Several years ago, I ran a niche hobbyist website and incorporated Adsense (because why not?!?). The site featured a fuzzy search function since it referenced tens of thousands of named parts. The search result page would echo the (sanitized) search term followed by the matching results - along with recent search terms in the right sidebar.
One day, some spambot hit the site and started searching for terms like "mesothelioma". Adsense would see that page with "mesothelioma" in the sidebar, query for it, and served up the ambulance chaser's paid ads, even though there obviously were no matching results.
I didn't realize this was happening for several weeks since this low volume site was earning very little and I never even hit the minimum withdrawal limit. Suddenly I was earning $50 - $100 - per day. This lasted for a few weeks but before I could transfer the earnings, Google locked the AdSense account due to abuse. It might surprise you, but Google support was not helpful and after a series of reviews, they permanently shut down Adsense for this site.
Therefore, I also turned off Google Adsense for my websites.
It's been like 10 years since I worked in the space but I'm pretty sure showing adsense on search results like that has been against the tos for a very long time unless you get a specific search feed(which is basically impossible these days and even 15 years ago was limited to companies like ask.com)
Interesting. It seems like a ToS violation would have been worthy of a warning and revoking the offending earnings, but nope, it was no mercy or review.
The person would have agreed to the placement rules when they signed up then went and broke them leading to Google and advertisers being defrauded by a bot. Why would you expect mercy there?
or at least an explanation. That would of course require a customer service apparatus designed to service customers rather than one designed to force them to become tangled in the abyssal morass.
OP in this case isn't the customer, they are a supplier who has agreed to terms then decided to go against that agreement in a way that allowed scammers and himself attempt to defraud Googles actual customers.
OP isn't the good guy in this story. Them breaking a very basic, clearly worded rule assisted in fraud. Of course they deserve to be banned from the network if they can't even follow that rule.
Also all the other people in this story complaining about their rates falling off a cliff can blame people like OP who place ads in places they shouldn't leading to low quality traffic. No one wants to buy network ads if they have quality anymore.
I don't get the impression that the OP was deliberately breaking the ToS. That doesn't mean they weren't violation but you usually inform someone when they are breaking the rules, even if you are taking punitive measures. It would be like arresting someone and never telling them what they are being arrested for. Not only is it scummy behavior to not tell them but it also doesn't effectively communicate to others that the thing won't be tolerated.
If I hire someone to do a job for me and find out they are breaking rules to try and get additional money from me and my clients I don't owe them anything.
The scummy behaviour is agreeing to only put the ads on content pages then immediately putting them on search result pages to attempt to extract more money from advertisers.
I feel like you're not quite understanding the level of fraud in advertising. There is a reason all the networks are quick to fire publishers/affiliates because the ones that aren't go broke paying out for fraud.
If you don't think that people are entitled to know why their service is being terminated then I don't think we having anything else to discuss. enjoy your day
You have to agree to have read the policies when signing up and they've always been pretty clear about placement rules. Not placing ads on non-content pages is a pretty basic rule and would clearly apply to this since a search result is non-content.
Every person and company I know who had an Adsense account was banned and not paid. Two of them were banned for terms violations which were things Google reps told them to do. Endless conspiracy theories on this, no idea.
I am guessing these companies were not big enough to make enough of a fuss and have a good legal team? Google likes making money, and if there is the slightest reason to not have to pay someone, then they are gonna make use of that reason. Might even make it onto someone's KPI list of "prevented fraud".
I was dumb enough when I was 11 to sign up for Adsense under my Mom’s name and put it on a php-based meme sharing site I made that my fellow 5th graders used.
Anyway, I noticed I could make a couple dollars a week. So I had my friends sit there and spam load the site. Made about 80$ until Google banned me (my mom) for life from Adsense
I have a VERY similar story about me adding AdSense to a Club Penguin hacks, tips, and tricks blog.
But I think I need to correct you -- what you and I did wasn't dumb at all. It was quite innovative for our pre-teen brains. This was my first exposure to running a business and setting up a team and thinking like an entrepreneur. Just imagine all the ice cream and Pokémon cards we could have bought if it had worked...
I think there is a super-sophisticated industry where advertisers are gamed out of their advertising dollars, and we occasionally can see it leaking out. For example I was very recently relentlessly hammered by political advertising by some odious tech guy who wants to get nominated for some congressional seat in the Bay Area. This was hard programming, where they just threw out the guy's name before you could hit mute, figuring that ppl would do that as quick as they could because the guy's vibe was so unrelatable. I have to imagine that the seasoned ad folks saw this dude as a pay day that they'd milk for all he is worth with this utterly misery inducing campaign. It's almost 100% brainwashing, with the tiniest sprinkle of substance. It has to be an industry that's preying on the buyer as much as the consumer.
I also get bombarded by anti-Saikat ads, most from "Abundant Future", which appears to be a PAC funded by Garry Tan and the Ripple guy. the ads loudly proclaim that AOC tweeted once that one of Saikat's tweets is divisive, and that Saikat is a millionaire. This coming from two guys who control a huge pile of money in San Francisco.
Because ads are cancerous, it may make you a few dollars, it massively reduces the usage of the internet, it eats resources (energy, time) from the world, it helps breaks privacy, it continues to paint the normality of the internet as a cesspit
"I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker, so I didn’t notice the changes or experience any irritation personally. "
--------
If you run a website that serves ads, whitelist it in your adblocker so you can see what your own damned site looks like to people who are still rawdogging the world wide web.
Most people who ran AdSense were extremely careful not to look at the ads on their own site, because Google might flag them for intentionally inflating clicks or views.
This is why I greatly prefer podcasts where the hosts read the ads. If you're going to take ad money, you better be willing to sell it with your own voice. All else is a descent into scam ad hell.
Everybody does that and has for the past 10 years. People sell the scammiest stuff then completely dissociate and say "sorry guys I didn't know that was a scam haha. I won't do it again. This program brought to you by Honey. I use it and it's great." Their viewers always forgive them.
Can you name a YouTube channel that experienced a drop in viewership, subscribers, any metric whatsoever, after a sponsorship read turned out to be a scam?
In the 1990's and for us GenX'ers, selling out was the worst thing you could do; to take the man's money instead of keeping your integrity. Calling people and bands 'sell outs' (sometimes without justification!) was to insult them.
Now with the rise of 'influencers' selling out is the norm, and people are praised for doing so.
This is a massive shift in the cultural landscape and is perhaps something many born after ~2000 are unaware of.
I have a tool on my website that gets about 250k unique views per day. During COVID I decided to put a single ad on the page to try to make up for my wife's lost income. It was for a time bringing in close to $500 a month, and was a nice little side income.
My wife never returned to work, we had kids and she has stayed at home with them. As such the ad has stayed up. Last I checked though it is bringing in something like $36 a month despite traffic being higher than ever. I get a payout from Google every couple months.
I'm considering taking it down just because the payoff is so low. It's honestly barely breaking even with the added expense of complicating my taxes.
Slightly off-topic, but several small-to-medium Youtube channels I watch, mentioned that their yearly Youtube earnings are way down, by two-thirds in one case. It may be that Alphabet is dialing back their profit sharing - across the board.
That is true i'm sure. But in this particular case, there is no search or AI directly involved. It's the ads that get inserted to Youtube videos, and what they pay to creators.
Creator-led channels are competing with AI-generated video channels that pump out many videos every day. The ad spend hasn't increased but now it's shared with people who have automated their channel's content production and who are likely getting the majority of what's available.
That's to be expected. Google needs that money to fund the AI development that will enable them to replace creators with their own slop, allowing them to pocket 100 % instead of sharing anything at all.
Exactly, it is already a pattern that Google will start paying good money for ads and then progressively reduce the pay to its publishers. It is a bait and switch strategy, but they'll certainly say that it is just an algorithm improvement....
