3 ms·

> And, yes, I use various advertising channels to find customers. Money well spent, I'm sure. https://gizmodo.com/facebook-announces-its-fake-ad-numbers-are-go

> And, yes, I use various advertising channels to find customers. Money well spent, I'm sure. https://gizmodo.com/facebook-announces-its-fake-ad-numbers-are-going-to-get-1847886359 https://gizmodo.com/facebook-announces-its-fake-ad-numbers-a... > It is nothing less than delusional to convince yourself that you are entitled to the entire web without paying for any of it. I never said I'm entitled to the entire web for free. Don't try to make it seem like I'm brazenly pirating my way across the internet. There are plenty of services behind paywalls and subscriptions that I choose to support with my actual dollars. > Do you know what happens at this end of the scale when your 100% ad-blocked utopia becomes reality? Do you have any clue? Yes. Actually I do. I'm old enough to know what life was like before the internet. We all got along just fine back then. One could argue we were better off than we are now. For a brief shining period the internet was a blank canvas, full of actual wonder and discovery. Seriously, it felt amazing to connect and just explore. But look at what it has become; a wasteland where 2 advertising giants waged a war of psychological manipulation. > Along with the jobs and everything else it created. Eyeballs for dollars. Its a grotesque machine. If it all burned down tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost. Not even the jobs you claim. (Except, of course, the ad networks, the PII data miners, the blog spammers, and the rest of the seedy by products that sprout from these networks...so, like I said, nothing of value lost.)

robomartin 5y ago
> I never said I'm entitled to the entire web for free. Don't try to make it seem like I'm brazenly pirating my way across the internet. There are plenty of services behind paywalls and subscriptions that I choose to support with my actual dollars. Great. Then, if you are a principled person and do not agree with the way advertising is being used on the 'net, don't use anything other than what you pay for. That's the morally and ethically correct stance to take. What ad-blocker users are saying is: I don't like advertising. I am still going to use your work product and I am not going to pay you a dime for any of it. Well, that's wrong. > If it all burned down tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost. I don't think you have a good sense of the scale and breath of what online marketing supports. Simple example: https://www.webmd.com/ https://www.webmd.com/ They have ads. Blocking them would mean the service would suffer and maybe even shutdown. There are millions of sites like that, where valuable content or services are offered. I belong to several manufacturing related forums that would not exist were it not for their ability to monetize the hard work required to keep them going. I personally know a couple of people running these sites. They work 16 hour days, seven days a week, to keep their communities going. It's very hard work and it is very, very far from "nothing of value".
- commoner 5y ago
  Here are WebMD's terms of use: https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-conditions-of-use https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-c.... It does not forbid visitors from blocking ads. (Even if it did, such a provision might not be legally enforceable.) Since WebMD is providing its content free of charge and not requiring visitors to refrain from blocking ads, visitors are free to consume the content on WebMD without paying and while blocking ads. The business model seems to be working well for WebMD, since its parent company (Internet Brands) is still in the private equity portfolio of its owner, the investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which had a net income of about $4.9 billion in 2020. Their 2020 Form 10-K also says:* > The most significant increases in value of our privately held investments related to increases in AppLovin Corporation (technology sector), Kokusai Electric Corporation (manufacturing sector), and Internet Brands, Inc. (technology sector). If WebMD, your friends' sites, or any other sites end up not performing well under a business model driven by display advertising, then they should transition their business model to one that is more profitable. A person who works hard is not entitled to a successful business, and internet users are definitely not legally, morally, or ethically obligated to contribute to the success of other people's businesses. * https://ir.kkr.com/sec-filings-annual-letters/sec-filings/?attchment=1&secFilingId=f6f9d7c5-76bd-469d-944d-fc9cb4fb1492&format=html https://ir.kkr.com/sec-filings-annual-letters/sec-filings/?a...

robomartin 5y ago

> I never said I'm entitled to the entire web for free. Don't try to make it seem like I'm brazenly pirating my way across the internet. There are plenty of services behind paywalls and subscriptions that I choose to support with my actual dollars. Great. Then, if you are a principled person and do not agree with the way advertising is being used on the 'net, don't use anything other than what you pay for. That's the morally and ethically correct stance to take. What ad-blocker users are saying is: I don't like advertising. I am still going to use your work product and I am not going to pay you a dime for any of it. Well, that's wrong. > If it all burned down tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost. I don't think you have a good sense of the scale and breath of what online marketing supports. Simple example: https://www.webmd.com/ https://www.webmd.com/ They have ads. Blocking them would mean the service would suffer and maybe even shutdown. There are millions of sites like that, where valuable content or services are offered. I belong to several manufacturing related forums that would not exist were it not for their ability to monetize the hard work required to keep them going. I personally know a couple of people running these sites. They work 16 hour days, seven days a week, to keep their communities going. It's very hard work and it is very, very far from "nothing of value".

commoner 5y ago
Here are WebMD's terms of use: https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-conditions-of-use https://www.webmd.com/about-webmd-policies/about-terms-and-c.... It does not forbid visitors from blocking ads. (Even if it did, such a provision might not be legally enforceable.) Since WebMD is providing its content free of charge and not requiring visitors to refrain from blocking ads, visitors are free to consume the content on WebMD without paying and while blocking ads. The business model seems to be working well for WebMD, since its parent company (Internet Brands) is still in the private equity portfolio of its owner, the investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, which had a net income of about $4.9 billion in 2020. Their 2020 Form 10-K also says:* > The most significant increases in value of our privately held investments related to increases in AppLovin Corporation (technology sector), Kokusai Electric Corporation (manufacturing sector), and Internet Brands, Inc. (technology sector). If WebMD, your friends' sites, or any other sites end up not performing well under a business model driven by display advertising, then they should transition their business model to one that is more profitable. A person who works hard is not entitled to a successful business, and internet users are definitely not legally, morally, or ethically obligated to contribute to the success of other people's businesses. * https://ir.kkr.com/sec-filings-annual-letters/sec-filings/?attchment=1&secFilingId=f6f9d7c5-76bd-469d-944d-fc9cb4fb1492&format=html https://ir.kkr.com/sec-filings-annual-letters/sec-filings/?a...