3 ms·

If by "they" you mean the webmasters, I agree. Maybe by web 5.0 we have started to respect the user.

by tjoff 8y ago

umvi 8y ago
Respect should flow both ways. Websites are user hostile, but users are also website hostile. Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Users want everything to be both free and ad free. I can't tell you how many friends I have that use ad blockers in order to watch things like Crunchyroll ad-free...
- waterphone 8y ago
  No one should browse the web without an ad/script blocker enabled all the time at this point. Exposing your computer to the web without one is like unprotected sex given how malicious advertising has become between tracking behavior data and hosting actual malware.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  Separate your ads from your tracking, and host them such that you can guarantee they won’t peg my cpu or mine bitcoin on my computer and we’ll talk. If your idea of ads is tracking me all over the web and taking malware risks, then expect me to block you now and forever.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  When I was a kid, I was offended that my family members would go to the bathroom while the TV was showing ads. Totally unfair to the TV network... they should have watched all of the ads!
  - umvi 8y ago
    I get what you are saying, but I kind of disagree. When an advertiser purchases a slot in some broadcast, they are doing so with the guarantee that their advertisement will play during that slot; they do not have the guarantee that the end user's eyeballs will actually be watching the ad. However, ad skipping and ad blocking technology is making it so advertisers aren't even guaranteed their ad will even play during the slot they purchased - it may be programmatically skipped. If the ad is skipped, someone loses out, and it's (usually) not the end user. Basically what I'm saying is that if you are watching Crunchyroll episodes with an ad blocker enabled, you are (basically) stealing from either Crunchyroll or the ad network (whoever is swallowing the stolen bandwidth costs). The honest thing to do would be to subscribe to Crunchyroll premium if you don't want to watch the ads. I know not every site has this option, and I know there's an argument to be made against double dipping (i.e. paying once for cable, and a second time by watching ads on said cable), but for things like YouTube and Crunchyroll which have official ad-free variants, it would be dishonest in my opinion to use the ad supported version with an ad blocker. Just my opinion, though.
- makecheck 8y ago
  If someone treats you badly, you reach a point where it kind of doesn’t matter what they say they will do if you don’t believe they’ll change. Ad-supported sites are there now. They went wayyyyy too far, treated site visitors poorly with pop-ups, CPU draining, battery draining, data-plan waste, etc. Now they may regret it but many users have moved on. We’re out of the abusive relationship, and it doesn’t matter what sites say anymore. They can’t guilt us into seeing their ads.
- chriswarbo 8y ago
  > users are also website hostile What a crock. If someone wants to try making a quick buck by programming their computer to spam machines all over the world with millions of ads, it's absolutely legitimate for people to program their own computers to discard such junk. If that first person's parasitic activities don't make as much money as they predicted, then the failure lies in their prediction. > Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone wants that; yet I don't think it's the users who are actually trying it. Users who block ads are actually eating the site owner's cake. For example, visitors to my (ad-free) site implicitly rely on me paying the hosting and domain fees, i.e. making my cake available for them to eat. Since the cost is small and the enjoyment I get from running the site is high, I'm happy with this arrangement; and would stop if that were no longer the case. On the other hand, those plastering their sites with ads to make money are the ones trying to have their cake and eat it: they're trying to make a profit from something that is not profitable. They can't lament any loss of money, since it's their fault for giving it away (either directly via hosting fees, or via the opportunity cost of e.g. creating unprofitable content/services instead of something people are willing to pay for).

If by "they" you mean the webmasters, I agree. Maybe by web 5.0 we have started to respect the user.

by tjoff 8y ago

If by "they" you mean the webmasters, I agree. Maybe by web 5.0 we have started to respect the user.

umvi 8y ago

Respect should flow both ways. Websites are user hostile, but users are also website hostile. Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Users want everything to be both free and ad free. I can't tell you how many friends I have that use ad blockers in order to watch things like Crunchyroll ad-free...

waterphone 8y ago
No one should browse the web without an ad/script blocker enabled all the time at this point. Exposing your computer to the web without one is like unprotected sex given how malicious advertising has become between tracking behavior data and hosting actual malware.
DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
Separate your ads from your tracking, and host them such that you can guarantee they won’t peg my cpu or mine bitcoin on my computer and we’ll talk. If your idea of ads is tracking me all over the web and taking malware risks, then expect me to block you now and forever.
greglindahl 8y ago
When I was a kid, I was offended that my family members would go to the bathroom while the TV was showing ads. Totally unfair to the TV network... they should have watched all of the ads!
- umvi 8y ago
  I get what you are saying, but I kind of disagree. When an advertiser purchases a slot in some broadcast, they are doing so with the guarantee that their advertisement will play during that slot; they do not have the guarantee that the end user's eyeballs will actually be watching the ad. However, ad skipping and ad blocking technology is making it so advertisers aren't even guaranteed their ad will even play during the slot they purchased - it may be programmatically skipped. If the ad is skipped, someone loses out, and it's (usually) not the end user. Basically what I'm saying is that if you are watching Crunchyroll episodes with an ad blocker enabled, you are (basically) stealing from either Crunchyroll or the ad network (whoever is swallowing the stolen bandwidth costs). The honest thing to do would be to subscribe to Crunchyroll premium if you don't want to watch the ads. I know not every site has this option, and I know there's an argument to be made against double dipping (i.e. paying once for cable, and a second time by watching ads on said cable), but for things like YouTube and Crunchyroll which have official ad-free variants, it would be dishonest in my opinion to use the ad supported version with an ad blocker. Just my opinion, though.
makecheck 8y ago
If someone treats you badly, you reach a point where it kind of doesn’t matter what they say they will do if you don’t believe they’ll change. Ad-supported sites are there now. They went wayyyyy too far, treated site visitors poorly with pop-ups, CPU draining, battery draining, data-plan waste, etc. Now they may regret it but many users have moved on. We’re out of the abusive relationship, and it doesn’t matter what sites say anymore. They can’t guilt us into seeing their ads.
chriswarbo 8y ago
> users are also website hostile What a crock. If someone wants to try making a quick buck by programming their computer to spam machines all over the world with millions of ads, it's absolutely legitimate for people to program their own computers to discard such junk. If that first person's parasitic activities don't make as much money as they predicted, then the failure lies in their prediction. > Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone wants that; yet I don't think it's the users who are actually trying it. Users who block ads are actually eating the site owner's cake. For example, visitors to my (ad-free) site implicitly rely on me paying the hosting and domain fees, i.e. making my cake available for them to eat. Since the cost is small and the enjoyment I get from running the site is high, I'm happy with this arrangement; and would stop if that were no longer the case. On the other hand, those plastering their sites with ads to make money are the ones trying to have their cake and eat it: they're trying to make a profit from something that is not profitable. They can't lament any loss of money, since it's their fault for giving it away (either directly via hosting fees, or via the opportunity cost of e.g. creating unprofitable content/services instead of something people are willing to pay for).