8 ms·

I don't get it. A big part of the web is paid by ads. Lots of websites rely on (non-invasive) ads to sustain themselves and provide content to anyone for free.

by agopaul 11y ago

I don't get it. A big part of the web is paid by ads. Lots of websites rely on (non-invasive) ads to sustain themselves and provide content to anyone for free. It's safe to say that the whole web sustains on ads (think about google, FB). I know that sometimes there are too many ads on certain web pages, but that is no excuse to ban them all. Yes, ads are also used to distribute malware but, come on, it's 2016 and you should have uninstalled both Flash and the Java plugin in your browser a while ago.

Touche 11y ago
It's mostly about tracking for me.
a_imho 11y ago
Flash is a red herring here. Yes, we argue about the too many. And for lots of people that is 1. I pretty much feel this movement is just a reaction to a very nasty practice, and every advertising company deserves what it gets. Ad supported != free, sorry and Google and FB != the whole web.
- agopaul 11y ago
  I'll admit that "the whole web" was an exaggeration, but I'm trying to make a point. Nearly every website that I browse is sustained by ads. Yeah, the adv industry is a nasty one, but still this movement is not providing a viable (any?) alternative option to finance the web.
  - a_imho 11y ago
    I don't think the ball is in the customers court hereto come up with solutions, but some alternatives might be 1. donations like patreon, flattr, paypal etc. 2. pushed down on people throat a different way e.g. build into your monthly internet bill (the same way as piracy 'damages' were included in CD and DVD prices) 3. maybe just let those parts die edit: 4. I really did enjoy South Park sponsored content
  - sp332 11y ago
    Patreon is working reasonably well, and other sites are using a similar model even if they don't use Patreon specifically. Flattr is still around even though it isn't very popular. Readability tried this and distributed some money to site owners, but they didn't have a good reputation with site owners and eventually folded. Looks like the Brave browser is trying a similar thing now.
morsch 11y ago
Ads pay for some web sites. People pay for ads because they want the attention of the sites' readers to get them to buy their products. People buy their products, which pays for the ads, which pay the websites. I prefer to be able to steer my own attention, and not have it be steered by those who win the bids for it. I don't like paying a surcharge on every product to enable this practice. It seems like an inefficient way to finance the web.
- reasonality 11y ago
  Are you also against relevant adverts in magazines? Some of those are pretty useful...
  - ccozan 11y ago
    Nobody disputes the usefulness of some ad(vert)s. But while an ad on a website is coming with tracking, a nice advert in a magazine does exactly what is the intention: inform people of something, either a product or a service. And I can watch that ad anonymously. While I would like to watch online ads, for the information might be useful to me, is impossible to disable the tracking, somewhere in a log file an IP will be associated with receiving and/or clicking this ad. This IP might be associated already with my identity because I did login to Gmail from the same IP, for example. That's why I am using ad-blocker.
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      > a nice advert in a magazine does exactly what is the intention: inform people of something, either a product or a service. And I can watch that ad anonymously. Even ads in magazines aren't there to "inform" people. "Informing" would be objective. Ads are meant to show the product in the best possible light and get people to buy them.
    - majewsky 11y ago
      > Nobody disputes the usefulness of some ad(vert)s. I do. Some years ago, I've read an essay where the author, among other things, considered banning paid advertisements, i.e. getting paid to promote someone else's work. I sadly didn't save a link at the time, and I can't find it on Google. The author argued that today's social networks are effective ways for word-of-mouth advertising, which is why classical advertising is not strictly required for a new product to take off (esp. when combined with crowdfunding). Furthermore, advertisements regularly create requirements that are irrational and even harmful to the people involved (e.g. sodas and sweets) or the society or its natural resources. I can see how banning paid advertisement could help in transitioning to a zero-growth economy, which I consider one of the most remarkable challenges of our generation. I would love to see these ideas explored with scientific scrutiny, because, as always with economic policies on this scale, it's near impossible to estimate their effect in advance.
riquito 11y ago
All the ads you see track you. I would be OK with watching ads instead of paying a website, I'm not OK to be tracked in doing so. Security, performance, aesthetics help in strengthening my resolve. If I really want to help a website I'll value whether to disable the adblocker (ublock origin) or not, or perhaps pay for an ad-less service.
skoczymroczny 11y ago
BBS and similar services offered content for free before the advent of www and Web as we know it today. I think most of the Internet would survive without ads, it'd just have a bigger split between free and premium content, and p2p for distribution would be more common place to share the load.
- dspillett 11y ago
  A BBS had a more static infrastructure cost though, because the resource use was gated by fixed limitations like the number of incoming lines. Traffic cost requirements can be much harder to predict and while you can emulate the fixed maximums of older technology this is going to put your users off because people these days do not expect that sort of limitation.
r3bl 11y ago
Hey, if a website uses ads that it hosts on their own server and if the ads are relevant to the content of the page and not my browsing history, I'm more then happy to see them. Since in 2016 this is mostly not the case, I have to go with whitelisting the sites instead of the other way around.
mavdi 11y ago
If your business model can be defeated by a browser extension, then it wasn't a business to begin with. The internet is in need of a unified subscription service. One that you can pay a monthly fee and see as many ad supported websites as you want, without ads.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  There would already be a unified subscription service if there would be a real demand for it.
  - oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
    As ad-blocking becomes more common, demand for a unified subscription service grows. Hopefully, it's feasible, because I think it would be a wonderful thing. Some subscription services, which remove ads, are doing pretty well as far as I can tell; Twitch is the obvious one that springs to mind.
    - molmalo 11y ago
      And after a few years it would end up being similar to cable tv. It started offering «more and better content» without ads, because you already paid a subscription. And once they had enough users and content, they added ads. Whats stopping those websites from doing the same?
- nazrak 11y ago
  I tried to contact some media sites a month ago because I was creating that service. No one even replied my email. I do not think they are even interested in it.
  - mavdi 11y ago
    It's a lost cause unless if you can get someone like Murdoch in as an investor.
stevenh 11y ago
Should ISPs be required to share their profits with the owners of the sites their users visit? Never mind the technical hurdles; from a strictly ethical standpoint, would it make sense? The industry seems to have settled on 70/30 being a fair split. Why shouldn't sites be able to opt in to receiving a portion of 30% of the profits coming from a particular ISP subscriber, proportional to how many times that user visited their site compared to other sites? ISPs profit by transferring other people's copyrighted content but sharing none of that money with the content creators. Wasn't MegaUpload raided and destroyed for doing essentially the same thing?
randomThoughts9 11y ago
A less mentioned problem is the fact that, as far as our industry is concerned, ads corrupt. They corrupt the developers, because the purpose is no longer to create a great product. You now have to think on how to: * tweak your product to accommodate ads * trick the user to comeback even when he shouldn't have to * collect as much data about the user as you can And they corrupt content creators, because it makes them focus on volume (views) instead of quality. And yes, we painted ourselves into this corner, where is really tough to make it without using ads. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore other options. And without ad blockers, the industry will have no motivation to search for alternatives.
marssaxman 11y ago
So what? The web worked just fine before ads came along, and I'm not convinced that the deluge of ad money has actually improved it much. If the ad money dries up, we'll get by and the web will still be full of interesting things people have created in order to give them away for free.

