9 ms·

Fix your crappy ads and I’ll stop blocking them

95 points by Sindisil 9y ago

mschuster91 9y ago
> Brain-dead statistical matching of page content to ad content would do a better job of targeting than whatever systems are in place now. I want to see ads that are relevant to the content, something that doesn’t feel like a distraction. Wasn't this the business model of Google AdWords? > Stop loading data from third-party websites. This is a security and privacy issue. There’s no technical reason why all ads can’t be served from the site I’m visiting. It can still communicate with ad servers, just do it on the backend. Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers - how should the ad network know that the end user is a "real" user and not a fake request the customer generated to drive up the impressions on pay-per-impression ads?
- self-diversity 9y ago
  We all want things, but I sure as shit don't care what giant, rich ad corporations want from my computing equipment. Their needs aren't important to me at all, even though they currently subsidize the garbage fire that is the modern web.
- Drakim 9y ago
  And I block ads because there is no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud, deception, distraction and malware from advertising afflicting me. Ad networks can't swing the sword of justice at me while themselves standing on a platform of shaded pragmatism.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  "Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers" Then the ad networks business model is jacked and they should change it. If they can't find a better one, they should go out of business.
- godshatter 9y ago
  > Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers - how should the ad network know that the end user is a "real" user and not a fake request the customer generated to drive up the impressions on pay-per-impression ads? Then get rid of pay-per-impression. I'd rather have the days of affiliate links than the crap we have now. You advertise a widget on your site, I click on it and buy it. You get a (small) cut of the profit. It also tends to make ads match site content, since I won't be buying left-handed spanners advertised on a site dedicated to short-haired pomeranians, probably.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
salzig 9y ago
The missing part is an ad-blocker thats allowing ads by default, unless you tell him to block on the current domain. I think the problem is in the default behaviour of being on for all domains by default. Which even when you do your job right, by not using overlay or otherwise distracting ads, blocks you by default, without giving the user a choice to decide.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The user already decided, by installing the ad blocker.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Have they? A user may install an ad blocker because of some giant video obscuring content and playing music on a.com, but they may be entirely willing to continue seeing text ads on b.com. For users that want such an experience, there is definitely a lack of options.
    - 45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
      In my experience, Online advertising is overwhelmingly negative. Lets compare it to cancer. Maybe the users don't want brain cancer, but they should have the option for skin cancer. Nobody wants cancer. Users who install adblockers don't want ads.
      - salzig 9y ago
        comparing ads with cancer is suggestive. personally i compare them with housekeeping. I don't like it, i can decide to pay someone to do it, or i've to accept them. Which could kill me by poisonous cleanser (malware).
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      I install an ad blocker because advertisers have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, either with my computer or with my data.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xatan_dank 9y ago
I think this article doesn't go far enough with its championing of blocking certain ads. All ads should be blocked and web services which rely on them should find a better way of sustaining themselves profitably. The malicious nature of ads is not new. Ads have always been infested with malware, tracking, and hideous graphics. Taken to their logical extreme (as Facebook has done), ads can also manipulate users to a degree far more dangerous than a TV or radio ad could. Ads are just the surface of a much deeper problem with the Internet, which is that most massive web services are paid for with user data rather than a mutually agreed upon price. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to willingly view an advertisement to support a useful service. This amounts to a donation which you are not really in control of. Just circumvent the ad and buy from the company or send them money if you value their services.
- mysterydip 9y ago
  As a fellow ad-hater, I'd love to see a list of alternatives. I often hear "they should find a better way" but I don't know what that would be for the majority of "I'll use it if it's free" websites or services out there. Micropayments are a hassle most don't use, donations get forgotten about, and there's too many sites to have a subscription to each one.
  - ashark 9y ago
    We see the alternatives in the handful of cases in which spying on users isn't a viable model (or, at least, just doing that isn't viable). Typically it's directly paying money for services, maybe with a free tier (Github) or something Free with a capital F and community-driven (Wikimedia). Take away spying and serving deceptive/harmful ads as an option for e.g. search, mapping/route-finding, voice recognition, and so on, and we'd see alternatives pop up, probably under those models, or possibly under more traditional less-invasive (and less malware-spreading/scam-promoting) advertising models (like magazines, or the early ad-driven web but with way more eyeballs).
