11 ms·

> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIF

> I work for a major publisher. Ad-blockers are starting to hurt our revenue big time. No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. > We're doing a redesign now. Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss. But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block. > Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. Going to be fun :/.

Steltek 9y ago
But what if this publisher never did that? Ad blockers are taking off because of Internet-wide abuses (malware, privacy, gross obnoxiousness). It's a tragedy of the commons. Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them.
- Qwertie 9y ago
  Chrome is now starting to block the worst ad offenders but googles own ads (While not very obnoxious) are still out of line in terms of privacy abuse.
- lakechfoma 9y ago
  Why can't we have content based ads that are non-intrusive like television and old print media? Yeah they still interject in the middle of content, but not with the same level of deceit as what some ads and sponsored links do on web media. I would disable my adblocker for sites that have ad campaigns not based on "gross obnoxiousness", privacy intrusions, and disregard for if an advertising party is serving up malware. I even miss advertising because I'm not exposed to things I might otherwise be interested in, but I won't accept it in the current form.
  - Steltek 9y ago
    From my POV, it's a race to the bottom. One publisher offered video ads so other publishers felt pushed to do the same. There was a medium post here a few days ago about the eponymous extension "Adblock". Adblock offered advertisers a paid program ("Acceptable Ads") where their ads would be vetted and whitelisted. The blog post focused on the ethical and legal quandry of double dipping income (users and advertisers) but what you're talking about isn't unheard of. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272
    - lakechfoma 9y ago
      I get that it's a race to the bottom, but lets redefine the bottom I guess. I'm afraid that as publishers react to the public being anti ads, we'll all forget the reasons ads became such an issue. We'll get more paywalls where self regulated respectable advertising may suffice. Maybe that model won't work for some reason, I'd like to see some publishers talking about it though! It's either full on the google/fb tracking train or expensive monthly paywall.
      - scottie_m 9y ago
        The thing is, a paywall isn’t going to work out for most publishers either, because they’re not worth the money. Most “content” out there is marginal at best, deceptive clickbait at worst. Putting up a paywall is more likely to just end in people calling that bluff. I for one, wouldn’t pay $20 for a month of Bloomberg, never mind $40. I won’t really miss them either. If Buzzfeed puts up a paywall... ok that’s fine, good even! Of course this assumes that people don’t just rapidly figure out ways to pirate content, and they will. Try to track me, I’ll use uMatrix. Try to paywall me, and I’ll remember how little you’re worth. The NYT and FT can paywall, and a few others are worth the money... most aren’t. How many sites would you be willing to pay for rather than just forget exist in a week? There’s always piracy lurking in the background, waiting for companies to be venal or stupid enough to make the hassle of pirating less onerous than the legal option.
        9y ago
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them. Unfortunately, that may also prove to be a tragedy of the commons. If everyone blocks ads aggressively, ad-funded resources will need to find new business models or they won't be available any more.
edem 9y ago
I think this is an arms race which the publishers have no hope of winning. Worst case I'll just have my own personal blocklist for the publishers which have this DRM crap. I actually do have an extension which just filters out sites from the Google search listing...
slezyr 9y ago
> But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block. There is no ad-block on _mobile_ chrome. Maybe they talk about mobile clients here?
- bansheehash 9y ago
  If you're on Android, try a firewall-based system-wide adblocker like Blokada (https://blokada.org/index.html https://blokada.org/index.html). It's very effective at blocking ads, including on mobile Chrome, and it's grandma-friendly (doesn't need root, nothing to maintain)
  - option_greek 9y ago
    Is it really true that they are not allowed on play store because it interferes with googles business model ?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Google does ban apps that block ads in other apps: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web-browsers-apparently/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-b...
  - slezyr 9y ago
    There is a "Brave" browser which is chrome with ad-blocker. But I prefer firefox on all mine devices because of syncing passwords, history and ability to send tabs from desktop to mobile devices.
  - pmontra 9y ago
    Blokada also blocks ads inside apps, which is great.
- the_af 9y ago
  Every time I read something on Chrome for Android I cringe. The web on my laptop and the web on my cellphone are completely different universes. One is enjoyable and usable. The other is a nightmare of blinking GIFs and misleading layout-breaking ads. I'm reminded of this fact every time I try to read something while commuting to/from work. If I ever felt any guilt about using ad blockers (hint: I don't), this would help erase it forever.
