4 ms·

"Ad blocking isn't killing any sites. We didn't really say it was either." Did I miss something or did Ken specifically say: "Ad Blocking is devastating to the

"Ad blocking isn't killing any sites. We didn't really say it was either." Did I miss something or did Ken specifically say: "Ad Blocking is devastating to the sites you love" That seems to be the same thing, no? And when you say "the result of not being able to rehire people who were laid off last year specifically because our ad inventory is being hammered by ad blockers." You're still missing the point. You're blaming your readers who chose to use adblock rather than focusing on ways to build a better business model. Come on, you guys know this. You've covered the RIAA/MPAA doing the same exact thing over and over again. Don't blame your users and the choices they make. Focus on providing more value.

mrkurt 17y ago
But ignoring readers and the choices they make (and more importantly, why they make those choices) is every bit as much a part of building a better business model as "do something else you dumbasses". It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously). The vocal ones are a vast, vast minority. We spend more time than we should addressing them, but articles like the one we ran are more an attempt to reach the casual blockers. The difference between us and the RIAA/MPAA is that we're not justifying our lobbying efforts to reform copyright control. We're simply experimenting with technical means of keeping content bundled with ads and social means of educating users who might actually give a shit. The moment one of us goes to congress and says you need to legislate our ability to serve ads alongside our content is the moment you come gripe to me, and we laugh together because I've already quit my job.
- mmasnick 17y ago
  Who said anything about ignoring your readers and the choices they make. I said the exact opposite. And, come on, don't put up strawmen. Just because you're not lobbying to change the laws doesn't change the comparison which was apt: rather than admitting you need to fix your business model, you blamed your users for the choices they made. It's obnoxious, and you guys -- of all the sites out there -- should know that better than anyone.
- michaelcampbell 17y ago
  > It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously). [citation needed]
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    See the first link.
AlisdairO 17y ago
> Come on, you guys know this. You've covered the RIAA/MPAA doing the same exact thing over and over again. Don't blame your users and the choices they make. Focus on providing more value. Not really a fair comparison. The problem with the RIAA is not that they want people to pay for what they consume, it's that they make the experience for legitimate users worse than for pirates. What Ars did makes the 'pirates' experience worse, without substantially inconveniencing 'paying' users.
wendroid 17y ago
How about this one from Ars Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps-your-data-to-learn-from-good-guys-fight-off-bad-guys.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps...

mrkurt 17y ago

But ignoring readers and the choices they make (and more importantly, why they make those choices) is every bit as much a part of building a better business model as "do something else you dumbasses". It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously). The vocal ones are a vast, vast minority. We spend more time than we should addressing them, but articles like the one we ran are more an attempt to reach the casual blockers. The difference between us and the RIAA/MPAA is that we're not justifying our lobbying efforts to reform copyright control. We're simply experimenting with technical means of keeping content bundled with ads and social means of educating users who might actually give a shit. The moment one of us goes to congress and says you need to legislate our ability to serve ads alongside our content is the moment you come gripe to me, and we laugh together because I've already quit my job.

mmasnick 17y ago
Who said anything about ignoring your readers and the choices they make. I said the exact opposite. And, come on, don't put up strawmen. Just because you're not lobbying to change the laws doesn't change the comparison which was apt: rather than admitting you need to fix your business model, you blamed your users for the choices they made. It's obnoxious, and you guys -- of all the sites out there -- should know that better than anyone.
michaelcampbell 17y ago
> It turns out that the vast majority of our readers block ads without thinking about it, because they think it doesn't matter, or by mistake (seriously). [citation needed]
- Semiapies 17y ago
  See the first link.

AlisdairO 17y ago

> Come on, you guys know this. You've covered the RIAA/MPAA doing the same exact thing over and over again. Don't blame your users and the choices they make. Focus on providing more value. Not really a fair comparison. The problem with the RIAA is not that they want people to pay for what they consume, it's that they make the experience for legitimate users worse than for pirates. What Ars did makes the 'pirates' experience worse, without substantially inconveniencing 'paying' users.

wendroid 17y ago

How about this one from Ars Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps-your-data-to-learn-from-good-guys-fight-off-bad-guys.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps...