3 ms·
This brings an interesting twist to the question: "is blocking ads on a website denying the owner their revenue stream and therefore wrong in some way?"
by ErrantX 17y ago
This brings an interesting twist to the question: "is blocking ads on a website denying the owner their revenue stream and therefore wrong in some way?"
- thibaut_barrere 17y agoJust thinking out loud, but the website owner could add a clause to its terms of service that explicitely forbid this - it could become a motive for account suspension.
- tomjen2 17y agoI would have to say yes - effectively you are forcing some advertisers to donate their money to advertise for a product (charity) without their consent. To say nothing of the rest of the money, which goes to some random company. Ultimately, this will just be one more push in the direction of more paid content/micropayments (my personal hope) over ad supported content.
- apowell 17y agoHow is this an interesting twist? As a website owner, it not just as bad -- it's worse, because it gives the user an additional incentive (beyond convenience) to block my ads, and feel self-righteous doing it.
- mahmud 17y agoEditorial ads :-)
- apowell 17y agoOh, absolutely! But that doesn't mean I want to see the Adsense/Casale revenue dry up at the hands of some opportunistic do-gooding scheme.
- ErrantX 17y agoWell because I suspect a lot more people would consider this " wrong - which lends strength to the argument that ad blockers are sometimes unfair