_jal 9y ago
Just a datapoint: if you "discourage" my browser, I go away and don't come back. Same with EME - I will not need your efforts in my life. I've yet to find a site so great that I'll disable security or switch browsers to use them. (Work is an exception; somehow there's always some crappy site with needy requirements. But that's my employer's browser/computer, and the sites aren't major publishers.) So I hope your manager did their cost-benefit well. I don't know too many publishers in a position to be selective about their readers. But I suspect I know who you're talking about, and won't personally won't miss any of their properties.
- modzu 9y ago
  and then there are those sites that force redirect you to their app or load in some artificially disabled version of itself..
- pimeys 9y ago
  Atlassian products such as Confluence and Jira are some of those tools where I need to disable uMatrix completely to not get a crazy redirect loop when I try to login. Luckily we're leaving Atlassian quite soon, their sites have been such a pain to use for many reasons.
  - anc84 9y ago
    What are the bug reports on uMatrix for this?
    - pimeys 9y ago
      Don't really know what's going on with this. Now when I just disable uMatrix and ublock origin, I still get that redirect loop and I'm just not able to use Jira/Confluence. Luckily I don't need to use these products that often, so when I read something I just use our Slack bot to see the ticket.
      - aleh 9y ago
        I guess this may happen if browser doesn't accept third-party cookies.
mattferderer 9y ago
Agreed. Spend big cash on your UI if you want. I visit most sites in a "Reader Mode" or using the Brave Browser. User Experience Tip: When I go to a site to read your article, I want to read your article. Not the pop up to subscribe to your newsletter. Not the side bar of related click bait articles. Not the ads you've sprinkled in every other paragraph. If you do this, your UI is already poor & not optimized. That's why people are using other tools to fix your UI.
- H1Supreme 9y ago
  > Not the pop up to subscribe to your newsletter. This is so annoying. Especially on sites where I already subscribe.
- BonesJustice 9y ago
  And not the floating ‘dickbar’ of social media sharing buttons that I have never, since the dawn of Facebook or Twitter, actually used. And no, I don’t want to install your frakking app. I will NEVER install it, so please stop asking me on every visit. User-hostile design pervades online media, and they wonder why people use ad blockers. Hell, ad blocking isn’t even enough. Most of the time, I end up manually hiding all the useless clutter on news sites to make them actually usable.
josteink 9y ago
> And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. I mean noone, absolutely -noone-, foresaw this coming nor warned about the slippery slopes of letting stuff like this into the standard in the first place. Nope. Absolutely noone. This was a genuine surprise to all of us.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  I still don't see it happening, outside of silos. There's no precedent for DRM'd content outside of silos (like much of the digital publishing ecosystem, especially with ADEPT and whatever Amazon use), unlike with video and audio (through plugins like Flash). Unlike EME, there's a far stronger argument of "the web has survived without this for 25 years" (and yes, for better or for worse, I consider a plugin with over 99% market penetration as part of the web), and I think that still holds weight.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    > I still don't see it happening, outside of silos. For mobile, the only remaining options are silos.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
majewsky 9y ago
> They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. Anyone told them yet that Chromium is open-source, so distributions can just flip that bit in the code?
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. That's why we need to educate users, just like we're doing now about Facebook. They need to understand that this is the worst scenario possible for the so-called "world-wide web".
rgbrenner 9y ago
years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs I put up with this for years because I do believe that websites need a way to support themselves. But then a Forbes ad tried to download a virus.. and then I got another ad like it on WashingtonPost. These are big, dull websites.. the last place I would expect that. I've been on the internet since the 90s. The ads have never been so aggressive (autoplay videos, in particular) or dangerous. I disabled adblock 6 months ago temporarily, and some sites are so loaded down with ads, my browser was unresponsive at points. I now recommend everyone install ad block. I consider it similar to antivirus software in Windows. What else can I do? I really feel forced to do it. But they refuse to police themselves. It's gotten completely out of hand.
- senorjazz 9y ago
  I guess you never visited porn sites in the late 90s. I think their model of opening up 100s of new windows was slightly more annoying that flashing gifs :)
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Yep. And there was a shock-site run by GNAA called "Last Measure". Long story short, it uses HTML5 and flash exploits to put a hundred popups of various porn shock images alongside blaring over the speakers "HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORN" Unless you: ban flash, ban popups, and ban Java; you are going to have a bad time, and necessitate in rebooting to get it to stop. I consider it a good tool to check for client browser hardening. Just beware, if you do search for it, it's absolutely NSFW. (Will not provide links)
