4 ms·

I think any media provider out there would prefer a subscription model - it's just so much simpler. Unfortunately people just aren't paying for it as much as th

I think any media provider out there would prefer a subscription model - it's just so much simpler. Unfortunately people just aren't paying for it as much as they need to.

Klathmon 10y ago
I don't want to pay for everything. I already shell out over $50 a month for various subscriptions. For my less common websites, I'd rather "pay" by viewing ads. (And I refuse to just steal the content. If the ads are too much, then don't use the site. IMO you don't get to choose if you pay for something based on how much you like it...) And the people on HN and reddit that announce to the world that ads shouldn't exist and anything that uses ads is a terrible thing seem crazy to me. I'm a happy ad viewer. It keeps the content free and the creators paid. If you asked people whether they want to pay for something or view ads, the answer will be ads in the vast majority of cases. And dispite all the talk of malware in ads, I've never seen it. I'm sure it exists, but until I begin to see it in my own experience or hear from friends and family about it, I'm going to keep enjoying ads as a monetization method.
- coldpie 10y ago
  > (And I refuse to just steal the content. If the ads are too much, then don't use the site. IMO you don't get to choose if you pay for something based on how much you like it...) Genuinely asking: how do you keep track of this? Do you add bad sites to some domain blacklist? How do you protect yourself from e.g. ads that auto-play audio, or take over control of the website for a period of time, or redirect to the app store on mobile?
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    If a website has misbehaving ads, ads I consider over the top, or are known to distribute malware ads consistently to the point where I don't feel safe, I stop going to that website. If it ever gets to the point that I can't remember which sites I don't want to visit i'll probably add some kind of blocklist, but that hasn't been a problem yet. The only site I can think of off the top of my head that I don't visit any more is the verge. It's just too much, and the experience isn't worth the content (and for them it's not so much the ads, but just that the site is so heavy and slow. The ads did contribute to my decision though, they are full-page and expand down and everything terrible about ads). There are more, but I honestly can't think of them right now...
    - coldpie 10y ago
      So if you run across an ad that plays audio or redirects to the app store, you just put up with it and hope it doesn't happen again? I hope you can at least understand why others may want a more robust solution to guarantee that never happens.
      - Klathmon 10y ago
        I honestly haven't hit either of those, so it might be my own little bubble here is why I feel this way. I hear about them a lot when talking about advertising, but I've never seen them personally. But if I did get an audio ad, or a redirect ad, and they were consistent enough that it became a problem, i'd stop using that site. I mean, on a scale of bad things, having an audio ad play once isn't really all that high up the ladder. Yeah, it's not ideal, and it shouldn't happen, and if it happens a few times i'm going to stop going there, but it's a sound on a website. Removing an entire chunk of income from a news website because I'm afraid of hearing an audio ad (something most trustworthy sites also don't want in their ads) seems over the top.
- type0 10y ago
  > And dispite all the talk of malware in ads, I've never seen it. Here's the thing about malware: you don't necessary "see" it.
rplnt 10y ago
If only there were a viable technical solution. I don't want subscription(s), but I'd gladly pay ~5c to read an article. I just can't. In theory I could on mobile I guess, but then it's 30% to someone who does nothing, and I don't want that either.

I think any media provider out there would prefer a subscription model - it's just so much simpler. Unfortunately people just aren't paying for it as much as they need to.

Klathmon 10y ago

I don't want to pay for everything. I already shell out over $50 a month for various subscriptions. For my less common websites, I'd rather "pay" by viewing ads. (And I refuse to just steal the content. If the ads are too much, then don't use the site. IMO you don't get to choose if you pay for something based on how much you like it...) And the people on HN and reddit that announce to the world that ads shouldn't exist and anything that uses ads is a terrible thing seem crazy to me. I'm a happy ad viewer. It keeps the content free and the creators paid. If you asked people whether they want to pay for something or view ads, the answer will be ads in the vast majority of cases. And dispite all the talk of malware in ads, I've never seen it. I'm sure it exists, but until I begin to see it in my own experience or hear from friends and family about it, I'm going to keep enjoying ads as a monetization method.

coldpie 10y ago
> (And I refuse to just steal the content. If the ads are too much, then don't use the site. IMO you don't get to choose if you pay for something based on how much you like it...) Genuinely asking: how do you keep track of this? Do you add bad sites to some domain blacklist? How do you protect yourself from e.g. ads that auto-play audio, or take over control of the website for a period of time, or redirect to the app store on mobile?
- Klathmon 10y ago
  If a website has misbehaving ads, ads I consider over the top, or are known to distribute malware ads consistently to the point where I don't feel safe, I stop going to that website. If it ever gets to the point that I can't remember which sites I don't want to visit i'll probably add some kind of blocklist, but that hasn't been a problem yet. The only site I can think of off the top of my head that I don't visit any more is the verge. It's just too much, and the experience isn't worth the content (and for them it's not so much the ads, but just that the site is so heavy and slow. The ads did contribute to my decision though, they are full-page and expand down and everything terrible about ads). There are more, but I honestly can't think of them right now...
  - coldpie 10y ago
    So if you run across an ad that plays audio or redirects to the app store, you just put up with it and hope it doesn't happen again? I hope you can at least understand why others may want a more robust solution to guarantee that never happens.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      I honestly haven't hit either of those, so it might be my own little bubble here is why I feel this way. I hear about them a lot when talking about advertising, but I've never seen them personally. But if I did get an audio ad, or a redirect ad, and they were consistent enough that it became a problem, i'd stop using that site. I mean, on a scale of bad things, having an audio ad play once isn't really all that high up the ladder. Yeah, it's not ideal, and it shouldn't happen, and if it happens a few times i'm going to stop going there, but it's a sound on a website. Removing an entire chunk of income from a news website because I'm afraid of hearing an audio ad (something most trustworthy sites also don't want in their ads) seems over the top.
type0 10y ago
> And dispite all the talk of malware in ads, I've never seen it. Here's the thing about malware: you don't necessary "see" it.

rplnt 10y ago

If only there were a viable technical solution. I don't want subscription(s), but I'd gladly pay ~5c to read an article. I just can't. In theory I could on mobile I guess, but then it's 30% to someone who does nothing, and I don't want that either.