5 ms·

I have never used an ad blocker and have resisted installing it many times. My thinking always was: I'd rather have a web with ads than a web in which I have to

I have never used an ad blocker and have resisted installing it many times. My thinking always was: I'd rather have a web with ads than a web in which I have to pay for content and sign up to 800 different websites with 800 different accounts. A website that I've frequented a lot, the German news website spiegel.de, has converted to pay only mostly, and i now can't use it anymore. I am not saying that's the fault of ad blockers, but it certainly didn't help.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
I bet that website still has ads despite the paywall.
bern4444 5y ago
It would be a lot easier if websites and advertisers actually worked to naturally integrate ads in a way that wasn't obtrusive. Massive banners at the top, auto playing videos, throwing off the page layout etc are all terrible ad experiences that dominate.
- PandawanFr 5y ago
  I think carbon ads does it particularly well. Though I’m not sure this kind of ad would work in every case.
fartcannon 5y ago
Greed doesn't stop. It doesnt say, 'this, but no more. our shareholders have enough'. We'd be here with or without as blockers. It would just be worse without.
- dkdk8283 5y ago
  I liked the old internet where people posted content out of passion not for money. The quality has suffered and many think they have a right to get paid.
  - hoseja 5y ago
    Blame existing in an universe where evolution (that is, proliferation of whoever survives) happens.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Probably there is even more content like that as there are more people in the internet. But we can't find the good content in the mountain of trash that we are drowning in. EDIT: can -> can't
    - account42 5y ago
      It doesn't really help that the biggest search engine is also the biggest ad provider. Not exactly a great incentive to surface ad-free content.
e-neko 5y ago
It would be a lot safer if ad companies vetted their ads responsibly. After a third case of an ad on a perfectly reputable site trying to exploit my browser, an ad-blocker became just a standard part of network hygiene.
nocturnial 5y ago
I have the opposite viewpoint about ads. I don't think we should reward a business model which relies on the premise that humans like to watch ads. I never had someone tell me to drive slower because they wanted to take a closer look at a billboard. Never had I had to rewind a video because someone missed an ad. etc... etc... Let's be honest. If someone told you to do any of the above things regularly and consistently, you would question their sanity. But somehow it's normal for businesses to assume people like to watch ads and make it their primary income revenue. Well, sure, some companies succeeded using this model. But I don't see why this should result in me paying more attention to ads. I don't hold the extremist position that all ads are bad or should be abolished. I have always tried to ignore ads. Adblockers automate what I normally do. And if your business model relies on me watching your ads, maybe you should reconsider your assumptions.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  Of course people watch ads. It is (or used to be#one reason outdoor watch the Superbowl. The world would actually be a boring place without ads. The problem is when they are over done or deliver malware.
  - Intermernet 5y ago
    My world would definitely not be boring without ads. I'm not even sure how to respond to such a blatantly false claim.
  - herbst 5y ago
    I honestly only know that from movies. I don't think I know anyone who actually watches these ads. I am not in America tho
- gus_massa 5y ago
  Nobody thinks that people wants to watch ads. The premise is that people hates opening their wallet more than what they hate watching an ad.
  - 5y ago
nunez 5y ago
I'd be fine with an ad-based internet if ads didn't impact performance so much. All of the ad network scripts require heaps more resources and bandwidth, and that's before accounting for malware!
beebmam 5y ago
There's an alternative solution that enables people to produce content that doesn't require them to make an income through advertising or subscriptions. It can be accomplished through higher taxes and a universal basic income. Essentially: ensure that all people on earth have their basic needs met. A lot of people will produce incredible creative work, and it has been shown time and time again that government support of artists incubates incredible art.
- VRay 5y ago
  How much UBI could we realistically afford right now? Keeping in mind that there'd be an incredibly huge reduction in economic productivity, since pretty much everyone hates working I'm guessing we could actually keep people fed, but I'm wondering if we'd end up living in really crappy shacks without first world quality utilities I dunno if I'd want a UBI utopia if it requires a 1700s-quality lifestyle
  - account42 5y ago
    > Keeping in mind that there'd be an incredibly huge reduction in economic productivity, since pretty much everyone hates working Would there be? There would certainly be some changes. Less desirable jobs would have to pay more. People would have more power to demand better working conditions. But the idea that the majority of beople would just be fine with "basic income" and then sit on their ass all day instead of trying to earn more to afford whatever shinies they want or just because there is something they enjoy doing. There are also a ton of bullshit jobs that really do not contribute anything - freeing up those people to do whatever they want might have a positive effect. Eventually humanity will get to a point where automation can provide all of your needs as well as maintain that automation. On our way there, the hours worked per person should be going down.
IcyClAyMptHe 5y ago
