4 ms·

> Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end

> Ads are* a donation, not a purchase. I vehemently disagree. Ads subsidize the content you consume. Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Most of the web is directly or indirectly funded by ads. Just like local radio stations and public/local TV stations have their programs/content funded by advertisers. It's the exact same thing. If everyone (100% of the population) was able to skip watching or listening to those ads, then advertisers would no longer advertise and there would be no content because nobody is paying for it, or footing the bill. And people wonder why they call our generation (millennials) "the entitled generation". This is exactly the reason. You truly and honestly believe we're entitled to consume all that content for free. As if that wasn't enough, you have the gall to act like you're doing the content creators a favor by disabling your adblock! I'm actually shocked... That's one thing the gen-xers and boomers have over us - they understand that nothing is ever free and they never feel entitled to it all. When my grandmother was first shown the internet, I showed her some of her online versions of favorite magazines and sites like youtube. She kept asking me how much it cost to go to those sites and consume that content, and for 2-3 months, she really thought there was some hidden catch, and she expected a bill to arrive in her mailbox. That's the correct mentality to have. She understands the value of the content she's consuming and realizes that nothing is free. > *in the absence of a contract The contract is there in play already. Ads are up on a website right along side the content. You have to install software on your own computer to hide or remove those ads. You're actively going out of your way to alter the website's owners property - you made the first move. It's not like the content was already there, then the creator decided one day to put up ads after the fact. It doesn't work like that. It's just like ads on a TV. In order to watch a TV program, say Fox's Elementary, (just picking a popular show), you have to sit through the ads to watch the full show. If you make an effort to not watch the ads (get up and walk away, shut your eyes, change the channel), you have that right and are free to do it, but don't pretend you're not breaking your "consumer contract" with those shows. They put those ads there in good faith that they'll be seen by the people watching them. People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. When there is no money in content subsidization, the content will disappear. And some naive & ignorant people will say that's a good thing, since they'll purchase content à La Carte, but trust me. It's not a good thing. It obliterates innovation and destroys creativity. Most content producing companies/websites will be swallowed up by consolidation (you can already see this happening as "networks" of websites have been forming, like the Gawker network, etc) while the little guys, bloggers and startups completely disappear as they can no longer pay their hosting bills. Only the Walmarts of web content will be left standing (companies that can afford to run a subscription model). That's a bleak future I want no part of. I'll keep the ads, thank you very much.

pdkl95 11y ago
> The contract is there in play already 1) When was the offer made. 2) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds") 3) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated? Contracts have a specific format, and they are not in play just because you wish they were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements Seriously, talk to a lawyer on this - they will laugh at this idea that putting up ads next to your content somehow creates a contract. > People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. First, good - a lot of so-called "content" is junk and isn't worth anything. Second, if anybody bears the responsibility for "content" disappearing, it's the people that chose a business model based on a misunderstanding of the law. > Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads, and it was not only still full of content, it had a much better signal/noise ratio. The idea that people only make "web content" with ads is patently incorrect. You know this, because I'm sure you've seen websites without ads. I'm sure you even know about sites like wikipedia that use alternative funding models.
- mahranch 11y ago
  > 1) When was the offer made. The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door. > ) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds") It is inherent. Just like when you tune-in to watch the Big Bang Theory on TV, you understand that the ads that get played during the show subsidize (sponsor) the content. The internet has been around a long time, pretending this is something new and unknown is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. > ) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated? You are the solicitor (the website didn't contact you, you went to it) so such an offer and/or acceptance isn't required. Putting all of that aside, are you suggesting that all websites now put up a landing page which says "You must view the following ad to enter this website. Click yes to continue, click No to go back to google"? Because that's pretty much what you're suggesting. Also, as far as your "contract" is concerned, how do you deal with it when TV programs show you ads? They subsidize the content there in the exact same way. Do you feel entitled to watching the latest episode of Agents of Shield without watching any ads? Again, you didn't create the content, it's not yours. Why do so many people feel entitled to consume it all for free? It's like if the internet didn't exist, and I walk into a book store and just start piling magazines into my backpack then walk out. Only, instead of the articles being on a piece of paper, they're on my monitor. > Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I've been using the internet since 1996 and ads have always been here. The dot.com internet bubble began in 1996. Half the bubble was predicated on the (speculative) popularity and rise of ads. In a way (albeit indirectly), the first internet bubble was due to ads (See here: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-comeback-After-the-bubble-2641589.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-co...). > full of content You're either being dishonest or you're deluding yourself if you think there is anywhere near the same amount of content there is today. That's laughable - it's not even comparable. Especially when you consider high speed internet wasn't even a thing yet. It took 3-10 minutes just to download a picture of a naked woman. The internet back then was a barren wasteland. You forget, there was no youtube, there was no hackernews, there was no facebook ...these are companies that 100% relied on advertisements for their growth. Hell, they still do to this day.

