5 ms·

Your comment doesn't make any sense? Don't view ads. Wired doesn't care about you. You contribute nothing back anyway. So by making it a little harder, at lea

Your comment doesn't make any sense? Don't view ads. Wired doesn't care about you. You contribute nothing back anyway. So by making it a little harder, at least some of those people with morals will be pushed in the right direction to pay or white list ads for free content.

jacquesm 11y ago
> some of those people with morals As opposed to those without morals who won't white list the trackers or pay up? As opposed to those moral upstanding citizens that run the advertising industry? I don't think that the 'morals' bit needs to be in there, in fact it would be stronger without.
- aaron695 11y ago
  They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. Or excuses about how I don't contribute anything but might bring in someone who does, so how dare you. You are going to fail. These are not evidence based arguments. It's not to hard to block Ad Block users. Other media companies have survived with paywalls AND ads. And even if it doesn't work out, Wired can pull back and at least say they tried. It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral. The glee at that they might fail. This can be read both above and below the lines.
  - striking 11y ago
    We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.
  - marklgr 11y ago
    > Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?
  - beedogs 11y ago
    How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?
  - mirimir 11y ago
    They could come up with a better payment option. They could accept micropayments of some sort. Even an anonymous deposit-based system. Then they could quote me an ad-auction based price, and give me the option of entering an account number and password.
  - hueving 11y ago
    >They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. They are asking to violate your privacy by feeding your personal information to an ad network. If they were clear about the exchange they expected (personal info for articles), then people wouldn't be so harsh on them. It's pretending that their proposition is just seeing a little ad that's misleading to the point of being immoral. >It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral I wouldn't call people being upset that wired has made this anti-privacy decision to force people into an all or nothing subscription self-righteous because it's not unfounded. This is a big middle finger to anyone who cares about privacy.
monkmartinez 11y ago
This isn't a moral argument. This is advertising. Less traffic overall will be bad in the long term. There are no two ways about that.
- Donzo 11y ago
  So true. It is shortsighted to value your readers only for their capacity to view and click advertisements. Readers also act as distribution nodes, sharing content that they find compelling with others who may or may not use ad blockers. Building walls will result in fewer readers, and as you've noted, less traffic will be bad in the long term...
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Odd how working for exposure is decried when business owners want designers or devs to do it, but grand when we want publishers to do it.
    - michaelmrose 11y ago
      Exposure IS worth something and a business that pays a team of analysts and other professionals ought to be in a position to access this and decide accordingly. In this case in the long run something is better than nothing which is what wired will end up with. As a publication they have little to offer to justify their high subscription cost and the portion of people interested in tech who don't use an ad blocker will eventually be the empty set. Alternatively they could offer tasteful text and image ads served from their own domain and many people would be willing to allow them.
      - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
        I'm enjoying the meta - ad machine that sometimes writes about ads writing about its own new ad plans. So tech is having a shake-out at the moment - many assumptions being questioned, many business models being challenged, many unicorns revealed as dead horses. Considering how little of genuine value these businesses contribute - including Wired - I'm not sure they're going to be heavily mourned if they disappear. Is anyone really going to mind much if the Distraction Economy dies over the next few years?
rosser 11y ago
people with morals Nice. You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that. I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  I prefer the term "online surveillance industry"
- DannyBee 11y ago
  So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?
  - rosser 11y ago
    When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.
fourneau 11y ago
"Wired doesn't care about you." isn't true at all. Just because a person who is blocking ads may not generate any revenue directly, they may share the article with someone who doesn't block ads. Losing 20% of their audience may have really painful effects on their reader network.
- blcArmadillo 11y ago
  Yup, which would in turn affect their advertising since advertisers generally sites with the most traffic.
- jamespo 11y ago
  I guess they have estimated the impact on revenue that would cause and realised it's minimal.

jacquesm 11y ago

> some of those people with morals As opposed to those without morals who won't white list the trackers or pay up? As opposed to those moral upstanding citizens that run the advertising industry? I don't think that the 'morals' bit needs to be in there, in fact it would be stronger without.

