
The Deck ad network is shutting down - protomyth
http://decknetwork.net/
======
eldavido
This seems to fit the narrative of a broader wave of consolidation hitting the
old-school web.

Like it or not, there are real advantages to walled gardens like facebook. To
ad buyers, it's a single platform where one can target the entire world
person-by-person -- even across multiple devices (iPad, phone, laptop), with
hyper-accurate segmentation and user tracking, strong identity services with
all the abuse/spam prevention and payment capability that enables, multi-
lingual, optimized CDN-based distribution to ensure all content is fast and
cheaply delivered to every corner of the globe (an especially big deal given
the rise of video ads), mobile-first UX that works across every conceivable
handset including iOS and every esoteric variant of Android, etc.

I'm not pleased about a lot of this, but it's a mistake to deny what's
happening.

~~~
cookiecaper
You don't need a walled garden for that. You would need some client-side
listeners.

Walled gardens arise because our legal system incentivizes it. Network effects
are unnatural online. There is no barrier to access or information flow here
-- put simply, _there are no real walls_ to protect the garden. They're all
artificially imposed barriers.

With improved laws, no one would be able to hold the web-accessible data
hostage, and competition would be based on consumer-facing concerns like user
experience and customer service.

Until we get to that point, which makes up the foundation of all competition
in the physical world, the potential of the internet will continue to be
squandered. It's very important to wake people up to these issues, since no
one really seems to discuss them.

~~~
caseysoftware
> _Network effects are unnatural online._

I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was
created to describe literal computer networks.

Network effects don't happen in the physical world nearly as easily because
the bar, grocery store, or whatever is limited by geography. They can only
address a population within a certain radius and can't grow beyond it.

Transportation hubs - like airports - may be an exception because the more
places you can get from one airport, the more likely you are to use that
airport.. if you even have a choice.

~~~
cookiecaper
>I find this line ironic since the Network Effect (or Metcalfe's Law) was
created to describe literal computer networks.

The distinction is that it refers to _physical_ networks (and iirc, referred
initially to phone systems, not computer systems per se). At layer 1, the
network effect is still very much valid and caused by the capabilities of the
physical hardware. This is forgotten because today everyone is plugged into
the same network. This was not always the case.

Because Metcalfe's Law exists, people have misunderstood it to apply to
cyberspace and incorrectly believed it's simply the way things have to be.
This is not so.

The compatibility concern at the core of _real_ network effects, where the
hardware buy will be dictated by what the most neighbors have, are not
relevant once you have a physical hookup.

In cyberspace, layers 2 and up, there is no physical limitation on
compatibility. There are only digits (hence the term "digital") upon which
computations are made (hence "computers"). If the correct computations can be
performed (i.e., if you possess hardware that can convert the electrical
pulses to the expected digits and software (drivers, browsers, etc.) that can
decode the digits to match expectations), the desired data can be presented.

Since network effects refer exclusively to physical compatibility, we only see
this in the digital realm because it's artificially imposed. The law says that
anyone who tries to extricate data from, e.g., Facebook will be severely
punished, despite the fact that Facebook does not have a copyright interest in
the data, and that as long as such extrication is done responsibly, it would
have 0 impact on Facebook's ability to conduct its operations.

That's an artificial barrier that we've concocted, and it's the only mechanism
by which network effects can work in cyberspace. Without the legal risk,
people would read the data out from Facebook and recast, repopulate, etc. in
alternate hypermedia. People would also make writable interfaces available.
Facebook would then have to compete on its ability to provide a superior user
experience, like most other businesses, not the availability of the data that
they've misappropriated from users.

Social networks like Facebook have forced themselves between the open network
and the data that used to be exposed to it, insisting that all traffic must be
subject to their conditions. There's no reason to allow that!

Once the online marketplace is subject to the same types of competition that
exist in the physical marketplace, i.e., once everyone is allowed to compete
over the same core of knowledge, things are going to drastically improve.

~~~
dredmorbius
I appreciate your thinking, but your understanding and application of
networks, as well as your decidedly wishful thinking that they don't apply
online, is simply wrong.

Mind: I'd much rather this not be the case, but it simply is.

Metcalfe's function is, by the way, _also_ incorrect. Very few networks are
comprised of nodes of equal value, instead the nodal (and inter-nodal) value
tends to follow a power function (Zipf's Law), with one suggestion being that
the value function of a network with peer-to-peer connections then be:

    
    
      V = n * log(n) (Tilly-Odlyzko).
    