pdkl95 11y ago

> The contract is there in play already 1) When was the offer made. 2) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds") 3) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated? Contracts have a specific format, and they are not in play just because you wish they were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Elements Seriously, talk to a lawyer on this - they will laugh at this idea that putting up ads next to your content somehow creates a contract. > People like you are the very reason why a lot of "free" content is going to disappear in the future. First, good - a lot of so-called "content" is junk and isn't worth anything. Second, if anybody bears the responsibility for "content" disappearing, it's the people that chose a business model based on a misunderstanding of the law. > Without ads, there would be minimal or no web content, end of story. Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads, and it was not only still full of content, it had a much better signal/noise ratio. The idea that people only make "web content" with ads is patently incorrect. You know this, because I'm sure you've seen websites without ads. I'm sure you even know about sites like wikipedia that use alternative funding models.

mahranch 11y ago
> 1) When was the offer made. The moment you went to the website. It's like going to someone's house and knocking on the door. > ) When was the understanding of what the contract was about made? (aka "meeting of the minds") It is inherent. Just like when you tune-in to watch the Big Bang Theory on TV, you understand that the ads that get played during the show subsidize (sponsor) the content. The internet has been around a long time, pretending this is something new and unknown is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. > ) Was there a proper exchange of consideration only after the offer and acceptance of that offer was negotiated? You are the solicitor (the website didn't contact you, you went to it) so such an offer and/or acceptance isn't required. Putting all of that aside, are you suggesting that all websites now put up a landing page which says "You must view the following ad to enter this website. Click yes to continue, click No to go back to google"? Because that's pretty much what you're suggesting. Also, as far as your "contract" is concerned, how do you deal with it when TV programs show you ads? They subsidize the content there in the exact same way. Do you feel entitled to watching the latest episode of Agents of Shield without watching any ads? Again, you didn't create the content, it's not yours. Why do so many people feel entitled to consume it all for free? It's like if the internet didn't exist, and I walk into a book store and just start piling magazines into my backpack then walk out. Only, instead of the articles being on a piece of paper, they're on my monitor. > Sorry, I was using the web (and the rest of the internet) before the plague of ads Sorry, but this is simply wrong. I've been using the internet since 1996 and ads have always been here. The dot.com internet bubble began in 1996. Half the bubble was predicated on the (speculative) popularity and rise of ads. In a way (albeit indirectly), the first internet bubble was due to ads (See here: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-comeback-After-the-bubble-2641589.php http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Dot-com-ads-make-a-co...). > full of content You're either being dishonest or you're deluding yourself if you think there is anywhere near the same amount of content there is today. That's laughable - it's not even comparable. Especially when you consider high speed internet wasn't even a thing yet. It took 3-10 minutes just to download a picture of a naked woman. The internet back then was a barren wasteland. You forget, there was no youtube, there was no hackernews, there was no facebook ...these are companies that 100% relied on advertisements for their growth. Hell, they still do to this day.