my parents and they won't even realize the trouble it ever saved them.

See, I think that we will be soon on the cusp of a shift that needs to happen before we can replace ads at all, and it's more than just something a website can do by themselves by adding a paywall or whatever solution that doesn't work for most websites that people seem to conjure up in response to these issues.

<comment><USER53> So what they should do is, what Android apps do:

\- when you first go to the website, you get the ad-infested website

\- you can pay for the app, and now, no more ads. In Android apps, the amount tends to be crazy low, like less than a cup of coffee. Pay that and get no ads is a no-brainer really...

<comment><USER54> This assumes the app isn't ransacking your device for as much personal or saleable information it can find, in addition to the nominal purchase fee.

Information leakage between sites and apps on mobile no doubt varies wildly based on your configuration and willingness to accept apps requesting outrageous permissions, but I'd suspect web-apps to be easier to protect yourself from, as a user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I'm in favor of a move from ad-based to paywalled content. It just feels more honest to sell your content than your readers (or viewers, visitors, etc).

There's also a mental hygeine aspect: I've noticed a pretty distinct correlation between my total exposure to online advertising and my ability to reach states of deep focus. For example, I've been finding it extremely difficult to finish books for the past few years. But since February or so, as my exposure to online ads has dropped to nearly zero, I've knocked half a dozen challenging non-fiction works off my hit list, and a few novels to boot. And it's not just mental stamina -- my moment to moment engagement and comprehension is also much higher.

This observation is anecdotal, and furthermore, poorly controlled, so establishing causality is pretty difficult. But I have noticed that when I DO browse facebook or other ad-heavy sites, I experience a significant drop in my level of mental energy, often for hours after I'm off the internet. It's as if viewing ads, which are designed to grab one's attention, forks a process in my brain whose task is to react to the ad content, thus depleting my brain- hardware resources. The social hooks make facebook a particularly bad culprit.

BUT, there's a big caveat. I don't want subscriptions -- at least, not on every site that sometimes puts out content that I like. That would cost me hundreds of buxx a month that I simply can't afford. There needs to be a decent micropayment solution so that people can buy the content that they actually _want_ without the overhead of paying for a bunch of stuff they don't care about. I speculate that this would be a pure win for content companies. Right now, paywalls are more like "go-away-walls." If there were buttons on paywalls that said "Read this article for 50 cents," I would personally be paying for a lot more articles. There's probably even a good business opportunity in mediating these transactions to centralize signups and aggregate purchased content.

</comment><comment><USER56> Note to website operators: Ad blockers are not just a way of disabling annoying content. They prevent intrusive tracking and spying. If you can find a way to monetize my views without tracking my habits and sharing them with third parties, I'll happily disable my extensions.

<comment><USER33> I have no idea what the practical ramifications of this complaint means...

What exactly is the fear of "intrusive tracking and spying"? What does it mean?

Are you scared that you're now going to get ads that target your demographic, such as motherboards, instead of ads that don't target your demographic, such as Alzheimers drugs?

I don't understand the problem with this.

If that's not the fear, then state the ultimate practical effect of what you fear, because right now it sounds a lot like a "made-up-in-your-mind problem that will never, ever affect you negatively".

<comment><USER56> I don't need to justify my right to privacy. All you need to know is that I don't want my browsing habits tracked and correlated across virtually every site I visit, by a small handful of companies that have nothing to do with the content I am seeking. The burden is not on me to justify why I disagree with these practices.

<comment><USER33> The burden is on you to justify your right to privacy. Otherwise it just makes you look bad, as if you're trying to defend indefensible actions. Remember, you're visiting THEIR sites. They aren't visiting your sites. They have something you want when you visit their sites, and you have to offer something in return.

If you're unable to justify yourself, then companies (both advertisers and media publishers) will proceed as they wish. Your privacy is not their concern. You need to make it their concern.

Right now ad blockers are just a mere stepping stone for these companies to track you. When they proceed with native ads (among many other options), it's going to be really difficult for you to block them.

Do you want these companies to move forward to their next step in tracking you?

<comment><USER57> >The burden is on you to justify your right to privacy.

Privacy is a human right. I am the only one who gets to decide what information I divulge about myself, except in the very small set of circumstances where my right to privacy has to be balanced against the human rights of others.

Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy.

<comment><USER33> > Nobody should ever have to justify one's right to privacy.

You always need to justify you rights, since you should never assume those with power over you - the ones that grant you your rights - are willing to do that.

There is no such thing as natural rights.

<comment><USER9> Wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads? Is there a general way these can be blocked as well?

If the ad is coming from their own server and displayed with their own custom HTML/CSS, I can't see an obvious way these could be detected and blocked in general.

<comment><USER52>
        > Is there a reason more sites don't do self hosted ads?

Google Adsense (for example) is a live auction clearing house where you paste a snippet of code into your site that resolves into the highest bidder for the keywords on each page. You're done.

Meanwhile, hosting your own ads entails finding advertisers, wooing them, developing a relationship with them, maintaining that relationship, negotiating a contract, settling that contract, building an ad-serving system somehow, automating it somehow, etc. And that's if you're even big enough to attract anyone or even warrant the work to begin with. And the second you try to generalize it (which is what ad networks do), then you're back on every adblocker's default blocklist.

<comment><USER59> Why not build a generic system where ads are served to the server serving the website (which maintains a cache of relevant ads and serves them appropriately)?

