4 ms·
Haven't we been through this before... If refusing to watch the ads is evil lazy freeloading/stealing, then so is watching the ads and not buying the product. I
by vintermann 3y ago
Haven't we been through this before... If refusing to watch the ads is evil lazy freeloading/stealing, then so is watching the ads and not buying the product. If you plan to do the latter, you might as well do the former.
If there's a difference, at best it's the difference between stiffing Google and helping Google stiff their advertisers. Either way, if everyone did it, it wouldn't last.
- dangus 3y agoYou’ve actually taken the argument further than it can go. Advertisers don’t pay Google by the number of products sold. They pay for Google to display ads. As long as the ads are displayed, the transaction is satisfied. Advertisers don’t pay for customers’ direct purchases. They know that seeing an ad influences purchase decisions, even when the consumer is aware of the advertisement. You aren’t “stiffing” the advertisers by refusing to buy their product. It’s really simple: Google can get revenue from advertisers or direct subscribers. Those are their paying customers. People who block ads entirely don’t count as ad impressions and aren’t paying the subscription fee. They are the only non-revenue user. You’ve got a right to block ads but Google has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Nobody on either is committing a crime. The leeches want to complain about their poor user experience but Google gave you a paid no-ads option alongside an ad-supported product. I can’t figure out what alternative is reasonable.