3 ms·

> You think you are entitled to free pizza. When companies SEO-shove it in my face and almost literally beg me to take it.. oh I don't feel entitled but it's

> You think you are entitled to free pizza. When companies SEO-shove it in my face and almost literally beg me to take it.. oh I don't feel entitled but it's hard to avoid. Stop shoving it in my face and I won't take it. > And then reality hits: There was never any free pizza. And the pizza is gone. Along with the jobs and everything else it created. So clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash that scream "free pizza" and hand you a bag full of ads will be gone from the internet? This is like cure for cancer, I look forward to it!

robomartin 5y ago
You are exaggerating, the vast majority of the ad-supported internet does not fit your "clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash" narrative. Once again, it is convenient to construct such a narrative to justify taking from truly useful sites. I must ask: Do you mean to say that you only visit "clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash" sites with your ad blockers? Likely not. What is a far more likely scenario is that you frequent sites that deliver you enough value that you choose to visit them. This is that context I am referring to when I speak of theft. Not the useless content-farm junk you seem to want to use as a means of justification for blocking ads on the sites you visit. If you don't like their use of advertising, don't visit the sites. Note that what we are discussing here isn't a requirement for you to CLICK on ads and make money for them. Not at all. All this boils down to is not interfering with these sites displaying their ads and engaging in marketing to you that might result in revenue. That's what you are objecting to. You want the people who create and manage the valuable content you provide to work for you for free. That is a remarkably shitty position to take, and I am being kind. Give me your valuable content or service --which I enjoy and want to consume, repeatedly-- and do it for nothing, while actively interfere with your ability to earn any money and promote others to do the same.
- commoner 5y ago
  If a site owner doesn't want to provide content for free of charge, then they shouldn't do that. Nobody is forcing a site owner to provide free content. Site owners can charge for the content if they want to. But if a site owner does choose to provide their content for free, it is not the responsibility of the site visitor to ensure that such a business model is successful. Internet users do not have any legal or moral obligation to avoid consuming content that is provided free of charge. Internet users also do not have any legal or moral obligation to consume all of the content that is presented in one place.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I won't shed a tear if every ad supported site vanishes from the internet. Yes, I think the vast majority of them are useless, and the only reason I visit them is because someone else links them or, because of SEO, they end up in the way when you search for something. Usually these sites are worse than what you'd get if search engines skipped straight to the good, valuable sites with no ads; their value is generally negative, not positive. Good sites get buried because of everyone who's spamming the internet for quick buck. I refuse to support ad-supported sites, because ad-money and the incentive it creates for spam is ruining the internet. Spammers' ability to earn money by creating more spam should be revoked. Anyone who supports that "business" model is partly responsible for spam and trash.

robomartin 5y ago

You are exaggerating, the vast majority of the ad-supported internet does not fit your "clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash" narrative. Once again, it is convenient to construct such a narrative to justify taking from truly useful sites. I must ask: Do you mean to say that you only visit "clickbait, SEO spam sites, content farms, and other trash" sites with your ad blockers? Likely not. What is a far more likely scenario is that you frequent sites that deliver you enough value that you choose to visit them. This is that context I am referring to when I speak of theft. Not the useless content-farm junk you seem to want to use as a means of justification for blocking ads on the sites you visit. If you don't like their use of advertising, don't visit the sites. Note that what we are discussing here isn't a requirement for you to CLICK on ads and make money for them. Not at all. All this boils down to is not interfering with these sites displaying their ads and engaging in marketing to you that might result in revenue. That's what you are objecting to. You want the people who create and manage the valuable content you provide to work for you for free. That is a remarkably shitty position to take, and I am being kind. Give me your valuable content or service --which I enjoy and want to consume, repeatedly-- and do it for nothing, while actively interfere with your ability to earn any money and promote others to do the same.

commoner 5y ago
If a site owner doesn't want to provide content for free of charge, then they shouldn't do that. Nobody is forcing a site owner to provide free content. Site owners can charge for the content if they want to. But if a site owner does choose to provide their content for free, it is not the responsibility of the site visitor to ensure that such a business model is successful. Internet users do not have any legal or moral obligation to avoid consuming content that is provided free of charge. Internet users also do not have any legal or moral obligation to consume all of the content that is presented in one place.
foxfluff 5y ago
I won't shed a tear if every ad supported site vanishes from the internet. Yes, I think the vast majority of them are useless, and the only reason I visit them is because someone else links them or, because of SEO, they end up in the way when you search for something. Usually these sites are worse than what you'd get if search engines skipped straight to the good, valuable sites with no ads; their value is generally negative, not positive. Good sites get buried because of everyone who's spamming the internet for quick buck. I refuse to support ad-supported sites, because ad-money and the incentive it creates for spam is ruining the internet. Spammers' ability to earn money by creating more spam should be revoked. Anyone who supports that "business" model is partly responsible for spam and trash.