5 ms·

Sites with terrible advertising is literally the only reason I'm using an ad-blocker. If those sites had an ad free option for reasonably cheap I would just pay

Sites with terrible advertising is literally the only reason I'm using an ad-blocker. If those sites had an ad free option for reasonably cheap I would just pay for those specific sites to be ad free.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
That may be the excuse you give, but be away that by supporting or using ad blockers, you're feeding a toxic force on the Internet, and drastically hurting good journalism. Check out Troy Hunt's experience, with his ridiculously unobjectionable sponsor scheme, and the fact that ad blockers have gone out of their way to explicitly block it anyways: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem/ https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem... Even if you believe you only use the ad blocker because of terrible advertisers, you're likely harming legitimate ones as much or more.
- patates 10y ago
  Just tell me in your web site kindly and unobtrusively that you need ads to survive and that you'd hand-picked ads which are not animated and respect privacy of your visitors. You'll immediately get an exception.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Websites need ads (or subs) to survive. The default setting you operate on should not be to starve them, and you should not need them to tell you that before you act. If you were not blocking by default, and only blocked when a site was particularly invasive, your position would be far more defensible.
    - patates 10y ago
      If showing flashing ads wouldn't have been causing me seizures and if that it weren't the norm to show that kind of ads, what you said could work. Also why am I paying for something without seeing what it is? "Here's our content, maybe help us keep producing it by showing our promisedly sane ads?" I buy a subscription or show ads to 90% of the web sites I visit more than a couple of times per month, as long as they offer them.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

That may be the excuse you give, but be away that by supporting or using ad blockers, you're feeding a toxic force on the Internet, and drastically hurting good journalism. Check out Troy Hunt's experience, with his ridiculously unobjectionable sponsor scheme, and the fact that ad blockers have gone out of their way to explicitly block it anyways: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem/ https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem... Even if you believe you only use the ad blocker because of terrible advertisers, you're likely harming legitimate ones as much or more.

patates 10y ago
Just tell me in your web site kindly and unobtrusively that you need ads to survive and that you'd hand-picked ads which are not animated and respect privacy of your visitors. You'll immediately get an exception.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Websites need ads (or subs) to survive. The default setting you operate on should not be to starve them, and you should not need them to tell you that before you act. If you were not blocking by default, and only blocked when a site was particularly invasive, your position would be far more defensible.
  - patates 10y ago
    If showing flashing ads wouldn't have been causing me seizures and if that it weren't the norm to show that kind of ads, what you said could work. Also why am I paying for something without seeing what it is? "Here's our content, maybe help us keep producing it by showing our promisedly sane ads?" I buy a subscription or show ads to 90% of the web sites I visit more than a couple of times per month, as long as they offer them.