8 ms·

This is why I run an adblocker, even for so-called "trustworthy" sites. When even top-tier networks like Doubleclick aren't doing the necessary due diligence to

This is why I run an adblocker, even for so-called "trustworthy" sites. When even top-tier networks like Doubleclick aren't doing the necessary due diligence to prevent malicious ads, what can I do as a user but block all ads, even while knowing this hurts the content creators who use those ads for revenue?

kelnos 9y ago
Came here to say the exact same thing. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of funding a site that doesn't have a subscription option, but no way in hell am I trusting any ad network to keep malicious junk out of my browser. I may nominally trust the people who run the site, but the ad networks... never.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
It's never been your responsibility to run that code. If it had never been allowed, ad-tech would have found another way. They built an industry on a horrible assumption and now it's their job to fix it. Everyone can still fall back to affiliate links if they want, but I doubt most will any time soon.
- Globz 9y ago
  This! It their job to fix this mess, the burden of finding a better alternative doesn't lie with us. I have no once of guilt related to blocking ads, if you can't pay the upkeep of your website and you haven't found any meaningful way for user contributions then that's on you and if you still serve ads because that's the only sane solution for your monetary problem then you should expect some users to block those ads and conclude that both parties did what they thought was best given this horrible situation. Affiliate links are great and more people should really consider going back to this model.
  - chii 9y ago
    let me play the devil's advocate and argue that ad supported content is responsible for somee of the biggest chunk of the internet, and if it hadn't been for such business model, the internet would not have been as amazing as it is today. sites like 9gag, 4chan or Reddit, or other such sites is where net culture breed. these sites are not going to have the same feel if it had been subscription supported, as large swarves of users who have no money to contribute, but have content and creativity would've been locked out.
- bitwize 9y ago
  "Your contract with the network is, you're going to watch the spots."
IntronExon 9y ago
It feels like someone telling you that if you don’t let strangers stick you with dirty needles, you’re letting everyone down. Well maybe we are, but I’m still not letting this crap in! Truth be told, most of what ads fund is deeply underwhelming too. Then once you live on the ad-blocked net, it’s pretty much torture to go back. I swear I can feel my energy, attention, and time being wasted by ads; either the ads themselves or the need to constantly engage critical thinking resources to manage the misinformation.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  > Truth be told, most of what ads fund is deeply underwhelming too. Quite an important point not to miss: The vast majority of advertising actually just funds the low-effort mass-generated clickbait farms of the "you won't believe this celebrity XYZ"-type and similar crap. I don't have numbers but I would be surprised if actual quality[0] content producers took more than 5% of total Internet-wide advertising income. So, in order to "support quality content producers" like everyone is always talking about, not only are we supposed to put up with all these shitty ugly dirty-needle-stabbing ads, but ALSO we're directly supporting and funding the clickbait linkfarming spam industry several times the amount of ad funding that ultimately end up with the "quality content producers". The highest quality content usually has the least intrusive ads any way. I remember when we just hosted a bunch of banner links for local businesses that we personally contacted and asked if they wanted to advertise. They'd pay a monthly fee and that was it, no shady practices, no tracking and no 3rd parties. If that was too much work, or you couldn't get good deals, the alternative was putting up your content for free, for the love of it, for the fame, for shits'n'giggles, for whatever what drove your passion. That was the Internet nearly two decades ago, and there honestly was no shortage of free, quality content. And webhosting costs were quite a bit higher back then. [0] regardless how you would define "quality", let's agree that clickbait farms aren't it.
dawnerd 9y ago
re hurting creators on youtube: I just sub to youtube red, it's relatively cheap and I believe they still pay out even if a video is demonetized, which happens way too much to innocent channels.
- nugi 9y ago
  Don't support that clusterfsck.
chaostheory 9y ago
Get https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ It's from one of the founders of Mozilla. Fill up a Brave wallet and it'll pay out content creators. You won't have to deal with ads and people get paid.
camus2 9y ago
I give directly to paypall and patreon to support creators. I couldn't give a damn about Google itself making money at that point. i block all ads, no discrimination. If you want me to support your site, ask for a donation, like the Guardian does. I don't accept ads anymore in my browser.

