4 ms·

Ad blocking is great but we are forgetting that most people will not pay to use a website. Advertisers are going to figure out a away around these things and we

Ad blocking is great but we are forgetting that most people will not pay to use a website. Advertisers are going to figure out a away around these things and we'll still end up with ads but at the same time we are going to see many ad supported websites disappear.

mfoy_ 11y ago
Yeah... many great sites are already just labours of love as it is... I mean, I hate crappy clickbait sites as much as the next person... but in our effort to thwart those we're really going to put the squeeze on more honest sites as a side effect.
Grishnakh 11y ago
The advertisers have only themselves to blame for this mess. They've been abusing users for two decades now: pop-ups, pop-unders, flashing ads, auto-play videos, and now serving outright malware. They've utterly refused to take responsibility for their actions, and only blame users for blocking their ads, despite these ads making it nearly impossible to actually view websites (like when closing a pop-up window causes dozens more pop-up windows to appear) and trashing peoples' systems. Now they want us to feel sorry for them? No.
tixocloud 11y ago
I can see sponsored/branded content coming into play.
Jordrok 11y ago
So we should just give up, sit back, and take whatever the ad networks see fit to cram down our throats? No thanks. Also, I wouldn't put so much faith in the ability of advertising companies to completely stop adblocking. Similar things have been tried in the past and failed. (See the Betamax case[1] where home TV recording was challenged). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
oconnore 11y ago
This seems like you're assuming the conclusion. When you say, "readers won't pay for sites [and sites cost money]", there are only a few solutions, and they all involve non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction. As a result, your only solution is hand-wringing about ad blockers, which probably won't result in "advertisers are going to figure out a away around these things", because browsers have complete control over what is displayed. If you don't do this, things get more interesting: - "People won't pay for sites" -> make sites that they will pay for. - "non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction" -> how can this be consensual, positive? (there are approximately seventy-three people, total, who enjoy web ads. Superbowl doesn't count.) - "[ad supported websites are a good thing]" -> can they be supported publicly? - "ad supported websites disappear" -> maybe in some cases that isn't bad. - "ad supported websites disappear" -> "most people will not pay to use a website" stops being true.
- adamredwoods 11y ago
  Some small websites won't survive, unless they create free content. Newspaper sites will die, save one or two. People don't want to have to subscribe to 10 different sites, so I suspect it will go the way of a single pay network that owns several pay websites. It will end up being Comcast of the internet, who controls which websites you can access for $99/month.

mfoy_ 11y ago

Yeah... many great sites are already just labours of love as it is... I mean, I hate crappy clickbait sites as much as the next person... but in our effort to thwart those we're really going to put the squeeze on more honest sites as a side effect.

Grishnakh 11y ago

The advertisers have only themselves to blame for this mess. They've been abusing users for two decades now: pop-ups, pop-unders, flashing ads, auto-play videos, and now serving outright malware. They've utterly refused to take responsibility for their actions, and only blame users for blocking their ads, despite these ads making it nearly impossible to actually view websites (like when closing a pop-up window causes dozens more pop-up windows to appear) and trashing peoples' systems. Now they want us to feel sorry for them? No.

tixocloud 11y ago

I can see sponsored/branded content coming into play.

Jordrok 11y ago

So we should just give up, sit back, and take whatever the ad networks see fit to cram down our throats? No thanks. Also, I wouldn't put so much faith in the ability of advertising companies to completely stop adblocking. Similar things have been tried in the past and failed. (See the Betamax case[1] where home TV recording was challenged). [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

oconnore 11y ago

This seems like you're assuming the conclusion. When you say, "readers won't pay for sites [and sites cost money]", there are only a few solutions, and they all involve non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction. As a result, your only solution is hand-wringing about ad blockers, which probably won't result in "advertisers are going to figure out a away around these things", because browsers have complete control over what is displayed. If you don't do this, things get more interesting: - "People won't pay for sites" -> make sites that they will pay for. - "non-readers paying for the reader<->site interaction" -> how can this be consensual, positive? (there are approximately seventy-three people, total, who enjoy web ads. Superbowl doesn't count.) - "[ad supported websites are a good thing]" -> can they be supported publicly? - "ad supported websites disappear" -> maybe in some cases that isn't bad. - "ad supported websites disappear" -> "most people will not pay to use a website" stops being true.

adamredwoods 11y ago
Some small websites won't survive, unless they create free content. Newspaper sites will die, save one or two. People don't want to have to subscribe to 10 different sites, so I suspect it will go the way of a single pay network that owns several pay websites. It will end up being Comcast of the internet, who controls which websites you can access for $99/month.