3 ms·

Adblocking has indirectly created many of these fake news sites we see today and will only create a more cluttered and product-filled user experience. Most new

Adblocking has indirectly created many of these fake news sites we see today and will only create a more cluttered and product-filled user experience. Most news sites rely only on advertising for income. Real reporting and investigation costs money. Since their main money source is now drying up, news is starting to become hearsay, rumors, and things you see on Twitter (anything you can find from the comfort of an office chair). This quickly leads to a race to the most clicks, which may or may not be factual. We also are now starting to see blogs and many other news sites switch from advertisements on the side or top (which can be blocked) to entirely sponsored articles written around a product or service. We've always had sponsored articles, but not as prevalent as it is now. Real journalism costs money. When you remove the only way to fund it, we end up with what we have now: fake news passing as real journalism and fake articles which are actually advertisements.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Water flows downhill and market optimizes for profit. If you don't remove ads, the extra money gets pocketed by the companies, but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism". Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it.
- senior_james 10y ago
  Which companies are getting this 'extra money'? Certainly not the journalists or news organizations. "but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism"" Sure it does. If you actually have the money to send a journalist out and get a better story than the next person, you will. This is how it worked before the advent of severely diminished returns in the news industry. In fact, most popular news sites today are owned or funded by extremely wealthy individuals that use it to push their own political agendas. This is because it's almost impossible to run a news business without this sort of capital. If there was a way for anyone to potentially make a decent living with advertising, this would change. "Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it." I won't argue with you there. However, real journalism should have a competitive advantage. It doesn't because it's too difficult to make enough to pay real journalists. Our news landscape now consists of wealthy individuals that spew politically biased news (Breitbart, Huffington post), fake news sites, and the already established big players that don't need the funding because they already have decades of momentum. Adblocking didn't teach the ad industry anything. It is a ham fisted approach that now only hurts the businesses that don't pay up: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-... These extortionist tactics don't give me any confidence that ad blocking is even being done for the right reasons. It's just a roadblock setup to make the Adblock companies money through force.
cyborgx7 10y ago
Quite the opposite. Ads led to all these fake news sites. Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable. Instead all you need to make profit is to get people to look in your direction long enough to show them something they might actually consider spending money on. You don't need facts and journalism for that. You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly.
- senior_james 10y ago
  "Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable" Nobody pays for news anymore, so sites are forced to get money through ads. The concept that everything needs to be free has also led to the abundance of advertisements. "You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly." In the past 5 years, many local, paid, newspapers have gone out of business. It nearly destroyed the entire industry. People don't pay for news anymore because of the Internet. It had the same shakeup the music industry had a decade ago. I seriously doubt you would be happy paying a fee for every website you visit. This is what would need to happen if we get rid of advertising completely. I feel like many people want it both ways: a quality product for $0 dollars and no advertisements of any kind. It's just not realistic.
  - cyborgx7 10y ago
    News had the same shake-up the musicindustry had and now people are paying for music again. If news are valuable to people you will get them to pay for quality. It's not my fault they can't figure out a working business model that doesn't involve selling the trust they built with their readers and viewers to corporations.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Water flows downhill and market optimizes for profit. If you don't remove ads, the extra money gets pocketed by the companies, but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism". Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it.

senior_james 10y ago
Which companies are getting this 'extra money'? Certainly not the journalists or news organizations. "but that in no way incentivizes them to do "real journalism"" Sure it does. If you actually have the money to send a journalist out and get a better story than the next person, you will. This is how it worked before the advent of severely diminished returns in the news industry. In fact, most popular news sites today are owned or funded by extremely wealthy individuals that use it to push their own political agendas. This is because it's almost impossible to run a news business without this sort of capital. If there was a way for anyone to potentially make a decent living with advertising, this would change. "Bullshit has better ROI than truth, and that's why there's so much of it." I won't argue with you there. However, real journalism should have a competitive advantage. It doesn't because it's too difficult to make enough to pay real journalists. Our news landscape now consists of wealthy individuals that spew politically biased news (Breitbart, Huffington post), fake news sites, and the already established big players that don't need the funding because they already have decades of momentum. Adblocking didn't teach the ad industry anything. It is a ham fisted approach that now only hurts the businesses that don't pay up: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-now-whitelisted-on-adblock-plus-10-pay-to-play/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/over-300-businesses-... These extortionist tactics don't give me any confidence that ad blocking is even being done for the right reasons. It's just a roadblock setup to make the Adblock companies money through force.

cyborgx7 10y ago

Quite the opposite. Ads led to all these fake news sites. Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable. Instead all you need to make profit is to get people to look in your direction long enough to show them something they might actually consider spending money on. You don't need facts and journalism for that. You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly.

senior_james 10y ago
"Ads disable the concept of people paying for something they consider valuable" Nobody pays for news anymore, so sites are forced to get money through ads. The concept that everything needs to be free has also led to the abundance of advertisements. "You only need facts and journalism to build trust with your customers so they might consider paying you directly." In the past 5 years, many local, paid, newspapers have gone out of business. It nearly destroyed the entire industry. People don't pay for news anymore because of the Internet. It had the same shakeup the music industry had a decade ago. I seriously doubt you would be happy paying a fee for every website you visit. This is what would need to happen if we get rid of advertising completely. I feel like many people want it both ways: a quality product for $0 dollars and no advertisements of any kind. It's just not realistic.
- cyborgx7 10y ago
  News had the same shake-up the musicindustry had and now people are paying for music again. If news are valuable to people you will get them to pay for quality. It's not my fault they can't figure out a working business model that doesn't involve selling the trust they built with their readers and viewers to corporations.