That way you can get the benefits of a network + the benefits of serving from the same server that is serving the content

<comment><USER52> Yeah, I'm sure Adsense will let you proxy requests through my server soon or release some similar offering.

It would come at the massive expense of high-quality tracking and thus incur a massive reduction in ad revenue, but it's an imminent trade-off that beats unconditional adblocking.

I think everything is just waiting for the actual tipping point that forces everyone's hand like we always do. Adblockers are still the minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I think we really, really need cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. Buying access to stuff online with a credit card is totally inconvenient, and even worse, you have no privacy then. I guess this is part of the reason why sites financed by advertising have become so prevalent.

Personally, if there was an easy and private way to do so, I'd much rather pay for content than getting "free" stuff financed by ads. Inevitably, sites will be extremely reluctant to write anything negative about products from companies that buy lots of ads. For this reason, I consider many of the reviews on tech sites, for example, kinda worthless.

So, I'm glad to see this ad financed business model break down. Buying access to content with a cryptocurrency could be real easy (and relatively private). But it does not help that many governments want you to calculate capital gain/loss everytime you make such a purchase.

I think governments ought to make an exception in the capital gains tax for small personal purchases. Maybe promoters who loudly proclaim that cryptocurrencies will soon replace "legacy" government fiat currencies are part of the problem. No wonder governments are so negative. But I don't think cryptocurrencies necessarily will replace fiat currencies anytime soon. Cryptocurrencies work great for small purchases online, but I wouldn't want to put my lifesavings into one - oh no! My computer got hacked - my life savings are gone!

Edit: replacing the entire capital gains tax with a wealth tax would probably be even better.

<comment><USER61> _I think we really, really need cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin._

Or just something where I could pay, say 10 Euro per year, and every website that participates gets a fraction to my number of visits or reading time.

As far as I understand, Google is trying to do this. But it does not provide a 'no ads' guarantee and there are other ad networks with even more obnoxious ads.

<comment><USER62> > Or just something where I could pay, say 10 Euro per year, and every website > that participates gets a fraction to my number of visits or reading time.

The problem with this is you must allow a third party to track every page visit and/or page view time, which is unacceptable to many people that use ad blockers.

If you are OK with persistent, pervasive tracking, I think this is probably the best solution.

<comment><USER28> You've described the situation pretty accurately here I think. I wonder, though. What if a browser extension generated tokens and stuck them in headers, and then sites sent those tokens on to the central authority after some appropriate transformation? It seems possible to set it up so the central authority would have enough information to remunerate sites without having enough information to know what users are doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> While there's obviously nothing wrong with directly asking users to not adblock guru3d, the long-term solution is definitely to find another business model.

I'm not a regular reader of Guru3D, but would it be a stretch to imagine that the community would willingly pay $1 a month to see the content you put on the site? Maybe you can shuffle only people with adblockers to the paid version of the site, and allow people with ads to view for free.

<comment><USER3> I pay to use the Consumer Reports content. I think if Guru3D became the 'Consumer Reports' of gaming hardware, then they could probably get paying viewers. Here's some other ideas. As long as they are doing test builds, how about selling detailed instructions for those builds. And if they get all this hardware donated by vendors, how about selling the rigs they build. Perhaps they can get a "brand" markup - sort of like selling NASCAR pace cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> "Guru3D.com is a costly operation."

Well now how costly? Just one dedicated server? multiple? Usage of AWS? Distributed data centres?

Staff? accountants, designers, moderators? Or automated scripts and volunteers?

If an organisation appeals to me to support them, I will, if they outline where and why they need it. Like Wikipedia for example or like OpenStreetMap. To say "oh it costs too much and we have lots of hits" is not an appeal to rationality.

</comment><comment><USER65> For the record, I don't want to hear or see any ads, ever.

The internet is great because it provides a channel for information to cheaply get from creators to consumers at global scale.

Sadly, all of that infrastructure and creation takes time, energy, money, etc. It's not free.

I don't take it for granted that advertising is the only way there can be an internet. I'm pretty confident that if everyone starts using adblockers, the internet will continue to exist. But will it be the internet I want?

The internet that gives me Netflix and Amazon Prime I can take or leave. The internet that gives me endless blog posts, reviews, and Q&A sites I can take or leave.

The internet that gives me API documentation, etc., chat, email, and Wikipedia I will fight for. I will pay for it. I will pay higher taxes for it. The rest I just don't care that much about, and I really doubt that many other people do either.

</comment><comment><USER66> I disabled uBlock Origin and decided to see what ads they have on their site. Pretty much all of them were retargeting sites or products I'd looked at before, but had no intention of buying.

Only one was really relevant to their site, which was a gaming keyboard. The same screen real estate could be used to to link to their articles and reviews of products from their sponsors, which would be a lot more relevant and actually provide value to the reader.

Oh and whatever uBlock Origin blocks, made scrolling really laggy when it was enabled. I think I'll stick to using it thanks.

</comment><comment><USER67> When running a business, you need to spend 50% of your time on the business- part and the other 50% on providing content, serving your customers, etc.

With ads, you let the ad-network do the business-part, while _only_ taking 10%-50% of your turn-over. You can spend 100% of your time making content, etc. Especially small businesses are happy with that model.

The ads where good for content, as more content was created. But it's now leaving a huge gap of opportunity!