Totally an organic and transparent marketplace that joins together publishers and consumers huh?
It has been down since the COVID boom for obvious reasons, and then it has gone even more.. Google needing the billions to put into the AI burner is just and unfortunate coincidence..
I had a similar setup a few years back, initially I got a small amount of revenue, but over time things really dropped off.
Despite increasing visitors I was getting less and less income from the adverts, so I too chose to disable them.
I knew it was coming, because even ten years ago I was running an adblocker for myself, but it was still a surprise how quickly it came about for the average Joe.
I do find it interesting that the author specifies they use an ad blocker whilst also wanting to view the industry 'from the inside'. I'm not sure there isn't a level of hypocrisy there, albeit understandable.
As staunchly anti-advertising, I wouldn't include advertising on anything I publish personally, but then I also don't publish anything, so I have no pressure to change my stance. I think I've convinced myself that my opinion doesn't matter to those who may be able to earn a decent stream from advertising (as much as I dislike that, and as much as I dislike my opinion being value-less).
It's an act of self-protection. I'm not anti-advertising. I'm anti-running-untrusted-software on my property. If they had stuck to adwords and static images with no invasive tracking I'd let their ads run. But the surveillance capitalists can't help themselves and want to run their 50MB spyware payload on my computer. I say no to that garbage.
A grand failure on behalf of society is that this was a good business decision (it succeeded at improving their profits) because it has faced effectively zero governmental intervention despite the fact it is used as a foundation for the launch of a million scams.
"I'll run the arbitrary code you send me if you acknowledge that you are legally liable if it turns out to be a virus or a scam... No? Why won't you take that deal?"
The problem is not the marketing of services and products.
The problem is the vector for tracking and for installing malware on users' browsers. I'd actually love to be notified when interesting products are available - but I block ads out of the defensive stance that the advertising industry pushed many people into.
There certainly is a contradiction, but it's so deeply ingrained that using ad blockers is OK that people can't see it even when it's right in front of their faces.
If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist, and nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people.
You could be right, but I personally am much more comfortable paying with a few milliseconds of my attention for news/email/short comedy clips/timezone conversion/etc. than even a single cent of actual money. And it has to be one or the other -- right?
For Meta specifically, what exactly would be so bad about all their stuff disappearing? I can't think of much. Messenger is the only thing of theirs that has any value as far as I can see, and there's many alternatives now.
I'd rather have five or ten smaller competing companies getting various deals from the glasses manufacturers than a couple huge companies getting them all.
Mostly because I don’t believe anything of value would actually be lost (note you provided no examples and I’m not sure any exist), that also sounds incredible. So again, how do we make this no-ads paradise happen?
Well, I think either way, Internet ads are dead for the most part. They have been dead for many years now. They started exactly the same way and went through the same flow. There were all kinds of ads: ads to install junk, ads that were totally misleading, ads that were very sexual in nature just to tempt users into clicking them, and ads that were totally irrelevant to the topic of the website or the user's interests.
But then it got so bad that people started using ad blockers long ago, and they got rid of this mess. Later, companies slowly started moving away from Internet advertising in general, and when the mobile and smartphone market started to take off, all the money flowed into that world instead. If you look at the way ads work in the mobile industry, even today, they are full of junk and incentivize users to install apps and perform specific actions. There is an equal amount of junk and misleading content in mobile ads today, like there used to be in Internet ads more than a decade ago. But right now, we are at that point. Mobile ads will also start getting muted one way or the other, and there will be huge incentive and opportunity sitting on top of that right there.
To add to this specific article, though, I would say it would have hardly made a difference anyway for the author in 2025.
ads definitely aren't dead. Though ads on random networks like adsense probably are because the quality of traffic is horrendous. Basically every beginner adwords guide will have you disable network traffic(turn off adsense).
Advertising direct on sites is still very valuable.
I joined AdSense in 2003. At peak it was generating US$15k a month.
Nowadays it will be a miracle if it passes of US$800 a month.
I think the shift to a more localised audience (NZ), diversion of ad spend to large social networks are responsible. Our traffic is similar in volume but nowhere near as "valuable" apparently.
I have a similar story -- we peaked at around $20k USD per month for quite a while. However, when ad-rates started declining, we changed our business model, and are now earning much more without any ads at all. I have to say, I'm glad to be rid of Google Ads, as they're full of many, many scammy advertisers.
All ad networks are cancer, in my humble opinion. Adblocking is a security requirement, so I have no compassion for anybody who bases their economic success on any ad network.
I had some sites that used it years ago ca. 2006. $500/mo at peak. Then one month it suddenly halved for no apparent reason. And it kept dropping. After a while or just wasn't with the ugliness. And I learned to never count on Google.
Since then I've become anti-ad and haven't had any for years. I am sorry for my embarrassing lapse in judgment. :)
This is pointing out something that seems to be deeply human, it's not intended as a personal dig, because I think I'd be in the same boat:
It's interesting, not unexpected and not un-understandable, that your opinion started changing as the dollar value decreased. I greatly dislike what this says about the effect of money on the human psyche. It's as old as time, but this hack hasn't been patched and I don't think it can be: Humans will sell their souls for a price.
I forgive you for your lapse in judgement. You are human after all - not intended as an insult ;)
I "don't forgive you" for considering this a lapse in judgment, because you still have some things to learn. (I'm kidding of course. All of this framing is rather silly.)
beej was doing what was best for them at the time. There were no victims. beej sold a service to an enterprise until it didn't make sense anymore.
Moralizing something that happened 20 years ago is wild. It literally does not matter. beej didn't kill anyone, didn't ruin their self esteem, didn't steal. This is not "soul selling".
Money isn't evil. Working for money and selling for money are not evil. You're going to have to do a whole lot more to meet that threshold for most people.
We should stop casting stones at people unless they're really assholes. This is nothing.
I had to turn off adsense when every ad they were running was a deceptive green "download" button. It was a whack a mole to try and block them all and was a waste of effort.
I put Adsense on my website in 2004 on a Thursday. Logged in Saturday and discovered that I'd earned $25! I immediately click one of my own ads, then logged back in to check my earnings per click. Later that week I got a warning email from Google. Told my wife.
She made me take all of my Adsense ads down immediately for the rest of the month and the first couple weeks of the next until we received our first Adsense check.
Then, and only then, did she let me put the ads back up. That first check bought us a freezer. The next paid our rent.
Those were fun times: $50 CPM was not usual 2004-2005.
It seems to me at its root, that it's a question of available ad attention, and the value thereof.
The classic value prop for ads has been so badly destroyed by bad curation and content invasiveness that the basis value of that attention has dropped trough the floor. The growing prevalence of ad blocking is only a symptom of that.
This has become bad enough it even invades special interest nonprofit rags like the AAA, American Legion, and USPSA newsletters, for example.
Not even in "tech circles". Anecdotally, most of my colleagues -- mostly software engineers -- don't use adblocker at home or at work. It hurts my eye to see their screens. But they don't care.
(The workspace does not disallow adblocker extensions.)
My experience deploying at blockers in the enterprise is the average non tech user feels the Internet is "broken" when it's not covered in ads and will tell helpdesk it needs to be fixed.
I never used adblock because if I don't like ads on a particular website I will simply not visit it anymore. And if I like it enough despite of the ads, I want to support them financially in some way.
Don't forget that ad blockers do more than filtering visible ad banners and other visual annoyances. They also block tracking scripts, fonts, and other cross-site elements that infringe on your privacy.
There’s an interesting conversation to be had about ad sponsorship on web content when the share of people just getting summarized results from {LLM chatbot of choice} is increasing and siphoning actual views.
