4 ms·

I'm willing to unblock ads for a site if all the following are true: * I like the site. * The ads are static images or text. * The ads are hosted locally. *

I'm willing to unblock ads for a site if all the following are true: * I like the site. * The ads are static images or text. * The ads are hosted locally. * The ads are not malicious. If any of the above is not true, the blocking stays.

bbor 4y ago
What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models? Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views.
- petodo 4y ago
  Not parent, but I would just find different favorite sites.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    I'll give you credit for being honest about being cheap, instead of advancing some bad faith "muh information wants to be fr33" argument.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      I always took "information wants to be free" as a "water flows downhill" kind of statement -- it describes the natural tendency and that you need to do a lot of work against it to contain it, and even then it's probably not going to be fully successful. It's not about what "ought" or any sort of morality, more of a factual statement of how the world works.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models? I have very few truly "favorite sites". Most of them are completely disposable. Eg, I don't see myself ever paying for a website that provides song lyrics -- it's a fully optional service, and entirely fungible. I think it's possible a limited return to an "old internet" model to some extent, where some random person might just posts lyrics of their favorite band just because they like it. For the very few actual favorites, probably. > Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views. Extremely so. First, no ads. Second, a site that must please its users or go bankrupt. That's a win/win in my book. Such a change likely comes along with improvements in the site's quality. Eg, paid Youtube competitors don't want to feed me hogwash all day in hopes I watch more ads. Bandwidth is expensive, they're not getting any more money from me, and there are no ads to pay for increased consumption. So their priority becomes a smaller amount of high quality content.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    In theory that’s how it could work. In practice it seems be go subscription, and then make things that used to be free to everyone require not just the basic subscription but a premium one.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  If the site is worth the asking price I certainly wouldn't mind. There aren't a lot such sites, though.
worik 4y ago
If I like the site, I will consider paying for it. I already do pay for online services. I am glad the ad model is dying. What a waste of resources that was!
supriyo-biswas 4y ago
The main problem with static ads is that the advertiser can't obtain any analytics as to whether their ads are effective, or whether the publisher is outright defrauding them by claiming to show ads but not actually displaying them to real users, faking the number of clicks, etc. With newspapers and magazines, picking up a copy and estimating the distribution of the paper via a 3rd party (such as Nielsen) answers all these questions. I'd like to hear about a solution that addresses that. It seems fundamentally incompatible with the conditions of "hosted locally" and "static images or text" (which means you can't run JS to verify whether the ad was actually displayed).
- lancesells 4y ago
  It depends on the ad and what you're measuring. If it's eyeballs then yeah, you can be lied to. If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that.
  - supriyo-biswas 4y ago
    > If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that. The problem with this approach is that it's a "he said, she said" situation where both parties can claim that the other is producing fraudulent numbers. It can only be resolved with litigation, which is not what anyone wants when all they wanted to do is get some sales numbers up. Also, if you're familiar with the state of advertising fraud, faking conversions with botnets and residential proxies are an absolutely real thing.

bbor 4y ago

What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models? Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views.

petodo 4y ago
Not parent, but I would just find different favorite sites.
- TylerE 4y ago
  I'll give you credit for being honest about being cheap, instead of advancing some bad faith "muh information wants to be fr33" argument.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    I always took "information wants to be free" as a "water flows downhill" kind of statement -- it describes the natural tendency and that you need to do a lot of work against it to contain it, and even then it's probably not going to be fully successful. It's not about what "ought" or any sort of morality, more of a factual statement of how the world works.
dale_glass 4y ago
> What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models? I have very few truly "favorite sites". Most of them are completely disposable. Eg, I don't see myself ever paying for a website that provides song lyrics -- it's a fully optional service, and entirely fungible. I think it's possible a limited return to an "old internet" model to some extent, where some random person might just posts lyrics of their favorite band just because they like it. For the very few actual favorites, probably. > Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views. Extremely so. First, no ads. Second, a site that must please its users or go bankrupt. That's a win/win in my book. Such a change likely comes along with improvements in the site's quality. Eg, paid Youtube competitors don't want to feed me hogwash all day in hopes I watch more ads. Bandwidth is expensive, they're not getting any more money from me, and there are no ads to pay for increased consumption. So their priority becomes a smaller amount of high quality content.
- TylerE 4y ago
  In theory that’s how it could work. In practice it seems be go subscription, and then make things that used to be free to everyone require not just the basic subscription but a premium one.
Dalewyn 4y ago
If the site is worth the asking price I certainly wouldn't mind. There aren't a lot such sites, though.

worik 4y ago

If I like the site, I will consider paying for it. I already do pay for online services. I am glad the ad model is dying. What a waste of resources that was!

supriyo-biswas 4y ago

The main problem with static ads is that the advertiser can't obtain any analytics as to whether their ads are effective, or whether the publisher is outright defrauding them by claiming to show ads but not actually displaying them to real users, faking the number of clicks, etc. With newspapers and magazines, picking up a copy and estimating the distribution of the paper via a 3rd party (such as Nielsen) answers all these questions. I'd like to hear about a solution that addresses that. It seems fundamentally incompatible with the conditions of "hosted locally" and "static images or text" (which means you can't run JS to verify whether the ad was actually displayed).

lancesells 4y ago
It depends on the ad and what you're measuring. If it's eyeballs then yeah, you can be lied to. If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that.
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  > If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that. The problem with this approach is that it's a "he said, she said" situation where both parties can claim that the other is producing fraudulent numbers. It can only be resolved with litigation, which is not what anyone wants when all they wanted to do is get some sales numbers up. Also, if you're familiar with the state of advertising fraud, faking conversions with botnets and residential proxies are an absolutely real thing.