Then there's also product discovery. We need new ways for people to discover more content that they are interested in.

</comment><comment><USER68> Potential buyers want sources to learn about products, compared them, have uninfluenced and honest reviews to help them make decisions.

Vendors want their products reviewed. And I think they understand that reviewers need to be financially independent to be believable, so directly paying reviewers does not work.

Both sides will find a way to get what they want, there is clear financial motivation to keep the review business alive. Money is not the problem here, only how to distribute it. I do not worry about this kind of content.

</comment><comment><USER69> Until security experts stop recommending ad blockers as a first line of defense against malware, I consider it the obligation of content providers to fix the system.

</comment><comment><USER70> I barely remember Guru3D, but what I still remember was the full page animated ad for something that made the site completely unusable. It was a while ago, like 8+ years and I remember it being some huge green slime dripping all over and blocking the content and the whole animation ran for like 30 seconds before you could read the page.

I added a rule in my hosts file to not load that ad as it was before client based ad blockers.

</comment><comment><USER71> Can anyone here tell me how much a site like Guru3D makes if I visit and read one article?

Is it like a fraction of a cent?

<comment><USER72> RPM (revenue per 1000 pageviews) varies wildly by site, geo and platform (desktop/mobile). If you're a site with cat photos it's about $1. If you're about mortgage refinancing or roofing, it could be $15. The first pageview in a user's session is more valuable than subsequent pageviews on the same site. So if your 1000 pageviews are from 900 users, your RPM will be $4 but if they are from 200 users (5 PVs per user), then it'll be $.90.

RPMs on desktop/tablet are much higher (about 2x) compared with mobile. RPMs for U.S. traffic are also much higher (4x) compared with say traffic from India.

Interstitial ads pay much higher (about 3x) compared with standard banner ads.

Over the past 2 years, RPMs from Adsense have fallen about 40%.

EDIT: All of the above applies to 3rd party ads sold on exchanges via ad networks like Adsense. Direct-sold ads have much higher RPMs, usually in double digits. But small publishers either don't have the traffic volume or the sales staff to sell ads directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I have hated ads from the time of dialup Internet when I was paying by the minute for access, ads increased my bills - I was paying for them.

The same now where o pay based on my internet usage, on mobile it is not cheap, and the cost of ad's is again on my shoulders.

So, I don't want ads. Simple.

</comment><comment><USER74> It would be a little bit more convincing if they had actually tried alternative revenue sources (paid subscription, associate links to Amazon, donations with a variety of providers like Flattr or using Bitcoin) and found no other viable solution.

</comment><comment><USER75> I tried what they're asking - the linked article is noticeably less responsive than the same one without ads. Especially scrolling - it skitters visibly. It's definitely less pleasant to use the site this way.

</comment><comment><USER76> This is the Internet, whose users tend to be highly innovative. If your business model is built on serving (good) content with ads and people don't like ads, then you will have a problem. It is a pity for some, but inherent to the Internet.

I have seen many web sites turn from a hobby into a small business funded by ads, who are now feeling the pinch. They either need to find a new way to monetize what they offer, or turn into a hobby project again. (Which often saves a lot of money on horrible UX. Generally after 2007 / the uptake of smartphones a lot of good features were eliminated and sucked into the black hole of UX and dumb simplifications to accommodate the average Internet user. Everything is tailored now for the average user, and the power user is left out.)

</comment><comment><USER77> Related post, inspired by this discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10488967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10488967)

</comment><comment><USER78> How much benefit does tracking and personalization actually provide in clickthrough percentages? Is it very large or is this companies grasping at threads to stay alive?

</comment><comment><USER9> Times are changing, again. I block any and every ad.

</comment><comment><USER79> or you know, change your business model to suit your market.

<comment><USER80> what would that business model be if their primary goal is to write interesting tech articles? Is producing this sort of content sustainable at all?

<comment><USER6> Ask LWN, they seem to be doing fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Ad blockers block Google Analytics? Why?

<comment><USER82> User tracking

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> the real issue is the pages are getting slower when ads are served. it is really annoying.

</comment><comment><USER84> Whenever I read something like this I feel really bad and turn off my ad blocker, as soon as I do that I'm usually greeted with 2 minute long unskippable ads, sites re-skinned with ads, targeted ads, ads that are just straight up spam, ads that play in the background and ads that require me to fill out a survey. I want to support these websites but online ads don't pay nearly as much as TV, radio or print ads but that are 10 times more annoy, detrimental to my privacy and if I ever click on them I know their almost certainly going to be some sort of phishing scam or virus from eastern Europe. You know it sucks that people are blocking ads but online ads are the absolute worst, if online ads functioned and payed as much as print advertisements than I don't think anyone would have a problem with seeing ads but we all know they don't. Only thing I can recommend is that these sites change their business model or at least augment it with a mixture of merch, internet begging (patreon), premium memberships and being more choosy with what ad networks they choose to partner with.

</comment><comment><USER85> well nkurz pull the plug before it is too late. ads suck, no one ever wants to look at them.

<comment><USER86> But we want to read their reviews and participate in their forums.

<comment><USER87> How much in $ terms is that worth to you?

Work it out and send guru3d a payment

<comment><USER52> Obviously nobody does that.

My favorite example is when you see a popular github repository with a donate button (Flattr, Bitcoin address, etc) only to realize they've made a whole $14 in the past year. Wow, thanks world!

It turns out that ads worked because the user didn't actually have to do anything. They didn't have to get their credit card out of their wallet, something they rarely do on the internet.

And when they do, it's to give money to a large corporation like Netflix or because Jimmy Wales managed to beg for donations in a more invasive annoying way than a banner ad ever was. (You know, I never once had to see the face of the founder of AdultFriendFinder in one of their ads.)

I hope we find a next-coming middleground that changes the culture of what people are willing to pay for and how they do it. But the fact that giving your credit/debit card number to someone gives them (and anyone else) unlimited charge license on your account is not helping.

<comment><USER87> You say "nobody" but I know that's not true because I am "somebody" who donates.

Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product. Personally when I am prevented from viewing content because my Privoxy has been detected I tend to just go elsewhere. I find ads a significant burden on my concentration and well being.

Yet in print media I don't mind. Often I read trade mags specifically for the ads, they are great market research.

<comment><USER52> I mean "nobody" in the sense that it doesn't scale and people like you, god bless, do not replace ads for the vast majority of websites.

At least not until some sort of shift happens in how we pay for content which I think is imminent.

> Ad blockers mean one isn't prepared to pay for your product.

Perhaps rather: "Your product is not worth taking out a credit card and paying for" which applies to most websites. There are massive barriers to explicitly paying for things, even just psychological.

In an abstract sense, ads are like vignette windshield stickers that let you cruise past tollway checkpoints when the alternative is to have to stop at a tollboth even if it's just to pay 10 cents.

People have tried to create services that replace ads in that abstraction, but so far nothing has stuck. I think the post-ad solution needs to be just as mindless as ads if it's going to replace them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


California's beaches belong to the public - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-nelsen-public-access-martins-beach-surfrider-vinod-khosla-20170630-story.html <comment><USER2> While it's heartening to see a vigorous reaction to the utter contempt for the law demonstrated by Khosla and his ilk, it's also understandably discouraging to see the ease with which people with virtually unlimited resources can abuse and exploit the public. That's why it's important to remember that civil disobedience is perfectly justified to combat this kind of criminality; e.g. sit-ins occupation of the land in question, a 'March to the Sea' through the disputed access-ways, and/or direct action against the gates, locks, and signs.

<comment><USER3> If someone organized something like that, I'd happily go!

<comment><USER4> Same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've ranted about this here before, and I'll rant again. Up and down the coast of CA there's a tremendous amount of public beach made inaccessible by wealthy property owners. Malibu is awful in this regard, with (bogus) no trespassing signs and gates everywhere. I spent a month there, for a conference in LA, and made a point of stomping around on every "no trespassing" beach I could get to, and some of them are _hard_ to get to. But Malibu is not alone.

The thing I don't understand is why police don't simply cut the lock every time Khosla locks the damned thing. It's gone to court, he lost (as he should have), and now he continues to blatantly violate the law. Petty criminals have been shot and killed (thousands of times) over less blatant disregard of a legal order, but a rich guy can get away with a massive theft of a public resource for _years_ without any consequences. Money may not buy happiness, but it certainly buys the right to be a truly awful human being without consequence.

Why can't a citizen simply call the police every time a gate is closed and locked? Send Khosla the bill for a locksmith or whatever it takes to restore access. Cities do it for overgrown lawns (which is harmless, IMHO), and this is causing actual harm to the public good.

<comment><USER6> Some years ago, in Los Altos Hills, a new landowner built a fence across a horse trail easement. The mayor and police chief went to the site and cut the fence open. It can be done.

<comment><USER7> Well as you surely know, residents like to joke that horses come before humans in LAH. Also, the pathway committee seems to have quite a bit of power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We used to have a concept of "outlawry." What it meant varied over time, but it was rooted in the reality that the court system and law enforcement had limits on how much they could do. So, they would declare someone an "outlaw" as a means to deal with this. In some times and places, this meant anyone could murder them. They were not protected by the laws of the land.

I don't know what the solution is today and I am not suggesting that we should make it legal to murder someone like Khosla, but we need a mechanism for addressing the fact that our legal system cannot control everything. Someone this rich winds up being beyond the law in far too many ways and they don't care.

I think one of the things wrong with modern life is the delusion that the legal system is in control to a greater degree than it is. This has all kinds of problematic side effects. There are far too few rules for what to do when someone is breaking all the rules and it means that rule followers are routinely crapped on by certain classes of rule breakers in a way for which there is no real remedy.

<comment><USER9> Allowing people to murder him is going way too far. There is already a simple legal solution to people who willfully defy court orders: put him in jail for contempt until he complies with the order. This is simply a failure of the legal system to apply the law equally to the rich and powerful as it does to the poor and powerless.

<comment><USER10> He has lawyers to get him out of that / delay it indefinitely. It would be unfortunate if it came to this, but since he's clearly not interested in adherence to the law or an amicable solution (build a pathway or bridge or take the gate out or whatever), I doubt he'd get much sympathy if someone were to park a truck in the street at the end of his driveway every day, paying the tickets and ignoring any future orders to remove it, until the gate is removed.

Thinking about this more, a suitable punishment at this point IMO would be something like revoking his driver's license, not allowing renewal of any vehicle registration, denying tax returns, etc. Why does he continue to be allowed to use the public roads while denying the public access to a space?

