4 ms·

People who are blocking your ads aren't people who would have purchased a product because of your ad in the first place. So I find the act of "showing non-disru

by Nadya 11y ago

People who are blocking your ads aren't people who would have purchased a product because of your ad in the first place. So I find the act of "showing non-disruptive ads to ad blockers" to be strange. >Some publishers and advertisers say ad blocking violates the implicit contract that girds the Internet — the idea that in return for free content, we all tolerate a constant barrage of ads. There is no reason why the implicit contract can't be changed. That's why you get contracts in writing. :) As far as any "moral" argument goes. Here's how I see it: "Your neighbor asks if they can park in your driveway. You agree to it, you had space to spare for the neighbor's car anyway. This went on fine for a few months, then your neighbor started parking two cars in your driveway. You had only agreed to having one car parked but you still had space to spare so you let them do it. A few years later - your neighbor is now parking many cars in your driveway and even blocking your garage. To drive anywhere you need to move your neighbor's car out of the way. Being the nice guy he is, he gave you a spare key to move the car when needed." Would it be "immoral" to ask your neighbor to stop parking cars in your driveway at this point? Is it immoral to ask your neighbor to stop parking cars in your driveway at any point? I've decided to no longer let ads be parked in my browser. I don't see how that is immoral. > PageFair’s canny strategy to mitigate users’ outrage is that it will only show ads that aren’t “intrusive,” Mr. Blanchfield said. Sean Blanchfield, if you ever get to read this, you can go fuck yourself. How's that for "mitigated outrage"? You don't get to decide what is and isn't "intrusive" for me.

rhino369 11y ago
>People who are blocking your ads aren't people who would have purchased a product because of your ad in the first place. Most advertising is just brand awareness. The days of e-advertising being about clicking the ad and buying on some webstore are long over. They are just like commercials on TV or billboards. You don't even realize the effect they have on you. >I've decided to no longer let ads be parked in my browser. I don't see how that is immoral. I totally agree. But I think it would also be fine if the content providers refused me service if I didn't let the ads through. I'm surprised more sites don't do that. I have a blocker on (and I don't even let through intrusive ads, I block it all) and I think I've only run into problems on hulu or some other video website.
- Cakez0r 11y ago
  > I'm surprised more sites don't do that I'm sure they would if they could. As far as I'm aware though, there isn't a good way to do it and still have your content indexed by google.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >They are just like commercials on TV or billboards. You don't even realize the effect they have on you. I do. Which is why I haven't watched television/movies since I was 10 years old. Luckily I only see billboards when I'm on a freeway, which happens maybe once or twice a year at most. I also keep an excel sheet where I blacklist companies whom I've seen advertisements from. So advertising to me has a net loss of -1 customer for life. But I'll agree that most people don't realize how much advertisements influence their behavior. I find it disgusting and not something that should be accepted at all in any amount - but most people don't seem to mind it. (Ignoring privacy issues with online advertisements. I'm speaking more general here.) >But I think it would also be fine if the content providers refused me service if I didn't let the ads through. Oh, I agree. Of course - the provider will likely go out of business because that isn't a sustainable business model either - but I do agree. It also hurts their Google Ranking which is why Paywall sites let you read the article if you find it through Google. Advertising is a broken business model. Once-upon-a-time it worked but it is breaking down. It's not the customer's job to keep watching advertisements. It's the providers job to find a better business model. Or go out of business.
  - seibelj 11y ago
    I disagree that advertising itself is a broken model, but I like imagining that someone ruthlessly updates their excel spreadsheet of blacklisted companies every time they hear or see an advertisement for any company. You must only shop at flea markets!
    - Nadya 11y ago
      I don't watch TV, rarely drive, don't watch movies, and use an ad blocker. It shouldn't be surprising that I see very few advertisements. To the tune of single-digits per year. If a company is so intrusive that they still find a way to serve me an advertisement - they aren't a company I wish to support. Billboards and bus stops are the worst offenders, but most of those I pass are advertising TV shows and movies. Which I already don't partake in. I should be more specific: online advertising is a broken model. If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be trying to fix it. ;)
bryans 11y ago
Hello again, Nadya. It seems we are making a habit of disagreeing with each other. ;-) Though I do entirely agree with the first sentence of your comment. It's the same reason why piracy isn't the dire issue the various media industries make it out to be. The vast majority of people who pirate content, were never going to pay for that content to begin with. So they're not actually losing those sales, because there was never a potential for a sale. I make no claims about this being moral behavior or otherwise, I'm just acknowledging that this is reality. For the rest of your comment, however, I don't think the driveway analogy holds up. It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Ignoring for a moment that some ads are obnoxious, do you genuinely believe that content creators should lose money for the "privilege" of having you consume their content? Because that seems rather silly to me. The simple fact is that when you use an ad blocker, you are not just preventing a website from making money off obnoxious ads. You are actually costing the content creator money. Out of their own pocket. The same content creator whom you probably believe deserves money for providing you with that information or entertainment. How can you possibly reconcile these conflicting facts? Pretending to be making a statement by boycotting all advertisement in an attempt to force the ad industry to change its ways, is no different from the extreme minority of pirates who insist that they are morally justified to never pay for anything, just because they don't like how the music industry operates. Regardless of whether any given industry conducts their business ethically, having a differing moral opinion does not automatically entitle you to everything for free. Or in the cast of ad blockers, entitling you to content at the quantifiable expense of its creator.
- Nadya 11y ago
  No - we seem to be at a misunderstanding here. I believe content creators should not deliver their content to me at all if they feel that delivering content to me at a loss is not worth it. I have no privilege to receive their content and they are under no obligation to provide me with it. The fact that they continue to deliver content to me at a loss shows that they value their Google Ranking and the possibility of me sharing the article to outweigh the cost of providing me with the content. They are making a cost-benefit analysis and deciding to show me the content anyways. The benefits of showing me the content, even at a loss, are superior to not showing me the content at all. If they have an issue with that - they can bring it up with Google. It isn't my problem that they care about their Google ranking. It's their problem with Google.

