4 ms·

>On the web, I have never used an ad blocker Why? My recommendation to every single person is to install an adblocker right now and never ever turn it off agai

>On the web, I have never used an ad blocker Why? My recommendation to every single person is to install an adblocker right now and never ever turn it off again. It's such an easy thing to do which immediately significantly improves your quality of life.

cameronbrown 7y ago
Personally? I'm willing to watch or see an advert for a newspaper, YouTuber (especially this!) or small blogger. Usually I use my adblocker's counter as a measure of how awful a page is and if it's reasonable I'll turn it off.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  Malware is frequently delivered by advertising, so there's good reason to keep your ad blocker on even on sites that you want to support. Tracking is yet another thing you can avoid to some degree by using an ad blocker (and, better yet, by disabling javascript). Finally, the best reason to use an ad blocker is to opt-out of the advertising ecosystem to make it less viable. We have to find a more ethical way to fund media than supporting this manipulative, privacy-invading industry.
gwd 7y ago
> Why? My recommendation to every single person is to install an adblocker right now and never ever turn it off again. It's such an easy thing to do which immediately significantly improves your quality of life. The same reason that if I go into a cafe to sit down for a while, I'll buy a drink even if I'm not particularly thirsty. The cost of having a table in a downtown location for you to sit at is far higher than the cost of the beans and water; a drink for a place to sit is part of the "implicit deal". Websites cost money to run, so I think it's only fair to accept a reasonable amount of advertising. But I don't think being silently tracked for just happening upon your website is fair, so I block trackers. If your advertising works without trackers, I'll see it just fine.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  You paying for a service, and you letting them attempt to manipulate you into making a purchase decision for something else are severly different things. If the only value of something is that it was capable of making you look in its direction for long enough to show you something you might actually be interested in spending money on, it actually has no value, I argue.
- ahbyb 7y ago
  In my experience the best information is always in websites with no ads. Like personal blogs, old pages, you name it. Seeing ads in a newspaper website? Why would I want to watch ads in exchange for being fed manipulating, half-true information?
  - gwd 7y ago
    > In my experience the best information is always in websites with no ads. Like personal blogs, old pages, you name it. Seeing ads in a newspaper website? Why would I want to watch ads in exchange for being fed manipulating, half-true information? To extend the metaphor: Malls often have common areas where you can sit and just hang out. They also often have cafes with tables. The common areas are often nicer than the cafes -- less loud and less cramped. If you like common areas better than cafes, by all means, sit in the common areas. But if you do sit in a cafe for some reason, you should buy something, even if it's just a bottle of water. By a similar reasoning -- if you prefer websites with no ads, then by all means only go to websites with no ads. But if you do go to a website supported by ads, I think it's part of the implicit bargain that you be willing to view ads that are presented in a reasonable manner (where "tracking you across the internet" is not reasonable). I don't like the concept of tipping -- I think people's salaries and/or bonuses should be determined by their managers, not random people who wander in. But if I go to a restaurant where tipping is expected, I tip, because that's the implicit agreement I made when I sat down.
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      I did not make any implicit agreements by clicking on a link to see what is behind it.

cameronbrown 7y ago

Personally? I'm willing to watch or see an advert for a newspaper, YouTuber (especially this!) or small blogger. Usually I use my adblocker's counter as a measure of how awful a page is and if it's reasonable I'll turn it off.

pmoriarty 7y ago
Malware is frequently delivered by advertising, so there's good reason to keep your ad blocker on even on sites that you want to support. Tracking is yet another thing you can avoid to some degree by using an ad blocker (and, better yet, by disabling javascript). Finally, the best reason to use an ad blocker is to opt-out of the advertising ecosystem to make it less viable. We have to find a more ethical way to fund media than supporting this manipulative, privacy-invading industry.

gwd 7y ago

> Why? My recommendation to every single person is to install an adblocker right now and never ever turn it off again. It's such an easy thing to do which immediately significantly improves your quality of life. The same reason that if I go into a cafe to sit down for a while, I'll buy a drink even if I'm not particularly thirsty. The cost of having a table in a downtown location for you to sit at is far higher than the cost of the beans and water; a drink for a place to sit is part of the "implicit deal". Websites cost money to run, so I think it's only fair to accept a reasonable amount of advertising. But I don't think being silently tracked for just happening upon your website is fair, so I block trackers. If your advertising works without trackers, I'll see it just fine.

cyborgx7 7y ago
You paying for a service, and you letting them attempt to manipulate you into making a purchase decision for something else are severly different things. If the only value of something is that it was capable of making you look in its direction for long enough to show you something you might actually be interested in spending money on, it actually has no value, I argue.
ahbyb 7y ago
In my experience the best information is always in websites with no ads. Like personal blogs, old pages, you name it. Seeing ads in a newspaper website? Why would I want to watch ads in exchange for being fed manipulating, half-true information?
- gwd 7y ago
  > In my experience the best information is always in websites with no ads. Like personal blogs, old pages, you name it. Seeing ads in a newspaper website? Why would I want to watch ads in exchange for being fed manipulating, half-true information? To extend the metaphor: Malls often have common areas where you can sit and just hang out. They also often have cafes with tables. The common areas are often nicer than the cafes -- less loud and less cramped. If you like common areas better than cafes, by all means, sit in the common areas. But if you do sit in a cafe for some reason, you should buy something, even if it's just a bottle of water. By a similar reasoning -- if you prefer websites with no ads, then by all means only go to websites with no ads. But if you do go to a website supported by ads, I think it's part of the implicit bargain that you be willing to view ads that are presented in a reasonable manner (where "tracking you across the internet" is not reasonable). I don't like the concept of tipping -- I think people's salaries and/or bonuses should be determined by their managers, not random people who wander in. But if I go to a restaurant where tipping is expected, I tip, because that's the implicit agreement I made when I sat down.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    I did not make any implicit agreements by clicking on a link to see what is behind it.