25 ms·

> see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished. Or they could run quality ads in a non privacy-invasiv

> see many of the sites you use go out of business or have their ability to operate severely diminished. Or they could run quality ads in a non privacy-invasive manner (just like print ads) and be happy. > This is why GDPR is catastrophic for ad-based EU business. Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with so they should've seen it coming, and there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers, and now finally with the law cracking down on it. I personally welcome GDPR and can't wait to see it take effect.

lwansbrough 9y ago
> and be happy. That certainly wouldn't make advertisers or publishers happy. "Quality ads" (from a consumer perspective, I understand what this means) don't make any money, because they aren't nearly as effective. So yeah, if a business carefully balances their spending with their ad earnings, switching to quality ads could destroy their business. > Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with My house, my rules. If there are strong market forces that are dictating that publishers change what kind of advertisements they show, so be it. Until then, you're choosing to visit my site, for free. In exchange, I serve you ads that I want you to see, and you get the content you came to see for free. > there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers Nothing about this is going to change unless people like you (and I) stop leeching off users who view ads with our ad blockers, or we start paying for our use. People don't ignore ads, by the way, they're quite effective. That's why there's a (massive) market for it.

lwansbrough 9y ago

> and be happy. That certainly wouldn't make advertisers or publishers happy. "Quality ads" (from a consumer perspective, I understand what this means) don't make any money, because they aren't nearly as effective. So yeah, if a business carefully balances their spending with their ad earnings, switching to quality ads could destroy their business. > Running businesses based on shoving shit down people's throats isn't really a smart move to begin with My house, my rules. If there are strong market forces that are dictating that publishers change what kind of advertisements they show, so be it. Until then, you're choosing to visit my site, for free. In exchange, I serve you ads that I want you to see, and you get the content you came to see for free. > there were warning signs already, first with people just ignoring the ads (because there are so many), then with ad blockers Nothing about this is going to change unless people like you (and I) stop leeching off users who view ads with our ad blockers, or we start paying for our use. People don't ignore ads, by the way, they're quite effective. That's why there's a (massive) market for it.