<comment><USER10> Actually, forget all that, use that stretch of beach to hold public surf contests all the time (assuming there's a decent break there). Failing that, beach party every day.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like the sort of thing where a tech solution could play a part. A website prominently advertising the location and fun daily activities comes to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The thing I find most fascinating about Khosla is that he is so obsessed with limiting access to public property, that he will be remembered years later for that instead of anything else he has done. He already has a reputation as an asshole in the VC community (which is saying something), this just cinches it to permanently tarnish his reputation. Of course he obviously doesn't care - he just wants that beach.

<comment><USER12> > he just wants that beach.

He wants to win the principle to control the access to the beach. Sorry to be pedantic, but if he would be living there full-time, he might have an argument, but he doesn't.

<comment><USER4> > He wants to win the principle to control the access to the beach.

Which is _much worse_ than just wanting the beach, because he's fighting a battle to set a precedent that is directly contrary to the public good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So the court ruled he must restore the access and he just ignores the ruling. Can someone explain again why?

And, of course, as a surfer and computer scientist I find Mr. Khosla disgusting because of this.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure if you're asking why he ignores the ruling or why he's allowed to get away with it.

Regarding why he ignores the ruling, the article says he does it on "principle". Presumably, he feels it's his land and he can do whatever he wants with it. But it would be interesting to hear him defend his position himself rather than having to put words in his mouth.

As to why he gets away with it, presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough. Maybe he's just rich enough to pay whatever fine has been levied on him and keep access closed.

It reminds me of when Microsoft was fined by the courts something like a million dollars a day for violating antitrust regulations, and they just paid and kept violating (if I'm remembering this right). Some companies prefer to just get the law changed in their favor instead, or maybe get people elected who will defund regulating bodies or put their cronies in control, etc. When you're rich enough you have many options for evading the law.

<comment><USER14> > presumably the penalties for ignoring the courts are not severe enough

And this is the crux of it. Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life.

At what point does this become contempt of court and lead to jail time? Unfortunately, in the US, the answer is likely "never, because he has too much net worth".

<comment><USER15> >Khosla is a multi billionaire. He could afford to pay a fine of $10,000 a day for the rest of his life.

I believe that for a fine to be fair, it must be based on a percentage basis of disposable income[0].

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland- home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

<comment><USER16> The purpose of sanctions in a situation like this is to compel the recipient of those sanctions to do the court's bidding. They should just ratchet the sanctions up until he does what has been ordered. If ten thousand dollars won't do it, make it a hundred. If that doesn't do it, multiply it by ten again. Eventually he'll either comply or no longer have any assets. Either way, the problem will be solved.

<comment><USER17> The law may only allow for fines up to a certain amount, no matter what a judge may want.

<comment><USER16> If not fines, then imprisonment for contempt of court is a remedy judges have at their disposal. I'm sure it would not take very long for Kholsa to get the point.

<comment><USER18> I would dream of finally seeing those SWAT teams used for the benefit of public good. Please, local police, videotape the scene and underline it with "Nobody is above the law", that will restore a bit of the credit that police has lost...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you want an example of providing access across private property in the bay area drive up to Genentech. You can drive right through their campus to access the public beach and there are several public parking spaces provided here.

[https://goo.gl/maps/hAyPMsWvJV52](https://goo.gl/maps/hAyPMsWvJV52)

I'd be curious if there's a story there. If Genentech knew they needed to do this and just did it or if it was settled after. Either way it would be good to know.

On the other hand, I tried walking in the Dogpatch area of San Francisco near the end of 25th street along the water and was warned off. When I called the government to check why that wasn't public I was told not all coastline is public.

[https://goo.gl/maps/VVRNoHyKkSk](https://goo.gl/maps/VVRNoHyKkSk)

A better example of that I'm pretty sure you can't access the shoreline around SFO.

<comment><USER20> Today I found the Ritz Carleton hotel in half moon bay provided access and free parking! I was having trouble finding even paid beachside parking today and stumbled on this.

<comment><USER18> Sometimes I write emails to tell corporations that they are famous because they did a positive thing. I believe it encourages them, even if the email is eaten by the receptionist, if you can somehow demonstrate in the email that it brings them customers ("I always recommend XYZCorp because of that thing you did for the community").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if the public opinion (in SV) can be turned enough against Khosla for this. To the point it'll hurt his businesses. Much like it was (deservedly) turned against Uber for their behavior.

<comment><USER21> I bet it can, so let's get started!

Here's a list of companies that Khosla ventures invested in:

[http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all- companies](http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies)

Is anyone who works for or owns these companies reading this? Would you be willing to quit your job or return funding so as not to support a sociopath and to help make the world a better place?

Anyone know people who work for these companies? It would be great if you could (kindly) remind them of the types of people they are working to enrich every day and how those people are using their riches to abuse society. Bet we can change a few minds!

<comment><USER22> Eh, I'd rather just drive out to the gate and cut the lock.

Where is it exactly? I'll do it next week.

<comment><USER5> You'll likely need an angle grinder with a metal cutoff blade (bolt cutters can't handle a good lock, though if it's on a chain, the chain might be a weak link).

The article said there's security on the premises, so be prepared for that sort of trouble (make sure you've got an emergency number and people who know what's going on in case you're arrested). Though, I have a hard time seeing how restoring legal public access could be considered a crime. Maybe just bringing witnesses and cameras will be enough to protect you from security.

