5 ms·

I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're essentially pirating content now. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. It's that simple. To ta

I think this is the wrong way to approach this. You're essentially pirating content now. If you don't like the ads, stop using the site. It's that simple. To take it a step farther, send an email to customer service explaining WHY you're no longer using the site. This sends a much stronger message to them about what makes you unhappy with the service they provide.

cm2187 11y ago
I actually end up doing that with websites that block browsers with ad-blockers from viewing the content. It takes a while to change my habits but when they are changed there is no coming back to these sites.
- team_doom 11y ago
  To me that comes off as "Hey, I'm angry you won't let me view your content without paying for it anymore". Obviously in this case paying for it is viewing/watching ads. Not trying to get high and mighty with anyone. The whole ad-block culture just screams entitlement to me and it bothers me a lot.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Who is entitled? People who want to view content and will make what they feel is a reasonable bargain to do so, or people who want to sell ads and will make unreasonable bargains to do so? If the initial html that loaded on the page also had the ads in it, it'd be much harder to block them and also make the experience of seeing those ads much less unpleasant. As it stands what people are doing is loading the initial html and saying "no thanks" to all of the follow-on stuff. There's two sides to every story.
    - team_doom 11y ago
      I don't disagree with the fact that ads could be better served more safely and more securely. And I agree that the experience could be better. That's where my comment about writing an email to explain ones unhappiness with the user experience comes in. I work in information security and we do see a lot of malware infections from compromised ad servers. The idea of a website serving ads themselves, instead of relying on a call to an ad network, is good. It means big changes to how advertising works though. The advertisers would have to give customers the ads for them to embed into the page and would need some sort of guarantee that the customer wouldn't change the ads and would pull them down when it was time to do so. I can't think of a way to check this stuff automatically that doesn't involve a call to an advertisers server, which is the whole problem to begin with.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    I am not angry. The authors of the website control their content. If they want to block ad blocking browsers so be it. But my reaction to it is to go somewhere else, not to embrace being tracked all over the web.
  - wernercd 11y ago
    I would have agreed with you to some extent (Adblockers are STEELING!!! Really... companies deserve to earn money for what they provide)... Until 30 after 30: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say... Block users who have adblock? Okay... Serve those users pop under malware for over a week to users who was kind enough to disable ad blocking? Not Okay... I lost my inclination to feel guilty after that... Ad Blocking is a SECURITY measure at this point, since ad networks can't seem to protect me. I'll protect myself to the best of my ability.
  - fucking_tragedy 11y ago
    These businesses feel that they are entitled to my time, my browsing history, my CPU time, my battery life, my limited mobile data, my habits, my privacy and the security of my identity and machines. They feel that they are entitled to not adapt their business model to change and will push anyone off the jungle gym who won't play by their archaic rules. It's their right, but the only entitlement I feel I deserve is the right to ignore their childish behavior as well.
- johnward 11y ago
  I bet you're talking about Forbes.
tomp 11y ago
> You're essentially pirating content now. Earlier, the websites were "pirating" his/her device & browser.
- jamespo 11y ago
  How did they do that, put a rootkit on his machine forcing all hits to them?
  - freehunter 11y ago
    Well they didn't exactly say "do we have your permission to run your CPU up to 100%, hog all of your memory, and install trackers on your computer? And occasionally, can we install malware on your machine?"
    - jamespo 11y ago
      Reminds me of the arguments about not letting in any refugees as some of them may commit a crime.
      - tremon 11y ago
        Except that we do not have a humanitarian obligation towards javascriptlets.
        jamespo 11y ago
        and that is definitely the aspect that reminded me
      - freehunter 11y ago
        Once advertisements become sentient creatures and can be considered human, then they should be granted human rights. As it stands though, what you're doing is saying that refugees (who, I remind you, are humans) are basically worth as much as a banner ad on a website. It shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: blocking ads is not comparable to genocide. In any way. At all. Fucking disgusting.
hobs 11y ago
Unfortunately due to the large occurrence of malware being served over ad networks I will never choose to view ads even for trusted sites. I will and have support people in other mediums(donations, patreon, etc), but the advertising model serving bad actor's code to my browser is not going to fly.
15charlimit 11y ago
>You're essentially pirating content now. No, what you're doing is reformatting content that is being openly broadcast to anyone who cares to look in its direction, to best suit your interests and device capabilities and security. If a site literally cannot survive without ads being viewed, they should block those who use ad blockers or reconsider their business model since blocking will only become more prevalent over time. Not a bad idea on the email though.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Do you ever listen to the radio or live tv? And if so do you feel an obligation to not switch channels when there are ads playing? Such utter nonsense.
- team_doom 11y ago
  I do, actually. I listen to commercials on the radio all the time. It's how they pay for the content I'm listening to and they are often targeted enough that I hear about a business/offer that is pertinent to me. I don't think it's "utter nonsense". I feel like I'm supporting the continued existence of something that I care enough about to listen to. If they can't monetize the service, how can it be expected to continue? Is there no cognitive dissonance for you when you consume something without paying for it? This is the entitlement I referred to in another comment. I don't have cable, so no TV ads.
  - snassar 11y ago
    Do you see no difference between an advertisement on a website and an advertisement on TV or radio?
  - yoo1I 11y ago
    There's the difference: you seem to be getting something out of the ads. For me it's 100% irrelevant. If I need something I will go look for it. If what I need is so special that it can't be found by an internet search, rest assured no-one would make an ad for it. I am not sure why you use the term "cognitive dissonance" for referring to a situation where I consume without paying for something, and I don't feel entitled either. It feels very sonant to read clean websites. If someone chooses to provide a resource it's their issue to figure out how to make it profitable. Trying to set up a fake moral pressure which requires me to listen to/watch mundane, uninspiring bullshit that I do not care about, that wouldn't make them any money from me anyhow, is kind of a strange way to go through life. If I went to your website for it's great content, why do you want to force me to look at something else instead? My brain resources are too valuable to be used to process to hear someone's lies about their products. In essence you want me to pay for your things by quite literally wasting my time. How did that become a thing, I wonder ...
bitwize 11y ago
"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing programming." --Jamie Kellner, former Warner executive
- chopin 11y ago
  "To view this content, you are obliged to shoot yourself in the foot." --me Any time you shove me down ransomware you are actively supporting crime.
  - bitwize 11y ago
    I'm not saying that what Jamie Kellner said is a good thing, only that he said it -- and it broadly reflects the thinking of many decision makers in the "content industry" -- that when content is made available to the audience with support from advertisers, the audience is obligated to view the ads.
teaneedz 11y ago
Not pirating since one has no indication if or what type of ad-tech is being used a site. It just takes one click to end up with malicious code or a UX headache. The website owner is responsible and does not even require an email from users (more wasted time) since the data will already show what's happening. If the site owner is too dense to comprehend the issue or importance of UX, then c'est la vie.
norea-armozel 11y ago
If you don't put up a login for your content on the site then it's free for anyone to read with or without Ads.

