How am I supposed to know, before I click on a link, if the ads supporting the site I'm about to visit are "bad" or not?

A possible solution would be to develop an adblock product which whitelisted "good" ad networks by default (I think adblock plus has this feature for google ads at least). Getting that list populated and maintaining it would be tricky but feasible.

Adblockers aren't undetectable. Publishers know how many visitors are adblocking. Or, at least that information is attainable if they decide they want it.

There's also the issue of the simple time investment in curating ads. If I just somehow knew every website that depended on awful ads for the majority of their revenue, I'd happily avoid most of them, and everyone would be satisfied.

But the volume is so tremendous, an adblocker for me is surrender. I would like to support good ads and avoid/punish bad ads. But there are just so many websites, so many ads, I cannot mentally catalog it all and remember "oh right I'm ideologically avoiding site <blerp>" as I skim Google. Given that, uBlock is the only thing keeping my old laptop from collapsing under the weight of the bad ads that appear from every direction.

Actually it's a lot like spam blocking in some ways. Spam is such a voluminous problem, you are forced to implement blanket policies, leverage advanced technologies in heuristics, and maintain large networks of whitelists and blacklists, just to get on with life... that's what good ads and ad-free sites seem like, ham lost in a sea of spam.

Yes, I completely understand that. I think the best compromise if you're using AdBlock is to at least disable it on the higher-end sites you enjoy the most.

Also, because Adblock plugins can just stop network requests from ever happening, it's actually hard to accurately measure everything. Lots of publishers also arent that technical or have large dev teams so it might seem simple to the Hacker News readers but reality is more difficult for these sites operators. Wordpress actually runs more of the big famous sites then you may be aware of, just because it's easy and doesn't take a big ops team.

I do try to disable adblock on sites I like.

Which brings up a technical challenge- there's a vendor I like who implements targeted ads that follow you around the web. The ads are extremely benign and I would want to permit them- but they are hosted on a platform. How do I permit only certain vendors on an ad platform, without allowing the entire platform...

Unfortunately no. Certain networks do have a opt-out selection but this would not work because:

1) the opt-out choice relies on the same tracking cookies and stuff which would be blocked by adblockers

2) not every company offers opt-out because its a gray area of regulation, especially across global regions

3) you would have to opt-out of the infinite choices you dont want, just to let in the single one you do

>If you don't like the ads, please don't read the content.

I think one part of the issue is that the intent isn't so clear. You'll always have people who want the content regardless, but they're a lost cause from the onset.

Rather, for the rest, those sites/publishers would be well suited to making their intentions clear; i.e. "If you aren't going to view [click?] our ads, we don't want you reading our site."

There are many sites that outright block adblock users. For all the rest, it seems odd that, if they had that implicit contract in mind, they aren't blocking adblock users. Or issuing such a statement of readership intent.

It's hard to do. Adblock plugins work at the network layer and block requests completely based on matching the urls. This makes to engineer around, especially because lots of sites don't have lots of developer talent or resources.

Example: PageFair was a company that measured adblock usage and also showed messages like this, until their javascript tag got on the adblock list and suddenly their entire platform because useless.

Publishers need to take responsibility for their content. You want me to view an ad? Fine,serve it to me. Don't tell me to go download an ad from someone else.

An interesting idea, and one I'll note seems to work.

I think the bigger issue is the trusting someone to do data-collection for ads. When everything is "pay per click" or "pay per eyeball" both sides have incentive to engage in click-fraud. All these awful networks seem to be solving that issue by creating a third party who has to attract both advertisers, and affiliates, and thus shares(at least partially) the motives of both parties

Requiring your users to click on ads is a form of click fraud, and is banned in the TOS of many advertising networks. This is to help keep the site from "stealing" money from advertisers who are not particularly interesting in getting clicks from people who are only clicking on the ad to see the article, and have absolutely no intention of buying their products.

When _Google_-owned ad networks are in the "malware" bucket, it isn't the consumer's fault anymore for failing to distinguish.

I appreciate the concession that there is no explicit deal that readers will look at ads to pay for media. But there isn't actually such an implicit deal, either. There is an explicit deal between publishers and advertisers, in which money is traded for eyeballs. But to readers, publishers are simply offering free-to-read media in the hopes that they can monetize it sufficiently from views. Publishers can easily set up a paywall or payment system; this works very well in higher-value book-length writing. There there is an explicit deal in which publishers only make media available to readers who have purchased the right to read it. Likewise, plenty of people offer writing up for free, on HN, blogs, &c., without any plan to monetize it.

I can tell that you think I should expose myself the security risk of allowing ads, and everything else that comes in similar packages. The ads are annoying yes, but I probably wouldn't block them if it were simply a matter of tolerating small periodic annoyances.