4 ms·

If they don't want the traffic they are more than welcome to put it behind a paywall.

by cmc31 10y ago

chc 10y ago
How does only wanting visitors who are willing to view ads recommend the use of a pay wall? Those hardly seem related.
- cgh 10y ago
  They are both trying to monetize the content. I thought that was obvious.
  - chc 10y ago
    That is obvious, but the person I was replying to said "if you don't want the traffic." It is not evident that they want to exclude 99% of web traffic, only the relatively small number who are unwilling to view ads. In short, for most people, a paywall is a much stronger negative than ads, so it's not an obvious why somebody who wants to use ads should just use a paywall.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 10y ago
More to the point, they could go to the trouble of hosting and serving their own curated advertising, like newspapers used to do. They could forbid JavaScript, require simple URLs, and flow their content around well-defined and crafted ad locations. Their site would load quickly, the ads would still attend to the image they intend to project to the reader. Metrics on such ads wouldn't require third party JavaScript to monitor. None of their readers would be subject to malware. Reader and provider would not be an antagonistic relationship. They could do all of these things. They seem to have chosen another path, and made the choice for their readers--those they've kept--at the same time.
PretzelFisch 10y ago
Why people don't understand this I cannot understand. If you respond to a get request the html is mine to do with as I like(personal use), maybe not render it to a browser at all.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  It's about intent. Yes, currently you can work your way around ads and anti-adblockers, but seeing as that's not the intention of the publisher they will eventually have anti-anti-ad-blocker measures just as they came up with anti-ad-blocker measures in the first place. The way content has developed on the internet is based on this implicit agreement that the free content comes with the ads, if there was no revenue source, they might not desire to be in the content publishing business in the first place. All that being said, I'm not sure how me seeing the ads helps them as I never click on them anyways, but I chalk that up to their business issue. I do not necessarily believe that just because they don't provide their content in a form/implicit contract that I wish to participate in, that I am still entitled to consume that content. A prime example for myself is EA Games. I disagree with a lot of their publishing practices and business decisions, but that doesn't mean I play all their games as pirated versions anyways, I simply abstain. Consuming the content by skirting this implied contract only results in this arms race you see in games, online content, and just about any other form of media. It's a competition between users wanting money-free content and publishers wanting to control exactly how their media is distributed and paid for. I don't think either side in this fight is right, but by participating on one side it eggs the other side on.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    I wonder if it would be possible to successfully sue a site that asks you to disable your ad blocker, which you do, and then serves up malware ads that infect your computer? I'm sure they'll try to say their ToS protects them but that doesn't mean it's so.
  - ultramancool 10y ago
    > anti-anti-ad-blocker measures just as they came up with anti-ad-blocker measures in the first place. To be fair, the current anti-anti-adblockers like anti-adblock killer could defeat such a measure as is. Short of rendering their page to an image with ads builtin, there's not much you can do if someone's willing to replace JS. What do you have against a good old fashioned cat and mouse game?

If they don't want the traffic they are more than welcome to put it behind a paywall.

by cmc31 10y ago

If they don't want the traffic they are more than welcome to put it behind a paywall.

chc 10y ago

How does only wanting visitors who are willing to view ads recommend the use of a pay wall? Those hardly seem related.

cgh 10y ago
They are both trying to monetize the content. I thought that was obvious.
- chc 10y ago
  That is obvious, but the person I was replying to said "if you don't want the traffic." It is not evident that they want to exclude 99% of web traffic, only the relatively small number who are unwilling to view ads. In short, for most people, a paywall is a much stronger negative than ads, so it's not an obvious why somebody who wants to use ads should just use a paywall.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

slowmovintarget 10y ago

More to the point, they could go to the trouble of hosting and serving their own curated advertising, like newspapers used to do. They could forbid JavaScript, require simple URLs, and flow their content around well-defined and crafted ad locations. Their site would load quickly, the ads would still attend to the image they intend to project to the reader. Metrics on such ads wouldn't require third party JavaScript to monitor. None of their readers would be subject to malware. Reader and provider would not be an antagonistic relationship. They could do all of these things. They seem to have chosen another path, and made the choice for their readers--those they've kept--at the same time.

PretzelFisch 10y ago

Why people don't understand this I cannot understand. If you respond to a get request the html is mine to do with as I like(personal use), maybe not render it to a browser at all.

Vraxx 10y ago
It's about intent. Yes, currently you can work your way around ads and anti-adblockers, but seeing as that's not the intention of the publisher they will eventually have anti-anti-ad-blocker measures just as they came up with anti-ad-blocker measures in the first place. The way content has developed on the internet is based on this implicit agreement that the free content comes with the ads, if there was no revenue source, they might not desire to be in the content publishing business in the first place. All that being said, I'm not sure how me seeing the ads helps them as I never click on them anyways, but I chalk that up to their business issue. I do not necessarily believe that just because they don't provide their content in a form/implicit contract that I wish to participate in, that I am still entitled to consume that content. A prime example for myself is EA Games. I disagree with a lot of their publishing practices and business decisions, but that doesn't mean I play all their games as pirated versions anyways, I simply abstain. Consuming the content by skirting this implied contract only results in this arms race you see in games, online content, and just about any other form of media. It's a competition between users wanting money-free content and publishers wanting to control exactly how their media is distributed and paid for. I don't think either side in this fight is right, but by participating on one side it eggs the other side on.
- jrs235 10y ago
  I wonder if it would be possible to successfully sue a site that asks you to disable your ad blocker, which you do, and then serves up malware ads that infect your computer? I'm sure they'll try to say their ToS protects them but that doesn't mean it's so.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  > anti-anti-ad-blocker measures just as they came up with anti-ad-blocker measures in the first place. To be fair, the current anti-anti-adblockers like anti-adblock killer could defeat such a measure as is. Short of rendering their page to an image with ads builtin, there's not much you can do if someone's willing to replace JS. What do you have against a good old fashioned cat and mouse game?