    - dorgo 9y ago
      I have java, flash and javascript disabeled by default and still feel not save enough to visit that site :D
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    Thanks.. I forgot about the popup ads. I think that (100s) was a little more rare than common websites opening a handful of popups... by the end of the session, you have a screen full of popups to close. ... and then popup blockers were invented. Which is a good point -- advertisers abused a privilege (ability to open a window), and internet users adapted, their business model adapted, and they survived it just fine. The same thing needs to happen again. I really feel it's the advertisers/websites that have once again abused a privilege. If they can't make money, they should look at themselves. No one signs up for internet service to check out the latest ad blockers. Users install them because they have to (just like why they installed popup blockers).
ppeetteerr 9y ago
> No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. I don't know what you read, but blinking GIFs and misleading links are only on sketchy or adult-themed sites. As for the auto-play videos, that was a direct response to the declining value of print ads. If they can get people to play the videos, they can sell video advertising.
- jiveturkey 9y ago
  blinking gifs and misleading links were par for the course 15 years ago.
RestlessMind 9y ago
> That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. So you are on board with Google's acceptable ads initiative then? What I find frustrating is that people (in aggregate, not individually) keep moving goalposts. First, it's about annoying ads and how they will accept good ads. When presented with good ads, it becomes about tracking and how they will pay for the subscription. When subscription is available, how it is too heavy handed and they want something more flexible like micropayments. When you get micropayments, it is about how they introduce so much friction and mental overload. I have came to realize that people (again, in aggregate and not individually) just want stuff as cheap as possible; other reasons just seem like excuses.
- ahoy 9y ago
  Companies shave costs and they're seen as shrewd, individuals do the same and they're seen as "cheap".
  - RestlessMind 9y ago
    Trying to shave costs is very reasonable, both for companies and individuals. Let's just be honest about it.
- jiveturkey 9y ago
  it’s not just about as cheap as possible. ads are free.
  - inetknght 9y ago
    Ads are not free. They cost users in bandwidth, device battery, and website usability.
    - dorgo 9y ago
      forget all this. They steal my attention/time which is an orders of magnitude greater offense.
mercer 9y ago
Based on my (limited) experience in a few media companies, the problem is not malice, but just a complete lack of understanding of 'digital'. I've worked on multiple projects that were really fun and good right up until we had to add various tracking tools and ads. They rendered the end product borderline unusable (which of course none of us or our leaders were bothered by because of adblockers). And the problem of all this wasn't just that the end product was ruined. It also played a significant role in the exodus of multiple skilled developers that were sick of toiling away at stuff that would end up ad- and tracker-riddled monstrosities. Just that struck me as reason enough to stop blindly doing all that.
pasbesoin 9y ago
And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. This is where I fear EME is going. Getting it in at all was the first step -- the sharp end of the lever. My concerns regarding "locking up" the Web: - Security. Ad networks continue to shovel exploits as well as a panopticon of data mining that gets sold off to dark patterns, commercial and governmental. - History. We already have disappearing news and other content that is leaving increasing holes in the historical record. Who would have thought with this ever-increasing capacity to record and store "everything", we are becoming more blinded to recent events and public conversation. (This goes for commercial media, as well. Seminal TV shows no longer available in their original format (music "rights"). Movies no longer so available (just leave it the fuck alone, Lucas). What happens when all you consume comes from central, centrally-controlled servers that can be "revised" at the behest of central authorities?) - Usability. The other problem I have with ads et al., is that they do their utmost to grab all the attention. I find them too distracting to actually or effectively consume the content. I remember back the the "early days" of the Web, most ads were static in appearance, and I actually clicked on a fair amount of them. Yes, given the nature of the Web, then, they were more technical. They also described things I was actually interested in. I'd read the article, notice an interesting ad along the way, and click it when I was done -- or maybe immediately, if it was of higher interest than what I was reading. Now, ads do everything they can to make me look a them. I can't even pay adequate attention to the page, until I scroll them out of the viewport or otherwise obscure them. That makes for a miserable user experience. (And all too often, they play a game to "intrigue" me, instead of just telling me what they're about and why I'd be interested in that.)