<comment><USER23> You want one of the portable battery powered high speed die grinders and some metal cut off discs, you cut most locks and heavy duty chains with them in seconds. There are numerous youtube videos demonstrating them. Couple hundred dollars at home depot and no larger than a cordless drill.

<comment><USER24> Not endorsing this action, but for everyone's sake, treat these tools with the same respect you would if you had grown up around them. They can be very dangerous if misused.

Power Hand Tool Safety - Die Grinder Use

[https://www.jlab.org/ehs/toolbox_files/GrindingTools.pdf](https://www.jlab.org/ehs/toolbox_files/GrindingTools.pdf)

<comment><USER25> Exactly this. Be very _very_ careful approaching some rich asshole's security with a a tool mike this. If it's on the beach itself just grab some shovels and dig under/ over. Make fences pointless!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Vinod Khosla is clearly a despicable example of a mega-wealthy individual, but is not the problem here the existence of the ultra-rich? Anyone allowed by society to accrue that much wealth will be above the law almost by definition. If we value the rule of law, why do we think it good to produce billionaires?

</comment><comment><USER26> The only saving grace is that the gate is low and easily passed:

1\. [http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/45/63/00/9908283/3/1024x1024.jpg](http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/45/63/00/9908283/3/1024x1024.jpg)

2\. [http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/32/27/65/6913369/19/rawImage.jpg](http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/32/27/65/6913369/19/rawImage.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER27> The "principle" he's adhering to is property rights, with a healthy dose of welching on your agreements.

All we need here is 5,000 people to show up at the same time, 4,999 of them carrying beach towels, and one of them carrying bolt-cutters and a beach towel, and then they enjoy a day at the beach.

Or several days, resupplied occasionally with food and so forth by the GoFundMe campaign.

</comment><comment><USER28> This man does not have the personality of Warren Buffet or Charlie Munger.

<comment><USER29> If the gate and trespass warnings are invalid, what happens to citizens who ignore them, and cut the lock themselves?

<comment><USER30> If they are valid, and he shots and kills an intruder, would that be trespassing and he fearing for his life be a valid legal defense?

<comment><USER31> It's public access, Khosla doesn't get to decide if it's trespassing. That would be a complaint lodged by the local authorities against someone if they were accessing the land in prohibited hours.

So it would be murder. Who knows, maybe Khosla wants to hunt humans for the sport of it but probably he just wants to keep paying miniscule fines hoping to wear the public down.

I'd lodge the fines in the form of the land he owns abutting the easement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> from what I remember, Khosla and his lawyers were real jerks to the county and throughout the trials but I think their biggest problem was he has to pay for a relatively expensive liability insurance policy for public passage on the private access road that runs on his property, the only "easy" access to Martins Beach. The previous owners just sort of let things fly w/o insurance.

If the road was owned by the county and he gated it somehow he wouldn't have a leg to stand on but the problem is more nuanced ... Should he personally have to incur a large cost to maintain a public good b/c of proximity? It does seem arbitrary. A better man might sell the road to the county or come to some other compromise but he's become obsessed with the principle of the matter.

<comment><USER33> I don't know if what you said about the insurance is correct or not, but if it is then that should have been factored into the price that Khosla paid to get the land (and possibly the government's assessment of the land value). Nobody forced him to buy that property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wish judges would/could find contempt of court and toss these selfish recalcitrants in jail. No release until public access is (re)secured. After all, that was the court's finding -- that public access was/is required.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think eventually we'll have to push the reset button on capitalism. The government should repossess all shares of public and large private companies and redistribute them to everyone based on some formula.

I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet. Probably 95% of us would be better off and it would make things interesting again. It would open up many new opportunities for everyone.

Why do the majority of people who are not wealthy vote for things which benefit wealthy people? Those same wealthy people who only care about themselves.

The fact that this comment will probably get down-voted by lower and middle- class people is mind-boggling to me.

<comment><USER36> Because media is owned by rich people and they trick regular people into believing that what they are doing is for their own good

<comment><USER35> ...Or maybe for some higher principle.

Though it's ironic given that the majority of wealthy people have no principles themselves; yet they are very good at teaching them to other people.

<comment><USER37> The rich have principles. They're just more sociopathic principles, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is one of those situations that can be summed up rather succinctly:

Christ, what an asshole.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why can't they go to the gate with the court order and a sheriff and cut the lock?

<comment><USER40> Because he appealed the order and the appeal hasn't been decided yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Khosla is from India and people from that region have utter disregard for the law. These rich indians took our jobs and are not taking over our land. (I am a person of Indian origin so I think it okay to have this opinion). Wrest back beaches that belong to the people.

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a FB group for those who might be interested in mobilizing: [https://www.facebook.com/groups/friendsofmartinsbeach/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/friendsofmartinsbeach/)

</comment><comment><USER42> I wouldn't take Khosla's money if they offered it to me, so terrible is his behavior regarding public access to the beach at his house. He has thugs chasing people off from public access.

</comment><comment><USER43> I really appreciate the direct-action interest on behalf of the public here in these comments. In my commentary however, i just cant get over how selfish someone would have to be.

I'd feel terrible if i somehow blocked somebody's family picnic. Yet here is someone doing this to hundreds of people, probably, every weekend. There are possibly thousands who grew up in the region and went to that beach regularly. I simply cant personally imagine being so completely void of consideration.