The conversation should be about the fact that the advertising won't disappear, it will inevitably move to LLM output where it will be seamless/unblockable and undisclosed.
There's a law of conservation (or growth, really) of ad impressions.
> The conversation should be about the fact that the advertising won't disappear, it will inevitably move to LLM output where it will be seamless/unblockable and undisclosed.
And then those of us who ad-block everything now will run local LLMs if only to take the input of the cloud LLM and remove anything that seems like an ad or mentions specific brands.
Though in the long run I think we'll all get along fine with local LLMs in the first place and all the money being dumped into frontier models while useful in pushing the state of the art will effectively have been lit on fire in terms of generating long-term returns.
This would be great but I'm sure the entrenched players will make it difficult enough to run effective local models that normal users won't touch them.
There are only two OS options for phones and computers for 99+% of people and it will be trivially easy to restrict local models on them.
In college I made like $1,000/month on Google Adsense on a website that had a few dozen pages at most. No idea what I was doing, but thanks Google Adsense for paying for practically half my education and a whooole lot of drugs.
> Plus, turning off the ads should more clearly classify my blog as “non-commercial” for the various legal tests that impose greater liability on commercial actors.
Anyone know what these might be offhand? I think federal trademark law may sting more if used commercially. But what else could he be referring to?
Man spends 20 years as a participant-observer in the AdSense ecosystem for academic purposes, earns less than a TA, and gets flagged for writing about the very legal cases he's an expert on. Peak Google.
It seems with AI models this space is ripe for on-domain ad sales as a SaaS. Just pay an invoice to "advertise here" Have an AI make sure the links adhere to content policies. Don't track visitors or charge per click. Just pay a fee and get the banner.
It should but it’s a hard problem to solve. Programmatic ads require whatever check you’re doing to happen in sub-second speeds. No AI can solve this fast enough. Embeddings take forever to run.
As a visitor to a site, it is refreshing to NOT be subjected to constant ads. Even though I have an ad-blocker running, not having to use it is a definite plus. Thanks for taking this decision!
was making enough 10 yr ago with it to cover my mortgage every month. I noticed it ticking down year over year after 2018. Now I get a payment every few months. It was a great ride while it lasted.
> I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker
Using ad blockers is unethical. No one who uses one (probably 99% of people on HN) wants to hear this, but the conclusion is inescapable really.
You may commence your downvoting.
ETA: Why do I claim it's unethical? Every ad-supported page is an implicit contract: If you want the good stuff on this page, you need to pay for that by giving some of your attention to <these shitty ads that we all probably hate>. Nothing more. If the trade-off isn't worth it to you, that's fine: you have the right, and the ability, to reject it -- to cease interacting with the site at all. OTOH, using an ad blocker to access the site without "paying" (with your attention) is violating the contract in the same way that hacking a parking meter downtown to park your car for free is. Running websites isn't free, and even if it was, it's the site owner's prerogative whether and how much ad-attention to "charge". If the fundamental idea of capitalism is sound (and perhaps it isn't -- but then let's discuss that), exorbitant ad burdens attached to desirable content will eventually be outcompeted by other sites offering similar content for free with fewer ads, or for actual cash.
There's a more self-serving argument, too: If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist, and nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people. Using ad blockers is only "sustainable" in the same way that mafia protection rackets are "sustainable" -- by being a sufficiently small drain on the rest of society.
There are valid reasons for using ad blockers, hence why the general US Intelligence Community both uses and recommends the use of ad blockers "as a critical security measure to defend against "malvertising" and data collection threats".
All other arguments are moot in the shadow of this. However, if you're talking about how a media company can stay afloat without advertising, then you're getting very much closer to ethical arguments. I currently just point to the first paragraph in such an argument.
The advertising industry needs to sort out its inability to appropriately and safely scale before any ethical arguments are able to put roots down.
I hear you on malvertising and overzealous data collection. I certainly think online advertising needs to be carefully regulated for essentially safety reasons. But in an ideal world where such regulation was firmly in place, I think it would not be appropriate (because it would not be necessary) for government or influential industry groups to endorse ad-blockers.
BTW I've added an ETA to my original post with my reasons.
Because I am pro-capitalism, I utterly disagree with your premise. In a real contract, parties can negotiate and come to a meeting of the minds. Here's how it actually works:
* A website serves me a page with a place to put ads on it.
* I reject their offer to serve me ads.
* The site has the option of deciding not to serve me any more content, typically by showing me an anti-ad-blocker popup. If they continue to serve me, they've agreed to my proposed contract alterations.
* If they choose not to serve me, I can decide to accept their final offer (by disabling my ad-blocker) or reject it (by closing the tab).
What on earth makes you think that the negotiation ends with the initial offer? That's not how bargaining works. This isn't some Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario.
Is buying milk at your local supermarket a Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario?
If not, at what point during your milk purchase does the negotiation step that you hold to be important for capitalism take place?
I put it to you that take-it-or-leave-it-ness is orthogonal to the capitalism-socialism axis, and that the take-it-or-leave-it nature of viewing an ad-supported website is no more socialist (and no more alarming) than buying milk.
Regarding "negotiation":
> * The site has the option of deciding not to serve me any more content, typically by showing me an anti-ad-blocker popup.
Are you indeed claiming that today's ad blockers operate by explicitly rejecting a request sent from the main site as part of some standard ad negotiation protocol? Because if so, I would agree that this amounts to a negotiation with the website as you say.
But this would certainly be news to me. It must be a recent change, since for most of my life, ads have simply been hyperlinked images/objects/videos/IFrames, or sometimes inline text generated server-side or on the client using JS, and the only mechanisms available to implement ad blocking were implicit, and based on subterfuge: By preventing fetching of that content in the first place (in a variety of ways), or by fetching it but then hiding/obscuring the result in some way. None of which amount to "negotiation", obviously.
> Is buying milk at your local supermarket a Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario?
No. You can ask. They'll say no, almost surely, unless you're talking to the manager about something that's about to expire and then anything goes. But you can ask. Your idealized scenario is where the initial, and only, offer is "see this with ads or don't see it" with no room for negotiation.
> Are you indeed claiming that today's ad blockers operate by explicitly rejecting a request sent from the main site as part of some standard ad negotiation protocol?
As far as it's possible to express this arrangement in HTML, yes, of course. The page gives your client a document describing which resources it may wish to fetch, among other things. It's not expected that you'll fetch all of them. You may already have the cached data. A resource may be of a type your client doesn't know how to render. It may be in a tag your client doesn't know how to process. It may include executable code that your client might be configured to execute or not to execute. It may have several media types for scenarios that don't apply to you, such as for printing or working with a screen reader for people with visual impairments, and those media types may refer to resources that your client won't fetch because they're not relevant to you. 100% of those decisions can be made by your client. It's not obligated to execute your JavaScript, even if it has Bitcoin mining code and you lose out on the would-be cryptocurrency that my browser chooses not to mine for you. It's not obligated to use your fonts, or figure out how to display your odd graphics format, or render your PDF, or load your Java applet, etc.
And thus with ads. Your web page says "here's an image tag for you to display an ad", or more likely, "here's a ball of malware for you to execute that also displays an ad". There's no legal or moral or technical scenario where my client is obligated to choose to display or execute it, simply because your site told me how to do it if I chose to participate.
I find that 99% of ads are blocked simply by disabling Javascript. Does that suggest that disabling Javascript is unethical? Or does it suggest that those blocked advertisements were over-stepping the bounds of the implicit contract?
I am not sure ethics have much to do with it nor implied contract.
In the past there was no ethical issue nor contractual issue with going to the bathroom during a network commercial break, no ethical issue with skipping multi page magazine ads. We were free to change the radio channel during ad breaks.
My parents would often mute the tv in commercial breaks and talk.
