6 ms·

And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the

And I'm going to continue using an adblocker out of principle - because to me, the principle that my computer should remain free of malware is stronger than the principle that content creators should get paid.

Karunamon 11y ago
Sadly, this. It doesn't come down to not wanting to look at ads (though that's a big part), it comes down to exploits being served through massive ad networks that no human has the time to vet. I'll start unblocking ads the moment site creators start taking responsibility for what they display. My hourly rate for machine fixing is many times more than the few tenths of a penny you got for my ad impression.
kbenson 11y ago
Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.
- supercanuck 11y ago
  You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).
    - supercanuck 11y ago
      Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me. To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion so far.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        That's not how it works. They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Otherwise if there really is no value on that page, what are you doing there? You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. > You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Well, current model also costs me that $0.001 (likely more) in electricity costs and exposes me to at best some ugly-looking crap made with adversarial intent, that has nonzero chance of scamming me into buying something I don't need, and at worst is a vector of malware delivery. It also costs me time wasted on waiting (10x longer load times) and productivity losses due to system slowing down if for some reason I need to keep the site open and do something else. > You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting You prove there is potential value by visiting. You won't know if there is an actual value until you at least skim the content. If you're visiting the same site regularly you can start to predict how much value you expect to get out of a visit, but at this point the site owner can probably convince you to pay for it somehow (be it subscription, turning off the ads, selling you their book, etc.).
        manigandham 11y ago
        The electricity costs you mentioned are externalities and not really relevant here. Otherwise you will start blaming everything for every little action you take. If you don't want to browse that site, you can stop at any level from going to that url, starting your browser, buying your computer, living in that country, etc. When you go shopping, it will likely cost you gas, time, wear/tear, etc just like anything else but do you tally that and ask for a refund on the purchase price? I also hear this "potential" value argument a lot - why are you continually going to sites that you consider to have no value? Just doesn't make sense. And either way, ads allow you to not lose anything monetarily if you feel that site didn't give you what you expected. It's very a fair and low-risk trade.
- piyush_soni 11y ago
  I wouldn't consume their contents if they are at a subscription fee. Most of the content creators on the internet know that their content wouldn't earn them a subscription, so they choose the advertisement model. If you make something worth paying money for, people will pay. I mean, they're not making me sign a contract saying I wouldn't consume their content if the ads are off, so it's up to me to choose what I see on MY computer. There are also websites which detect adblockers and don't show their content at all. I'd just close their website not caring about their content, so at least I don't find it worth paying for. Even I have blogs, videos which earn me ad money. I know had it not been ads, no one give a dime to see them :), and it's perfectly fine for me.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    People don't want to pay because it requires friction on every purchase and much of the content on the internet adds up to fractions of a penny per impression. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Think of like a movie: you can pay $10 to see the whole thing or $0.001 per each frame. That's what the web is like with each frame possibly being from a different publisher. That kind of granular payments is very hard to pull off effectively outside of advertising.
    - Retra 11y ago
      It's not hard at all to get those kind of payments. You already pay your ISP a connection fee. Thats the payment we make to see the content.
      - manigandham 11y ago
        You're paying the ISP for infrastructure access. Not for content. It's possible to have a separate "content" subscription but that will mean ISPs have far more tracking and net neutrality issues than now so it's best to have another 3rd party doing this.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- Retra 11y ago
  If they put their content up without charging me for it, then why wouldn't I deserve to see it? If the deal is "look at this ad in exchange for viewing the article", then they could key on the ad as a password for the article. But that's obviously not the deal, because your traffic would plummet as many of your visitors would reject that deal. So don't pretend an agreement exists here. Visiting a website is not an obligation to view the content or the ads. The agreement is between the website and the advertiser. They have obligations to each other, we don't have obligations to them.