I feel completely to opposite, though admittedly I am a hardliner on ads (I think they're a scourge). I make every effort to eliminate and automate them out of my life. Some things I'll pay for, others I'll ad block, and others I'll simply eliminate. Our lives are filled with so much which seeks to ensure we're constantly passively on autopilot, consistently following the path of least resistance. Putting a paywall in front of something forces you to really assess - "does this really offer me any value? Do I really want to be doing it?". If it's not something you're willing to go through the motions to pay for, there's probably something more personally fulfilling you could be doing with your time. The web is filled with so much rubbish that is "just good enough" to get users to sit through ads. I couldn't care less if all that ad-supported dreck goes under. In fact I'd welcome it.
msravi 5y ago
Nothing prevents a website from putting up ads relevant to its content, or ads that are generic enough that don't require tracking of their userbase's age/gender/marital status/what they had for lunch. But if websites insist on doing this under the illusion that they can monetize their userbase to the last penny, then it's only fair for its users not to allow it and force the website into being more explicit about the monetization - via a paywall. > has converted to pay only mostly, and i now can't use it anymore You could, but you're not willing to pay for it. Fair enough. But a significant number of their userbase is now telling them that they're not ready to pay using their personal info. That's good feedback that their users have provided using an adblocker.
sergiotapia 5y ago
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. – Banksy
analog31 5y ago
Every culture has a version of the children's story, such as "the goose that laid the golden egg." Somebody is given a machine that can produce seemingly unlimited wealth, and they use it without restraint until it breaks down and leaves them bankrupt.
johnsea 5y ago
You could use a service like readly and pay (a little) for the content you read. (But I must mention, your Spiegel is not covered there atm)
haspok 5y ago
You can take a look at american television to see how that works. There are more ads than actual content, and the quality of the content is... well, you be the judge of that. If someone says they won't do something because they can't pay the bills unless they finance it via ad revenue, I'm fine with that. I'm not convinced that the world is losing any value because of this. (Or put it in another way: would Gabriel Garcia Marquez have written One Hundred Years of Solitude, had he not received ad-revenue for it?) On the other hand, while I'm extremely happy I don't have to watch random Google cr*p adverts before/during/after Youtube videos thanks to adblock, if the creator itself includes an advert in his/her video I usually watch it. That is acceptable to me, and more direct support than just unrelated ads.
- herbst 5y ago
  I recently changed my YouTube app to one that skips creator ads. I am sure I saved way over a few hours in the last week's plus I really don't care about VPNs and mobile games. That time was 100% wasted before.
boudin 5y ago
I find this quite more complex than that. This is not just a different revenue source, it's a different business model. If you don't click on ads, you don't bring any money so you night as well install an adblocker. When your revenue source is ads, it becomes a conflicting content with your own content. You need people to stop paying attention to your content, lool at ads and deciding to leave your site for it. Ads network can also have an say on your content by controling your income source. Paying a news website directly brings them independance and allows the site to focus on content, those 2 things are at the core of journalism. If I were you, I would reconsider a subscription if you really liked the spiegel.
executesorder66 5y ago
> a web in which I have to pay for content and sign up to 800 different websites with 800 different accounts I can assure you that there will never be a future where that happens. Even if everyone that uses a browser installed an adblocker right now and never removed it again, if every website was paywalled, they would have to choose between closing down or unpaywalling again. Because as you say, you, and everyone else isn't going to pay to use every individual website that they visit. So just use an adblocker. Fuck the ad industry.
account42 5y ago
I on the other hand would prefer that all the commercial websites were honest about what they charge instead of trying to profit off manipulating me into spending money elsewhere. The idea that there would be no open content on the web without ads is ridiculuous. Most content on the web, like the comments in this discussion, is "user"-generated and the users generating it are typically not paid at all. While less visible in search engines, there are still many websites - personal or otherwise - that have no profit motive and are provided without any charge or ads. Its not uncommon for them to get posted here. And even for content that you'd want to pay for, ads are a bad way to pay for it because the cost to you (or the average person) is much greater than what the content creator gets out of the deal. Meanwhile, the incentives for ad-supported content creators and users are not really aligned payment is based entirely on engagement rather than any judgement of what value the user gets out of the content. There is so much spam that provides no value to the web (e.g. because the content is literally copied from elsewhere) but still exists because some people may land on the page and end up viewing ads. So many user-hostile features designed to keep users spending as much time as possible on ad-laden website. Now back to spiegel.de you say you frequented it a lot. Does that not mean that you got any value out of it that you are willing to pay for? If not, is not being able to use it anymore really such a problem?

matheusmoreira 5y ago

I bet that website still has ads despite the paywall.

bern4444 5y ago

It would be a lot easier if websites and advertisers actually worked to naturally integrate ads in a way that wasn't obtrusive. Massive banners at the top, auto playing videos, throwing off the page layout etc are all terrible ad experiences that dominate.