Steltek 9y ago

But what if this publisher never did that? Ad blockers are taking off because of Internet-wide abuses (malware, privacy, gross obnoxiousness). It's a tragedy of the commons. Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them.

Qwertie 9y ago
Chrome is now starting to block the worst ad offenders but googles own ads (While not very obnoxious) are still out of line in terms of privacy abuse.
lakechfoma 9y ago
Why can't we have content based ads that are non-intrusive like television and old print media? Yeah they still interject in the middle of content, but not with the same level of deceit as what some ads and sponsored links do on web media. I would disable my adblocker for sites that have ad campaigns not based on "gross obnoxiousness", privacy intrusions, and disregard for if an advertising party is serving up malware. I even miss advertising because I'm not exposed to things I might otherwise be interested in, but I won't accept it in the current form.
- Steltek 9y ago
  From my POV, it's a race to the bottom. One publisher offered video ads so other publishers felt pushed to do the same. There was a medium post here a few days ago about the eponymous extension "Adblock". Adblock offered advertisers a paid program ("Acceptable Ads") where their ads would be vetted and whitelisted. The blog post focused on the ethical and legal quandry of double dipping income (users and advertisers) but what you're talking about isn't unheard of. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16997272
  - lakechfoma 9y ago
    I get that it's a race to the bottom, but lets redefine the bottom I guess. I'm afraid that as publishers react to the public being anti ads, we'll all forget the reasons ads became such an issue. We'll get more paywalls where self regulated respectable advertising may suffice. Maybe that model won't work for some reason, I'd like to see some publishers talking about it though! It's either full on the google/fb tracking train or expensive monthly paywall.
    - scottie_m 9y ago
      The thing is, a paywall isn’t going to work out for most publishers either, because they’re not worth the money. Most “content” out there is marginal at best, deceptive clickbait at worst. Putting up a paywall is more likely to just end in people calling that bluff. I for one, wouldn’t pay $20 for a month of Bloomberg, never mind $40. I won’t really miss them either. If Buzzfeed puts up a paywall... ok that’s fine, good even! Of course this assumes that people don’t just rapidly figure out ways to pirate content, and they will. Try to track me, I’ll use uMatrix. Try to paywall me, and I’ll remember how little you’re worth. The NYT and FT can paywall, and a few others are worth the money... most aren’t. How many sites would you be willing to pay for rather than just forget exist in a week? There’s always piracy lurking in the background, waiting for companies to be venal or stupid enough to make the hassle of pirating less onerous than the legal option.
      - 9y ago
Silhouette 9y ago
Publishers never got together to regulate themselves so users are now doing it for them. Unfortunately, that may also prove to be a tragedy of the commons. If everyone blocks ads aggressively, ad-funded resources will need to find new business models or they won't be available any more.

edem 9y ago

I think this is an arms race which the publishers have no hope of winning. Worst case I'll just have my own personal blocklist for the publishers which have this DRM crap. I actually do have an extension which just filters out sites from the Google search listing...

slezyr 9y ago

> But that'd just bring chrome users who use ad-block. There is no ad-block on _mobile_ chrome. Maybe they talk about mobile clients here?

bansheehash 9y ago
If you're on Android, try a firewall-based system-wide adblocker like Blokada (https://blokada.org/index.html https://blokada.org/index.html). It's very effective at blocking ads, including on mobile Chrome, and it's grandma-friendly (doesn't need root, nothing to maintain)
- option_greek 9y ago
  Is it really true that they are not allowed on play store because it interferes with googles business model ?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Google does ban apps that block ads in other apps: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-bans-ad-blockers-from-the-play-store-except-all-those-ad-blocking-web-browsers-apparently/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/01/google-explicitly-b...
- slezyr 9y ago
  There is a "Brave" browser which is chrome with ad-blocker. But I prefer firefox on all mine devices because of syncing passwords, history and ability to send tabs from desktop to mobile devices.
- pmontra 9y ago
  Blokada also blocks ads inside apps, which is great.
the_af 9y ago
Every time I read something on Chrome for Android I cringe. The web on my laptop and the web on my cellphone are completely different universes. One is enjoyable and usable. The other is a nightmare of blinking GIFs and misleading layout-breaking ads. I'm reminded of this fact every time I try to read something while commuting to/from work. If I ever felt any guilt about using ad blockers (hint: I don't), this would help erase it forever.