cm2187 11y ago

I actually end up doing that with websites that block browsers with ad-blockers from viewing the content. It takes a while to change my habits but when they are changed there is no coming back to these sites.

team_doom 11y ago
To me that comes off as "Hey, I'm angry you won't let me view your content without paying for it anymore". Obviously in this case paying for it is viewing/watching ads. Not trying to get high and mighty with anyone. The whole ad-block culture just screams entitlement to me and it bothers me a lot.
- msandford 11y ago
  Who is entitled? People who want to view content and will make what they feel is a reasonable bargain to do so, or people who want to sell ads and will make unreasonable bargains to do so? If the initial html that loaded on the page also had the ads in it, it'd be much harder to block them and also make the experience of seeing those ads much less unpleasant. As it stands what people are doing is loading the initial html and saying "no thanks" to all of the follow-on stuff. There's two sides to every story.
  - team_doom 11y ago
    I don't disagree with the fact that ads could be better served more safely and more securely. And I agree that the experience could be better. That's where my comment about writing an email to explain ones unhappiness with the user experience comes in. I work in information security and we do see a lot of malware infections from compromised ad servers. The idea of a website serving ads themselves, instead of relying on a call to an ad network, is good. It means big changes to how advertising works though. The advertisers would have to give customers the ads for them to embed into the page and would need some sort of guarantee that the customer wouldn't change the ads and would pull them down when it was time to do so. I can't think of a way to check this stuff automatically that doesn't involve a call to an advertisers server, which is the whole problem to begin with.
- cm2187 11y ago
  I am not angry. The authors of the website control their content. If they want to block ad blocking browsers so be it. But my reaction to it is to go somewhere else, not to embrace being tracked all over the web.
- wernercd 11y ago
  I would have agreed with you to some extent (Adblockers are STEELING!!! Really... companies deserve to earn money for what they provide)... Until 30 after 30: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say... Block users who have adblock? Okay... Serve those users pop under malware for over a week to users who was kind enough to disable ad blocking? Not Okay... I lost my inclination to feel guilty after that... Ad Blocking is a SECURITY measure at this point, since ad networks can't seem to protect me. I'll protect myself to the best of my ability.
- fucking_tragedy 11y ago
  These businesses feel that they are entitled to my time, my browsing history, my CPU time, my battery life, my limited mobile data, my habits, my privacy and the security of my identity and machines. They feel that they are entitled to not adapt their business model to change and will push anyone off the jungle gym who won't play by their archaic rules. It's their right, but the only entitlement I feel I deserve is the right to ignore their childish behavior as well.
johnward 11y ago
I bet you're talking about Forbes.