PandawanFr 5y ago
I think carbon ads does it particularly well. Though I’m not sure this kind of ad would work in every case.

fartcannon 5y ago

Greed doesn't stop. It doesnt say, 'this, but no more. our shareholders have enough'. We'd be here with or without as blockers. It would just be worse without.

dkdk8283 5y ago
I liked the old internet where people posted content out of passion not for money. The quality has suffered and many think they have a right to get paid.
- hoseja 5y ago
  Blame existing in an universe where evolution (that is, proliferation of whoever survives) happens.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Probably there is even more content like that as there are more people in the internet. But we can't find the good content in the mountain of trash that we are drowning in. EDIT: can -> can't
  - account42 5y ago
    It doesn't really help that the biggest search engine is also the biggest ad provider. Not exactly a great incentive to surface ad-free content.

e-neko 5y ago

It would be a lot safer if ad companies vetted their ads responsibly. After a third case of an ad on a perfectly reputable site trying to exploit my browser, an ad-blocker became just a standard part of network hygiene.

nocturnial 5y ago

I have the opposite viewpoint about ads. I don't think we should reward a business model which relies on the premise that humans like to watch ads. I never had someone tell me to drive slower because they wanted to take a closer look at a billboard. Never had I had to rewind a video because someone missed an ad. etc... etc... Let's be honest. If someone told you to do any of the above things regularly and consistently, you would question their sanity. But somehow it's normal for businesses to assume people like to watch ads and make it their primary income revenue. Well, sure, some companies succeeded using this model. But I don't see why this should result in me paying more attention to ads. I don't hold the extremist position that all ads are bad or should be abolished. I have always tried to ignore ads. Adblockers automate what I normally do. And if your business model relies on me watching your ads, maybe you should reconsider your assumptions.

chrismcb 5y ago
Of course people watch ads. It is (or used to be#one reason outdoor watch the Superbowl. The world would actually be a boring place without ads. The problem is when they are over done or deliver malware.
- Intermernet 5y ago
  My world would definitely not be boring without ads. I'm not even sure how to respond to such a blatantly false claim.
- herbst 5y ago
  I honestly only know that from movies. I don't think I know anyone who actually watches these ads. I am not in America tho
gus_massa 5y ago
Nobody thinks that people wants to watch ads. The premise is that people hates opening their wallet more than what they hate watching an ad.
- 5y ago

nunez 5y ago

I'd be fine with an ad-based internet if ads didn't impact performance so much. All of the ad network scripts require heaps more resources and bandwidth, and that's before accounting for malware!

beebmam 5y ago

There's an alternative solution that enables people to produce content that doesn't require them to make an income through advertising or subscriptions. It can be accomplished through higher taxes and a universal basic income. Essentially: ensure that all people on earth have their basic needs met. A lot of people will produce incredible creative work, and it has been shown time and time again that government support of artists incubates incredible art.

VRay 5y ago
How much UBI could we realistically afford right now? Keeping in mind that there'd be an incredibly huge reduction in economic productivity, since pretty much everyone hates working I'm guessing we could actually keep people fed, but I'm wondering if we'd end up living in really crappy shacks without first world quality utilities I dunno if I'd want a UBI utopia if it requires a 1700s-quality lifestyle
- account42 5y ago
  > Keeping in mind that there'd be an incredibly huge reduction in economic productivity, since pretty much everyone hates working Would there be? There would certainly be some changes. Less desirable jobs would have to pay more. People would have more power to demand better working conditions. But the idea that the majority of beople would just be fine with "basic income" and then sit on their ass all day instead of trying to earn more to afford whatever shinies they want or just because there is something they enjoy doing. There are also a ton of bullshit jobs that really do not contribute anything - freeing up those people to do whatever they want might have a positive effect. Eventually humanity will get to a point where automation can provide all of your needs as well as maintain that automation. On our way there, the hours worked per person should be going down.

