4 ms·

Why do you feel forced? Stop using websites which rely on advertising. Simple enough.

executesorder66 11y ago
I don't feel forced at all. I use adblockers and my problem goes away. However I was talking about the 'fuck adblockers because I need ads to support my hosting costs' mentality. Those people want to force people to view ads so that they can make some money.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  Why do you feel entitled to use their services? Don't you think that makes you a hypocrite?
  - executesorder66 11y ago
    I don't feel entitled to use their services. They put content on a publicly accessible server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I sometimes choose to) They also link ads on the same server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I always choose not to) If they took their content away, I wouldn't give a shit. There are many other things I can, and do, spend my time on. Since I never paid for their content, and they never asked me to pay for it, I have no expectation of what must happen with the content. Edit:formatting and spelling.
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      Then why do you use their services? You know certain companies provide a free service because they can serve ads alongside with the service and this is how they operate. You chose to use their business, but to obstruct their business model intentionally. This is hypocrisy at its finest. Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad at all. Well, a little bit, but for a totally different reason. Advertising is not going anywhere. In fact, it will grow incredibly in the coming years. And the actions and attitude of people like you will make it way more invasive and amoral than it currently is. Congratulations on running adblock. You stuck it to the man!
      - executesorder66 11y ago
        I click on a link because I might find it interesting. I risk my time and data going to that link because the content might be worth it. If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link. The advertisers/website take a risk by placing ads. They know people hate ads. They know people might use adblockers. They know most people that don't ignore the ads anyway. People who run botnets that spam the living fuck out of millions of email addresses have the exact same business model. Send lots of unwanted advertising to masses of people hoping for that one idiot who will take the bait. Is using a spam filter obstructing their business model? No, because one of the main risks that the business model accounts for is the fuckload of spam filtering that is used. Putting ads on your website as a business model, is using a business model based on risk. The risk that many people will have no response to an advert. People who use adblockers are built into that risk. So I am not obstructing it. So I don't see how it is hypocrisy at all. To me personally spam and ads on a website are exactly the same thing. In fact all advertising (radio, TV, posters, door to door sales, cold calls) is spam by my definition. I don't want to be told what I need/want. I know what I need/want and I will go find the products/services to satisfy that need/want by myself. No advertising necessary. Why are you a little bit mad? What would you suggest everyone should do? I fully agree that advertising will grow worse and worse. And I also agree that adblockers are accelerating this process. And I'm glad about that. I can't wait for the whole advertising industry to become so evil and abhorrent to the human civilization that it becomes illegal on a global scale. In the mean time, let the arms race continue. I don't see how the advertising industry will ever win. And no, I don't run adblock to "Stick it to the man". I run adblock because I hate adverts. But if by "the man" you mean the advertising industry, then yes. Congratulations to me. Fuck them. I hope I make their lives difficult. I can't wait until their whole industry implodes. Even if it takes another 200 years, then I'll be glad I contributed in a small way to their downfall.
        TheLogothete 11y ago
        >If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link So you don't use google, youtube, reddit, stackoverflow or any service that you already know is ad supported, because it will not be worth your time or data, correct?
lmm 11y ago
Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker.
- TheLogothete 11y ago
  Do you use google? Android? Youtube? Facebook? Twitter? Reddit? Do you visis newspaper sites? Do you know they run ads? Do you still use them even when you know they run ads?
  - lmm 11y ago
    There's a level of annoyingness I'll tolerate from ads; small text ads or images are fine, autoplaying sound or anything that slows down my computer when I load the page is not.
    - TheLogothete 11y ago
      Thanks for replying. While reading your reply, I noticed you didn't answer the questions. How come?
      - drdeca 11y ago
        The implicit answer was probably along the lines of "I don't block ads on Google and such, because those ads are tolerable. I know Google has tolerable ads, and so I willingly allow those ads to display, and use Google and such". I'm not them though, so I'm not certain. If you had tried a bit harder, I think you could probably have determined what answers they intended for the questions you asked. Well, not whether they used specific sites, because that was probably irrelevant to what you wanted to know/the point you were making. But for the actual point of your question, you could have probably determined how they intended what they said to correspond to your questions. I mean, obviously it's difficult to do that when talking to someone one disagrees with (sometimes it will take me a number of paragraphs of my response until I figure out a way to interpret what was said in a way that makes significantly more sense than the first interpretation I noticed). So, it's certainly understandable to not realize a more reasonable interpretation. But at the same time, it's I think generally better to look for one, to see if one can find one.