_jal 9y ago

Just a datapoint: if you "discourage" my browser, I go away and don't come back. Same with EME - I will not need your efforts in my life. I've yet to find a site so great that I'll disable security or switch browsers to use them. (Work is an exception; somehow there's always some crappy site with needy requirements. But that's my employer's browser/computer, and the sites aren't major publishers.) So I hope your manager did their cost-benefit well. I don't know too many publishers in a position to be selective about their readers. But I suspect I know who you're talking about, and won't personally won't miss any of their properties.

modzu 9y ago
and then there are those sites that force redirect you to their app or load in some artificially disabled version of itself..
pimeys 9y ago
Atlassian products such as Confluence and Jira are some of those tools where I need to disable uMatrix completely to not get a crazy redirect loop when I try to login. Luckily we're leaving Atlassian quite soon, their sites have been such a pain to use for many reasons.
- anc84 9y ago
  What are the bug reports on uMatrix for this?
  - pimeys 9y ago
    Don't really know what's going on with this. Now when I just disable uMatrix and ublock origin, I still get that redirect loop and I'm just not able to use Jira/Confluence. Luckily I don't need to use these products that often, so when I read something I just use our Slack bot to see the ticket.
    - aleh 9y ago
      I guess this may happen if browser doesn't accept third-party cookies.

mattferderer 9y ago

Agreed. Spend big cash on your UI if you want. I visit most sites in a "Reader Mode" or using the Brave Browser. User Experience Tip: When I go to a site to read your article, I want to read your article. Not the pop up to subscribe to your newsletter. Not the side bar of related click bait articles. Not the ads you've sprinkled in every other paragraph. If you do this, your UI is already poor & not optimized. That's why people are using other tools to fix your UI.

H1Supreme 9y ago
> Not the pop up to subscribe to your newsletter. This is so annoying. Especially on sites where I already subscribe.
BonesJustice 9y ago
And not the floating ‘dickbar’ of social media sharing buttons that I have never, since the dawn of Facebook or Twitter, actually used. And no, I don’t want to install your frakking app. I will NEVER install it, so please stop asking me on every visit. User-hostile design pervades online media, and they wonder why people use ad blockers. Hell, ad blocking isn’t even enough. Most of the time, I end up manually hiding all the useless clutter on news sites to make them actually usable.

josteink 9y ago

> And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. I mean noone, absolutely -noone-, foresaw this coming nor warned about the slippery slopes of letting stuff like this into the standard in the first place. Nope. Absolutely noone. This was a genuine surprise to all of us.

gsnedders 9y ago
I still don't see it happening, outside of silos. There's no precedent for DRM'd content outside of silos (like much of the digital publishing ecosystem, especially with ADEPT and whatever Amazon use), unlike with video and audio (through plugins like Flash). Unlike EME, there's a far stronger argument of "the web has survived without this for 25 years" (and yes, for better or for worse, I consider a plugin with over 99% market penetration as part of the web), and I think that still holds weight.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  > I still don't see it happening, outside of silos. For mobile, the only remaining options are silos.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

majewsky 9y ago

> They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. Anyone told them yet that Chromium is open-source, so distributions can just flip that bit in the code?

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

> Edit: They are even going to approach google and ask them to introduce new API's that allow us to determine if browser really chrome or just chromium, so that we block chromium. And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. That's why we need to educate users, just like we're doing now about Facebook. They need to understand that this is the worst scenario possible for the so-called "world-wide web".

rgbrenner 9y ago

years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs I put up with this for years because I do believe that websites need a way to support themselves. But then a Forbes ad tried to download a virus.. and then I got another ad like it on WashingtonPost. These are big, dull websites.. the last place I would expect that. I've been on the internet since the 90s. The ads have never been so aggressive (autoplay videos, in particular) or dangerous. I disabled adblock 6 months ago temporarily, and some sites are so loaded down with ads, my browser was unresponsive at points. I now recommend everyone install ad block. I consider it similar to antivirus software in Windows. What else can I do? I really feel forced to do it. But they refuse to police themselves. It's gotten completely out of hand.

senorjazz 9y ago
I guess you never visited porn sites in the late 90s. I think their model of opening up 100s of new windows was slightly more annoying that flashing gifs :)
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Yep. And there was a shock-site run by GNAA called "Last Measure". Long story short, it uses HTML5 and flash exploits to put a hundred popups of various porn shock images alongside blaring over the speakers "HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORN" Unless you: ban flash, ban popups, and ban Java; you are going to have a bad time, and necessitate in rebooting to get it to stop. I consider it a good tool to check for client browser hardening. Just beware, if you do search for it, it's absolutely NSFW. (Will not provide links)
  - dorgo 9y ago
    I have java, flash and javascript disabeled by default and still feel not save enough to visit that site :D
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  Thanks.. I forgot about the popup ads. I think that (100s) was a little more rare than common websites opening a handful of popups... by the end of the session, you have a screen full of popups to close. ... and then popup blockers were invented. Which is a good point -- advertisers abused a privilege (ability to open a window), and internet users adapted, their business model adapted, and they survived it just fine. The same thing needs to happen again. I really feel it's the advertisers/websites that have once again abused a privilege. If they can't make money, they should look at themselves. No one signs up for internet service to check out the latest ad blockers. Users install them because they have to (just like why they installed popup blockers).