IcyClAyMptHe 5y ago

I feel completely to opposite, though admittedly I am a hardliner on ads (I think they're a scourge). I make every effort to eliminate and automate them out of my life. Some things I'll pay for, others I'll ad block, and others I'll simply eliminate. Our lives are filled with so much which seeks to ensure we're constantly passively on autopilot, consistently following the path of least resistance. Putting a paywall in front of something forces you to really assess - "does this really offer me any value? Do I really want to be doing it?". If it's not something you're willing to go through the motions to pay for, there's probably something more personally fulfilling you could be doing with your time. The web is filled with so much rubbish that is "just good enough" to get users to sit through ads. I couldn't care less if all that ad-supported dreck goes under. In fact I'd welcome it.

msravi 5y ago

Nothing prevents a website from putting up ads relevant to its content, or ads that are generic enough that don't require tracking of their userbase's age/gender/marital status/what they had for lunch. But if websites insist on doing this under the illusion that they can monetize their userbase to the last penny, then it's only fair for its users not to allow it and force the website into being more explicit about the monetization - via a paywall. > has converted to pay only mostly, and i now can't use it anymore You could, but you're not willing to pay for it. Fair enough. But a significant number of their userbase is now telling them that they're not ready to pay using their personal info. That's good feedback that their users have provided using an adblocker.

sergiotapia 5y ago

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. – Banksy

analog31 5y ago

Every culture has a version of the children's story, such as "the goose that laid the golden egg." Somebody is given a machine that can produce seemingly unlimited wealth, and they use it without restraint until it breaks down and leaves them bankrupt.

johnsea 5y ago

You could use a service like readly and pay (a little) for the content you read. (But I must mention, your Spiegel is not covered there atm)

haspok 5y ago

You can take a look at american television to see how that works. There are more ads than actual content, and the quality of the content is... well, you be the judge of that. If someone says they won't do something because they can't pay the bills unless they finance it via ad revenue, I'm fine with that. I'm not convinced that the world is losing any value because of this. (Or put it in another way: would Gabriel Garcia Marquez have written One Hundred Years of Solitude, had he not received ad-revenue for it?) On the other hand, while I'm extremely happy I don't have to watch random Google cr*p adverts before/during/after Youtube videos thanks to adblock, if the creator itself includes an advert in his/her video I usually watch it. That is acceptable to me, and more direct support than just unrelated ads.

herbst 5y ago
I recently changed my YouTube app to one that skips creator ads. I am sure I saved way over a few hours in the last week's plus I really don't care about VPNs and mobile games. That time was 100% wasted before.

boudin 5y ago

I find this quite more complex than that. This is not just a different revenue source, it's a different business model. If you don't click on ads, you don't bring any money so you night as well install an adblocker. When your revenue source is ads, it becomes a conflicting content with your own content. You need people to stop paying attention to your content, lool at ads and deciding to leave your site for it. Ads network can also have an say on your content by controling your income source. Paying a news website directly brings them independance and allows the site to focus on content, those 2 things are at the core of journalism. If I were you, I would reconsider a subscription if you really liked the spiegel.

executesorder66 5y ago

> a web in which I have to pay for content and sign up to 800 different websites with 800 different accounts I can assure you that there will never be a future where that happens. Even if everyone that uses a browser installed an adblocker right now and never removed it again, if every website was paywalled, they would have to choose between closing down or unpaywalling again. Because as you say, you, and everyone else isn't going to pay to use every individual website that they visit. So just use an adblocker. Fuck the ad industry.

account42 5y ago

I on the other hand would prefer that all the commercial websites were honest about what they charge instead of trying to profit off manipulating me into spending money elsewhere. The idea that there would be no open content on the web without ads is ridiculuous. Most content on the web, like the comments in this discussion, is "user"-generated and the users generating it are typically not paid at all. While less visible in search engines, there are still many websites - personal or otherwise - that have no profit motive and are provided without any charge or ads. Its not uncommon for them to get posted here. And even for content that you'd want to pay for, ads are a bad way to pay for it because the cost to you (or the average person) is much greater than what the content creator gets out of the deal. Meanwhile, the incentives for ad-supported content creators and users are not really aligned payment is based entirely on engagement rather than any judgement of what value the user gets out of the content. There is so much spam that provides no value to the web (e.g. because the content is literally copied from elsewhere) but still exists because some people may land on the page and end up viewing ads. So many user-hostile features designed to keep users spending as much time as possible on ad-laden website. Now back to spiegel.de you say you frequented it a lot. Does that not mean that you got any value out of it that you are willing to pay for? If not, is not being able to use it anymore really such a problem?