I don't feel forced at all. I use adblockers and my problem goes away. However I was talking about the 'fuck adblockers because I need ads to support my hosting costs' mentality. Those people want to force people to view ads so that they can make some money.

TheLogothete 11y ago
Why do you feel entitled to use their services? Don't you think that makes you a hypocrite?
- executesorder66 11y ago
  I don't feel entitled to use their services. They put content on a publicly accessible server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I sometimes choose to) They also link ads on the same server for anyone to access if they choose to do so. (I always choose not to) If they took their content away, I wouldn't give a shit. There are many other things I can, and do, spend my time on. Since I never paid for their content, and they never asked me to pay for it, I have no expectation of what must happen with the content. Edit:formatting and spelling.
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    Then why do you use their services? You know certain companies provide a free service because they can serve ads alongside with the service and this is how they operate. You chose to use their business, but to obstruct their business model intentionally. This is hypocrisy at its finest. Don't get me wrong. I'm not mad at all. Well, a little bit, but for a totally different reason. Advertising is not going anywhere. In fact, it will grow incredibly in the coming years. And the actions and attitude of people like you will make it way more invasive and amoral than it currently is. Congratulations on running adblock. You stuck it to the man!
    - executesorder66 11y ago
      I click on a link because I might find it interesting. I risk my time and data going to that link because the content might be worth it. If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link. The advertisers/website take a risk by placing ads. They know people hate ads. They know people might use adblockers. They know most people that don't ignore the ads anyway. People who run botnets that spam the living fuck out of millions of email addresses have the exact same business model. Send lots of unwanted advertising to masses of people hoping for that one idiot who will take the bait. Is using a spam filter obstructing their business model? No, because one of the main risks that the business model accounts for is the fuckload of spam filtering that is used. Putting ads on your website as a business model, is using a business model based on risk. The risk that many people will have no response to an advert. People who use adblockers are built into that risk. So I am not obstructing it. So I don't see how it is hypocrisy at all. To me personally spam and ads on a website are exactly the same thing. In fact all advertising (radio, TV, posters, door to door sales, cold calls) is spam by my definition. I don't want to be told what I need/want. I know what I need/want and I will go find the products/services to satisfy that need/want by myself. No advertising necessary. Why are you a little bit mad? What would you suggest everyone should do? I fully agree that advertising will grow worse and worse. And I also agree that adblockers are accelerating this process. And I'm glad about that. I can't wait for the whole advertising industry to become so evil and abhorrent to the human civilization that it becomes illegal on a global scale. In the mean time, let the arms race continue. I don't see how the advertising industry will ever win. And no, I don't run adblock to "Stick it to the man". I run adblock because I hate adverts. But if by "the man" you mean the advertising industry, then yes. Congratulations to me. Fuck them. I hope I make their lives difficult. I can't wait until their whole industry implodes. Even if it takes another 200 years, then I'll be glad I contributed in a small way to their downfall.
      - TheLogothete 11y ago
        >If I would somehow be forced to see ads in order to view the content, then it would not be worth my time or data, and I would not go to the link So you don't use google, youtube, reddit, stackoverflow or any service that you already know is ad supported, because it will not be worth your time or data, correct?

lmm 11y ago

Hyperlinks don't come with a "this site is full of ads" marker.

TheLogothete 11y ago
Do you use google? Android? Youtube? Facebook? Twitter? Reddit? Do you visis newspaper sites? Do you know they run ads? Do you still use them even when you know they run ads?
- lmm 11y ago
  There's a level of annoyingness I'll tolerate from ads; small text ads or images are fine, autoplaying sound or anything that slows down my computer when I load the page is not.
  - TheLogothete 11y ago
    Thanks for replying. While reading your reply, I noticed you didn't answer the questions. How come?
    - drdeca 11y ago
      The implicit answer was probably along the lines of "I don't block ads on Google and such, because those ads are tolerable. I know Google has tolerable ads, and so I willingly allow those ads to display, and use Google and such". I'm not them though, so I'm not certain. If you had tried a bit harder, I think you could probably have determined what answers they intended for the questions you asked. Well, not whether they used specific sites, because that was probably irrelevant to what you wanted to know/the point you were making. But for the actual point of your question, you could have probably determined how they intended what they said to correspond to your questions. I mean, obviously it's difficult to do that when talking to someone one disagrees with (sometimes it will take me a number of paragraphs of my response until I figure out a way to interpret what was said in a way that makes significantly more sense than the first interpretation I noticed). So, it's certainly understandable to not realize a more reasonable interpretation. But at the same time, it's I think generally better to look for one, to see if one can find one.