3 ms·
> For instance, the Washington Post has begun testing a system that locks out visitors who block advertisements. I understand that position. But that's a losin
by aikah 11y ago
> For instance, the Washington Post has begun testing a system that locks out visitors who block advertisements.
I understand that position. But that's a losing position. It's an arms race, ad-blockers will always find clever ways to bypass these schemes then consultants will come with more complicated scripts that will make web pages heavier and harder to visit for those who don't block ads ...
The Washington Post certainly is not going to win that war. The only solution for them on the long run is all their website behind a paywall, like the Financial Times.
I'm curious if youtube is going to do the same, since they introduced an ad free paid offer.
- randombits 11y agoYouTube would dry up and blow away. The vast majority of people use YouTube precisely because it's "free". Google can afford to allow YouTube to remain free.
- jrs235 11y agoAn industry is born and a few companies laugh all the way to the bank. Just like radar detectors and radar guns (now laser instead of radar). The companies that make the technology supply both sides. Innovation improves the guns so then the innovate the detectors so they innovate the... Charging both sides on an ongoing battle.
- Retra 11y agoMost people don't pay for ad blockers.
- bazzargh 11y agoI do this the other way round; I block entire sites that use obnoxious ads rather than use an adblocker. Funnily enough, WaPo are on my block list - they must've hit me with a modal (I unblocked them temporarily to see if they're still doing it, apparently not) The only ads I do block are the 'recommended for you' fake content from outbrain, zergnet, gravity and taboola. Just terrible.
- Riseed 11y agoYou may be interested in this extension, which will do the site-blocking for you: http://tinysubversions.com/notes/ethical-ad-blocker/ http://tinysubversions.com/notes/ethical-ad-blocker/
- onion2k 11y agoThe Washington Post certainly is not going to win that war. For tech-savvy people who understand the issues an ad-blocker might be worthwhile even if it means some websites don't work temporarily while the ad-block developers think of new ways around things. For more typical web users though, the Washington Post's approach will result in a line of thought like "I installed that software and my Internet broke because some websites didn't work any more. I'm going to uninstall it." It's not unreasonable to believe ad-blocking might never become a mainstream technology that enough people use for it to change the way websites are funded. That, I would argue, would mean the ad industry has won the war.