ppeetteerr 9y ago

> No. What's hurting your edit:employer's revenue is years of blinking GIFs, auto-play videos and misleading links thrown between paragraphs. That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. I don't know what you read, but blinking GIFs and misleading links are only on sketchy or adult-themed sites. As for the auto-play videos, that was a direct response to the declining value of print ads. If they can get people to play the videos, they can sell video advertising.

jiveturkey 9y ago
blinking gifs and misleading links were par for the course 15 years ago.

RestlessMind 9y ago

> That's the first reason why I started using ad-blockers 15 years ago. The privacy issue is a recent thing. So you are on board with Google's acceptable ads initiative then? What I find frustrating is that people (in aggregate, not individually) keep moving goalposts. First, it's about annoying ads and how they will accept good ads. When presented with good ads, it becomes about tracking and how they will pay for the subscription. When subscription is available, how it is too heavy handed and they want something more flexible like micropayments. When you get micropayments, it is about how they introduce so much friction and mental overload. I have came to realize that people (again, in aggregate and not individually) just want stuff as cheap as possible; other reasons just seem like excuses.

ahoy 9y ago
Companies shave costs and they're seen as shrewd, individuals do the same and they're seen as "cheap".
- RestlessMind 9y ago
  Trying to shave costs is very reasonable, both for companies and individuals. Let's just be honest about it.
jiveturkey 9y ago
it’s not just about as cheap as possible. ads are free.
- inetknght 9y ago
  Ads are not free. They cost users in bandwidth, device battery, and website usability.
  - dorgo 9y ago
    forget all this. They steal my attention/time which is an orders of magnitude greater offense.

mercer 9y ago

Based on my (limited) experience in a few media companies, the problem is not malice, but just a complete lack of understanding of 'digital'. I've worked on multiple projects that were really fun and good right up until we had to add various tracking tools and ads. They rendered the end product borderline unusable (which of course none of us or our leaders were bothered by because of adblockers). And the problem of all this wasn't just that the end product was ruined. It also played a significant role in the exodus of multiple skilled developers that were sick of toiling away at stuff that would end up ad- and tracker-riddled monstrosities. Just that struck me as reason enough to stop blindly doing all that.

pasbesoin 9y ago

And a DRM for website instead of only video DRM that exists, so that user cannot view source code, and no extension can block the ads. Other publishers are doing the same thing. Expect new DRM for HTML5 too. This is where I fear EME is going. Getting it in at all was the first step -- the sharp end of the lever. My concerns regarding "locking up" the Web: - Security. Ad networks continue to shovel exploits as well as a panopticon of data mining that gets sold off to dark patterns, commercial and governmental. - History. We already have disappearing news and other content that is leaving increasing holes in the historical record. Who would have thought with this ever-increasing capacity to record and store "everything", we are becoming more blinded to recent events and public conversation. (This goes for commercial media, as well. Seminal TV shows no longer available in their original format (music "rights"). Movies no longer so available (just leave it the fuck alone, Lucas). What happens when all you consume comes from central, centrally-controlled servers that can be "revised" at the behest of central authorities?) - Usability. The other problem I have with ads et al., is that they do their utmost to grab all the attention. I find them too distracting to actually or effectively consume the content. I remember back the the "early days" of the Web, most ads were static in appearance, and I actually clicked on a fair amount of them. Yes, given the nature of the Web, then, they were more technical. They also described things I was actually interested in. I'd read the article, notice an interesting ad along the way, and click it when I was done -- or maybe immediately, if it was of higher interest than what I was reading. Now, ads do everything they can to make me look a them. I can't even pay adequate attention to the page, until I scroll them out of the viewport or otherwise obscure them. That makes for a miserable user experience. (And all too often, they play a game to "intrigue" me, instead of just telling me what they're about and why I'd be interested in that.)