by agopaul 11y ago

Touche 11y ago

It's mostly about tracking for me.

a_imho 11y ago

Flash is a red herring here. Yes, we argue about the too many. And for lots of people that is 1. I pretty much feel this movement is just a reaction to a very nasty practice, and every advertising company deserves what it gets. Ad supported != free, sorry and Google and FB != the whole web.

agopaul 11y ago
I'll admit that "the whole web" was an exaggeration, but I'm trying to make a point. Nearly every website that I browse is sustained by ads. Yeah, the adv industry is a nasty one, but still this movement is not providing a viable (any?) alternative option to finance the web.
- a_imho 11y ago
  I don't think the ball is in the customers court hereto come up with solutions, but some alternatives might be 1. donations like patreon, flattr, paypal etc. 2. pushed down on people throat a different way e.g. build into your monthly internet bill (the same way as piracy 'damages' were included in CD and DVD prices) 3. maybe just let those parts die edit: 4. I really did enjoy South Park sponsored content
- sp332 11y ago
  Patreon is working reasonably well, and other sites are using a similar model even if they don't use Patreon specifically. Flattr is still around even though it isn't very popular. Readability tried this and distributed some money to site owners, but they didn't have a good reputation with site owners and eventually folded. Looks like the Brave browser is trying a similar thing now.

morsch 11y ago

Ads pay for some web sites. People pay for ads because they want the attention of the sites' readers to get them to buy their products. People buy their products, which pays for the ads, which pay the websites. I prefer to be able to steer my own attention, and not have it be steered by those who win the bids for it. I don't like paying a surcharge on every product to enable this practice. It seems like an inefficient way to finance the web.

reasonality 11y ago
Are you also against relevant adverts in magazines? Some of those are pretty useful...
- ccozan 11y ago
  Nobody disputes the usefulness of some ad(vert)s. But while an ad on a website is coming with tracking, a nice advert in a magazine does exactly what is the intention: inform people of something, either a product or a service. And I can watch that ad anonymously. While I would like to watch online ads, for the information might be useful to me, is impossible to disable the tracking, somewhere in a log file an IP will be associated with receiving and/or clicking this ad. This IP might be associated already with my identity because I did login to Gmail from the same IP, for example. That's why I am using ad-blocker.
  - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
    > a nice advert in a magazine does exactly what is the intention: inform people of something, either a product or a service. And I can watch that ad anonymously. Even ads in magazines aren't there to "inform" people. "Informing" would be objective. Ads are meant to show the product in the best possible light and get people to buy them.
  - majewsky 11y ago
    > Nobody disputes the usefulness of some ad(vert)s. I do. Some years ago, I've read an essay where the author, among other things, considered banning paid advertisements, i.e. getting paid to promote someone else's work. I sadly didn't save a link at the time, and I can't find it on Google. The author argued that today's social networks are effective ways for word-of-mouth advertising, which is why classical advertising is not strictly required for a new product to take off (esp. when combined with crowdfunding). Furthermore, advertisements regularly create requirements that are irrational and even harmful to the people involved (e.g. sodas and sweets) or the society or its natural resources. I can see how banning paid advertisement could help in transitioning to a zero-growth economy, which I consider one of the most remarkable challenges of our generation. I would love to see these ideas explored with scientific scrutiny, because, as always with economic policies on this scale, it's near impossible to estimate their effect in advance.

riquito 11y ago

All the ads you see track you. I would be OK with watching ads instead of paying a website, I'm not OK to be tracked in doing so. Security, performance, aesthetics help in strengthening my resolve. If I really want to help a website I'll value whether to disable the adblocker (ublock origin) or not, or perhaps pay for an ad-less service.

skoczymroczny 11y ago

BBS and similar services offered content for free before the advent of www and Web as we know it today. I think most of the Internet would survive without ads, it'd just have a bigger split between free and premium content, and p2p for distribution would be more common place to share the load.

dspillett 11y ago
A BBS had a more static infrastructure cost though, because the resource use was gated by fixed limitations like the number of incoming lines. Traffic cost requirements can be much harder to predict and while you can emulate the fixed maximums of older technology this is going to put your users off because people these days do not expect that sort of limitation.

r3bl 11y ago

Hey, if a website uses ads that it hosts on their own server and if the ads are relevant to the content of the page and not my browsing history, I'm more then happy to see them. Since in 2016 this is mostly not the case, I have to go with whitelisting the sites instead of the other way around.

mavdi 11y ago

If your business model can be defeated by a browser extension, then it wasn't a business to begin with. The internet is in need of a unified subscription service. One that you can pay a monthly fee and see as many ad supported websites as you want, without ads.

tobltobs 11y ago
There would already be a unified subscription service if there would be a real demand for it.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  As ad-blocking becomes more common, demand for a unified subscription service grows. Hopefully, it's feasible, because I think it would be a wonderful thing. Some subscription services, which remove ads, are doing pretty well as far as I can tell; Twitch is the obvious one that springs to mind.
  - molmalo 11y ago
    And after a few years it would end up being similar to cable tv. It started offering «more and better content» without ads, because you already paid a subscription. And once they had enough users and content, they added ads. Whats stopping those websites from doing the same?
nazrak 11y ago
I tried to contact some media sites a month ago because I was creating that service. No one even replied my email. I do not think they are even interested in it.
- mavdi 11y ago
  It's a lost cause unless if you can get someone like Murdoch in as an investor.

stevenh 11y ago

Should ISPs be required to share their profits with the owners of the sites their users visit? Never mind the technical hurdles; from a strictly ethical standpoint, would it make sense? The industry seems to have settled on 70/30 being a fair split. Why shouldn't sites be able to opt in to receiving a portion of 30% of the profits coming from a particular ISP subscriber, proportional to how many times that user visited their site compared to other sites? ISPs profit by transferring other people's copyrighted content but sharing none of that money with the content creators. Wasn't MegaUpload raided and destroyed for doing essentially the same thing?

randomThoughts9 11y ago

A less mentioned problem is the fact that, as far as our industry is concerned, ads corrupt. They corrupt the developers, because the purpose is no longer to create a great product. You now have to think on how to: * tweak your product to accommodate ads * trick the user to comeback even when he shouldn't have to * collect as much data about the user as you can And they corrupt content creators, because it makes them focus on volume (views) instead of quality. And yes, we painted ourselves into this corner, where is really tough to make it without using ads. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore other options. And without ad blockers, the industry will have no motivation to search for alternatives.

marssaxman 11y ago

So what? The web worked just fine before ads came along, and I'm not convinced that the deluge of ad money has actually improved it much. If the ad money dries up, we'll get by and the web will still be full of interesting things people have created in order to give them away for free.