> OTOH, using an ad blocker to access the site without "paying" (with your attention) is violating the contract in the same way that hacking a parking meter downtown to park your car for free is.
It's not the same thing at all: I wouldn't hack a parking meter downtown, but I would if it was installed in my garage!
LMFAO. You want to play the "ethical" games? I'll bring this to you, because you don't have any base for your hallucinations. You know who are the real unethical creatures that's written by World Wide Web Consortium? It's YOU, the ones who insult and want to prevent people blocking things on their OWN computer.
> 2.12 The web can be consumed in any way that people choose
> People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts. We will build features and write specifications that respect people's agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf.
There are no contracts here. Don't make up your own laws. Bring your lawyers to here. When people download the malwares you serve on your websites, do you web owners ever go to jail to compensate for their loss? Or you just laugh at your home and say "Oh, I am so ETHICAL!"?
You are just bunch of unethical malware spreading and personal information stealing psycopaths. If you have some thing to sell, just sell it. If your products are not attractive enough to make people, that's your own fault. Don't spread malwares and steal peoples's information and cry that it's hard to "earn" to provide "free" information (you are stealing things from peopel, it's not free) and pretend that you are ethical. There are many ethical people out there, selling their few vegetables on the street each day. They don't steal people's information and give people harmful things that destroy other belongings like you psycopaths.
Oh, I'm happy to tolerate decent and fair advertising.
But since the ad-tech industry (worth billions) is now dedicated to invading my privacy, using underhand tactics to avoid the GDPR and is busy sniffing my underwear to work out what I had for breakfast, then they can all follow the advice given to them by Bill Hicks.
> Nor is it an argument that companies can’t do better jobs within their own content moderation efforts. But I do think there’s a huge problem in that many people — including many politicians and journalists — seem to expect that these companies not only can, but should, strive for a level of content moderation that is simply impossible to reach.
The three problems I see are:
1. People who imagine content moderation prohibitions would be a utopia.
2. People who imagine content moderation should be perfect (of course by which I mean there own practical, acknowledged imperfect measure. Because even if everyone is pro-practicality, if they are pro-practicality in different ways, we still get an impossible demand.)
3. This major problem/disconnect I just don't ever see discussed:
(This would solve harms in a way that the false dichotomy of (1) and (2) do not.)
a) If a company is actively promoting some content over others, for any reason (a free speech exercise, that allows for many motives here), they should be held to a MUCH higher standard for their active choices, vs. neutral providers, with regard to harms.
b) If a company is selectively financially underwriting content creation, i.e paying for content by any metric (again, a free speech exercise, that allows for many motives), they should be held to be a MUCH higher standard, for their financed/rewarded content, vs. content it sources without financial incentive, with regard to harms.
Host harbor protections should be for content made available on a neutral content producer, consumer search/selection basis.
As soon as a company is injecting their own free speech choices (by preferentially selecting content for users, or paying for selected content), much higher responsibilities should be applied.
A neutral content site can still make money many ways. Advertising still works. Pay for content on an even basis, but providing only organic (user driven) discovery, etc. One such a neutral utility basis, safe harbor protection regarding content (assuming some reasonable means of responding to reports of harmful material), makes sense.
Safe harbors do not make sense for services who use their free speech freedoms to actively direct users to service preferred content, or actively financing service preferred content. Independent of preferred (i.e. the responsibility that is applied, should continue to be neutral itself. The nature of the companies free speech choices should not be the issue.)
Imposed selection, selective production => speech => responsibility.
Almost all the systematic harms by major content/social sites, can be traced to perverse incentives actively pursued by the site. This rule should apply: Active Choices => Responsibility for Choices. Vs. Neutrality => Responsible Safe Harbor.
This isn't a polemic against opinionated or hands-on content moderators. We need them. We need to allow them, so we have those rights to. It is a polemic against de-linking free speech utilization, from free speech responsibility. And especially against de-linking that ethical balance at scale.
Why did you think that using an ad network was ever a sensible option for revenue? Ads are cancer and a security risk, so blocking them is just common sense.
Not sure what kind of reply you're expecting here. I'm defintely not cheering you on for abusing users to make you $200/month. Your business model is cancer and the reason why the Internet is the kind of shithole it is today.
Several years ago, I ran a niche hobbyist website and incorporated Adsense (because why not?!?). The site featured a fuzzy search function since it referenced tens of thousands of named parts. The search result page would echo the (sanitized) search term followed by the matching results - along with recent search terms in the right sidebar.
One day, some spambot hit the site and started searching for terms like "mesothelioma". Adsense would see that page with "mesothelioma" in the sidebar, query for it, and served up the ambulance chaser's paid ads, even though there obviously were no matching results.
I didn't realize this was happening for several weeks since this low volume site was earning very little and I never even hit the minimum withdrawal limit. Suddenly I was earning $50 - $100 - per day. This lasted for a few weeks but before I could transfer the earnings, Google locked the AdSense account due to abuse. It might surprise you, but Google support was not helpful and after a series of reviews, they permanently shut down Adsense for this site.
Therefore, I also turned off Google Adsense for my websites.
It's been like 10 years since I worked in the space but I'm pretty sure showing adsense on search results like that has been against the tos for a very long time unless you get a specific search feed(which is basically impossible these days and even 15 years ago was limited to companies like ask.com)
Interesting. It seems like a ToS violation would have been worthy of a warning and revoking the offending earnings, but nope, it was no mercy or review.
The person would have agreed to the placement rules when they signed up then went and broke them leading to Google and advertisers being defrauded by a bot. Why would you expect mercy there?
or at least an explanation. That would of course require a customer service apparatus designed to service customers rather than one designed to force them to become tangled in the abyssal morass.
OP in this case isn't the customer, they are a supplier who has agreed to terms then decided to go against that agreement in a way that allowed scammers and himself attempt to defraud Googles actual customers.
OP isn't the good guy in this story. Them breaking a very basic, clearly worded rule assisted in fraud. Of course they deserve to be banned from the network if they can't even follow that rule.
Also all the other people in this story complaining about their rates falling off a cliff can blame people like OP who place ads in places they shouldn't leading to low quality traffic. No one wants to buy network ads if they have quality anymore.
I don't get the impression that the OP was deliberately breaking the ToS. That doesn't mean they weren't violation but you usually inform someone when they are breaking the rules, even if you are taking punitive measures. It would be like arresting someone and never telling them what they are being arrested for. Not only is it scummy behavior to not tell them but it also doesn't effectively communicate to others that the thing won't be tolerated.
If I hire someone to do a job for me and find out they are breaking rules to try and get additional money from me and my clients I don't owe them anything.
The scummy behaviour is agreeing to only put the ads on content pages then immediately putting them on search result pages to attempt to extract more money from advertisers.
I feel like you're not quite understanding the level of fraud in advertising. There is a reason all the networks are quick to fire publishers/affiliates because the ones that aren't go broke paying out for fraud.
If you don't think that people are entitled to know why their service is being terminated then I don't think we having anything else to discuss. enjoy your day
Sounds like a footgun waiting to go off? Unless Adsense is pretty explicit about this, beyond some language buried in a TOS.
Adsense is designed to have as many footguns as possible.
You have to agree to have read the policies when signing up and they've always been pretty clear about placement rules. Not placing ads on non-content pages is a pretty basic rule and would clearly apply to this since a search result is non-content.
https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/48182?hl=en#zippy=...
Footguns as a service
Every person and company I know who had an Adsense account was banned and not paid. Two of them were banned for terms violations which were things Google reps told them to do. Endless conspiracy theories on this, no idea.
I am guessing these companies were not big enough to make enough of a fuss and have a good legal team? Google likes making money, and if there is the slightest reason to not have to pay someone, then they are gonna make use of that reason. Might even make it onto someone's KPI list of "prevented fraud".