- grovegames 9y ago
  So, say goodby to google? No thanks. I don't have money to pay for every service I want. Advertising allows people with no means to use the internet, and this value is worth more to society as a whole than ads. Yes let's kill malicious ads, but throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't good sense.
wavefunction 9y ago
My ad-blocker is more of a "don't run arbitrary code from a fourth party delivered by a third-party ad-network on websites I visit" blocker.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  exactly. Why are there no server side ad networks serving only images and links?
  - savanaly 9y ago
    Because the share of people using the internet who understand the distinction is probably about 1%, and of that 1% the share that care is certainly less than half, and of that group the share that would go go to the trouble of trying to identify the sites that use serverside ads and not block them as opposed to just blocking every ad is in turn miniscule.
    - smnscu 9y ago
      No need to care about it if the ads simply bypass adblockers by being served the same way as regular content. Faster-loading pages will make everyone happier anyway. This is something I'm particularly interested in building.
  - zaphod12 9y ago
    Advertisers wouldn't work with them. Advertisers want to stand out (and have since the beginning of time) and at this point, a simple static image or text seldom stands out. (Exceptions might be the sponsored ads that your eyes have to go past when you do a google search, I guess).
Shivetya 9y ago
What I find most frustrating about blocking ads and such is that when I find a site I want to see content on I will start allowing more in; i use uBlock Origin. Sometimes I do this so streaming content will load and other times to benefit the site. However almost immediately the same pattern sets in, this is particularly true with streaming content issues. More sites pop up on the blocked list. It is like one of those little Russian Dolls, you open one up and keep finding more. This is why I keep all blocks on and it is a very very rare occasion I will remove them. When I now come across content I would like to see I move to unblock but if I run into another Russian Doll setup I just close the tab and never look back. Simply put. I don't trust you. If your ad services are nested within each other then whom am I actually allowing entry? I said you can come in, not the people you met on the street. so stay out.
colanderman 9y ago
Same goes for crappy video players. I'd be glad never to use youtube-dl again if the video player of the (ad-supported) program I'm watching didn't repeatedly freeze, crash, or outright refuse to work. Youtube, HBO, Amazon, and Netflix are usually stellar. Hulu, NBC, Comedy Central, TBS… I don't think I've ever successfully watched a video all the way through on one of those services.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  I've never really had a problem with video players not working; I have had about a thousand problems with them automatically playing content, sometimes from a tab I can't identify.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
Fix the ads in the ways mentioned here and they'd be damn hard to block in the first place. The only rule needed to block practically all ads is "Stop loading data from third-party websites."
- Freak_NL 9y ago
  The amount of crap websites load from third parties to track and analyse your every move is staggering. This is a list of tracking parties loaded on a single website: googletagmanager.com adnxs.com chartbeat.com google-analytics.com hotjar.com scorecardresearch.com This is for the website of a well-regarded professional Dutch newspaper with a professional website!
amelius 9y ago
> Fix your crappy ads and I’ll stop blocking them I'll always block them, just in case they decide to track me.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
Advertising companies don't get to shit in the community well for a decade, and then act outraged when we start buying bottled.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Excellent metaphor.
anotheryou 9y ago
Make micropayments a thing and I'll pay you directly. (no way I gonna unblock any ad). And with micro I mean something more like spotify: A flat- or capped-rate and automatic payment of anything I read across publishers.
- jeena 9y ago
  https://flattr.com/ https://flattr.com/ https://www.patreon.com/ https://www.patreon.com/
  - anotheryou 9y ago
    Both great! Patreon however no flat-rate and not much in use for articles and flattr not widely supported and recently aquired by a dubious company... For flattr I never understood why you can't hit the button multiple times to give double or trippe to a single author.
0xFFC 9y ago
This is my exact position. I don't have any existential problem with ads. The problem i have is what the websites does. It seems there is competition between websites "who can put more ads". This is ridiculous. I use adblocks only because of this. If they put ads in more rational fashion, i would be more than happy to help websites owners make money out of their websites.
kexari 9y ago