by Nadya 11y ago

rhino369 11y ago

>People who are blocking your ads aren't people who would have purchased a product because of your ad in the first place. Most advertising is just brand awareness. The days of e-advertising being about clicking the ad and buying on some webstore are long over. They are just like commercials on TV or billboards. You don't even realize the effect they have on you. >I've decided to no longer let ads be parked in my browser. I don't see how that is immoral. I totally agree. But I think it would also be fine if the content providers refused me service if I didn't let the ads through. I'm surprised more sites don't do that. I have a blocker on (and I don't even let through intrusive ads, I block it all) and I think I've only run into problems on hulu or some other video website.

Cakez0r 11y ago
> I'm surprised more sites don't do that I'm sure they would if they could. As far as I'm aware though, there isn't a good way to do it and still have your content indexed by google.
Nadya 11y ago
>They are just like commercials on TV or billboards. You don't even realize the effect they have on you. I do. Which is why I haven't watched television/movies since I was 10 years old. Luckily I only see billboards when I'm on a freeway, which happens maybe once or twice a year at most. I also keep an excel sheet where I blacklist companies whom I've seen advertisements from. So advertising to me has a net loss of -1 customer for life. But I'll agree that most people don't realize how much advertisements influence their behavior. I find it disgusting and not something that should be accepted at all in any amount - but most people don't seem to mind it. (Ignoring privacy issues with online advertisements. I'm speaking more general here.) >But I think it would also be fine if the content providers refused me service if I didn't let the ads through. Oh, I agree. Of course - the provider will likely go out of business because that isn't a sustainable business model either - but I do agree. It also hurts their Google Ranking which is why Paywall sites let you read the article if you find it through Google. Advertising is a broken business model. Once-upon-a-time it worked but it is breaking down. It's not the customer's job to keep watching advertisements. It's the providers job to find a better business model. Or go out of business.
- seibelj 11y ago
  I disagree that advertising itself is a broken model, but I like imagining that someone ruthlessly updates their excel spreadsheet of blacklisted companies every time they hear or see an advertisement for any company. You must only shop at flea markets!
  - Nadya 11y ago
    I don't watch TV, rarely drive, don't watch movies, and use an ad blocker. It shouldn't be surprising that I see very few advertisements. To the tune of single-digits per year. If a company is so intrusive that they still find a way to serve me an advertisement - they aren't a company I wish to support. Billboards and bus stops are the worst offenders, but most of those I pass are advertising TV shows and movies. Which I already don't partake in. I should be more specific: online advertising is a broken model. If it wasn't broken they wouldn't be trying to fix it. ;)

bryans 11y ago

Hello again, Nadya. It seems we are making a habit of disagreeing with each other. ;-) Though I do entirely agree with the first sentence of your comment. It's the same reason why piracy isn't the dire issue the various media industries make it out to be. The vast majority of people who pirate content, were never going to pay for that content to begin with. So they're not actually losing those sales, because there was never a potential for a sale. I make no claims about this being moral behavior or otherwise, I'm just acknowledging that this is reality. For the rest of your comment, however, I don't think the driveway analogy holds up. It may be your browser, but it is their content being served via their infrastructure. It costs them real money to create and host this content. Ignoring for a moment that some ads are obnoxious, do you genuinely believe that content creators should lose money for the "privilege" of having you consume their content? Because that seems rather silly to me. The simple fact is that when you use an ad blocker, you are not just preventing a website from making money off obnoxious ads. You are actually costing the content creator money. Out of their own pocket. The same content creator whom you probably believe deserves money for providing you with that information or entertainment. How can you possibly reconcile these conflicting facts? Pretending to be making a statement by boycotting all advertisement in an attempt to force the ad industry to change its ways, is no different from the extreme minority of pirates who insist that they are morally justified to never pay for anything, just because they don't like how the music industry operates. Regardless of whether any given industry conducts their business ethically, having a differing moral opinion does not automatically entitle you to everything for free. Or in the cast of ad blockers, entitling you to content at the quantifiable expense of its creator.

Nadya 11y ago
No - we seem to be at a misunderstanding here. I believe content creators should not deliver their content to me at all if they feel that delivering content to me at a loss is not worth it. I have no privilege to receive their content and they are under no obligation to provide me with it. The fact that they continue to deliver content to me at a loss shows that they value their Google Ranking and the possibility of me sharing the article to outweigh the cost of providing me with the content. They are making a cost-benefit analysis and deciding to show me the content anyways. The benefits of showing me the content, even at a loss, are superior to not showing me the content at all. If they have an issue with that - they can bring it up with Google. It isn't my problem that they care about their Google ranking. It's their problem with Google.