3 ms·
I disagree. I would rather ads blend in and disappear than be flashing in my face. If I click on something that sounds interesting and it turns out to be an ad,
by tghw 15y ago
I disagree. I would rather ads blend in and disappear than be flashing in my face. If I click on something that sounds interesting and it turns out to be an ad, then they did a good job with it, because clearly it's something I'm interested in. If I'm not interested in it, the back button is easy to get to.
- TylerE 15y agoThe issue I take is when they're blatantly trying to makes ads look like legitimate content.
- tghw 15y agoI understand, but when you say "ruining the internet", I would prefer deceptive ads that blend in than those that make my eyes bleed, which is often the case with banner ads.
- TylerE 15y agoThe difference is I can't adblock text.
- tghw 15y agoHuh? The ad is an image. It can easily be adblocked.
- seiji 15y agoI adblock all youtube comment divs. It's quite effective.
- jbigelow76 15y agoIf the inability to block an ad is the primary determinant of "ruining" the internet you probably need to re-evaluate your sense of entitlement.
- lazugod 15y agoPatio11's ad is an image, and would be blocked. But you're still right, in that the closer one gets to mimicking unpaid content (such as Google or Reddit's sponsored ads, which are text) the harder it is to programatically block.
- draggnar 15y agowhat do you mean by "legitimate content"? Something that someone posted out of pure altruism and with no intent to make a profit? We can argue about how big of a percentage of the internet that is