The ad model is broken. I see the future of web monetisation as tiny fractions of a bit coin (or another crypto currency) being automatically deducted from a your wallet, charged per second/minute.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Wouldn't that let you perform even crazier levels of tracking, and expose my (barely anonymous) browsing to the entire world? Wallets might be just a bunch of characters, but I bet you can figure out who I am from my url trail alone, given I spend a ton of time on messenger.com/t/mywife and mywebsite.com Also, doesn't that mean that only people with money can go on the internet? This seems like a much, much worse system than we have today (with adblockers)
sdx23 9y ago
Fix your crappy website that has no content without javascript and I may stop instantly dismissing it.
peteyPete 9y ago
We're in a sad state when advertisers get to dictate how intrusive they get to be and content producers are sort of at their mercy if they want to make any money. If ads respected my browsing experience and didn't slow down the content being usable, I wouldn't block them.
Proven 9y ago
No you won't because you're blocking them (how are you going to know they fixed them?). Screw ads.
mariust 9y ago
I agree! If ads will look better and blend in with the website it would be a win-win stiuatuation for advertisers and site owners.
rootedbox 9y ago
I just don't wanna see ads. Crappy or otherwise.
- senorjazz 9y ago
  +1 I have absolutely zero interest in seeing anything you are trying to sell me. Intrusive, spying, or just a linked JPG. I will not whitelist ads for any site for whatever reasons. If that means the site cannot continue to, well so be it.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I just had CNBC.com tell me that I couldn't have autoplaying video if I don't turn off my adblocker. Sounds like a win-win from my perspective. Maybe if large commercial news websites weren't so annoying and crappy to use, and the quality of the adverts so deplorably low, then I might be more open to viewing them. If you allow flashy banners and animations etc. all over your page, then I'm gonna black them. That simple, guys. I am not going to buy anything from someone who gets up in my face in a rude way. Not only am I not going to buy anything right now, I'm going to actively avoid your products/services in the future because you annoyed me already.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I think ad blockers should be able to throttle by amount of bandwidth. If the ads are taking up more than 20% of load time or 20% of bandwidth, they start getting cut off. Also, an ad blocker that learned your preferences would be very cool. If you could "thumbs down" ads, this information could be used to show you ads you like and are interested in. Such information would actually be very valuable to marketers.
  - Doxin 9y ago
    Google ads allow you to stop showing specific ads. Click the little i symbol in the corner to go to the settings for that.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      I wish ad networks would let me opt out of classes of ads. I never want to see alcohol ads, nor gambling ads.
Paul_S 9y ago
There is nothing you can do to stop me blocking ads. I'll use duck tape if I have to. For everyone else's sake I hope you follow the author's suggestions.
jmcdiesel 9y ago
There is a 3rd option. You dont visit the sites that have ads on them. That way, you aren't imposing your will on them, and you aren't taking their work without passively supporting them, and everyone wins. The idea that you're entitled to everyone's content without even passively supporting them, the author, as they ask, is just a bit too much for me.
- chaostheory 9y ago
  There's another option: https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ It blocks ads, but lets you fill up a 'wallet' that pays publishers based on your visits.
- droithomme 9y ago
  I like the 4th option. Technical staff and management of sites that serve malware through their ad services should be found guilty of gross negligence, the corporate veil broken, and should be personally financially liable for all the damage their malware caused, in addition to criminal penalties and prison time.
  - jmcdiesel 9y ago
    Yeah, those ads for skis on amazon just wrecking computers left and right...
    - droithomme 9y ago
      I've never had any problems with amazon ads, have you? You should document it if you have. When I go to amazon I am there to buy things. Being shown products is very helpful then, and never a problem with malware. I am sorry that you have had those problems. If you would document them and blog your findings it would be helpful because this is the first I have heard anyone say amazon serves malware.
      - jmcdiesel 9y ago
        That was sarcasm. You act like all ads are malware, when the vast majority are just ads...
palakchokshi 9y ago
What about having Ad Blockers work more like Anti Virus tools where in they let through Ads that conform to an Ad industry standard?
jeena 9y ago
Na I kind of disagree with the author, ads do work, and they work quite well, otherwise the whole internet wouldn't rely on them. But also ads are always bad, because the only reason they exist is to get my to buy something I don't want. Because everything I want to buy I can (and do) research and find out where to buy without them.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  > the only reason they exist is to get my to buy something I don't want. Doesn't need to be. Ads can also be used to tell you that something you may want exists, and how to get it. And that's still simplistic. I do agree that ads are dangerous things, but they have many uses, some good.
marcosdumay 9y ago
And... It's one of those sites that are blank when you block 3rd party Javascript. Go figure.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lousken 9y ago
It's great to see this on site that shows white page with js off...