I was dumb enough when I was 11 to sign up for Adsense under my Mom’s name and put it on a php-based meme sharing site I made that my fellow 5th graders used.
Anyway, I noticed I could make a couple dollars a week. So I had my friends sit there and spam load the site. Made about 80$ until Google banned me (my mom) for life from Adsense
I have a VERY similar story about me adding AdSense to a Club Penguin hacks, tips, and tricks blog.
But I think I need to correct you -- what you and I did wasn't dumb at all. It was quite innovative for our pre-teen brains. This was my first exposure to running a business and setting up a team and thinking like an entrepreneur. Just imagine all the ice cream and Pokémon cards we could have bought if it had worked...
Quite true. I was dreaming about more powerful computer and more computer games via that money. Sadly my mom pulled the plug!! ;)
Fyi, my account was registered under my father’s name (I had his permission ofcourse)
I think there is a super-sophisticated industry where advertisers are gamed out of their advertising dollars, and we occasionally can see it leaking out. For example I was very recently relentlessly hammered by political advertising by some odious tech guy who wants to get nominated for some congressional seat in the Bay Area. This was hard programming, where they just threw out the guy's name before you could hit mute, figuring that ppl would do that as quick as they could because the guy's vibe was so unrelatable. I have to imagine that the seasoned ad folks saw this dude as a pay day that they'd milk for all he is worth with this utterly misery inducing campaign. It's almost 100% brainwashing, with the tiniest sprinkle of substance. It has to be an industry that's preying on the buyer as much as the consumer.
I think Saikat is just willing to spend more of his personal huge fortune on ads than most people usually are.
https://missionlocal.org/2026/04/saikat-chakrabarti-sf-campa...
I also get bombarded by anti-Saikat ads, most from "Abundant Future", which appears to be a PAC funded by Garry Tan and the Ripple guy. the ads loudly proclaim that AOC tweeted once that one of Saikat's tweets is divisive, and that Saikat is a millionaire. This coming from two guys who control a huge pile of money in San Francisco.
Is that the guy who kept running those quixotic campaigns against Nancy Pelosi?
No, you are thinking of Shahid Buttar. definitely not an early Stripe employee.
Interesting "DoS" attack.
> might surprise you, but Google support was not helpful and after a series of reviews, they permanently shut down Adsense for this site.
Not surprising at all, everything I’ve ever heard about Google support sums up to “they basically don’t have any,” even for enterprises on GCP
> Adsense (because why not?!?).
Because ads are cancerous, it may make you a few dollars, it massively reduces the usage of the internet, it eats resources (energy, time) from the world, it helps breaks privacy, it continues to paint the normality of the internet as a cesspit
"I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker, so I didn’t notice the changes or experience any irritation personally. "
--------
If you run a website that serves ads, whitelist it in your adblocker so you can see what your own damned site looks like to people who are still rawdogging the world wide web.
Most people who ran AdSense were extremely careful not to look at the ads on their own site, because Google might flag them for intentionally inflating clicks or views.
When I was a teen, like, 15 years ago or so, my Google Ads account got permanently banned because I made the mistake of clicking on my own ad. :)
This is why I greatly prefer podcasts where the hosts read the ads. If you're going to take ad money, you better be willing to sell it with your own voice. All else is a descent into scam ad hell.
Everybody does that and has for the past 10 years. People sell the scammiest stuff then completely dissociate and say "sorry guys I didn't know that was a scam haha. I won't do it again. This program brought to you by Honey. I use it and it's great." Their viewers always forgive them.
> Their viewers always forgive them.
Pretty strong selection bias there. And no way to know how many potential viewers avoided them after the first ad read.
Can you name a YouTube channel that experienced a drop in viewership, subscribers, any metric whatsoever, after a sponsorship read turned out to be a scam?
Heh
In the 1990's and for us GenX'ers, selling out was the worst thing you could do; to take the man's money instead of keeping your integrity. Calling people and bands 'sell outs' (sometimes without justification!) was to insult them.
Now with the rise of 'influencers' selling out is the norm, and people are praised for doing so.
This is a massive shift in the cultural landscape and is perhaps something many born after ~2000 are unaware of.
Can you name a "zine" or whatever people had in the 90s that experienced a drop in subscribers after it sold out?
Not quite 90s, but
I am currently getting off youtube for their agressive anti adblocking behavior and I stopped reading Spiegel Online for the same reason years ago.
I have a tool on my website that gets about 250k unique views per day. During COVID I decided to put a single ad on the page to try to make up for my wife's lost income. It was for a time bringing in close to $500 a month, and was a nice little side income.
My wife never returned to work, we had kids and she has stayed at home with them. As such the ad has stayed up. Last I checked though it is bringing in something like $36 a month despite traffic being higher than ever. I get a payout from Google every couple months.
I'm considering taking it down just because the payoff is so low. It's honestly barely breaking even with the added expense of complicating my taxes.
Slightly off-topic, but several small-to-medium Youtube channels I watch, mentioned that their yearly Youtube earnings are way down, by two-thirds in one case. It may be that Alphabet is dialing back their profit sharing - across the board.
This is because of Gemini/Claude/ChatGPT
People are using AI as a search engine.
https://www.semrush.com/blog/ai-search-seo-traffic-study/
https://searchengineland.com/how-googles-ai-overviews-are-ac...
That is true i'm sure. But in this particular case, there is no search or AI directly involved. It's the ads that get inserted to Youtube videos, and what they pay to creators.
Creator-led channels are competing with AI-generated video channels that pump out many videos every day. The ad spend hasn't increased but now it's shared with people who have automated their channel's content production and who are likely getting the majority of what's available.
That's to be expected. Google needs that money to fund the AI development that will enable them to replace creators with their own slop, allowing them to pocket 100 % instead of sharing anything at all.
Exactly, it is already a pattern that Google will start paying good money for ads and then progressively reduce the pay to its publishers. It is a bait and switch strategy, but they'll certainly say that it is just an algorithm improvement....
Totally an organic and transparent marketplace that joins together publishers and consumers huh?
It has been down since the COVID boom for obvious reasons, and then it has gone even more.. Google needing the billions to put into the AI burner is just and unfortunate coincidence..
adsense isn't the only ad network around, you could probably switch to another one and make a bit more.
Or find out who advertises on your site and approach them directly about sponsorship.
Yeah, but that's actually hard work, adding in a different network is easy.
I had a similar setup a few years back, initially I got a small amount of revenue, but over time things really dropped off.
Despite increasing visitors I was getting less and less income from the adverts, so I too chose to disable them.
I knew it was coming, because even ten years ago I was running an adblocker for myself, but it was still a surprise how quickly it came about for the average Joe.
I do find it interesting that the author specifies they use an ad blocker whilst also wanting to view the industry 'from the inside'. I'm not sure there isn't a level of hypocrisy there, albeit understandable.
As staunchly anti-advertising, I wouldn't include advertising on anything I publish personally, but then I also don't publish anything, so I have no pressure to change my stance. I think I've convinced myself that my opinion doesn't matter to those who may be able to earn a decent stream from advertising (as much as I dislike that, and as much as I dislike my opinion being value-less).
It's an act of self-protection. I'm not anti-advertising. I'm anti-running-untrusted-software on my property. If they had stuck to adwords and static images with no invasive tracking I'd let their ads run. But the surveillance capitalists can't help themselves and want to run their 50MB spyware payload on my computer. I say no to that garbage.
Precisely this. The industry has themselves to blame.
Correct. Google had initially a good program that was based on keywords and non-intrusive ads. They killed that in the pursuit of more profits.
A grand failure on behalf of society is that this was a good business decision (it succeeded at improving their profits) because it has faced effectively zero governmental intervention despite the fact it is used as a foundation for the launch of a million scams.
