4 ms·
Well, the truth is that people want the content without the ads, and most of them don't see a problem with that. For me, I've seen enough to know that this a cl
by M_Grey 10y ago
Well, the truth is that people want the content without the ads, and most of them don't see a problem with that. For me, I've seen enough to know that this a closing frontier, and I just want to enjoy it while I can; before ad-blocking and VPN's are either discouraged by monopolistic practices, or criminalized. As for site-blockers... sure, it's one way to go. I used to take that approach, but the nature of ads changed a while ago, and stopped being a simple issue.
When ads don't just mean, "Hey look at this, buy this shit!", but means, "An integrated system to identify and track you, collate said data, form a profile, then sell said profile, to people who may be so irresponsible that they have loud autoplaying ads, or even malware ads..." well... then it's different.
Maybe the issue is that we need to stop talking about "Ad-Blockers". I don't know about anyone else, but my time to be reasonable and play along with advertisers and content providers was back when I had none of the power, and they were busily screwing me. Now that the tables have briefly turned, I'm supposed to be the civic-minded one?
No. I remember a time before all of this content, and if the end of advertising means an end to it (which it doesn't, but lets say that it does) then I can live with that.
- Denzel 10y agoYour point is not lost on me. The one thing I'll note is that ads and tracking are orthogonal. Although tracking is meant to make ads more useful in theory, there are issues in practice, as you said. Nonetheless, it's not really helpful to muddy the definition of either by placing them under the same umbrella term. We are in agreeance, should the end of web advertising lead to the end of large swathes of content, we can live with that.