95 points by Sindisil 9y ago

> Brain-dead statistical matching of page content to ad content would do a better job of targeting than whatever systems are in place now. I want to see ads that are relevant to the content, something that doesn’t feel like a distraction. Wasn't this the business model of Google AdWords? > Stop loading data from third-party websites. This is a security and privacy issue. There’s no technical reason why all ads can’t be served from the site I’m visiting. It can still communicate with ad servers, just do it on the backend. Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers - how should the ad network know that the end user is a "real" user and not a fake request the customer generated to drive up the impressions on pay-per-impression ads?

self-diversity 9y ago
We all want things, but I sure as shit don't care what giant, rich ad corporations want from my computing equipment. Their needs aren't important to me at all, even though they currently subsidize the garbage fire that is the modern web.
Drakim 9y ago
And I block ads because there is no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud, deception, distraction and malware from advertising afflicting me. Ad networks can't swing the sword of justice at me while themselves standing on a platform of shaded pragmatism.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
"Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers" Then the ad networks business model is jacked and they should change it. If they can't find a better one, they should go out of business.
godshatter 9y ago
> Ad networks insist on this because there's no other way to prevent massive-scale fraud by the customers - how should the ad network know that the end user is a "real" user and not a fake request the customer generated to drive up the impressions on pay-per-impression ads? Then get rid of pay-per-impression. I'd rather have the days of affiliate links than the crap we have now. You advertise a widget on your site, I click on it and buy it. You get a (small) cut of the profit. It also tends to make ads match site content, since I won't be buying left-handed spanners advertised on a site dedicated to short-haired pomeranians, probably.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

salzig 9y ago

The missing part is an ad-blocker thats allowing ads by default, unless you tell him to block on the current domain. I think the problem is in the default behaviour of being on for all domains by default. Which even when you do your job right, by not using overlay or otherwise distracting ads, blocks you by default, without giving the user a choice to decide.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The user already decided, by installing the ad blocker.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Have they? A user may install an ad blocker because of some giant video obscuring content and playing music on a.com, but they may be entirely willing to continue seeing text ads on b.com. For users that want such an experience, there is definitely a lack of options.
  - 45h34jh53k4j 9y ago
    In my experience, Online advertising is overwhelmingly negative. Lets compare it to cancer. Maybe the users don't want brain cancer, but they should have the option for skin cancer. Nobody wants cancer. Users who install adblockers don't want ads.
    - salzig 9y ago
      comparing ads with cancer is suggestive. personally i compare them with housekeeping. I don't like it, i can decide to pay someone to do it, or i've to accept them. Which could kill me by poisonous cleanser (malware).
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    I install an ad blocker because advertisers have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, either with my computer or with my data.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xatan_dank 9y ago

I think this article doesn't go far enough with its championing of blocking certain ads. All ads should be blocked and web services which rely on them should find a better way of sustaining themselves profitably. The malicious nature of ads is not new. Ads have always been infested with malware, tracking, and hideous graphics. Taken to their logical extreme (as Facebook has done), ads can also manipulate users to a degree far more dangerous than a TV or radio ad could. Ads are just the surface of a much deeper problem with the Internet, which is that most massive web services are paid for with user data rather than a mutually agreed upon price. As far as I'm concerned, there is no reason to willingly view an advertisement to support a useful service. This amounts to a donation which you are not really in control of. Just circumvent the ad and buy from the company or send them money if you value their services.

mysterydip 9y ago
As a fellow ad-hater, I'd love to see a list of alternatives. I often hear "they should find a better way" but I don't know what that would be for the majority of "I'll use it if it's free" websites or services out there. Micropayments are a hassle most don't use, donations get forgotten about, and there's too many sites to have a subscription to each one.
- ashark 9y ago
  We see the alternatives in the handful of cases in which spying on users isn't a viable model (or, at least, just doing that isn't viable). Typically it's directly paying money for services, maybe with a free tier (Github) or something Free with a capital F and community-driven (Wikimedia). Take away spying and serving deceptive/harmful ads as an option for e.g. search, mapping/route-finding, voice recognition, and so on, and we'd see alternatives pop up, probably under those models, or possibly under more traditional less-invasive (and less malware-spreading/scam-promoting) advertising models (like magazines, or the early ad-driven web but with way more eyeballs).
grovegames 9y ago
So, say goodby to google? No thanks. I don't have money to pay for every service I want. Advertising allows people with no means to use the internet, and this value is worth more to society as a whole than ads. Yes let's kill malicious ads, but throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't good sense.