</comment><comment><USER6> Malibu's Zonker Harris beach accessway is "closed for repair". Again. Since summer 2016.

</comment><comment><USER44> Genuinely surprised no one has simply removed the gate or otherwise rendered it useless.

<comment><USER45> Thought of that too. But since he built the gate, it might still fall under destruction of property or vandalism.

Now what about picking the lock? If the gate or lock is not damaged it might be ok. Since the access is public it wouldn't be breaking in or trespassing?

Even more interesting if the only way out is via the gate, and his minions lock the gate there might be case for kidnapping? Call the police and claim you have been kidnapped by Khosla. Too far fetched probably...

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I wish we had this law in Washington State. Most beaches here are privately owned and many of the few public beaches here are laughably tiny - 150' to 200' wide with threatening signs on either end.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is there no scope to prosecute someone who illegally locks up public land under false imprisonment laws, i.e. I am being falsely imprisoned in the part of the world which doesn't include the locked up bit?

</comment><comment><USER48> Parks too?

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk- spoile...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoiled)

</comment><comment><USER30> "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

<comment><USER49> You've done staggering damage to this thread, posting something like 20 comments, most of which were inflammatory and several of which were copied and pasted. If you behave like this again on HN we're going to have to ban you. It leads straight to flamewars and this one was particularly wretched.

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679391](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679391) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The Denney's (previous owners) used to charge for people using their property to go into the beach. Maybe you should read instead of calling names and getting bent out of shape?

"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

<comment><USER49> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679505) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is the question here not that Public Access if guaranteed constitutionally, but whether a single citizen should bear the cost of the public having to go through his property to access the beach?

I can't tell what the Constitution says about which path the public must use to access a beach.

Is it the case that the State or municipalities failed to secure or purchase property to build a path, and now want a single citizen to pay for this path?

<comment><USER50> "e had been warned by San Mateo County and the California Coastal Commission – before and after buying the property – that he would be required to keep the public access open.

 _Public access to Martins Beach_ , and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, _is guaranteed_ in the state's constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."

<comment><USER30> I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my right to cross anybody's private property to access the public beach. Why can't people go through other properties doors, climb fences, etc. to enjoy the right to use a public beach? Why is _this path_ considered public property, when it is clearly private? I think this is the issue.

<comment><USER51> > But I would not trust a government employee.

That isn't really a choice. You can either going along with what the employee says, or a) appeal their decision b) change the law, or c) abide the consequences. They also presumably have records.

As for why _this path_ , California has a prescriptive right of access--if people have customarily accessed the beach through this path (for 5 years, I think), then they are permitted to continue doing so. The California Constitution also doesn't just make the beaches public, but explicitly provides for public access to them:

       No individual, partnership, or corporation claiming or
       possessing the frontage or tidal lands
       of a harbor, bay, inlet, estuary, or other navigable
       water in this state shall be permitted to
       exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is
       required for any public purpose and
       the Legislature shall enact such law as will give the
       most liberal construction to this
       provision so that access to the navigable waters of
       this state shall always be attainable for
       the people thereof.

<comment><USER30> Very useful.

Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve?

The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right.

Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.

"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."

Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."

<comment><USER51> It's not totally clear to me when a fee can be charged (or who can charge it), but it's possible that the fee covered land beyond the mean high water mark or amenities, parking or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Police chief? Los Altos Hills does not have a police department.

<comment><USER3> Probably was a county sheriff. Why is it necessary to split hairs?

<comment><USER53> Because it's never ok to be sloppy with facts.

<comment><USER54> Yes, society MUST be protected.

<comment><USER55> Captain Nitpick, he arrived just in time to save us all!

<BAM>

Im so sorry for forgetting about the quotation marks - Captain Nitpick!

<WHAM!>

AND NOW FOR THE VILLIANS!

<comment><USER49> Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> You mean trespassing into private property without a warrant?

<comment><USER56> Are you dense? It's not private property, that's the whole point!

<comment><USER49> Please don't respond to bad comments by making the thread even worse. We ban accounts that make personal attacks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's funny to see people here trying to protect something "because the Constitution" when the right to bear arms in the US Cobstitution is "archaic and should be changed."

<comment><USER5> What does this conversation have to do with the second amendment? Who has brought up guns here, except you? Are you intentionally trolling?

<comment><USER57> I think it's a fair comment. I would expect everyone who supports the constitution to just as vigorously support the 2nd Amendment.

Or is it a pick and choose document?

<comment><USER5> We're talking about the California Constitution, and no one has mentioned guns or the second amendment of the United States Constitution, except for the above nonsequitur. WTF are you talking about?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Why is this on _hacker_ news?

<comment><USER59> Because the landowner discussed in the article is a part of the SV tech community.

<comment><USER58> Sigh. I guess flagging and going on my merry way is the only thing to do here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> California's beaches are publicly owned. Which is also why they are toilets.

</comment><comment><USER61> As much as I hate to say this - I must say it: this was one of the few good things (maybe the only one?) about communism - public beaches for all seas, lakes and rivers. Nobody could own first 4 meters from the water. And many tourist from non-communist countries came and enjoyed and marvelled this freedom they didn't have in their own countries. Western countries could copy this...

<comment><USER62> > communism

socialism. Socialism is when the state provides something for the people. Fire, police, roads, buses/public transport, parks, the post office .. all that is socialism.

