3 ms·
You're saying that there's going to be an arms race between advertisers and ad blockers and you assume advertisers are going to win by fuzzing the definition of
by jdiez17 11y ago
You're saying that there's going to be an arms race between advertisers and ad blockers and you assume advertisers are going to win by fuzzing the definition of "ad". Is that a good thing? It sounds like a local maximum to me, like native advertising, and not really a step in the right direction.
In The Ideal World ad blockers wouldn't exist because we'd all be happy paying our fair share to content creators. This seems pretty far off from the current status quo, but running an ad blocker today is only adding fuel to the fire. If advertisers step up their game and ads become unblockable, we might be closing the door to a better solution and be stuck with ads forever.
- mahranch 11y ago> Is that a good thing? A very good thing, actually. For starters, nobody minds ads. They subsidize content. Without ads, the internet wouldn't exist in its current iteration. What people are against are malicious ads and the like. If an ad is a simple gif or jpg (picture), there can be no maliciousness. It makes ads relatively safe again. And content creators actually make money, incentivizing better and more content. Everyone wins.