3 ms·
This is effectively what we should be doing: Either accept what the site is offering (content monetized by ads and data collection) or don't. But what happened
by ocdtrekkie 7y ago
This is effectively what we should be doing: Either accept what the site is offering (content monetized by ads and data collection) or don't. But what happened instead is entitlement: People decided they had the right to view that content without paying it's cost, and went for ad blockers instead.
As much as I loathe ads, I am still surprised ad blockers work: That vastly more websites haven't simply made it impossible to view them without either seeing the ads or paying money/subscribing.
- matheusmoreira 7y agoWhat cost? Web sites don't charge anyone for the HTTP response. They distribute their pages free of charge.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoCreating content has an inherent cost.
- matheusmoreira 7y agoI mean the cost to me as a user. Why don't content creators charge me for the page view?
- jessaustin 7y agoLots of people who use ad blockers aren't opposed to ads themselves. If a site shoves an "Eat at Joe's" div in beside the content, that's fine, we'll look at it, because after all ad blockers won't block such an ad. What we oppose are ad networks with all the tracking and privacy violations those entail, and those are blocked by ad blockers.