Karunamon 11y ago

Sadly, this. It doesn't come down to not wanting to look at ads (though that's a big part), it comes down to exploits being served through massive ad networks that no human has the time to vet. I'll start unblocking ads the moment site creators start taking responsibility for what they display. My hourly rate for machine fixing is many times more than the few tenths of a penny you got for my ad impression.

kbenson 11y ago

Or, you know, you could block ads and try not consume the content of creators who have advertising. There seems to be an underlying assumption in your statement that you deserve access to their content, and well, if the mechanisms they put in place to monetize it are too onerous, you should feel fine just taking it.

supercanuck 11y ago
You sound like a cable company bitching about netflix or Tivo.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Just because we don't like those companies doesn't mean there isn't some truth to their arguments (regarding Tivo at least, I'm not sure what they bitch at Netflix about).
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    Just because a company has something to sell, doesn't obligate people to buy it. if you can't get someone to buy it, displaying it for free then griping because people STILL don't want to pay for it, is just frankly ridiculous to me. To answer your question above, they gripe because they are being disrupted by technology and cannot charge what they want to charge for their product.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion so far.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      That's not how it works. They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Otherwise if there really is no value on that page, what are you doing there? You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > They aren't displaying it for free, they're displaying it in exchange for your attention/time on the accompanying ads. > You don't want to buy it because it causes friction to pay the $0.001 it costs to view the page that the ads take care of. Well, current model also costs me that $0.001 (likely more) in electricity costs and exposes me to at best some ugly-looking crap made with adversarial intent, that has nonzero chance of scamming me into buying something I don't need, and at worst is a vector of malware delivery. It also costs me time wasted on waiting (10x longer load times) and productivity losses due to system slowing down if for some reason I need to keep the site open and do something else. > You prove there is value to you by the act of visiting You prove there is potential value by visiting. You won't know if there is an actual value until you at least skim the content. If you're visiting the same site regularly you can start to predict how much value you expect to get out of a visit, but at this point the site owner can probably convince you to pay for it somehow (be it subscription, turning off the ads, selling you their book, etc.).
        manigandham 11y ago
        The electricity costs you mentioned are externalities and not really relevant here. Otherwise you will start blaming everything for every little action you take. If you don't want to browse that site, you can stop at any level from going to that url, starting your browser, buying your computer, living in that country, etc. When you go shopping, it will likely cost you gas, time, wear/tear, etc just like anything else but do you tally that and ask for a refund on the purchase price? I also hear this "potential" value argument a lot - why are you continually going to sites that you consider to have no value? Just doesn't make sense. And either way, ads allow you to not lose anything monetarily if you feel that site didn't give you what you expected. It's very a fair and low-risk trade.
piyush_soni 11y ago
I wouldn't consume their contents if they are at a subscription fee. Most of the content creators on the internet know that their content wouldn't earn them a subscription, so they choose the advertisement model. If you make something worth paying money for, people will pay. I mean, they're not making me sign a contract saying I wouldn't consume their content if the ads are off, so it's up to me to choose what I see on MY computer. There are also websites which detect adblockers and don't show their content at all. I'd just close their website not caring about their content, so at least I don't find it worth paying for. Even I have blogs, videos which earn me ad money. I know had it not been ads, no one give a dime to see them :), and it's perfectly fine for me.
- manigandham 11y ago
  People don't want to pay because it requires friction on every purchase and much of the content on the internet adds up to fractions of a penny per impression. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Think of like a movie: you can pay $10 to see the whole thing or $0.001 per each frame. That's what the web is like with each frame possibly being from a different publisher. That kind of granular payments is very hard to pull off effectively outside of advertising.
  - Retra 11y ago
    It's not hard at all to get those kind of payments. You already pay your ISP a connection fee. Thats the payment we make to see the content.
    - manigandham 11y ago
      You're paying the ISP for infrastructure access. Not for content. It's possible to have a separate "content" subscription but that will mean ISPs have far more tracking and net neutrality issues than now so it's best to have another 3rd party doing this.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
Retra 11y ago
If they put their content up without charging me for it, then why wouldn't I deserve to see it? If the deal is "look at this ad in exchange for viewing the article", then they could key on the ad as a password for the article. But that's obviously not the deal, because your traffic would plummet as many of your visitors would reject that deal. So don't pretend an agreement exists here. Visiting a website is not an obligation to view the content or the ads. The agreement is between the website and the advertiser. They have obligations to each other, we don't have obligations to them.