4 ms·

I'd argue that in many cases, the users go to war first. Ad blockers, paywall bypassing, incognito mode, etc. make it virtually impossible for most sites to sur

I'd argue that in many cases, the users go to war first. Ad blockers, paywall bypassing, incognito mode, etc. make it virtually impossible for most sites to survive on a straight ad model. The company has to find a way to survive, so it tries memberships, click-bait, nag screens, gathering user data, and in response an extension like this is built, and it keeps going back and forth with anti-ad-blocker, anti-anti-ad-blocker, etc. Medium is far from blameless here, their Twitter feed is repetitive and far too low on quality articles vs junk. And yes, their nag screen and 3-article limit suck. But they need to do something, don't you think? If you are a user of ad blockers and additional strategies, what do you envision as the endgame? No ads, ever? What kind of content are you expecting at that point?

PurpleRamen 8y ago
Not really. AdBlockers were a reaction against the toxic ads. And even today only a minority of users (<10%) are using adblockers.
- listenallyall 8y ago
  You should provide sources when you toss out statistics, PurpleRamen is not itself a source people trust. You are quoting a global number. And it's outdated. In the US, overall ad-blocking is 30%+. https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach... On laptops, US adblocking was 40% in 2017. https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-40-percent-laptops-15-percent-mobile-216324 https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-... These number are growing every year. And surely, if you focused only on the demographic group most likely to read Medium, the percentage would be even higher.
flukus 8y ago
> The company has to find a way to survive No it doesn't. Closing the business when they can't turn a profit is a perfectly viable (maybe inevitable) course of action. When a local restaurant is losing money do you expect them to close or to start padding the meals with sawdust? Much of digital media has reached the point of charging you for the sauce on your sawdust. > What kind of content are you expecting at that point? Much better content on average, less clickbait crap. You could halve the quantity tomorrow and no one would notice.
- nicbou 8y ago
  If restaurants offered meals for free, people wouldn't complain about the ads on the menu. No restaurant offers free meals though. Should we start charging for everything we see online?
- listenallyall 8y ago
  So content providers shutting down their businesses will result in "much better content"? Are you sure you've thought this through?
dreamcompiler 8y ago
Whomever starts it, it always turns into an arms race because the backers of the website want constant growth; they are never content with steady performance. So be it. I have better things to do with my time than participate in 100 arms races. Such sites simply become dead to me and I move to the next one that's friendlier to its readers.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  In many cases, the reason they need constant growth is because they're not profitable. They're just burning through cash in an attempt to become profitable in the future, which requires growth.
some_account 8y ago
The endgame is for sites to provide content that users want to pay for. If you would ban ads on the internet, only sites actually being useful to users would remain. The rest would die off, along with the ad industry on the internet. Sounds like a dream to me.
- nicbou 8y ago
  Nobody pays for content. Let's stop pretending it's a usable business model. Even paywalls are hated by most, and banned by some communities. If you block ads, they'll simply make the content an ad.
  - CaptSpify 8y ago
    A) They are going to make the content an ad anyway. It's not like they are going to turn down one advertising revenue stream just because their old one came back. B) Tons of people pay for content. It's a perfectly viable business model. Look at Patreon, Kickstarter, etc. The uncomfortable truth for website owners is that they are likely just not putting out material that is worth paying for.
- listenallyall 8y ago
  In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. The WSJ is among the most respected and high-quality newspapers on Earth. Despite that, every time a WSJ article is posted on HN, somebody posts a paywall workaround. If HN won't pay for content, you expect the average joe will? Get real. This is just a sample from this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087
  - flukus 8y ago
    > In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. Most countries have public broadcasters like the BBC that are much higher quality than most of the commercial options. We're already paying for news.

PurpleRamen 8y ago

Not really. AdBlockers were a reaction against the toxic ads. And even today only a minority of users (<10%) are using adblockers.

listenallyall 8y ago
You should provide sources when you toss out statistics, PurpleRamen is not itself a source people trust. You are quoting a global number. And it's outdated. In the US, overall ad-blocking is 30%+. https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach... On laptops, US adblocking was 40% in 2017. https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-40-percent-laptops-15-percent-mobile-216324 https://marketingland.com/survey-shows-us-ad-blocking-usage-... These number are growing every year. And surely, if you focused only on the demographic group most likely to read Medium, the percentage would be even higher.

flukus 8y ago

> The company has to find a way to survive No it doesn't. Closing the business when they can't turn a profit is a perfectly viable (maybe inevitable) course of action. When a local restaurant is losing money do you expect them to close or to start padding the meals with sawdust? Much of digital media has reached the point of charging you for the sauce on your sawdust. > What kind of content are you expecting at that point? Much better content on average, less clickbait crap. You could halve the quantity tomorrow and no one would notice.

nicbou 8y ago
If restaurants offered meals for free, people wouldn't complain about the ads on the menu. No restaurant offers free meals though. Should we start charging for everything we see online?
listenallyall 8y ago
So content providers shutting down their businesses will result in "much better content"? Are you sure you've thought this through?

dreamcompiler 8y ago

Whomever starts it, it always turns into an arms race because the backers of the website want constant growth; they are never content with steady performance. So be it. I have better things to do with my time than participate in 100 arms races. Such sites simply become dead to me and I move to the next one that's friendlier to its readers.

wilsonnb2 8y ago
In many cases, the reason they need constant growth is because they're not profitable. They're just burning through cash in an attempt to become profitable in the future, which requires growth.

some_account 8y ago

The endgame is for sites to provide content that users want to pay for. If you would ban ads on the internet, only sites actually being useful to users would remain. The rest would die off, along with the ad industry on the internet. Sounds like a dream to me.

nicbou 8y ago
Nobody pays for content. Let's stop pretending it's a usable business model. Even paywalls are hated by most, and banned by some communities. If you block ads, they'll simply make the content an ad.
- CaptSpify 8y ago
  A) They are going to make the content an ad anyway. It's not like they are going to turn down one advertising revenue stream just because their old one came back. B) Tons of people pay for content. It's a perfectly viable business model. Look at Patreon, Kickstarter, etc. The uncomfortable truth for website owners is that they are likely just not putting out material that is worth paying for.
listenallyall 8y ago
In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. The WSJ is among the most respected and high-quality newspapers on Earth. Despite that, every time a WSJ article is posted on HN, somebody posts a paywall workaround. If HN won't pay for content, you expect the average joe will? Get real. This is just a sample from this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17510315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17490839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17479284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17480087
- flukus 8y ago
  > In terms of news, there likely is no such thing. Most countries have public broadcasters like the BBC that are much higher quality than most of the commercial options. We're already paying for news.