tomp 11y ago

> You're essentially pirating content now. Earlier, the websites were "pirating" his/her device & browser.

jamespo 11y ago
How did they do that, put a rootkit on his machine forcing all hits to them?
- freehunter 11y ago
  Well they didn't exactly say "do we have your permission to run your CPU up to 100%, hog all of your memory, and install trackers on your computer? And occasionally, can we install malware on your machine?"
  - jamespo 11y ago
    Reminds me of the arguments about not letting in any refugees as some of them may commit a crime.
    - tremon 11y ago
      Except that we do not have a humanitarian obligation towards javascriptlets.
      - jamespo 11y ago
        and that is definitely the aspect that reminded me
    - freehunter 11y ago
      Once advertisements become sentient creatures and can be considered human, then they should be granted human rights. As it stands though, what you're doing is saying that refugees (who, I remind you, are humans) are basically worth as much as a banner ad on a website. It shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: blocking ads is not comparable to genocide. In any way. At all. Fucking disgusting.

hobs 11y ago

Unfortunately due to the large occurrence of malware being served over ad networks I will never choose to view ads even for trusted sites. I will and have support people in other mediums(donations, patreon, etc), but the advertising model serving bad actor's code to my browser is not going to fly.

15charlimit 11y ago

>You're essentially pirating content now. No, what you're doing is reformatting content that is being openly broadcast to anyone who cares to look in its direction, to best suit your interests and device capabilities and security. If a site literally cannot survive without ads being viewed, they should block those who use ad blockers or reconsider their business model since blocking will only become more prevalent over time. Not a bad idea on the email though.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Do you ever listen to the radio or live tv? And if so do you feel an obligation to not switch channels when there are ads playing? Such utter nonsense.

team_doom 11y ago
I do, actually. I listen to commercials on the radio all the time. It's how they pay for the content I'm listening to and they are often targeted enough that I hear about a business/offer that is pertinent to me. I don't think it's "utter nonsense". I feel like I'm supporting the continued existence of something that I care enough about to listen to. If they can't monetize the service, how can it be expected to continue? Is there no cognitive dissonance for you when you consume something without paying for it? This is the entitlement I referred to in another comment. I don't have cable, so no TV ads.
- snassar 11y ago
  Do you see no difference between an advertisement on a website and an advertisement on TV or radio?
- yoo1I 11y ago
  There's the difference: you seem to be getting something out of the ads. For me it's 100% irrelevant. If I need something I will go look for it. If what I need is so special that it can't be found by an internet search, rest assured no-one would make an ad for it. I am not sure why you use the term "cognitive dissonance" for referring to a situation where I consume without paying for something, and I don't feel entitled either. It feels very sonant to read clean websites. If someone chooses to provide a resource it's their issue to figure out how to make it profitable. Trying to set up a fake moral pressure which requires me to listen to/watch mundane, uninspiring bullshit that I do not care about, that wouldn't make them any money from me anyhow, is kind of a strange way to go through life. If I went to your website for it's great content, why do you want to force me to look at something else instead? My brain resources are too valuable to be used to process to hear someone's lies about their products. In essence you want me to pay for your things by quite literally wasting my time. How did that become a thing, I wonder ...

bitwize 11y ago

"Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing programming." --Jamie Kellner, former Warner executive

chopin 11y ago
"To view this content, you are obliged to shoot yourself in the foot." --me Any time you shove me down ransomware you are actively supporting crime.
- bitwize 11y ago
  I'm not saying that what Jamie Kellner said is a good thing, only that he said it -- and it broadly reflects the thinking of many decision makers in the "content industry" -- that when content is made available to the audience with support from advertisers, the audience is obligated to view the ads.

teaneedz 11y ago

Not pirating since one has no indication if or what type of ad-tech is being used a site. It just takes one click to end up with malicious code or a UX headache. The website owner is responsible and does not even require an email from users (more wasted time) since the data will already show what's happening. If the site owner is too dense to comprehend the issue or importance of UX, then c'est la vie.

norea-armozel 11y ago

If you don't put up a login for your content on the site then it's free for anyone to read with or without Ads.