4 ms·

Or just hide and obfuscate the ads better. Getting past ad-blockers isn't exactly rocket science. This is an arms race which will not end well.

threatofrain 11y ago
Whatever end is reached, there's no intuitive or trending reason why it won't be any better or worse than not using ad + tracking blockers. The end result of any side winning is simply that they get what they want; it's not going to lead to some tragedy of the commons. Either advertisers get to track people or they don't. Either people get to block things or they don't. Once upon a time there was little attention to these things, and advertisers got to slurp up data en masse. That is still the case, just an inch less so today. Perhaps this is a bit cruel, but I believe in a divided web experience, one which is ad-supported and the masses browse and are tracked, the other which is curated, high signal, and directly paid for. Like with most things in life, you get what you have the leverage to get, and in general that means what you pay for. Scientific literature is run through this way, and I don't think they're hurting for ad revenue. I think exclusivity can protect quality. It's okay to have a paid-for news channel, and a free news channel for the masses, a paid-for Reddit, and a free Reddit. You get what you pay for.
- reasonality 11y ago
  Well clearly the experience for people not using ad blockers is substantially worse than it was 10 years ago. If the usage of ad blockers increases, you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone.
  - distances 11y ago
    I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the ads and popups would be less intrusive if there was a larger audience accepting them.
  - aikah 11y ago
    > I you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. They are doing that already, they are maximizing the amount of ads they can shove down user's throats. This is nothing new and ad-blocking didn't change that. You'd think adverstiser would understand by now the reason why people use adblocker...
  - executesorder66 11y ago
    > So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone How is it making the web worse for people using adblockers? Because they are a subset of "everyone"
  - threatofrain 11y ago
    Actually, it is the responsibility of any behavioral researcher, marketer, or designer, to extract full value from users as is sound to business short/middle/long term goals. If there are still ads to be placed, still users to be tracked, metrics to be studied, then let it be so. You're assuming that 'good behavior' of users should somehow stay the hand of marketing companies. It ought not. A good marketing company will do everything to extract full value insofar as it is harmonious to business goals -- ad blocker or not, the search for the perfect recipe of ad delivery will march on.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Scientific literature is still working out how to deal with "open access": there's a big demand to make papers free-to-access. Which results in the cost being borne by the author paying the publisher instead .. or the disappearance of the publisher intermediary altogether.

threatofrain 11y ago

Whatever end is reached, there's no intuitive or trending reason why it won't be any better or worse than not using ad + tracking blockers. The end result of any side winning is simply that they get what they want; it's not going to lead to some tragedy of the commons. Either advertisers get to track people or they don't. Either people get to block things or they don't. Once upon a time there was little attention to these things, and advertisers got to slurp up data en masse. That is still the case, just an inch less so today. Perhaps this is a bit cruel, but I believe in a divided web experience, one which is ad-supported and the masses browse and are tracked, the other which is curated, high signal, and directly paid for. Like with most things in life, you get what you have the leverage to get, and in general that means what you pay for. Scientific literature is run through this way, and I don't think they're hurting for ad revenue. I think exclusivity can protect quality. It's okay to have a paid-for news channel, and a free news channel for the masses, a paid-for Reddit, and a free Reddit. You get what you pay for.

reasonality 11y ago
Well clearly the experience for people not using ad blockers is substantially worse than it was 10 years ago. If the usage of ad blockers increases, you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone.
- distances 11y ago
  I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the ads and popups would be less intrusive if there was a larger audience accepting them.
- aikah 11y ago
  > I you can bet that those not using ad blockers will be squeezed and exploited and have a thousand popups and intrusive ads thrown at them in order for the sites to recoup the lost money. They are doing that already, they are maximizing the amount of ads they can shove down user's throats. This is nothing new and ad-blocking didn't change that. You'd think adverstiser would understand by now the reason why people use adblocker...
- executesorder66 11y ago
  > So those using ad blockers are making the web worse for everyone How is it making the web worse for people using adblockers? Because they are a subset of "everyone"
- threatofrain 11y ago
  Actually, it is the responsibility of any behavioral researcher, marketer, or designer, to extract full value from users as is sound to business short/middle/long term goals. If there are still ads to be placed, still users to be tracked, metrics to be studied, then let it be so. You're assuming that 'good behavior' of users should somehow stay the hand of marketing companies. It ought not. A good marketing company will do everything to extract full value insofar as it is harmonious to business goals -- ad blocker or not, the search for the perfect recipe of ad delivery will march on.
pjc50 11y ago
Scientific literature is still working out how to deal with "open access": there's a big demand to make papers free-to-access. Which results in the cost being borne by the author paying the publisher instead .. or the disappearance of the publisher intermediary altogether.