wavefunction 9y ago

My ad-blocker is more of a "don't run arbitrary code from a fourth party delivered by a third-party ad-network on websites I visit" blocker.

dec0dedab0de 9y ago
exactly. Why are there no server side ad networks serving only images and links?
- savanaly 9y ago
  Because the share of people using the internet who understand the distinction is probably about 1%, and of that 1% the share that care is certainly less than half, and of that group the share that would go go to the trouble of trying to identify the sites that use serverside ads and not block them as opposed to just blocking every ad is in turn miniscule.
  - smnscu 9y ago
    No need to care about it if the ads simply bypass adblockers by being served the same way as regular content. Faster-loading pages will make everyone happier anyway. This is something I'm particularly interested in building.
- zaphod12 9y ago
  Advertisers wouldn't work with them. Advertisers want to stand out (and have since the beginning of time) and at this point, a simple static image or text seldom stands out. (Exceptions might be the sponsored ads that your eyes have to go past when you do a google search, I guess).

Shivetya 9y ago

What I find most frustrating about blocking ads and such is that when I find a site I want to see content on I will start allowing more in; i use uBlock Origin. Sometimes I do this so streaming content will load and other times to benefit the site. However almost immediately the same pattern sets in, this is particularly true with streaming content issues. More sites pop up on the blocked list. It is like one of those little Russian Dolls, you open one up and keep finding more. This is why I keep all blocks on and it is a very very rare occasion I will remove them. When I now come across content I would like to see I move to unblock but if I run into another Russian Doll setup I just close the tab and never look back. Simply put. I don't trust you. If your ad services are nested within each other then whom am I actually allowing entry? I said you can come in, not the people you met on the street. so stay out.

colanderman 9y ago

Same goes for crappy video players. I'd be glad never to use youtube-dl again if the video player of the (ad-supported) program I'm watching didn't repeatedly freeze, crash, or outright refuse to work. Youtube, HBO, Amazon, and Netflix are usually stellar. Hulu, NBC, Comedy Central, TBS… I don't think I've ever successfully watched a video all the way through on one of those services.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
I've never really had a problem with video players not working; I have had about a thousand problems with them automatically playing content, sometimes from a tab I can't identify.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

Fix the ads in the ways mentioned here and they'd be damn hard to block in the first place. The only rule needed to block practically all ads is "Stop loading data from third-party websites."

Freak_NL 9y ago
The amount of crap websites load from third parties to track and analyse your every move is staggering. This is a list of tracking parties loaded on a single website: googletagmanager.com adnxs.com chartbeat.com google-analytics.com hotjar.com scorecardresearch.com This is for the website of a well-regarded professional Dutch newspaper with a professional website!

amelius 9y ago

> Fix your crappy ads and I’ll stop blocking them I'll always block them, just in case they decide to track me.

pavel_lishin 9y ago

Advertising companies don't get to shit in the community well for a decade, and then act outraged when we start buying bottled.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Excellent metaphor.

anotheryou 9y ago

Make micropayments a thing and I'll pay you directly. (no way I gonna unblock any ad). And with micro I mean something more like spotify: A flat- or capped-rate and automatic payment of anything I read across publishers.

jeena 9y ago
https://flattr.com/ https://flattr.com/ https://www.patreon.com/ https://www.patreon.com/
- anotheryou 9y ago
  Both great! Patreon however no flat-rate and not much in use for articles and flattr not widely supported and recently aquired by a dubious company... For flattr I never understood why you can't hit the button multiple times to give double or trippe to a single author.

0xFFC 9y ago

This is my exact position. I don't have any existential problem with ads. The problem i have is what the websites does. It seems there is competition between websites "who can put more ads". This is ridiculous. I use adblocks only because of this. If they put ads in more rational fashion, i would be more than happy to help websites owners make money out of their websites.

kexari 9y ago

The ad model is broken. I see the future of web monetisation as tiny fractions of a bit coin (or another crypto currency) being automatically deducted from a your wallet, charged per second/minute.