I see even _that_ as incomplete, as networks _also_ generate negative
interactions, though by their nature, Metcalfe's formula applies, with some
constant, such that the network _cost_ imposed by nodes is:

    
    
      C = k * n^2
    

Putting those together, a clear corollary is that the _maximum feasible size_
of the network is dependent on the cost function constant.

What you're failing to consider is that the _members_ of a network, including
both the users and advertisers, are themselves components of that network, and
have their own value and cost calculations to be applied. For large
advertising networks, the fact that 1) larger markets with 2) more customers
can be approached with 3) fixed costs for the advertiser and 4) efficiencies
of scale for the network operator (e.g., Facebook or Google, approximately 2/3
of all online advertising), then there will automatically be an advantage to
larger networks, provided _k_ is sufficiently small.

There's nothing artificial about those barriers.

Incidentally, you can find network or dendritic structures in _any_ system in
which you have nodes or elements, and links or relationships: transport and
communications systems, cities, even knowledge or information itself (think of
the terms "knowledge web" or "information web").

I've never cared for Facebook and am finding Google increasingly evil and/or
incompetent (and am torn as to whether that last is a good or bad thing on
balance), but there's very little validity in claiming that the dynamics which
have benefitted them are artificially imposed.

~~~
cookiecaper
I wasn't clear.

I agree that networks will continue to benefit as more users hop on the
platform. What I mean is that the element of network effects that we consider
prohibitive/oppressive -- the "walls" around the "garden" \-- are artificial
in cyberspace, whereas they are real in meatspace.

There is nothing in cyberspace to prevent that data from flowing freely; there
is only the threat that meatspace thugs will come and take your liberty and
property for failing to respect the imaginary lines. In effect, it's a
political border.

Without the legal armaments at its disposal, Facebook could still be a central
hub of activity, but the data could be freed from it and exported.

Instead of creating Google+ and hoping it caught on, Google, seeing Facebook's
success, could get credentials from the user and automatically
multiplex/multicast the user's streams from G+ and FB into the G+ interface.
The user would be using G+ as an FB browsing device, and that should be legal
-- just as legal as using any other software as a browsing device.

Yes, the browser could materially modify the content of the page, including
stripping the ads off the child stream. But all browsers can do that. Should
we make it illegal for Chrome or Firefox as well? The only difference is that
Firefox is executed on a box a few feet away from the user, whereas a G+
browser is executed on a box that is (probably) much further away.

In this scenario, Facebook continues to directly benefit from the growth and
expansion of its network, and more people hop on Facebook. The difference is
that there is no barrier to get up against if you're viewing the network's
growth from across the room, and you can tell people on your side of the room
"It looks Alice from that other network is brushing her teeth". Facebook would
no longer have a monopoly on the content generated by users who are "in their
space".

~~~
dredmorbius
_the "walls" around the "garden" \-- are artificial_

But they're not.

Standards, access, frictions, legal obstacles, implementation costs, and much
more.

How, precisely, do you distinguish "artificial" and "non-artificial" barriers?

There were open networks, with Usenet being a particular example. Usenet still
exists, sort-of. It's entirely a non-starter in social networks. You might
want to enquire as to why. Similarly, Diaspora, Friendica, FOAF, blog+RSS,
etc., etc.

~~~
cookiecaper
>How, precisely, do you distinguish "artificial" and "non-artificial"
barriers?

An artificial barrier is something that constrains by fiat, especially when
that barrier comes from a third-party like the government. It's "because I
said so".

You're correct that things like standards, access, and costs are barriers that
must be overcome, but with a relatively small amount of effort, these barriers
_are_ surmountable.

The ongoing cat and mouse game between something like Facebook and something
that multiplexed its data on the user's behalf would be the most
expensive/irritating "natural" barrier; natural because, while Facebook would
be intentionally creating it, it's a real capability restriction that must be
circumvented technologically and not the government saying "Don't do that, or
else".

A natural barrier that may constrain some otherwise illegal activities would
be the disdain of the public. In this case, there is no such disdain;
copyright and IP law long ago exited the space that most people consider
reasonable.

>There were open networks, with Usenet being a particular example.

Fixing the law would make the data open without requiring any material change
in FB. They don't have to open up. The point is that in cyberspace, the data
is natively open.

As Bruce Schneier says, "trying to make digital bits uncopyable is like trying
to make water not wet". Easy copying is an intrinsic, inextricable mechanism
of the medium. Indeed, it's the fundamental mechanism that allows computers to
function at all.

Blog+RSS did extremely well. Facebook and Twitter succeeded _because_ they
were simple forms of aggregation. Throughout the 00s, before FB took off with
the adult crowd, many people had personal/family blogs to share information
about their lives with families and friends, and you'd add them to your feed
reader to keep up. FB has supplanted that by having greater usability, but at
the core, the concept is the same. The difference now is that FB can lock it
up due to the favorable legal situation.

As for things like Diaspora, though I admittedly haven't studied them
thoroughly and they probably suffered significant real flaws, they're
hamstrung by the _artificial_ effects discussed here.

Diaspora likely would've been an acceptable "social interface" if it could
multiplex streams from Facebook and multicast out both to its own network and
Facebook (and for all I know, there probably _is_ software that allows this to
happen on open protocols like Diaspora; it just can't be deployed in a usable
way by anyone looking not to get sued out of existence).

True there are barriers like technology and cost to overcome, but the one
intractable barrier is the one that is totally arbitrary: the laws that
prevent it.

Anyway, I know that we don't agree, but I do appreciate your contributions to
this thread. The discussions have been interesting and given me some good
feedback on how to phrase this moving forward.

