3 ms·

I think it's totally fair game to coerce me into turning off my ad blocker. That's how they monetize. That's how I'm supposed to "pay" for the content. I choos

I think it's totally fair game to coerce me into turning off my ad blocker. That's how they monetize. That's how I'm supposed to "pay" for the content. I choose to use a blocker because I don't like ads. But if someone wants say "hey, the deal is ads or nothing" I think it's a pretty fair bargain. Currently the ad blockers (my self included) are free loading off the system. The internet only works because most people are willing to suck it up and watch the ads in my stead.

vinceguidry 11y ago
I'd be happy if the entire ad-supported content industry burned to the ground. Make excellent content, and charge me for it. There's your system.
jrapdx3 11y ago
Of course it's a valid choice to go along with turning off ad blockers, that's always up to the individual. It might well be better, and less hazardous, to pay for content than be subject to ads. This issue comes up re: science journals and whether it's appropriate to keep articles behind steep paywalls. The trend increasingly favors "open access" rather than having such important content restricted and inaccessible to the community at large. It's a different thing when talking about buying material items online, in that case it's clear what one is getting for the money. By comparison is the content of most websites really worth paying for? Mostly I'd say the answer is "no", and that's the reason I would rarely choose to pay for content. Ads are a way sites try to extract payments from sellers or third parties, but ultimately it's paid by site visitors one way or another. Since I choose not to pay directly because the marginal entertainment value isn't worth it to me, why would I go along with paying indirectly? I think it's perfectly legitimate to use an ad blocker. No one is obligated to put up with ads just because sites want to make money. If sites refuse to serve content because of ad blocking, the visitor's loss is negligible vs. sites taking substantial risk of losing viewers and jeopardizing site viability altogether. Sites have choices too. They can "clean up their act", police the ads they run, demand the ad servers/agencies eliminate ad-malware and intrusive tracking, etc. Choosing to monetize subscriptions, well, good luck with that, competition is ferocious, and subscribers probably sparse. Perhaps the internet was not really built to be "monetized" by the kind of ads we're talking about. Edit: grammar
Esau 11y ago
I don't mind ads. What I do mind is autoplay videos, malware, popups, and tracking.
- blubb-fish 11y ago
  I don't even mind tracking too much - I despise text-based sites with animated ads, though, for obvious reasons.

vinceguidry 11y ago

I'd be happy if the entire ad-supported content industry burned to the ground. Make excellent content, and charge me for it. There's your system.

jrapdx3 11y ago

Of course it's a valid choice to go along with turning off ad blockers, that's always up to the individual. It might well be better, and less hazardous, to pay for content than be subject to ads. This issue comes up re: science journals and whether it's appropriate to keep articles behind steep paywalls. The trend increasingly favors "open access" rather than having such important content restricted and inaccessible to the community at large. It's a different thing when talking about buying material items online, in that case it's clear what one is getting for the money. By comparison is the content of most websites really worth paying for? Mostly I'd say the answer is "no", and that's the reason I would rarely choose to pay for content. Ads are a way sites try to extract payments from sellers or third parties, but ultimately it's paid by site visitors one way or another. Since I choose not to pay directly because the marginal entertainment value isn't worth it to me, why would I go along with paying indirectly? I think it's perfectly legitimate to use an ad blocker. No one is obligated to put up with ads just because sites want to make money. If sites refuse to serve content because of ad blocking, the visitor's loss is negligible vs. sites taking substantial risk of losing viewers and jeopardizing site viability altogether. Sites have choices too. They can "clean up their act", police the ads they run, demand the ad servers/agencies eliminate ad-malware and intrusive tracking, etc. Choosing to monetize subscriptions, well, good luck with that, competition is ferocious, and subscribers probably sparse. Perhaps the internet was not really built to be "monetized" by the kind of ads we're talking about. Edit: grammar

Esau 11y ago

I don't mind ads. What I do mind is autoplay videos, malware, popups, and tracking.

blubb-fish 11y ago
I don't even mind tracking too much - I despise text-based sites with animated ads, though, for obvious reasons.