kelnos 9y ago

Came here to say the exact same thing. I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of funding a site that doesn't have a subscription option, but no way in hell am I trusting any ad network to keep malicious junk out of my browser. I may nominally trust the people who run the site, but the ad networks... never.

jasonkostempski 9y ago

It's never been your responsibility to run that code. If it had never been allowed, ad-tech would have found another way. They built an industry on a horrible assumption and now it's their job to fix it. Everyone can still fall back to affiliate links if they want, but I doubt most will any time soon.

Globz 9y ago
This! It their job to fix this mess, the burden of finding a better alternative doesn't lie with us. I have no once of guilt related to blocking ads, if you can't pay the upkeep of your website and you haven't found any meaningful way for user contributions then that's on you and if you still serve ads because that's the only sane solution for your monetary problem then you should expect some users to block those ads and conclude that both parties did what they thought was best given this horrible situation. Affiliate links are great and more people should really consider going back to this model.
- chii 9y ago
  let me play the devil's advocate and argue that ad supported content is responsible for somee of the biggest chunk of the internet, and if it hadn't been for such business model, the internet would not have been as amazing as it is today. sites like 9gag, 4chan or Reddit, or other such sites is where net culture breed. these sites are not going to have the same feel if it had been subscription supported, as large swarves of users who have no money to contribute, but have content and creativity would've been locked out.
bitwize 9y ago
"Your contract with the network is, you're going to watch the spots."

IntronExon 9y ago

It feels like someone telling you that if you don’t let strangers stick you with dirty needles, you’re letting everyone down. Well maybe we are, but I’m still not letting this crap in! Truth be told, most of what ads fund is deeply underwhelming too. Then once you live on the ad-blocked net, it’s pretty much torture to go back. I swear I can feel my energy, attention, and time being wasted by ads; either the ads themselves or the need to constantly engage critical thinking resources to manage the misinformation.

tripzilch 9y ago
> Truth be told, most of what ads fund is deeply underwhelming too. Quite an important point not to miss: The vast majority of advertising actually just funds the low-effort mass-generated clickbait farms of the "you won't believe this celebrity XYZ"-type and similar crap. I don't have numbers but I would be surprised if actual quality[0] content producers took more than 5% of total Internet-wide advertising income. So, in order to "support quality content producers" like everyone is always talking about, not only are we supposed to put up with all these shitty ugly dirty-needle-stabbing ads, but ALSO we're directly supporting and funding the clickbait linkfarming spam industry several times the amount of ad funding that ultimately end up with the "quality content producers". The highest quality content usually has the least intrusive ads any way. I remember when we just hosted a bunch of banner links for local businesses that we personally contacted and asked if they wanted to advertise. They'd pay a monthly fee and that was it, no shady practices, no tracking and no 3rd parties. If that was too much work, or you couldn't get good deals, the alternative was putting up your content for free, for the love of it, for the fame, for shits'n'giggles, for whatever what drove your passion. That was the Internet nearly two decades ago, and there honestly was no shortage of free, quality content. And webhosting costs were quite a bit higher back then. [0] regardless how you would define "quality", let's agree that clickbait farms aren't it.

dawnerd 9y ago

re hurting creators on youtube: I just sub to youtube red, it's relatively cheap and I believe they still pay out even if a video is demonetized, which happens way too much to innocent channels.

nugi 9y ago
Don't support that clusterfsck.

chaostheory 9y ago

Get https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ It's from one of the founders of Mozilla. Fill up a Brave wallet and it'll pay out content creators. You won't have to deal with ads and people get paid.

camus2 9y ago

I give directly to paypall and patreon to support creators. I couldn't give a damn about Google itself making money at that point. i block all ads, no discrimination. If you want me to support your site, ask for a donation, like the Guardian does. I don't accept ads anymore in my browser.