4 ms·

> If you think this is going to happen as a result, you must presume that it would be a good - i.e. acceptable and viable - solution. What kind of logic are yo

> If you think this is going to happen as a result, you must presume that it would be a good - i.e. acceptable and viable - solution. What kind of logic are you following? I think dropping a bomb on Paris is going to kill a whole lot of people. How does it follow that because I think that, it stands to reason that I think it's "good". > some other solution will have to be found Because we already have a solution. Unobtrusive advertising is a valid trade-off between having to pay currency for content and said content-creators generating money through their content. I'm not defending advertising to the death here. The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. But now we are destined to fear-mongering nonsense about Google tracking your every move to justify blocking everything. When that wasn't far enough, we blocked locally installed software applications that track client-side behavior. Yet, the argument from the "zero tolerance for ads" group is "come up with a better model". We have another model. You pull out your wallet, and enter your credit card.

lazyjones 11y ago
> What kind of logic are you following? I think dropping a bomb on Paris is going to kill a whole lot of people. How does it follow that because I think that, it stands to reason that I think it's "good". It's good for the majority of publishers if they accept it as their preferred solution as you wrote. Unless you think they ought to be driven by other motives than making sound business decisions - like cruelty or whatever you were trying to insinuate with your slanted rhetoric. > I'm not defending advertising to the death here. The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. Not really - fools like me already worked around ads almost 20 years ago because they wasted bandwidth (proof: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/nino/websearch.html http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/nino/websearch.html - no longer functional though amazingly still online). Piggyback ads are an anomaly and people will always try to avoid them, whether they're text (to be confused with valid search results) like Google's or flashy, crashy animations. > Yet, the argument from the "zero tolerance for ads" group is "come up with a better model". We have another model. You pull out your wallet, and enter your credit card. Well, go ahead and use it then. What's holding you back? Altruism and the urge to save users from the consequences of their personal choices? Oh, please...
- jhall1468 11y ago
  > It's good for the majority of publishers if they accept it as their preferred solution as you wrote. Unless you think they ought to be driven by other motives than making sound business decisions - like cruelty or whatever you were trying to insinuate with your slanted rhetoric. Perhaps my rhetoric is slanted, but yours is fully bent. When only one solution eventually exists, it doesn't make it the preferred solution, it makes it the nuclear option. Quit spouting nonsense about cruelty. I'm suggesting that advertising-supported businesses are eventually going to have one remaining option. That isn't slanted rhetoric. That's common sense. Unless of course we come up with a completely new way for content creators to earn a living with their content outside of charging for it, or using advertising for it. Because new forms of compensation in exchange for content are popping up all the time. > Well, go ahead and use it then. What's holding you back? Altruism and the urge to save users from the consequences of their personal choices? Oh, please... I'm starting to believe you are just putting words together so you sound smart. No one is going to change to paywalls until every has to. Until then the middle of the pack is going to continue fighting for scraps while the giants in the industry (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) continue to profit on the sheer mass of their user base, and hedging their bets with non-advertising products. But you keep spouting pseudo-Socratic arguments about how "nothing is stopping us" from moving to a model nobody wants but the end-user is steadily preventing any other alternative.
  - lazyjones 11y ago
    > When only one solution eventually exists, it doesn't make it the preferred solution, it makes it the nuclear option. [...] I'm suggesting that advertising-supported businesses are eventually going to have one remaining option. That isn't slanted rhetoric. That's common sense. Unless of course we come up with a completely new way for content creators to earn a living with their content outside of charging for it, or using advertising for it. Because new forms of compensation in exchange for content are popping up all the time. You don't make any sense. Why would it become the only option when other forms keep popping up? Even with very hypothetical 100% penetration of (unblockable) ad blockers, this won't be the case. > No one is going to change to paywalls until every has to. You must have missed the NY times, the largest german newspaper (BILD) and other large publications switching to paywalls then. Perhaps look around some more before beating dead horses here... Also, your inflammatory language hurts your cause.
bigbugbag 11y ago
> The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads.
- JorgeGT 11y ago
  Yep. I remember most of the first ads were outright scams, "You are visitor 1.000.000 of this webpage! Click here to collect your $500" [Seizure-inducing flashing to follow].
  - bigbugbag 11y ago
    IIMNM the first ads I remember were banners, used to be banner exchange between willing webmasters turned into paid for banners (not sure if it was per impression or per click or both).
- jhall1468 11y ago
  > I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads. Sure, but the adblocking was pretty specific. Popup blockers followed popup ads and they were far more popular than any software that blocked ads outright. Adblocking isn't new, it's that it's iron-fisted and gaining in popularity that's the problem.
  - bigbugbag 11y ago
    I don't remember adblocking to be specific, it was about adding a bunch of ip to your hosts file to redirect them to 127.0.0.1 and was sometimes a bit too broad. Then again this is a matter of opinion, to me it is ad supported model popularity that is the problem.
RUG3Y 11y ago
I have an even better model than that: Website erects paywall, nobody pays for content, and another irrelevant site bites the dust.

