6 ms·

The public discourse on this sort of thing is controlled by media companies, most of whom make the majority of their money from ad revenue. The other player in

The public discourse on this sort of thing is controlled by media companies, most of whom make the majority of their money from ad revenue. The other player in this game are technologists making ad-blockers. Up to this point, these technologists have been only moderately successful in permeating the market. Ads are so terrible, and ad blockers so effective, that it's a risk for media companies to even talk about ads and ad blockers. It's bad PR for media companies, and an argument against ad-blockers is more likely to simply make more unaware people aware of ad-blockers than it is to persuade ad-blocker users to stop blocking ads. Ad blockers are a problem for media companies, but not a big enough problem to warrant taking the risk of talking about ads. All that changed when Apple decided to include ad blocking in IOS9. Now ad-blocking will permeate a very large portion of the market, and since Apple is a trendsetter in the mobile market, it's likely that other mobile manufacturers will follow suit. Obviously Google is not going to support ad-blocking in Android, but they'll have a hard time preventing Samsung/Motorola/etc. from shipping with their own ad-blocking software. Now it's worth the risk for media companies to talk about ads and ad blockers, because if they don't, their entire business model is going to die anyway. So they're trying to persuade consumers that ads are actually in their best interest so that there will be consumer pressure on Android phone manufacturers to allow ads. I don't think it will work. Consumer pressure only happens when consumers feel pain, and there's no ad-supported media so great that losing it is more painful than ads. The only people who are actually feeling pain from this are people whose businesses are ad-supported, and frankly, I'm quite happy about that: people who tie their business to an immoral, unethical business model should be punished. It's rare that the bad guys actually get what's coming to them. Anyone who is worried that this is going to hurt technologists: it's only going to hurt the ones who deserve it. I've been programming professionally for 10 years and I've never worked for a company whose business model involved advertising because it disgusts me. This doesn't affect me at all. If you decided to hitch your wagon to the advertising horse, that's your fault; you did a bad thing and I don't feel sorry for you.

hellofunk 11y ago
It's a shame the ads have to either be totally horrible or totally gone. There is nothing wrong with a bit of advertising, but those who do it these days make it so in-your-face and disruptive, that they have dug their own graves. They should have gone a more subtle route, and maybe no one would think ads were such a big problem, and they could still be there. Since moving to Holland, I've actually enjoyed the ads I see on TV and Youtube; compared to American or Asian standards, where I've previously lived, here they are little short films of creative art that always make me laugh with their wit. If all ads had something positive to offer other than "buy me right now", and they could tactfully get out of your face, everybody could be happy. But that's not what happened.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  Honestly, I think there's something wrong with "a bit of advertising".
  - SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
    I don't understand the total allergy to advertising expressed above. I personally don't like commercial television (I hate interruptions in the middle of a show), or pop-ups that get in the way of me reading a page, or pages that are so plastered with ads that it's hard to find the content. But when I search on Google for a particular kind of product, and it shows me ads for a new instance of that product (that doesn't yet have the organic PageRank), I'm happy to click on the ad to find out about it. "A bit of advertising" that's well enough targeted and tastefully presented is absolutely a good thing. Every show in a TV series or movie is an advertisement for the next show or installment. Every book is an advertisement for its sequel. Every blog post is an advertisement for the next blog post. Every blog post, Facebook comment, video, or friend telling you about a product is an advertisement for that product. Many of those aren't paid advertisements, but many secretly are. Saying that "advertising" is blanket wrong is the same as saying "learning about new things is wrong." Because how could you find out about something new if it weren't advertised somehow? What exactly are you protesting?
    - roymurdock 11y ago
      Great point. People need to define which ads they are talking about during these sorts of arguments, as "ads" can be thought of as any sort of content that spreads information about a new product or idea as you point out.
      - copsarebastards 11y ago
        I don't think it's a great point, I think it's a point that shows no understanding of context. This thread is about ad blockers. Ad blockers don't block blog posts, books, or any of the things he brought up. If you know what "ads" means here, it's not because people need to define what ads they are talking about, it's because you're not paying attention.
mahranch 11y ago
> The public discourse on this sort of thing is controlled by media companies, most of whom make the majority of their money from ad revenue. Almost anyone who produces content and puts it on the internet makes money from ads. It's not just limited to "big media companies". People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet, not just "big media". All that free content you consume every day? Yeah, it's subsidized by ads.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > Almost anyone who produces content and puts it on the internet makes money from ads. It's not just limited to "big media companies". Yes, but small content producers don't control the public discourse on this. You're attacking something that has nothing to do with what I said. But if you want to bring it up: I don't care. Small content producers who rely on advertising for revenue are just as bad as large content producers who rely on advertising for revenue. Just because you're a small business doesn't give you an excuse to rely on a bad business model. > People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet, not just "big media". All that free content you consume every day? Yeah, it's subsidized by ads. Which content is that? Do you mean all that crap I have to sift through to get to stuff I care about? Or do you mean the stuff I care about that I would rather pay for than have to click around an ad? Ad blockers are not hurting the internet, ads are hurting the internet.
  - mahranch 11y ago
    > Ad blockers are not hurting the internet, ads are hurting the internet. The internet wouldn't exist without ads, kiddo. At the very least, it wouldn't be recognizable. It wouldn't be something that is ubiquitous to our daily lives.
- tdkl 11y ago
  > People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet The Internet I remember 15 years ago before there was a myriad of clickbait reposting sites was chugging along just fine.