~~~
dredmorbius
I think we're at about the limits of an HN discussion length here. I
appreciate your thoughts, though I also think you're severely understimating
the emergent properties which can lead to lock-in effects. That's not to say
there aren't _some_ imposed barriers, though I'd argue ultimately those legal
bars _themselves_ are in some sense emergent (virtually any empowered agent
will seek to reinforce its power through available means).

The good news, if there is that, is that aspirational social networks tend to
follow cycles, both online and off, and Facebook will all but certainly fall,
eventually. The bad news is that the same dynamics which created it will
create the next instance, and I'm really not sure those dyanamics _can_ be
disrupted, no matter how much I'd like to see that they are.

While it's hard to make digital information uncopyable, it's relatively easy
to make it _nonsensical_. Obsolete or opaque formats, hoop-jumping, rate-
limiting, and more, all impose costs. And the larger your population is, by
definition, the less sophisticated it is (sophistication is a definitionally
minority characteristic). So the harder it is to manifest a shift.

Something to keep in mind: any time someone pitches an idea to you with the
line "all we've got to do is convince people to ...", run. Just run. Unless
people would sell their children and mothers to get what it is you're selling,
it won't fly.

(Cellphones are crack.)

------
bgarbiak
Whenever I noticed that a site I'm visiting is "powered" by DECK, I was
whitelisting it in the adblock. I hate ads, but I totally get that they keep
things going in the Net, and so if there have to be ads they should be like
the DECK: no tracking, no profiling, no being invasive. It's really a shame
that an opposite of that triumphs today. In the long term it's gonna be
painful for the users, for publishers, for the net, for advertisers as well.
Probably for everyone, except for Facebook and Apple.

~~~
bazillion
I'm curious what you think of my ad network[1] -- it allows for native ads
that are non-intrusive and actually benefit the user. When you hover over an
item in an image, an ad is displayed, but hovering off of it makes it go away.

Here is an example video showing that:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_oTtDUV0yI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_oTtDUV0yI)

Although the ads aren't blocked by ad blockers, if they were, would you
unblock them? Also would love any feedback!

[1] [http://pleenq.com](http://pleenq.com)

~~~
j0ncc
I'm curious.... is there some sort of crazy image recognition tech going on
here or does the website owner need to somehow identify what's in the image
for the ads to work? If it's the former then this is seriously impressive.

~~~
bazillion
Unfortunately (in terms of programming credibility), it's done manually. The
process is extremely fast though -- just seconds to do a highlight, and a
built-in search that hooks into all affiliate networks (Commission Junction,
Linkshare, Affiliate Window, Share-a-sale, etc.) along with allowing custom
links.

~~~
greglindahl
Huh, the startups who tried to do this before you (and died) didn't do it
manually. Some crowdsourced it, some did recognition. Do you think your timing
is better?

------
JusticeJuice
This is a shame.

I really liked the deck - it was one of the few ad networks I actually wanted
to get on my site. They had both really high quality ads, and really high
quality publishers.

This is also a pretty big blow to the publishers - they'll feel the revenue
loss, and there isn't an equivalent network to take their place. I'm sure
they'll find something though.

~~~
beaconstudios
does Carbon ([https://carbonads.net/](https://carbonads.net/)) not provide a
similar offering?

~~~
livestyle
Yes. Very similar.

------
forsaken
This makes me sad. We based our Ethical Advertising concept that we're doing
on Read the Docs ([http://docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ethical-
advertising.htm...](http://docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ethical-
advertising.html)) on their inspiration.