"I'll run the arbitrary code you send me if you acknowledge that you are legally liable if it turns out to be a virus or a scam... No? Why won't you take that deal?"
The problem is not the marketing of services and products.
The problem is the vector for tracking and for installing malware on users' browsers. I'd actually love to be notified when interesting products are available - but I block ads out of the defensive stance that the advertising industry pushed many people into.
There's no contradiction; ad blocker usage is common within the industry.
There certainly is a contradiction, but it's so deeply ingrained that using ad blockers is OK that people can't see it even when it's right in front of their faces.
If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist, and nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people.
> nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people.
Whatever replaced them could hardly be worse than the shit we currently have. I refuse to believe we live in a global maximum.
You could be right, but I personally am much more comfortable paying with a few milliseconds of my attention for news/email/short comedy clips/timezone conversion/etc. than even a single cent of actual money. And it has to be one or the other -- right?
Of course you are, that's why we are in this Faustian bargain. It's hard to compete with free-as-in-beer.
>than even a single cent of actual money.
I think we often pay those cents without knowing. Companies we employ or purchase from despite never having been subject to their adspend, etc
> If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist
Sounds incredible. How do we make this paradise happen?
Remember the part about all the free-as-in-beer stuff on the internet that people find really useful, and that wouldn't exist if not for ads?
That stuff doesn't depend on Alphabet and Meta specifically. It depends on ads. No ads = no that stuff. Are you happy for it to all disappear?
What about all the free-as-in-beer stuff that doesn't depend on ads? Like, er, this site?
It's not free, we pay for it with our attention. I'd rather pay with money.
How does my attention, the time I spend reading news.ycombinator.com, pay for the site? I DON'T run an ad blocker, but I am not watching any ads here.
HN is a recruitment tool for Y Combinator. Someone is paying for it with their attention.
Did you think they are running it out of the goodness of their heart?
HN regularly runs ads for YC companies. https://news.ycombinator.com/jobguide.html
For Meta specifically, what exactly would be so bad about all their stuff disappearing? I can't think of much. Messenger is the only thing of theirs that has any value as far as I can see, and there's many alternatives now.
Demur. RayBan Meta and Oakley Meta glasses are fantastic devices.
I'd rather have five or ten smaller competing companies getting various deals from the glasses manufacturers than a couple huge companies getting them all.
I wout be absolutely delighted for it to all disappear and for the internet to go back to being only for enthusiasts again
Mostly because I don’t believe anything of value would actually be lost (note you provided no examples and I’m not sure any exist), that also sounds incredible. So again, how do we make this no-ads paradise happen?
The internet worked before everything was plastered with ads.
Well, I think either way, Internet ads are dead for the most part. They have been dead for many years now. They started exactly the same way and went through the same flow. There were all kinds of ads: ads to install junk, ads that were totally misleading, ads that were very sexual in nature just to tempt users into clicking them, and ads that were totally irrelevant to the topic of the website or the user's interests.
But then it got so bad that people started using ad blockers long ago, and they got rid of this mess. Later, companies slowly started moving away from Internet advertising in general, and when the mobile and smartphone market started to take off, all the money flowed into that world instead. If you look at the way ads work in the mobile industry, even today, they are full of junk and incentivize users to install apps and perform specific actions. There is an equal amount of junk and misleading content in mobile ads today, like there used to be in Internet ads more than a decade ago. But right now, we are at that point. Mobile ads will also start getting muted one way or the other, and there will be huge incentive and opportunity sitting on top of that right there.
To add to this specific article, though, I would say it would have hardly made a difference anyway for the author in 2025.
ads definitely aren't dead. Though ads on random networks like adsense probably are because the quality of traffic is horrendous. Basically every beginner adwords guide will have you disable network traffic(turn off adsense).
Advertising direct on sites is still very valuable.
>Google posts $82.3 billion of ad revenue, YouTube's advertising business hit $11.4 billion in Q4 2025
https://www.storyboard18.com/advertising/google-posts-82-3-b...
Large news sites still depend on ads. They don't make much, but there's not much else they can do to increase revenue.
I did the same and switched to Ethical Ads (no cookies, tracking etc.) on https://frequal.com
Ethical Ads: https://www.ethicalads.io/
I joined AdSense in 2003. At peak it was generating US$15k a month.
Nowadays it will be a miracle if it passes of US$800 a month.
I think the shift to a more localised audience (NZ), diversion of ad spend to large social networks are responsible. Our traffic is similar in volume but nowhere near as "valuable" apparently.
I have a similar story -- we peaked at around $20k USD per month for quite a while. However, when ad-rates started declining, we changed our business model, and are now earning much more without any ads at all. I have to say, I'm glad to be rid of Google Ads, as they're full of many, many scammy advertisers.
How do you earn money now? You started charging your users?
We created products they want.
All ad networks are cancer, in my humble opinion. Adblocking is a security requirement, so I have no compassion for anybody who bases their economic success on any ad network.
My employer is more scared of browser plugin-based malware than they are of ad-based malware. So that's fun.
For many people with decent traffic I believe it makes sense to sell their own local ads instead of depending on a network like Adsense.
I had some sites that used it years ago ca. 2006. $500/mo at peak. Then one month it suddenly halved for no apparent reason. And it kept dropping. After a while or just wasn't with the ugliness. And I learned to never count on Google.
Since then I've become anti-ad and haven't had any for years. I am sorry for my embarrassing lapse in judgment. :)
Easy to become anti-ad after they stop paying lol
Like me becoming anti-my-girlfriend after she dumped me
I believe that the old proverb is "sour grapes".
Well it's a trade off right?
If the benefit outweighs the drawbacks, you say yes, and when the benefits evaporate leaving only the drawbacks, it's a no.
Well yeah but this guy portrays it like a moral decision
I didn't think it was a moral decision at the time. Now I do. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
What decisions aren't?
The very open ended core question of the field of ethics is nothing more or less than "what is the best way to act".
Is this the ads or the girlfriend?
Ha! In my case, I wasn't actually anti-ad when I dropped them, though. It just wasn't worth it any longer. I worked in marketing for years after that.
And working in marketing--that is what eventually made me rabidly anti-advertising. :)
Edit: I don't eat at Pizza Hut any more either, having worked for them from 1990-91. I was cured!
This is pointing out something that seems to be deeply human, it's not intended as a personal dig, because I think I'd be in the same boat:
It's interesting, not unexpected and not un-understandable, that your opinion started changing as the dollar value decreased. I greatly dislike what this says about the effect of money on the human psyche. It's as old as time, but this hack hasn't been patched and I don't think it can be: Humans will sell their souls for a price.
I forgive you for your lapse in judgement. You are human after all - not intended as an insult ;)
> I forgive you for your lapse in judgement.
I "don't forgive you" for considering this a lapse in judgment, because you still have some things to learn. (I'm kidding of course. All of this framing is rather silly.)
beej was doing what was best for them at the time. There were no victims. beej sold a service to an enterprise until it didn't make sense anymore.
Moralizing something that happened 20 years ago is wild. It literally does not matter. beej didn't kill anyone, didn't ruin their self esteem, didn't steal. This is not "soul selling".
Money isn't evil. Working for money and selling for money are not evil. You're going to have to do a whole lot more to meet that threshold for most people.
We should stop casting stones at people unless they're really assholes. This is nothing.
'twas purely for the lolz in reply to parent's:
> I am sorry for my embarrassing lapse in judgment. :)
But I do agree with the point you're making.
So if you don’t say anything then Google will think - yeah, that’s one way to make profit!
I had to turn off adsense when every ad they were running was a deceptive green "download" button. It was a whack a mole to try and block them all and was a waste of effort.
