3 ms·

Has anyone considered they are trying to do something good here? Publishers are dying left and right...ads support a lot of good businesses!

govg 8y ago
Sure, but the plague of dark patterns and intrusive ads far far outweigh the few legitimately non intrusive ad supported websites. I agree there needs to be some way for sites to make money, but there is just too much stuff out there that should be blocked.
metalliqaz 8y ago
If they are explicitly making these changes to support ads, that's not a good thing. Google is the Internet's largest advertiser. If that business is driving decisions in Chromium, then the project (and the Internet) is in big trouble.
ceejayoz 8y ago
I'm sympathetic to this argument, but browsing on my mobile device (where I don't have a good ad blocker) is regularly interrupted by redirects to malicious sites ("you're a winner!") that are clearly injected by ads. I'll happily whitelist any ads from a network that bans scripting in the ads they accept.
UnFleshedOne 8y ago
Ad-supported businesses are an example of tragedy of the commons. They cause users to be product rather than customers. They make it harder for any other monetization strategy to take off the ground (it is hard to compete with "free"). Ads, and marketing in general, is a zero sum game with your resources being spent simply not to fall behind, just because your competitors are spending them (they are like lawyers and military in that regard). Ads enable and encourage parasitic businesses, like content farms and the like. For the marks, I mean, users, ads pollute visual field, occupy mental space, create and encourage unhealthy habits. Ad industry can't go out of business fast enough.
amiga-workbench 8y ago
The ad industry has had decades to get its collective shit together and stop taking the piss out of users. I have no more sympathy or patience, I'm just blocking the lot.

govg 8y ago

Sure, but the plague of dark patterns and intrusive ads far far outweigh the few legitimately non intrusive ad supported websites. I agree there needs to be some way for sites to make money, but there is just too much stuff out there that should be blocked.

metalliqaz 8y ago

If they are explicitly making these changes to support ads, that's not a good thing. Google is the Internet's largest advertiser. If that business is driving decisions in Chromium, then the project (and the Internet) is in big trouble.

ceejayoz 8y ago

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but browsing on my mobile device (where I don't have a good ad blocker) is regularly interrupted by redirects to malicious sites ("you're a winner!") that are clearly injected by ads. I'll happily whitelist any ads from a network that bans scripting in the ads they accept.

UnFleshedOne 8y ago

Ad-supported businesses are an example of tragedy of the commons. They cause users to be product rather than customers. They make it harder for any other monetization strategy to take off the ground (it is hard to compete with "free"). Ads, and marketing in general, is a zero sum game with your resources being spent simply not to fall behind, just because your competitors are spending them (they are like lawyers and military in that regard). Ads enable and encourage parasitic businesses, like content farms and the like. For the marks, I mean, users, ads pollute visual field, occupy mental space, create and encourage unhealthy habits. Ad industry can't go out of business fast enough.

amiga-workbench 8y ago

The ad industry has had decades to get its collective shit together and stop taking the piss out of users. I have no more sympathy or patience, I'm just blocking the lot.