After 20 years I turned off Google Adsense for my websites (2025)
by datadrivenangel on 4/6/2026, 11:23:28 PM
Comments
by: breput
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Therefore, I also turned off Google Adsense for my websites.
4/7/2026, 12:38:07 AM
by: beloch
"I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker, so I didn’t notice the changes or experience any irritation personally. "<p>--------<p>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.
4/7/2026, 12:45:05 AM
by:
4/7/2026, 2:39:36 AM
by: donatj
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.<p>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.<p>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.
4/7/2026, 12:48:42 AM
by: BLKNSLVR
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.<p>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).
4/7/2026, 12:23:49 AM
by: enad
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Those were fun times: $50 CPM was not usual 2004-2005.
4/7/2026, 2:17:15 AM
by: freitasm
I joined AdSense in 2003. At peak it was generating US$15k a month.<p>Nowadays it will be a miracle if it passes of US$800 a month.<p>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.
4/7/2026, 12:49:43 AM
by: atlgator
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.
4/7/2026, 2:24:25 AM
by: TeaVMFan
I did the same and switched to Ethical Ads (no cookies, tracking etc.) on <a href="https://frequal.com" rel="nofollow">https://frequal.com</a><p>Ethical Ads: <a href="https://www.ethicalads.io/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ethicalads.io/</a>
4/6/2026, 11:52:26 PM
by: fantasizr
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.
4/7/2026, 12:52:20 AM
by: beej71
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.<p>Since then I've become anti-ad and haven't had any for years. I am sorry for my embarrassing lapse in judgment. :)
4/7/2026, 12:30:57 AM
by: rhoopr
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.
4/7/2026, 12:36:19 AM
by: drnick1
Aren't most people using ad blockers these days, making the revenue that one can generate with ads trivial unless traffic is enormous?
4/7/2026, 12:31:08 AM
by: fearless1ron
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.
4/7/2026, 2:02:06 AM
by: cabaalis
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.
4/7/2026, 1:22:11 AM
by: bluepeter
> 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.<p>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?
4/7/2026, 12:21:25 AM
by: youknownothing
"I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker"<p>interesting that someone looking to make some (modest) money with AdSense is blocking ads...
4/7/2026, 12:50:13 AM
by: DivingForGold
I stopped buying Google Keywords after about 2 years, saw no difference in sales
4/7/2026, 1:00:03 AM
by: t1234s
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.
4/7/2026, 12:53:47 AM
by: brycewray
(2025)
4/7/2026, 12:10:47 AM
by: Nevermark
> 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.<p>The three problems I see are:<p>1. People who imagine content moderation prohibitions would be a utopia.<p>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.)<p><i>3. This major problem/disconnect I just don't ever see discussed:</i><p>(This would solve harms in a way that the false dichotomy of (1) and (2) do not.)<p>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.<p>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.<p>Host harbor protections should be for content made available on a neutral content producer, consumer search/selection basis.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.)<p>Imposed selection, selective production => speech => responsibility.<p>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.<p>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.
4/7/2026, 1:04:20 AM
by: yapyap
at 20$ a click i’d click on my own adverts tbh
4/7/2026, 1:17:22 AM
by: giahoangwin
[dead]
4/7/2026, 2:24:30 AM
by: akoboldfrying
> I never saw most of the offending ads because of my adblocker<p>Using ad blockers is unethical. <i>No one</i> who uses one (probably 99% of people on HN) wants to hear this, but the conclusion is inescapable really.<p>You may commence your downvoting.<p>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 <i>that</i>), 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.<p>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.
4/7/2026, 1:37:36 AM