4 ms·

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/watch

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.

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.