4 ms·

>My point is, I don't think a lot of you are being totally honest when you say you'd be willing to pay if the site removed advertising. Well why would I do it

• jedberg 9y ago
  > Well why would I do it if I don't have to? You absolutely don't. But if you say, "I would pay you to get rid of ads", and then I get rid of them and you don't pay, that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, no?
  • pryelluw 9y ago
    Maybe. To me it simply shows that removing ads is not a big enough benefit make people pay. Which makes sense because people are now used to ads. They will consume the content either way.
    • jedberg 9y ago
      But we're talking about people who install a program that purposely defrauds advertisers.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • pryelluw 9y ago
        Im not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that the benefit you offer by removing ads as a feature is not big enough to get them to pay. Yes, they do it on purpose. Have you researched why? Is this a symptom and not the problem itself? :)
      • ManlyBread 9y ago
        There is no fraud, people running the websites have zero say in how I choose to browse the Internet, even if it means automating ad clicks as a means of protest. I could be doing the same manually, but why bother?
  • alphaalpha101 9y ago
    Well maybe. I think the implication there is 'I would pay a subscription to use this service if I had to, and would prefer that than an ad-supported service'. I don't think it's 'I would pay money for no reason rather than using an ad blocker'.