3 ms·

can't pronounce the name easily; maybe/probably noneglish based? reading one of the posts about ads, the admin writes: > We are going to have to implement ads

can't pronounce the name easily; maybe/probably noneglish based? reading one of the posts about ads, the admin writes: > We are going to have to implement ads at some point anyway oh that sounds like a fun rollercoaster to ride again. > I know ads can be annoying, that's why we try to use them in an non intrusive way that can benefit both us and the users. total wanker. ads do not benefit users, and saying they do means they take users as idiots; or are able to lie to themselves. So, that right there kills any interest; let alone the site itself being in no way novel or interesting. There isn't an interesting community of folks, or a meaningful platform to engage across. Actually, this post, and entire posting history of this user(24 days old), are just marketing efforts for the site.

adrianN 8y ago
I don't like ads either, but you can argue that ads benefit the user by paying for the service that they want to use. Until we have some viable micropayment system that allows me to pay the fraction of a cent that the website would otherwise receive by showing me an ad it's hard to finance popular services.
- meesterdude 8y ago
  You can argue it, doesn't make it right! Nor are micropayments the only solution. Nor do sites make a fraction of a cent - it's usually at least a few. With ads comes everything from annoyance, tracking, data theft, and malware. All things I am not a fan of, nor are they worthwhile tradeoffs for visiting a site. But i'll agree - it's not as easy to do other things as it is to serve ads. You have to be creative, and also provide actual value that people are willing to pay for. But trying to romance the idea of serving ads - that it's good for users - is insulting.
dmortin 8y ago
> total wanker. ads do not benefit users So would you be prepared to pay for every site you visit? I visit dozens of sites a day (e.g. by following links to new articles). If you had to pay for all of them it would quickly come up to a hefty bill. One alternative could be micropayments, so you don't have to pay a monthly bill for the site, you'd only pay for the pages you visit. But until there is no generally accepted solution for this yet, ads are the only way to keep the net free.
- toofy 8y ago
  > ads are the only way to keep the net free. Do we really believe this? My understanding from people who were around back in the day say the web was far better before the web was a giant shopping mall and ad supported sites took over everything. I don’t know if it’s the usual “back in my day things were better” thing happening or whether they’re correct, but a web full of content produced by people who are hobbyists and do so because they enjoy sharing their passion sounds way better than a web full of garbage that is clickbaited solely to maximize the amount of money coming in from ad support. In my experience hobbyists sharing a passion is almost always more enjoyable and of a higher quality. I do recognize there is a middle ground in there somewhere, but I’m not at all convinced the web would somehow disappear without obnoxious ads. People would still create content just like they did before ads and before tracking had infested everything.
  - petepete 8y ago
    For most people the web is "better" now, because they can use it. Back in the good old days it was mostly enthusiasts and academics. To people in those groups the old web was a wonderful place gone forever. For regular folks, it bypassed them and the current state of affairs; walled gardens, huge centralised behemoths and adverts everywhere is the norm and has been since the early 2000’s.
  - barking 8y ago
    Everything was better in the good old days, harrumph!
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Ads are fine if they actually individually curated by the website without JavaScript bullshit tracking. Until that day happens again, I am going to aggressively block ads and occasionally turn the filters off and randomly click ads to waste their money.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Tell me more about how I can waste their money by clicking random ads. I have blocked all ads since adblockers were invented, but if I can actively create a disincentive by wasting their money, I want to do that.

adrianN 8y ago

I don't like ads either, but you can argue that ads benefit the user by paying for the service that they want to use. Until we have some viable micropayment system that allows me to pay the fraction of a cent that the website would otherwise receive by showing me an ad it's hard to finance popular services.

meesterdude 8y ago
You can argue it, doesn't make it right! Nor are micropayments the only solution. Nor do sites make a fraction of a cent - it's usually at least a few. With ads comes everything from annoyance, tracking, data theft, and malware. All things I am not a fan of, nor are they worthwhile tradeoffs for visiting a site. But i'll agree - it's not as easy to do other things as it is to serve ads. You have to be creative, and also provide actual value that people are willing to pay for. But trying to romance the idea of serving ads - that it's good for users - is insulting.

dmortin 8y ago

> total wanker. ads do not benefit users So would you be prepared to pay for every site you visit? I visit dozens of sites a day (e.g. by following links to new articles). If you had to pay for all of them it would quickly come up to a hefty bill. One alternative could be micropayments, so you don't have to pay a monthly bill for the site, you'd only pay for the pages you visit. But until there is no generally accepted solution for this yet, ads are the only way to keep the net free.

toofy 8y ago
> ads are the only way to keep the net free. Do we really believe this? My understanding from people who were around back in the day say the web was far better before the web was a giant shopping mall and ad supported sites took over everything. I don’t know if it’s the usual “back in my day things were better” thing happening or whether they’re correct, but a web full of content produced by people who are hobbyists and do so because they enjoy sharing their passion sounds way better than a web full of garbage that is clickbaited solely to maximize the amount of money coming in from ad support. In my experience hobbyists sharing a passion is almost always more enjoyable and of a higher quality. I do recognize there is a middle ground in there somewhere, but I’m not at all convinced the web would somehow disappear without obnoxious ads. People would still create content just like they did before ads and before tracking had infested everything.
- petepete 8y ago
  For most people the web is "better" now, because they can use it. Back in the good old days it was mostly enthusiasts and academics. To people in those groups the old web was a wonderful place gone forever. For regular folks, it bypassed them and the current state of affairs; walled gardens, huge centralised behemoths and adverts everywhere is the norm and has been since the early 2000’s.
- barking 8y ago
  Everything was better in the good old days, harrumph!
paulie_a 8y ago
Ads are fine if they actually individually curated by the website without JavaScript bullshit tracking. Until that day happens again, I am going to aggressively block ads and occasionally turn the filters off and randomly click ads to waste their money.
- sverige 8y ago
  Tell me more about how I can waste their money by clicking random ads. I have blocked all ads since adblockers were invented, but if I can actively create a disincentive by wasting their money, I want to do that.