I put Adsense on my website in 2004 on a Thursday. Logged in Saturday and discovered that I'd earned $25! I immediately click one of my own ads, then logged back in to check my earnings per click. Later that week I got a warning email from Google. Told my wife.
She made me take all of my Adsense ads down immediately for the rest of the month and the first couple weeks of the next until we received our first Adsense check.
Then, and only then, did she let me put the ads back up. That first check bought us a freezer. The next paid our rent.
Those were fun times: $50 CPM was not usual 2004-2005.
> Those were fun times: $50 CPM was not usual 2004-2005.
Do you mean ‘not unusual’?
Aren't most people using ad blockers these days, making the revenue that one can generate with ads trivial unless traffic is enormous?
About 30% from what I could find.
It seems to me at its root, that it's a question of available ad attention, and the value thereof.
The classic value prop for ads has been so badly destroyed by bad curation and content invasiveness that the basis value of that attention has dropped trough the floor. The growing prevalence of ad blocking is only a symptom of that.
This has become bad enough it even invades special interest nonprofit rags like the AAA, American Legion, and USPSA newsletters, for example.
Popular in tech circles, but largely unused outside them.
Not even in "tech circles". Anecdotally, most of my colleagues -- mostly software engineers -- don't use adblocker at home or at work. It hurts my eye to see their screens. But they don't care.
(The workspace does not disallow adblocker extensions.)
You would be surprised to how little people use adblockers. Old data, but on my country for a major tech website, the number was 13%.
Similar numbers for other countries: https://gwern.net/banner#they-just-dont-know Wouldn't shock me if it's even lower as people move to walled-gardens like smartphones.
My experience deploying at blockers in the enterprise is the average non tech user feels the Internet is "broken" when it's not covered in ads and will tell helpdesk it needs to be fixed.
Unfortunately not. Adblocking is a security requirement and should be enforced by any enterprise.
I never used adblock because if I don't like ads on a particular website I will simply not visit it anymore. And if I like it enough despite of the ads, I want to support them financially in some way.
Don't forget that ad blockers do more than filtering visible ad banners and other visual annoyances. They also block tracking scripts, fonts, and other cross-site elements that infringe on your privacy.
There’s an interesting conversation to be had about ad sponsorship on web content when the share of people just getting summarized results from {LLM chatbot of choice} is increasing and siphoning actual views.
The conversation should be about the fact that the advertising won't disappear, it will inevitably move to LLM output where it will be seamless/unblockable and undisclosed.
There's a law of conservation (or growth, really) of ad impressions.
> The conversation should be about the fact that the advertising won't disappear, it will inevitably move to LLM output where it will be seamless/unblockable and undisclosed.
And then those of us who ad-block everything now will run local LLMs if only to take the input of the cloud LLM and remove anything that seems like an ad or mentions specific brands.
Though in the long run I think we'll all get along fine with local LLMs in the first place and all the money being dumped into frontier models while useful in pushing the state of the art will effectively have been lit on fire in terms of generating long-term returns.
This would be great but I'm sure the entrenched players will make it difficult enough to run effective local models that normal users won't touch them.
There are only two OS options for phones and computers for 99+% of people and it will be trivially easy to restrict local models on them.
In college I made like $1,000/month on Google Adsense on a website that had a few dozen pages at most. No idea what I was doing, but thanks Google Adsense for paying for practically half my education and a whooole lot of drugs.
"I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker"
interesting that someone looking to make some (modest) money with AdSense is blocking ads...
> Plus, turning off the ads should more clearly classify my blog as “non-commercial” for the various legal tests that impose greater liability on commercial actors.
Anyone know what these might be offhand? I think federal trademark law may sting more if used commercially. But what else could he be referring to?
Mostly around copyright issues, but probably also potential defamation as well.
Man spends 20 years as a participant-observer in the AdSense ecosystem for academic purposes, earns less than a TA, and gets flagged for writing about the very legal cases he's an expert on. Peak Google.
It seems with AI models this space is ripe for on-domain ad sales as a SaaS. Just pay an invoice to "advertise here" Have an AI make sure the links adhere to content policies. Don't track visitors or charge per click. Just pay a fee and get the banner.
It should but it’s a hard problem to solve. Programmatic ads require whatever check you’re doing to happen in sub-second speeds. No AI can solve this fast enough. Embeddings take forever to run.
As a visitor to a site, it is refreshing to NOT be subjected to constant ads. Even though I have an ad-blocker running, not having to use it is a definite plus. Thanks for taking this decision!
I stopped buying Google Keywords after about 2 years, saw no difference in sales
was making enough 10 yr ago with it to cover my mortgage every month. I noticed it ticking down year over year after 2018. Now I get a payment every few months. It was a great ride while it lasted.
This was a very interesting read. Thank you for sharing it.
(2025)
at 20$ a click i’d click on my own adverts tbh
Then you get banned
> I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker
Using ad blockers is unethical. No one who uses one (probably 99% of people on HN) wants to hear this, but the conclusion is inescapable really.
You may commence your downvoting.
ETA: Why do I claim it's unethical? Every ad-supported page is an implicit contract: If you want the good stuff on this page, you need to pay for that by giving some of your attention to <these shitty ads that we all probably hate>. Nothing more. If the trade-off isn't worth it to you, that's fine: you have the right, and the ability, to reject it -- to cease interacting with the site at all. OTOH, using an ad blocker to access the site without "paying" (with your attention) is violating the contract in the same way that hacking a parking meter downtown to park your car for free is. Running websites isn't free, and even if it was, it's the site owner's prerogative whether and how much ad-attention to "charge". If the fundamental idea of capitalism is sound (and perhaps it isn't -- but then let's discuss that), exorbitant ad burdens attached to desirable content will eventually be outcompeted by other sites offering similar content for free with fewer ads, or for actual cash.
There's a more self-serving argument, too: If everyone used 100% effective ad blockers, Alphabet (minus GCP) and Meta would not exist, and nor would the very large number of free-as-in-beer services that make up a large part of what makes the internet useful to people. Using ad blockers is only "sustainable" in the same way that mafia protection rackets are "sustainable" -- by being a sufficiently small drain on the rest of society.
You may get downvoted because you are making a bold statement without any reasoning behind it - what exactly is unethical about it? ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unethical )
Thanks, that's fair. I've added my reasons in an ETA on the original post.
I disagree exactly for the reason BLKNSLVR wrote so I won’t repeat it but upvoted your comment :)
There are valid reasons for using ad blockers, hence why the general US Intelligence Community both uses and recommends the use of ad blockers "as a critical security measure to defend against "malvertising" and data collection threats".
All other arguments are moot in the shadow of this. However, if you're talking about how a media company can stay afloat without advertising, then you're getting very much closer to ethical arguments. I currently just point to the first paragraph in such an argument.
The advertising industry needs to sort out its inability to appropriately and safely scale before any ethical arguments are able to put roots down.
I hear you on malvertising and overzealous data collection. I certainly think online advertising needs to be carefully regulated for essentially safety reasons. But in an ideal world where such regulation was firmly in place, I think it would not be appropriate (because it would not be necessary) for government or influential industry groups to endorse ad-blockers.
BTW I've added an ETA to my original post with my reasons.
Because I am pro-capitalism, I utterly disagree with your premise. In a real contract, parties can negotiate and come to a meeting of the minds. Here's how it actually works:
* A website serves me a page with a place to put ads on it.
* I reject their offer to serve me ads.
* The site has the option of deciding not to serve me any more content, typically by showing me an anti-ad-blocker popup. If they continue to serve me, they've agreed to my proposed contract alterations.
* If they choose not to serve me, I can decide to accept their final offer (by disabling my ad-blocker) or reject it (by closing the tab).