hellofunk 11y ago

It's a shame the ads have to either be totally horrible or totally gone. There is nothing wrong with a bit of advertising, but those who do it these days make it so in-your-face and disruptive, that they have dug their own graves. They should have gone a more subtle route, and maybe no one would think ads were such a big problem, and they could still be there. Since moving to Holland, I've actually enjoyed the ads I see on TV and Youtube; compared to American or Asian standards, where I've previously lived, here they are little short films of creative art that always make me laugh with their wit. If all ads had something positive to offer other than "buy me right now", and they could tactfully get out of your face, everybody could be happy. But that's not what happened.

RodericDay 11y ago
Honestly, I think there's something wrong with "a bit of advertising".
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  I don't understand the total allergy to advertising expressed above. I personally don't like commercial television (I hate interruptions in the middle of a show), or pop-ups that get in the way of me reading a page, or pages that are so plastered with ads that it's hard to find the content. But when I search on Google for a particular kind of product, and it shows me ads for a new instance of that product (that doesn't yet have the organic PageRank), I'm happy to click on the ad to find out about it. "A bit of advertising" that's well enough targeted and tastefully presented is absolutely a good thing. Every show in a TV series or movie is an advertisement for the next show or installment. Every book is an advertisement for its sequel. Every blog post is an advertisement for the next blog post. Every blog post, Facebook comment, video, or friend telling you about a product is an advertisement for that product. Many of those aren't paid advertisements, but many secretly are. Saying that "advertising" is blanket wrong is the same as saying "learning about new things is wrong." Because how could you find out about something new if it weren't advertised somehow? What exactly are you protesting?
  - roymurdock 11y ago
    Great point. People need to define which ads they are talking about during these sorts of arguments, as "ads" can be thought of as any sort of content that spreads information about a new product or idea as you point out.
    - copsarebastards 11y ago
      I don't think it's a great point, I think it's a point that shows no understanding of context. This thread is about ad blockers. Ad blockers don't block blog posts, books, or any of the things he brought up. If you know what "ads" means here, it's not because people need to define what ads they are talking about, it's because you're not paying attention.

mahranch 11y ago

> The public discourse on this sort of thing is controlled by media companies, most of whom make the majority of their money from ad revenue. Almost anyone who produces content and puts it on the internet makes money from ads. It's not just limited to "big media companies". People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet, not just "big media". All that free content you consume every day? Yeah, it's subsidized by ads.

copsarebastards 11y ago
> Almost anyone who produces content and puts it on the internet makes money from ads. It's not just limited to "big media companies". Yes, but small content producers don't control the public discourse on this. You're attacking something that has nothing to do with what I said. But if you want to bring it up: I don't care. Small content producers who rely on advertising for revenue are just as bad as large content producers who rely on advertising for revenue. Just because you're a small business doesn't give you an excuse to rely on a bad business model. > People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet, not just "big media". All that free content you consume every day? Yeah, it's subsidized by ads. Which content is that? Do you mean all that crap I have to sift through to get to stuff I care about? Or do you mean the stuff I care about that I would rather pay for than have to click around an ad? Ad blockers are not hurting the internet, ads are hurting the internet.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > Ad blockers are not hurting the internet, ads are hurting the internet. The internet wouldn't exist without ads, kiddo. At the very least, it wouldn't be recognizable. It wouldn't be something that is ubiquitous to our daily lives.
tdkl 11y ago
> People can't seem to accept the fact that ad blockers are hurting the entire internet The Internet I remember 15 years ago before there was a myriad of clickbait reposting sites was chugging along just fine.