We don't have nearly as much mobile traffic (only ~6%), so hopefully we will
be able to make it work, but this doesn't fill me with confidence.

~~~
toddynho
You should join us at Carbon :)

~~~
tannhaeuser
But the Carbon site says it's invite-only. Also, how do you go about
advertising on a site with user sub-sites using Carbon?

~~~
toddynho
That was an invite.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We put the sites in "circles" and
advertisers buy a specific circle.

------
NelsonMinar
Metafilter used this ad network: [http://metatalk.metafilter.com/24390/Fond-
farewell-to-ads-fr...](http://metatalk.metafilter.com/24390/Fond-farewell-to-
ads-from-The-Deck)

So did Waxy:
[https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/847188783724322816](https://twitter.com/waxpancake/status/847188783724322816)

~~~
NelsonMinar
Also Daring Fireball:
[http://daringfireball.net/2017/03/the_deck_adieu](http://daringfireball.net/2017/03/the_deck_adieu)

------
pkamb
This was a fun weekend hack experimenting with the iOS 9 content blocker
extension framework. Never got that link on Daring Fireball though!

[http://swabthe.com/](http://swabthe.com/)

~~~
jgruber
You built a content blocker that _only_ blocked The Deck?

~~~
TylerE
You are obviously missing the sarcasm.

~~~
packetslave
You are obviously missing who jgruber is.

~~~
TylerE
Should I care? I don't buy into personality cults.

~~~
Xylakant
In this case, yes. Not because of personality cults, but because jgruber is
the person behind DF.

------
ummjackson
Shame to hear this... although I guess there is less demand now with hyper-
targeted invasive social ads. Working with The Deck previously, Jim was always
such a pleasure to deal with and it felt a lot more personal as a network vs.
Google or the big social networks. RIP.

------
ollieco
> In 2014, display advertisers started concentrating on large, walled, social
> networks. The indie “blogosphere” was disappearing. Mobile impressions,
> which produce significantly fewer clicks and engagements, began to really
> dominate the market

There was a recent discussion on HN about how difficult it is to promote a
blog now (compared to a few years ago). I think this statement by Deck further
emphasises the fact that independent blogs are seeing a decline in readership.

------
mattl
This is sad. I based my idea for a free software friendly ad network on this,
and pitched it back in 2009. It became AdBard, and for a while it was quite
popular in the free software space.

[http://www.fsf.org/news/ad-bard](http://www.fsf.org/news/ad-bard)

A big problem for free software sites is finding ads that respect the users
freedom while promoting products which are not harmful to computer users.

------
aresant
Monetizing content with DISPLAY ads is no joke.

The sheer number of tools display networks have at their fingertips to try to
unlock value from your visitor's eyeballs are astounding - RTB exchanges / re-
targeting / user profiling / etc / etc.

And even with all of that most content producers can't make a living off of
their cut.

I always loved the simplicity of The Deck, but their end was inevitable.

~~~
jonathankoren
Yup. Reading their post, it appears they didn't want to play the contemporary
adtech game because it felt scummy, so they became unprofitable and quit.

~~~
wimagguc
Publishers massively overvalue their inventory and don't understand how their
million views are worth only buttons. Ad networks can't pay more because they
don't get paid more from the advertisers. The key is that no one clicks on
banners any more, so it really is a race to the bottom.

~~~
jonathankoren
Did people ever click on banners after like 2002? CTR on these things are
abysmal.

The whole ad business reeks of desperation. However, it does pay the bills, so
I guess it actually works.

~~~
DLarsen
CTR isn't the only KPI by which ads are sold. These days, publishers
understand that ads still influence even if normal users don't actually click.
When a purchase is preceded by an impression from my ad network, in some cases
I can get credit for a portion of it.

~~~
jonathankoren
Agree that CTR isn't the main metric that matters from a business perspective,
but it's the one to verify the statement "no one clicks on banners".

~~~
8note
Isn't that the wrong question?

what I'd really like to know is whether banners are a worthwhile investment,
not if they get clicked on.

------
code4tee
Clicked on the link to read the post and it said the page was blocked by my ad
blocker... oh the irony!

More seriously, sad to see them go but this does reflect the reality of a
market shift in this space.

------
th0ma5
I remember looking to host their ads and it was more like they would call you
not the other way around. Was this always the case?

------
brianbreslin
I wonder how much their content providers moving over to platforms like Medium
hurt their business? Aside from the fact so few people are clicking on
traditional display ads anymore.

We really shouldn't be looking down on this business. They managed to outlive
a TON of companies (10 years is great on the internet), and I'm sure provided
livelihoods for a fair number of people both at Coudal and their partner blogs
who they were monetizing. Kudos to them!

------
pgrote
uBlock Origin will block the article by default.

It seemed like a straight-forward business with little overhead considering
there wasn't anything invasive or highly technical about the advertising
units.

Is there a market for that type of advertising online?

