4 ms·
If AD Blocking becomes too prevalent I feel bad for the internet. There just seems to be a large contingent of people who just don't want to pay for content.
by samfisher83 11y ago
If AD Blocking becomes too prevalent I feel bad for the internet. There just seems to be a large contingent of people who just don't want to pay for content.
- ashark 11y agoThere was an Internet (WWW, even) before the current ad boom, and there will be one after, if there is an after (fingers crossed).
- samfisher83 11y agoGoogle would not be a 300 Billion dollar company. I got down voted for simply saying the truth. A lot of companies are as big as they are due to the Ad revenue.
- lukaslalinsky 11y agoIs Google being a 300B dollar company a good thing for the internet though? Sure, Google provides a lot of useful things thanks to that, but I'm pretty sure there will still be internet after Google is gone.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- benologist 11y agoIf they can't maintain their valuation they'll do what every other company before and after them did - be worth less, and if they can't find a sustainable valuation they can be worth nothing.
- izzydata 11y agoIt will probably come full circle eventually. If ad revenue stopped being given to content creators then content creators would stop producing content then people would become more likely to give money to content creators then ad agencies would come back and offer money to content creators and then people would stop contributing, etc.
- wernercd 11y agoJust blaming it on people not wanting to pay for content is short sighted. Are there those people? Of course... just like there are people who won't tip if they have a billion dollars in their bank account... The reasons for ad blocking is long: * Screen Real-estate * Cognitive load * Speed up browsing * Data usage * Distracting * Sound based ads * Pop ups * Pop unders * Security * Tracking/Profiling/privacy * Being cheap - or not having any reasonable route to support random-website-#896796987 I could probably add a few more if I took a few minutes, but the same arguments about MP3s ran rampant. Those DAMN KIDS! with no respect REFUSED! to pay for a full CD! HOW DARE THOSE CHEAP BASTARDS! Then, amazingly... a more flexible model came about and GASP people started buying MP3s. Same for Netflix and other digital content. The problem is peoples privacy, security, screen time, etc are getting thrown under the bus for some random companies profit... You give me a more reasonable model and I'll tone down my Ad Blocking (I allow text based ads on Google.com for example)... until then, you can shove your fake "THOSE CHEAP BASTARDS!!!" argument right up yer kiester... Now get off my lawn dammit.
- smt88 11y agoAds don't pay that well. A small subset of people willing to pay are able to support the content. There will always be freeloaders, but it costs almost nothing to publish content. As adblocking becomes more prevalent, the garbage-y sites will die, and the market will pay for the content that's actually good. Sounds like a good thing to me.
- chc 11y agoI don't understand how you can square the idea that the market will pay good amounts for content with the fact that ads are ubiquitous, not just something found on low-quality sites. If ads weren't the best way to make a living, why wouldn't quality publications like Ars Technica just ask people to pay?
- tomtang0514 11y agoThere're more freeloaders that you can imaging. And there're lots of paying users love to be freeloader if they can get the same thing without paying. Reference the music industry and napster.