3 ms·
I feel that it may go the other way: that receiving communication from a source that is supported by ad revenue while knowingly and actively bypassing those sam
by rocky1138 7y ago
I feel that it may go the other way: that receiving communication from a source that is supported by ad revenue while knowingly and actively bypassing those same ads will be seen as theft. I fully expect lobbyists to push for this and see some success in the next 10 years.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhen people refuse to watch ads, there is theft going on, but it's theft from the advertisers by the media owners. The viewers aren't guilty of anything.
- dual_basis 7y agoI don't understand your point. If an ad doesn't display, then the content owner doesn't get any money for it.
- perl4ever 7y agoIf it was always possible to detect whether an ad was seen, wouldn't it always be possible to block ad-blockers?
- dual_basis 7y agoMany sites do. It's clearly always possible to detect whether an ad was seen. Often, the content owners do not bother putting such measures in place, but the advertisers definitely do. (It's even easier from their perspective to check if the ad has been served or not, as many ad blockers prevent the ad from even downloading by sending all requests to that domain into a black hole and so the ad is never even requested from the server.)
- brokenmachine 7y agoPlacing images I have not requested on a display that I own is vandalism. I agree that the lobbyists will win. I wish we had politicians with some moral character though.