~~~
draw_down
> uBlock Origin will block the article by default.

Seems short-sighted! And, also, an indication of where things are today.

~~~
gorhill
There is no shortsightedness involved, it's just a false positive from one of
the filter lists. When false positives are reported, they get fixed. This
fixes the false positive:

@@||decknetwork.net^$first-party

~~~
joshmanders
Or browse in blacklist mode. That's what I do and recommend to most... I love
uBlock Origin, but I wish it was blacklist mode by default.

------
parennoob
Could anyone in the know comment on whether their invite-only nature
contributed to this? I have wanted to have Deck Network ads on my sites
forever, but there was no real way to do so. They seemed to be restricted to
inviting only Apple-themed blogs and sites, plus maybe their peripheral
network.

I wonder if having a somewhat more clear and easy vetting process would have
helped expand their reach somewhat.

~~~
livestyle
What are your sites?

------
mxuribe
This is sad really...Its the walmart effect happening here (where a bigbox
store comes into town and crushes the little, local shop).

------
slackoverflower
I guess being humane doesn't really work in the advertising industry.

------
tinkerdol
Anyone have recommendations for video ad providers? I would like to embed ads
to play before a stream starts, but would also like to do it in the most
ethical way possible.

------
protomyth
Was The Deck still invite only and if so can someone explain the value in
that? That elitism could be a selling point, but if you are charging monthly,
it just seems a turn off for expansion because they won't grow with you but
only come in when you are established.

------
tambourine_man
Such a shame. A bad week for the web

------
twsted
It was probably the only ad network I have whitelisted on every adblocker I
use.

------
LeicaLatte
Has Deck considered making video ads? I ended up liking their take on 'banner
ads'. Curious to see what they might have done with video.

------
tempodox
The Deck consistently presented the most sensible ads I've seen out there.
Sorry to see it go.

------
draw_down
It's worth noting because this was an ad network that tried to do the job the
right way. The heyday of the indie blog was already over, this is just a
reflection of that. It worked for a while, and the wold has moved on. It's not
a matter of "grinding it out" or persistence, the market factors have simply
changed.

I wonder what Daring Fireball (AFAIK by far the site with largest readership
on the Deck) will do. I'm sure that's still quite a profitable enterprise, to
be clear.

~~~
scarface74
Not quite the same thing, but it is sort of heartening that Marco Arment -- of
Tumblr, Instapaper, and now Overcast fame -- was able to build out his own
non-scummy ad buying platform for his Overcast app. It seems to be doing quite
well.

[https://overcast.fm/account/buy_ad](https://overcast.fm/account/buy_ad)

~~~
petercooper
I know one person who ran a listing so far and they are very happy. It's about
putting the right sort of "ad" in the right place. Advertising podcasts in an
ad where people are listening to podcasts is a no-brainer and engagement
should be high.

Advertising arbitrary services, even if they're good, on arbitrary blogs seems
trickier to price and sell. But with the quality of the sites in the network,
I'm sure they could all individually find the right, complementary type of
advertising to continue to fund them.

~~~
scarface74
What makes podcast ads so much better? I'm not referring to overcast ads.

I think the only thing I've ever bought based on a podcast ad is BackBlaze,
but I do find podcast ads for the podcasts I listen to much better, more
relevant, etc., I've just never been in the market for most of what they are
selling.

~~~
atYevP
Yev from Backblaze here -> thanks for purchasing! I think part of that is when
I find places to run a Backblaze ad, I try to find a show-host who is willing
to do the read themselves, try the product, and maybe share a personal story
instead of just reading blanket copy. That doesn't happen all the time, but
when it does it comes off better. Backblaze is a tough thing to market because
a lot of folks view backup as a horrendous time-sink - so if the host can
drive home the ease-of-use we see folks more inclined to giving our trial a
spin!

------
Exuma
lol @ 7 billion ad impressions during the entire lifetime of an AD NETWORK. I
get 1.5 billion ad impressions a month on my 1 site alone.

~~~
omarchowdhury
I'll bet money the CPM Deck sold their ads is magnitudes greater than what
you're selling for.

