4 ms·

Every now and then I feel guilty about using an ad blocker, then people show how the internet really looks, and I don't feel bad anymore.

Deukhoofd 7y ago
Looks like these ads show even through my adblocker and pi-hole, mostly because they're advertisements for himself, using locally hosted images linking to other pages on his blog.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  This is the kind of advertising I'm totally cool with. Much less likely to be malware than random ads from some ad network.
- markosaric 7y ago
  This may be the future if everyone moves their advertising to first-party as third-parties are getting blocked by default
squarefoot 7y ago
A possible solution would be providing adblockers with timed counters for each image so that for example all external popups/ads get blocked but say only the first 5 each hour coming from each visited site will be shown for say 30 seconds to one minute (to avoid distraction when reading). I believe it would be an effective way to send a message: be nice to me and I'll see some of your ads, but screw my surfing experience and you get no revenue. Otherwise as others have already pointed out, blocking everything would be the only viable option as surfing without blockers today has become a painful experience.
- a3n 7y ago
  "Thank you for your ads. You have 5 free servings left for free access to my eyeballs. Please subscribe to my eyeballs for uninterrupted access."
vanderZwan 7y ago
I don't - I am under no obligation to not bite the hand that feeds someone else if that hand is abusing me.
- dwild 7y ago
  You are under no obligation to read that content either... seems like the abuse actually come from you that did made the conscious choice to go there.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    Even if we keep following my analogy then my behavior is not abusing the content creator in any way, so no, not really. Meanwhile the negative sides of advertising and ad tech are well-documented. Not to mention the fact that I am not the person responsible for giving advertisers access to someone's website. If anything I'm going easy on the content creator by holding the fact that they do so against them.
    - dwild 7y ago
      > my behavior is not abusing the content creator in any way Abuse[0]: Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of a thing, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. You go somewhere that use ads to finance the content, while making effort to block theses ads/thus the financing. It's certainly the improper usage of his website, to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. The benefit being access to the content. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse > Meanwhile the negative sides of advertising and ad tech are well-documented. Then why not avoiding anything using ad tech? The negative sides of smoke from cigarette are well known, I'm still not there trying to keep smoking while trying to avoid the smoke. Personally I have no issue with most ads. The only time I ever had an issue with them was over Engadget were I got 2 auto playing ads over the course of a few days, I just stopped going there. What are the negative side that you lived? That was the only one that I lived, a slight inconvenience, while everyday I get hundred of positive side. There so many content creator that I care deeply about that were able to live out of their content, that would never been able to otherwise. > Not to mention the fact that I am not the person responsible for giving advertisers access to someone's website. You are responsible for accessing it... > If anything I'm going easy on the content creator You are going easy on him? By accessing his content without respecting the terms he set on accessing it. That doesn't sound like anything generous. You act like you deserve the access to the content and now you even act like you reading it is some sort of reward for the content creator. That entitlement is seriously wrong.

Deukhoofd 7y ago

Looks like these ads show even through my adblocker and pi-hole, mostly because they're advertisements for himself, using locally hosted images linking to other pages on his blog.

nkrisc 7y ago
This is the kind of advertising I'm totally cool with. Much less likely to be malware than random ads from some ad network.
markosaric 7y ago
This may be the future if everyone moves their advertising to first-party as third-parties are getting blocked by default

squarefoot 7y ago

A possible solution would be providing adblockers with timed counters for each image so that for example all external popups/ads get blocked but say only the first 5 each hour coming from each visited site will be shown for say 30 seconds to one minute (to avoid distraction when reading). I believe it would be an effective way to send a message: be nice to me and I'll see some of your ads, but screw my surfing experience and you get no revenue. Otherwise as others have already pointed out, blocking everything would be the only viable option as surfing without blockers today has become a painful experience.

a3n 7y ago
"Thank you for your ads. You have 5 free servings left for free access to my eyeballs. Please subscribe to my eyeballs for uninterrupted access."

vanderZwan 7y ago

I don't - I am under no obligation to not bite the hand that feeds someone else if that hand is abusing me.

dwild 7y ago
You are under no obligation to read that content either... seems like the abuse actually come from you that did made the conscious choice to go there.
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Even if we keep following my analogy then my behavior is not abusing the content creator in any way, so no, not really. Meanwhile the negative sides of advertising and ad tech are well-documented. Not to mention the fact that I am not the person responsible for giving advertisers access to someone's website. If anything I'm going easy on the content creator by holding the fact that they do so against them.
  - dwild 7y ago
    > my behavior is not abusing the content creator in any way Abuse[0]: Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of a thing, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. You go somewhere that use ads to finance the content, while making effort to block theses ads/thus the financing. It's certainly the improper usage of his website, to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. The benefit being access to the content. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse > Meanwhile the negative sides of advertising and ad tech are well-documented. Then why not avoiding anything using ad tech? The negative sides of smoke from cigarette are well known, I'm still not there trying to keep smoking while trying to avoid the smoke. Personally I have no issue with most ads. The only time I ever had an issue with them was over Engadget were I got 2 auto playing ads over the course of a few days, I just stopped going there. What are the negative side that you lived? That was the only one that I lived, a slight inconvenience, while everyday I get hundred of positive side. There so many content creator that I care deeply about that were able to live out of their content, that would never been able to otherwise. > Not to mention the fact that I am not the person responsible for giving advertisers access to someone's website. You are responsible for accessing it... > If anything I'm going easy on the content creator You are going easy on him? By accessing his content without respecting the terms he set on accessing it. That doesn't sound like anything generous. You act like you deserve the access to the content and now you even act like you reading it is some sort of reward for the content creator. That entitlement is seriously wrong.