aaron695 11y ago
They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. We need something from you to continue. Here are two options. Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. Or excuses about how I don't contribute anything but might bring in someone who does, so how dare you. You are going to fail. These are not evidence based arguments. It's not to hard to block Ad Block users. Other media companies have survived with paywalls AND ads. And even if it doesn't work out, Wired can pull back and at least say they tried. It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral. The glee at that they might fail. This can be read both above and below the lines.
- striking 11y ago
  We don't want to bet on their content being good enough that it's worth so much money. And honestly, if there really is a wall that isn't casually circumventable, then I just won't read it. I don't care enough to pay. If they curated some constantly brilliant content, I'd jump on paying them. But as it is, I rarely end up there anyway.
- marklgr 11y ago
  > Payment, or ads that we'll try and keep ok. The response is, we'll weaponize and win. You really got to realize this is not about showing ads, ie. some plain jpg/gifs--which a lot of people would accept--but loading tons of tracking scripts that slow you down and violate your privacy. So yeah, I'm gonna protect against that, I don't deem it as an acceptable choice.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    I'm not sure about that. I'm right there with you, but I'm skeptical whether it's a majority opinion. Does anybody have numbers on that?
- beedogs 11y ago
  How's the weather up there on that tall horse, mister?
- mirimir 11y ago
  They could come up with a better payment option. They could accept micropayments of some sort. Even an anonymous deposit-based system. Then they could quote me an ad-auction based price, and give me the option of entering an account number and password.
- hueving 11y ago
  >They are asking, please stop using our content without giving something back. They are asking to violate your privacy by feeding your personal information to an ad network. If they were clear about the exchange they expected (personal info for articles), then people wouldn't be so harsh on them. It's pretending that their proposition is just seeing a little ad that's misleading to the point of being immoral. >It's the self righteous behaviour about it that's immoral I wouldn't call people being upset that wired has made this anti-privacy decision to force people into an all or nothing subscription self-righteous because it's not unfounded. This is a big middle finger to anyone who cares about privacy.

monkmartinez 11y ago

This isn't a moral argument. This is advertising. Less traffic overall will be bad in the long term. There are no two ways about that.

Donzo 11y ago
So true. It is shortsighted to value your readers only for their capacity to view and click advertisements. Readers also act as distribution nodes, sharing content that they find compelling with others who may or may not use ad blockers. Building walls will result in fewer readers, and as you've noted, less traffic will be bad in the long term...
- x0x0 11y ago
  Odd how working for exposure is decried when business owners want designers or devs to do it, but grand when we want publishers to do it.
  - michaelmrose 11y ago
    Exposure IS worth something and a business that pays a team of analysts and other professionals ought to be in a position to access this and decide accordingly. In this case in the long run something is better than nothing which is what wired will end up with. As a publication they have little to offer to justify their high subscription cost and the portion of people interested in tech who don't use an ad blocker will eventually be the empty set. Alternatively they could offer tasteful text and image ads served from their own domain and many people would be willing to allow them.
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      I'm enjoying the meta - ad machine that sometimes writes about ads writing about its own new ad plans. So tech is having a shake-out at the moment - many assumptions being questioned, many business models being challenged, many unicorns revealed as dead horses. Considering how little of genuine value these businesses contribute - including Wired - I'm not sure they're going to be heavily mourned if they disappear. Is anyone really going to mind much if the Distraction Economy dies over the next few years?

rosser 11y ago

people with morals Nice. You might take a moment to consider that some of us who block ads are more concerned about the morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than we are the revenue some arbitrary site may or may not lose from missing our impressions before you start casting stones wildly about like that. I'd probably be very willing to consider whitelisting sites who worked with advertisers that didn't run tracking programs most of the Three Letter Agencies in the West would kill to access — if they didn't already have behind-the-scenes arrangements with them. But that question is probably pretty moot at this point, isn't it?

throwaway2048 11y ago
I prefer the term "online surveillance industry"
DannyBee 11y ago
So, clearly, you instead just directly pay the authors/etc when you can, right? Or does that all conveniently fall by the wayside in your crusade?
- rosser 11y ago
  When they give me a way to, yes, I actually do. I pay for recurrent subscriptions, plural, to sites that offer and warrant it. At least one of them has been running for a decade or more. Regardless, calling it a "crusade" is the same kind of argument-poisoning that the GP uses with his "people with morals" quip. If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue." Apparently using correct words is now argument poisoning charged rhetoric. Okay. Sorry if you don't like when the definitions of words match what you are doing. "If you can't have a discussion without resorting to that kind of rhetoric — term used very damned loosely — then, personally, I don't think you've got much of a point." Let's look at who is using rhetoric here: "morality (read: more or less utter lack thereof) of the a̶d̶v̶e̶r̶t̶i̶s̶e̶r̶s̶ trackers than " Yeah, i guess i couldn't agree more with you.

fourneau 11y ago

"Wired doesn't care about you." isn't true at all. Just because a person who is blocking ads may not generate any revenue directly, they may share the article with someone who doesn't block ads. Losing 20% of their audience may have really painful effects on their reader network.

blcArmadillo 11y ago
Yup, which would in turn affect their advertising since advertisers generally sites with the most traffic.
jamespo 11y ago
I guess they have estimated the impact on revenue that would cause and realised it's minimal.