4 ms·
I really don't want to block all ads. I want companies to earn revenue from their readers. But this has to stop if I'm ever going to surf the net unprotected.
by matt_wulfeck 10y ago
I really don't want to block all ads. I want companies to earn revenue from their readers. But this has to stop if I'm ever going to surf the net unprotected.
- a3n 10y agoYeah, I'd like to receive ads and help the sites I use stay in business. But that industry as a whole is going to have to lock this down before I'll unblock.
- godmodus 10y agoThe nature of people && the Internet && geopolitics && the economy will never allow this within our time. Never surf unprotected. Hell our current protection is lacking and needs further fortification. Edit: I also think ads are a bad source of income. It's based in psych warfare and in turn is based on toxic adversarial culture.
- wcummings 10y agoAds are as old as media, better get used to it.
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoAd blockers are new, so we don't have to "get used to it". Successfully lowering the amount of incessant ads I am exposed to has increased my sovereignty and peace of mind.
- jamespo 10y agoFeel free to welcome your new "sponsored content" overlords
- CaptSpify 10y agoI never understood this argument. It's not like advertisers are going to say "Oh, everyone is unblocking ads. Let's stop using 'sponsored content' then!" They are going to continue with both sponsored content AND ads. I'm just cutting off one side.
- stevesearer 10y agoI think they are saying that an effect of increased ad blocking will be an increase in the amount of sponsored content masquerading as real content.
- CaptSpify 10y agoProbably. If only one avenue works, they'd use that one avenue. Doesn't mean we can't fix that problem either. I'd still rather they only have one avenue of attack on me than two.
- wu-ikkyu 10y agoSponsored content is preferable to the harassing nature of pop up type advertising. It's also easy enough to avoid the majority of it by simply ignoring mainstream news outlets.
- Bartweiss 10y agoAds are as old as media, but that doesn't mean I have to accept them in all possible forms. A Google or Project Wonderful text ad - pure text with a link - is fine with me. This nonsense, though? I don't remember the last time a classified ad leapt out of the newspaper and stole my grandmother's credit card.
- charonn0 10y agoBut only relatively recently have ads become dangerous to passersby.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago>Ads are as old as media // Go on? That seems like it's blatantly and obviously false.
- dredmorbius 10y agoWalt Mossberg interview a year or two back, on Recode. Talking about the problem they had with advertising. Conversation, essentially: "Yes, we'll advertise with you, for two months. Until we se where your users are going on the Internet, other than you, so we can buy ads there for less." Even the publishers are being robbed blind.
- Bartweiss 10y agoAnd, of course, the advertisers are eating sky-high fraud rates from many publishers (even legitimate ones, after the ad has been laundered through a half dozen markets and resellers). Off-page display, clickfarm views, even just lying when it comes time to bill. There's really no one involved who isn't getting robbed at least some of the time.
- tdb7893 10y agoWhat I don't understand is why ads themselves need JS. You would think that all they need is an image and a link.
- stevesearer 10y agoMy site's advertising is comprised of self-hosted, static images so it isn't impossible. They are also much more relevant than most websites' ads because I target the ads based on the content.
- charonn0 10y agoFor tracking purposes, both innocuous ("has the user actually seen my ad?") and malevolent as in the OP.