What on earth makes you think that the negotiation ends with the initial offer? That's not how bargaining works. This isn't some Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario.
Is buying milk at your local supermarket a Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario?
If not, at what point during your milk purchase does the negotiation step that you hold to be important for capitalism take place?
I put it to you that take-it-or-leave-it-ness is orthogonal to the capitalism-socialism axis, and that the take-it-or-leave-it nature of viewing an ad-supported website is no more socialist (and no more alarming) than buying milk.
Regarding "negotiation":
> * The site has the option of deciding not to serve me any more content, typically by showing me an anti-ad-blocker popup.
Are you indeed claiming that today's ad blockers operate by explicitly rejecting a request sent from the main site as part of some standard ad negotiation protocol? Because if so, I would agree that this amounts to a negotiation with the website as you say.
But this would certainly be news to me. It must be a recent change, since for most of my life, ads have simply been hyperlinked images/objects/videos/IFrames, or sometimes inline text generated server-side or on the client using JS, and the only mechanisms available to implement ad blocking were implicit, and based on subterfuge: By preventing fetching of that content in the first place (in a variety of ways), or by fetching it but then hiding/obscuring the result in some way. None of which amount to "negotiation", obviously.
> Is buying milk at your local supermarket a Soviet-style take-it-or-leave-it scenario?
No. You can ask. They'll say no, almost surely, unless you're talking to the manager about something that's about to expire and then anything goes. But you can ask. Your idealized scenario is where the initial, and only, offer is "see this with ads or don't see it" with no room for negotiation.
> Are you indeed claiming that today's ad blockers operate by explicitly rejecting a request sent from the main site as part of some standard ad negotiation protocol?
As far as it's possible to express this arrangement in HTML, yes, of course. The page gives your client a document describing which resources it may wish to fetch, among other things. It's not expected that you'll fetch all of them. You may already have the cached data. A resource may be of a type your client doesn't know how to render. It may be in a tag your client doesn't know how to process. It may include executable code that your client might be configured to execute or not to execute. It may have several media types for scenarios that don't apply to you, such as for printing or working with a screen reader for people with visual impairments, and those media types may refer to resources that your client won't fetch because they're not relevant to you. 100% of those decisions can be made by your client. It's not obligated to execute your JavaScript, even if it has Bitcoin mining code and you lose out on the would-be cryptocurrency that my browser chooses not to mine for you. It's not obligated to use your fonts, or figure out how to display your odd graphics format, or render your PDF, or load your Java applet, etc.
And thus with ads. Your web page says "here's an image tag for you to display an ad", or more likely, "here's a ball of malware for you to execute that also displays an ad". There's no legal or moral or technical scenario where my client is obligated to choose to display or execute it, simply because your site told me how to do it if I chose to participate.
I find that 99% of ads are blocked simply by disabling Javascript. Does that suggest that disabling Javascript is unethical? Or does it suggest that those blocked advertisements were over-stepping the bounds of the implicit contract?
I am not sure ethics have much to do with it nor implied contract.
In the past there was no ethical issue nor contractual issue with going to the bathroom during a network commercial break, no ethical issue with skipping multi page magazine ads. We were free to change the radio channel during ad breaks.
My parents would often mute the tv in commercial breaks and talk.
> OTOH, using an ad blocker to access the site without "paying" (with your attention) is violating the contract in the same way that hacking a parking meter downtown to park your car for free is.
It's not the same thing at all: I wouldn't hack a parking meter downtown, but I would if it was installed in my garage!
What runs on my PC is up to me.
LMFAO. You want to play the "ethical" games? I'll bring this to you, because you don't have any base for your hallucinations. You know who are the real unethical creatures that's written by World Wide Web Consortium? It's YOU, the ones who insult and want to prevent people blocking things on their OWN computer.
https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render
> 2.12 The web can be consumed in any way that people choose
> People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts. We will build features and write specifications that respect people's agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf.
There are no contracts here. Don't make up your own laws. Bring your lawyers to here. When people download the malwares you serve on your websites, do you web owners ever go to jail to compensate for their loss? Or you just laugh at your home and say "Oh, I am so ETHICAL!"?
You are just bunch of unethical malware spreading and personal information stealing psycopaths. If you have some thing to sell, just sell it. If your products are not attractive enough to make people, that's your own fault. Don't spread malwares and steal peoples's information and cry that it's hard to "earn" to provide "free" information (you are stealing things from peopel, it's not free) and pretend that you are ethical. There are many ethical people out there, selling their few vegetables on the street each day. They don't steal people's information and give people harmful things that destroy other belongings like you psycopaths.
adverts are unethical, they use psychological manipulation to influence people against their will and often without their knowledge.
Oh, I'm happy to tolerate decent and fair advertising.
But since the ad-tech industry (worth billions) is now dedicated to invading my privacy, using underhand tactics to avoid the GDPR and is busy sniffing my underwear to work out what I had for breakfast, then they can all follow the advice given to them by Bill Hicks.
And I will run an add blocker.
> Nor is it an argument that companies can’t do better jobs within their own content moderation efforts. But I do think there’s a huge problem in that many people — including many politicians and journalists — seem to expect that these companies not only can, but should, strive for a level of content moderation that is simply impossible to reach.
The three problems I see are:
1. People who imagine content moderation prohibitions would be a utopia.
2. People who imagine content moderation should be perfect (of course by which I mean there own practical, acknowledged imperfect measure. Because even if everyone is pro-practicality, if they are pro-practicality in different ways, we still get an impossible demand.)
3. This major problem/disconnect I just don't ever see discussed:
(This would solve harms in a way that the false dichotomy of (1) and (2) do not.)
a) If a company is actively promoting some content over others, for any reason (a free speech exercise, that allows for many motives here), they should be held to a MUCH higher standard for their active choices, vs. neutral providers, with regard to harms.
b) If a company is selectively financially underwriting content creation, i.e paying for content by any metric (again, a free speech exercise, that allows for many motives), they should be held to be a MUCH higher standard, for their financed/rewarded content, vs. content it sources without financial incentive, with regard to harms.
Host harbor protections should be for content made available on a neutral content producer, consumer search/selection basis.
As soon as a company is injecting their own free speech choices (by preferentially selecting content for users, or paying for selected content), much higher responsibilities should be applied.
A neutral content site can still make money many ways. Advertising still works. Pay for content on an even basis, but providing only organic (user driven) discovery, etc. One such a neutral utility basis, safe harbor protection regarding content (assuming some reasonable means of responding to reports of harmful material), makes sense.
Safe harbors do not make sense for services who use their free speech freedoms to actively direct users to service preferred content, or actively financing service preferred content. Independent of preferred (i.e. the responsibility that is applied, should continue to be neutral itself. The nature of the companies free speech choices should not be the issue.)
Imposed selection, selective production => speech => responsibility.
Almost all the systematic harms by major content/social sites, can be traced to perverse incentives actively pursued by the site. This rule should apply: Active Choices => Responsibility for Choices. Vs. Neutrality => Responsible Safe Harbor.
This isn't a polemic against opinionated or hands-on content moderators. We need them. We need to allow them, so we have those rights to. It is a polemic against de-linking free speech utilization, from free speech responsibility. And especially against de-linking that ethical balance at scale.
Why did you think that using an ad network was ever a sensible option for revenue? Ads are cancer and a security risk, so blocking them is just common sense.
Not OP, but because I could flip a switch and get an extra $200/mo for doing nothing extra, at a time when that was important to me.
When every other site on the Internet seemed to have banner ads, the moral quandary was whether I wanted free money or not. That was an easy decision.
Not sure what kind of reply you're expecting here. I'm defintely not cheering you on for abusing users to make you $200/month. Your business model is cancer and the reason why the Internet is the kind of shithole it is today.