JBReefer 9y ago
Wouldn't that let you perform even crazier levels of tracking, and expose my (barely anonymous) browsing to the entire world? Wallets might be just a bunch of characters, but I bet you can figure out who I am from my url trail alone, given I spend a ton of time on messenger.com/t/mywife and mywebsite.com Also, doesn't that mean that only people with money can go on the internet? This seems like a much, much worse system than we have today (with adblockers)

sdx23 9y ago

Fix your crappy website that has no content without javascript and I may stop instantly dismissing it.

peteyPete 9y ago

We're in a sad state when advertisers get to dictate how intrusive they get to be and content producers are sort of at their mercy if they want to make any money. If ads respected my browsing experience and didn't slow down the content being usable, I wouldn't block them.

Proven 9y ago

No you won't because you're blocking them (how are you going to know they fixed them?). Screw ads.

mariust 9y ago

I agree! If ads will look better and blend in with the website it would be a win-win stiuatuation for advertisers and site owners.

rootedbox 9y ago

I just don't wanna see ads. Crappy or otherwise.

senorjazz 9y ago
+1 I have absolutely zero interest in seeing anything you are trying to sell me. Intrusive, spying, or just a linked JPG. I will not whitelist ads for any site for whatever reasons. If that means the site cannot continue to, well so be it.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I just had CNBC.com tell me that I couldn't have autoplaying video if I don't turn off my adblocker. Sounds like a win-win from my perspective. Maybe if large commercial news websites weren't so annoying and crappy to use, and the quality of the adverts so deplorably low, then I might be more open to viewing them. If you allow flashy banners and animations etc. all over your page, then I'm gonna black them. That simple, guys. I am not going to buy anything from someone who gets up in my face in a rude way. Not only am I not going to buy anything right now, I'm going to actively avoid your products/services in the future because you annoyed me already.

stcredzero 9y ago
I think ad blockers should be able to throttle by amount of bandwidth. If the ads are taking up more than 20% of load time or 20% of bandwidth, they start getting cut off. Also, an ad blocker that learned your preferences would be very cool. If you could "thumbs down" ads, this information could be used to show you ads you like and are interested in. Such information would actually be very valuable to marketers.
- Doxin 9y ago
  Google ads allow you to stop showing specific ads. Click the little i symbol in the corner to go to the settings for that.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    I wish ad networks would let me opt out of classes of ads. I never want to see alcohol ads, nor gambling ads.

Paul_S 9y ago

There is nothing you can do to stop me blocking ads. I'll use duck tape if I have to. For everyone else's sake I hope you follow the author's suggestions.

jmcdiesel 9y ago

There is a 3rd option. You dont visit the sites that have ads on them. That way, you aren't imposing your will on them, and you aren't taking their work without passively supporting them, and everyone wins. The idea that you're entitled to everyone's content without even passively supporting them, the author, as they ask, is just a bit too much for me.

chaostheory 9y ago
There's another option: https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ It blocks ads, but lets you fill up a 'wallet' that pays publishers based on your visits.
droithomme 9y ago
I like the 4th option. Technical staff and management of sites that serve malware through their ad services should be found guilty of gross negligence, the corporate veil broken, and should be personally financially liable for all the damage their malware caused, in addition to criminal penalties and prison time.
- jmcdiesel 9y ago
  Yeah, those ads for skis on amazon just wrecking computers left and right...
  - droithomme 9y ago
    I've never had any problems with amazon ads, have you? You should document it if you have. When I go to amazon I am there to buy things. Being shown products is very helpful then, and never a problem with malware. I am sorry that you have had those problems. If you would document them and blog your findings it would be helpful because this is the first I have heard anyone say amazon serves malware.
    - jmcdiesel 9y ago
      That was sarcasm. You act like all ads are malware, when the vast majority are just ads...

palakchokshi 9y ago

What about having Ad Blockers work more like Anti Virus tools where in they let through Ads that conform to an Ad industry standard?

jeena 9y ago

Na I kind of disagree with the author, ads do work, and they work quite well, otherwise the whole internet wouldn't rely on them. But also ads are always bad, because the only reason they exist is to get my to buy something I don't want. Because everything I want to buy I can (and do) research and find out where to buy without them.

marcosdumay 9y ago
> the only reason they exist is to get my to buy something I don't want. Doesn't need to be. Ads can also be used to tell you that something you may want exists, and how to get it. And that's still simplistic. I do agree that ads are dangerous things, but they have many uses, some good.

marcosdumay 9y ago

And... It's one of those sites that are blank when you block 3rd party Javascript. Go figure.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lousken 9y ago

It's great to see this on site that shows white page with js off...