Communism is buying a round of beers and the next person in your group buying a round of beers. It's the understood unspoken agreement between your flatmates to keep the place clean. It's the communal aspect of humanity and we all practice it every day.

<comment><USER63> > Socialism is when the state provides something for the people

No, socialism has nothing to do with the state. It just describes a social- economic system where workers collectively own the capital goods they use to produce value, rather than members of the capitalist class. This is why kibbutzes could be described as "socialist" despite being entirely private and not related to the Israeli state.

Social democracy and "welfare states" are what you're thinking of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> It's important to notice that any argument in favor of public access to beaches can be applied to any kind of desirable land. One could make an isomorphic argument about mountaintops: "The concept of a private mountaintop is backwards and unethical. Why should rich people be able to restrict others from hiking to the top and enjoying scenic views?" Should we ban private ownership of mountaintops?

Public beaches are a good thing, but it's wasteful to ban ownership of all 840 miles of California coastline. Some people want private beaches, even if the law doesn't allow for it. They'll lock gates, block roads, and otherwise shirk the law to get what they want. The state then must then expend significant resources discovering and sanctioning these people.

A better solution would be for the state to tax private beaches. That would collect significant revenue from people like Khosla while still allowing only a small fraction of the coast to be privately-owned.

Edit: I'm not saying we should ban public beaches. I'm saying allow something like 20 miles of private coastline and auction off the rights every year. The other 820 miles of coastline would remain public, and the state would collect millions in revenue to be used for social welfare.

<comment><USER65> I think you missed this part:

"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state's constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."

<comment><USER64> I don't think that's your true reason for supporting a ban on private beaches. Until the courts struck it down, California's constitution also banned same- sex marriage. I don't think that 5 years ago, you would have argued against gay marriage because of what was in the state constitution.

If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.

<comment><USER50> Right, but currently what is lawful is also the most conductive for human flourishing. Hence, it should be enforced, not changed.

<comment><USER64> Nobody here is proposing privatizing the entire coast. Apparently I hold the most extreme views in this thread and my example was 2% of the coastline. Do you think things would be worse if 98% of the coastline was public and millions more in tax revenue went to social programs?

<comment><USER50> Why only 2% of the coastline? once you start allowing it, everyone is going to want to privatize their beaches, and it won't stop at 2%.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why We Moved to DigitalOcean's SSD Cloud VPS - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloggingguts.com/moved-digitalocean-ssd-cloud/

<comment><AUTHOR> Now we are in bit confusion that, Did we really choose the right way? Yeah, A new service has come to my mind and It's Linode. I have asked a question or peoples recommendation here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8211642](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8211642) about DigitalOcean or Linode.

Hello Guys Now I need your hands on it. Please recommend me the best between them to go with. Thanks in advance!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello There, We have moved to DigitalOcean's SSD Cloud VPS hosting From shared. To come up with this decision was not so easy. We have researched a lot and uncover the advantages of DigitalOcean before switching there. We finally found our dream home at DigitalOcean. Though, DigitalOcean has lots of Advantages, They are also an unmanaged Hosting platform, That make this switch bit critical. Anyway, Now We have figured out How to manage "unmanaged Hosting".</comment>


YouTube Inactive accounts policy - <AUTHOR> https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801981?hl=en <comment><USER2> Bad thing: some useful resources could be deleted if it's author will not use YouTube, but left his content for archiving purposes on YouTube.

I has YouTube account with forgotten password, but account page has few videos, that could be useful for some users (and for me, as archive copy).

Look like I should now download all uploaded videos back to my laptop...[0,1]

      $ youtube-dl -f best -citw -v <url-of-channel>

[0] [https://askubuntu.com/questions/856911/using-youtube-dl- to-d...](https://askubuntu.com/questions/856911/using-youtube-dl-to-download- entire-youtube-channel)

[1] [https://github.com/rg3/youtube- dl/issues/14083](https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/issues/14083)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow 6 months activity and they pull the account? Not criticizing at this moment in time but it certainly has its good and its bad.

That being said, it seems like they expect some level of activity in the form of engagement (comments? posts?) to keep the account as wel. Ok this seems...maybe reasonable.

However will be concerning to see what China does in this regard. Might they require users to post at least two happy statuses a day, or else you aren't being "active"? You could then have your social credit score deducted. Or maybe you have to criticize at least one other person for not being loyal enough to the party on their FB wall. This could create a kind of social network dystopia nightmare that we've only begun to understand in the West.

</comment><comment><USER4> Fastmail.com has the worst I've seen: stop paying them and someone else can register your email address.

Think of the security implications there.

<comment> david-s If someone's willing to pay for fastmail, why not also set up a custom domain? That seems to mitigate the security concern.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who wants to share their Black Friday deal with 50,000 startup founders? - <AUTHOR> I update a daily newsletter curating the best startup and tech news at https://FoundersGrid.com
On Friday I'm going to publish great Black Friday deals around tech, business and design tools my audience would benefit from knowing about.
If you work at a startup who is offering discounts for black Friday, please email me the details at chris[at]foundersgrid.com or simply add the details/URL below. <comment><USER2> We're going to be doing 50% off all plans on Friday for [https://flockmetrics.com/](https://flockmetrics.com/) using the code FRIDAY16.</comment>