10 ms·
You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part
by supercanuck 11y ago
You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part of the viewer to look at anything.
Under your definition, getting up to go to the bathroom during commericials or making a conscious effort to look away from ads is ...immoral? Illegal? Fraud? There is no contract no quid pro quo.
The content providers are selling real estate. Thats it.
- manigandham 11y agoYou can because this is how many publishing companies are run today. The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable. Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the ads from the content before you even seen it. That's the issue.
- supercanuck 11y agoI have a hard time believing those terms of conditions meets the inquiry notice requirements and would stand up in court against anonymous internet users. I view a website and someone says I owe them my first born, does not make it so.
- manigandham 11y agoIt wouldnt for many sites but it just wasn't a problem before because the value exchange held. Privacy laws and adblocking are causing these to become more visible with explicit Accept buttons however there's still the obstacle of proving identity online. Anyways, this is something that paywalls solve entirely so it's a great model, but nobody wants to pay.