3 ms·

Every person understands a roaming charge, because all they experience them. 0.001% of people use an adblocker or even know what one is. This will always be a

Every person understands a roaming charge, because all they experience them. 0.001% of people use an adblocker or even know what one is. This will always be a problem while government pays 10% of big-tech pay.

jacquesm 4y ago
Your stats are off by many orders of magnitude. https://earthweb.com/how-many-people-use-ad-blockers/ https://earthweb.com/how-many-people-use-ad-blockers/
- vntok 4y ago
  The stats you linked includes people who use "some form of ad blocker" and indicates "If you use Google Chrome, you probably already know that it has a built-in ad blocker that has a default setting to block ads across websites" and "Firefox has an ad blocking feature as does Safari". So if they count built-in adblocking features as abblockers, of course the resulting figure is very high, as it's basically equal to the % of internet users who installed Chrome or Safari. This does not mean that regular folks use and understand adblockers, just that they use the two most popular browsers in the world.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Estimates of 'active' adblockers are anywhere from 10 to 30% depending on where you look, I stand by the 'many orders of magnitude' claim. 100's of millions of devices use adblockers, and not those built into Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Ad revenue is down far enough that websites (such as those linked in TFA) respond in a malicious way. That certainly would not happen if it was a very small fraction of a percent that did this. Just Adblock on Chrome alone claims 60 million DAU. With about 5B internet users that works out to 1% just for Adblock on Chrome. The claim was: "0.001% of people use an adblocker or even know what one is." which is clearly nonsense.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Their definition of 'adblocker' isn't what anyone else means, is it? Come one.
rjh29 4y ago
In this thread there is a person whose domain got added to EasyList and they saw a 50% drop in ad traffic. Make of that what you will.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  I'm sure it's 50% for tech people, but not for normal consumers and non-tech-people like civil servants.

jacquesm 4y ago

Your stats are off by many orders of magnitude. https://earthweb.com/how-many-people-use-ad-blockers/ https://earthweb.com/how-many-people-use-ad-blockers/

vntok 4y ago
The stats you linked includes people who use "some form of ad blocker" and indicates "If you use Google Chrome, you probably already know that it has a built-in ad blocker that has a default setting to block ads across websites" and "Firefox has an ad blocking feature as does Safari". So if they count built-in adblocking features as abblockers, of course the resulting figure is very high, as it's basically equal to the % of internet users who installed Chrome or Safari. This does not mean that regular folks use and understand adblockers, just that they use the two most popular browsers in the world.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Estimates of 'active' adblockers are anywhere from 10 to 30% depending on where you look, I stand by the 'many orders of magnitude' claim. 100's of millions of devices use adblockers, and not those built into Chrome, Firefox or Safari. Ad revenue is down far enough that websites (such as those linked in TFA) respond in a malicious way. That certainly would not happen if it was a very small fraction of a percent that did this. Just Adblock on Chrome alone claims 60 million DAU. With about 5B internet users that works out to 1% just for Adblock on Chrome. The claim was: "0.001% of people use an adblocker or even know what one is." which is clearly nonsense.
chrisseaton 4y ago
Their definition of 'adblocker' isn't what anyone else means, is it? Come one.

rjh29 4y ago

In this thread there is a person whose domain got added to EasyList and they saw a 50% drop in ad traffic. Make of that what you will.

chrisseaton 4y ago
I'm sure it's 50% for tech people, but not for normal consumers and non-tech-people like civil servants.