lazyjones 11y ago

> What kind of logic are you following? I think dropping a bomb on Paris is going to kill a whole lot of people. How does it follow that because I think that, it stands to reason that I think it's "good". It's good for the majority of publishers if they accept it as their preferred solution as you wrote. Unless you think they ought to be driven by other motives than making sound business decisions - like cruelty or whatever you were trying to insinuate with your slanted rhetoric. > I'm not defending advertising to the death here. The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. Not really - fools like me already worked around ads almost 20 years ago because they wasted bandwidth (proof: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/nino/websearch.html http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/nino/websearch.html - no longer functional though amazingly still online). Piggyback ads are an anomaly and people will always try to avoid them, whether they're text (to be confused with valid search results) like Google's or flashy, crashy animations. > Yet, the argument from the "zero tolerance for ads" group is "come up with a better model". We have another model. You pull out your wallet, and enter your credit card. Well, go ahead and use it then. What's holding you back? Altruism and the urge to save users from the consequences of their personal choices? Oh, please...

jhall1468 11y ago
> It's good for the majority of publishers if they accept it as their preferred solution as you wrote. Unless you think they ought to be driven by other motives than making sound business decisions - like cruelty or whatever you were trying to insinuate with your slanted rhetoric. Perhaps my rhetoric is slanted, but yours is fully bent. When only one solution eventually exists, it doesn't make it the preferred solution, it makes it the nuclear option. Quit spouting nonsense about cruelty. I'm suggesting that advertising-supported businesses are eventually going to have one remaining option. That isn't slanted rhetoric. That's common sense. Unless of course we come up with a completely new way for content creators to earn a living with their content outside of charging for it, or using advertising for it. Because new forms of compensation in exchange for content are popping up all the time. > Well, go ahead and use it then. What's holding you back? Altruism and the urge to save users from the consequences of their personal choices? Oh, please... I'm starting to believe you are just putting words together so you sound smart. No one is going to change to paywalls until every has to. Until then the middle of the pack is going to continue fighting for scraps while the giants in the industry (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) continue to profit on the sheer mass of their user base, and hedging their bets with non-advertising products. But you keep spouting pseudo-Socratic arguments about how "nothing is stopping us" from moving to a model nobody wants but the end-user is steadily preventing any other alternative.
- lazyjones 11y ago
  > When only one solution eventually exists, it doesn't make it the preferred solution, it makes it the nuclear option. [...] I'm suggesting that advertising-supported businesses are eventually going to have one remaining option. That isn't slanted rhetoric. That's common sense. Unless of course we come up with a completely new way for content creators to earn a living with their content outside of charging for it, or using advertising for it. Because new forms of compensation in exchange for content are popping up all the time. You don't make any sense. Why would it become the only option when other forms keep popping up? Even with very hypothetical 100% penetration of (unblockable) ad blockers, this won't be the case. > No one is going to change to paywalls until every has to. You must have missed the NY times, the largest german newspaper (BILD) and other large publications switching to paywalls then. Perhaps look around some more before beating dead horses here... Also, your inflammatory language hurts your cause.

bigbugbag 11y ago

> The main reason ad-blockers exist is because fools with decision-making powers and no critical-thinking skills decided to make ads obtrusive. I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads.

JorgeGT 11y ago
Yep. I remember most of the first ads were outright scams, "You are visitor 1.000.000 of this webpage! Click here to collect your $500" [Seizure-inducing flashing to follow].
- bigbugbag 11y ago
  IIMNM the first ads I remember were banners, used to be banner exchange between willing webmasters turned into paid for banners (not sure if it was per impression or per click or both).
jhall1468 11y ago
> I remember differently, when ads started to appear on the web, it was promptly followed by adblocking. Actual reason was to block ads. Sure, but the adblocking was pretty specific. Popup blockers followed popup ads and they were far more popular than any software that blocked ads outright. Adblocking isn't new, it's that it's iron-fisted and gaining in popularity that's the problem.
- bigbugbag 11y ago
  I don't remember adblocking to be specific, it was about adding a bunch of ip to your hosts file to redirect them to 127.0.0.1 and was sometimes a bit too broad. Then again this is a matter of opinion, to me it is ad supported model popularity that is the problem.

RUG3Y 11y ago

I have an even better model than that: Website erects paywall, nobody pays for content, and another irrelevant site bites the dust.