4 ms·

I think a lot more people than you think would be behind this point of view. The problem is: right now we are in a weird middle, in which media companies want

I think a lot more people than you think would be behind this point of view. The problem is: right now we are in a weird middle, in which media companies want the text to be fully available (so you can arrive to it via Google and/or social media) while, simultaneously, only visible to those who don't use an ad blocker. This is of course impossible, but that's how we got stuck in this strange position of "I put it online for free, but I didn't mean free for you". IMHO, a full all-or-nothing approach would be well received. Whether it would be economically successful, that's another story.

Declanomous 10y ago
The stupid thing is that the content of most websites is mostly ads, at least from my perspective as a user. (I don't care about the nuances of who is serving the ads) On top of that, a lot of websites waste bandwidth on what I consider dumb shit, like megabytes of javascript needed to make a reactive layout. Said layout is pretty much guaranteed to be so annoying I will disable mobile viewing on my phone. I work in marketing, and I think the issue is that advertising is a disaster. It's the tragedy of the commons. Highly annoying or misleading ads (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD) get way more clicks and impressions. Don't even get me started on autoplaying videos. The worst offenders are traditional media companies, who are both the reason why I'm using an ad blockers and also the most likely to block me for using an ad blocker. I don't particularly feel bad about blocking ads, but I think ads are a good way to support websites. There are very few sites I trust enough to unblock ads on though, and it's because their ads are both unobtrusive and relevant to the content. Just for example, the Chicago Tribune's print ads are fine. Their website ads are almost entirely link to fake news articles that make the National Enquirer look like the New York Times.

Declanomous 10y ago

The stupid thing is that the content of most websites is mostly ads, at least from my perspective as a user. (I don't care about the nuances of who is serving the ads) On top of that, a lot of websites waste bandwidth on what I consider dumb shit, like megabytes of javascript needed to make a reactive layout. Said layout is pretty much guaranteed to be so annoying I will disable mobile viewing on my phone. I work in marketing, and I think the issue is that advertising is a disaster. It's the tragedy of the commons. Highly annoying or misleading ads (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD) get way more clicks and impressions. Don't even get me started on autoplaying videos. The worst offenders are traditional media companies, who are both the reason why I'm using an ad blockers and also the most likely to block me for using an ad blocker. I don't particularly feel bad about blocking ads, but I think ads are a good way to support websites. There are very few sites I trust enough to unblock ads on though, and it's because their ads are both unobtrusive and relevant to the content. Just for example, the Chicago Tribune's print ads are fine. Their website ads are almost entirely link to fake news articles that make the National Enquirer look like the New York Times.