5 ms·

May I ask why you’re not running an ad blocker?

by Luc 2y ago

swayvil 2y ago
By running an ad blocker you are forcing them to create more ads, to make up their losses.
- duggan 2y ago
  Hardly, if done correctly, you're probably improving the CTR by reducing the number of ad impressions that would never result in a click.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  The goal is to eventually make ads completely unbearable for the handful of people that allow them, eventually destroying that whole toxic sector.
  - swayvil 2y ago
    Imagine you're a mother, with a baby. Full of motherly love. High on bonding hormones and such. Breastfeeding. So nice. Now give that baby a chihuahua's head. Grotesque. And those teeth are sharp. But still, it's your baby. So you go with it. Now give the baby spider claws. Then 20 eyeballs. At what point do you reject your child?
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I don’t understand the analogy really, are ads the baby? I don’t think ads are anybody’s baby, ads are the monetization strategy of last resort.
mikedelfino 2y ago
I'm not the person you're asking to, but in case you're interested in another opinion, I also no longer use ad blockers. I think it's fair to consume content in the way the author intended, especially because it seems that ads often give the author or the platform some revenue. That said, I do refuse to browse sites where the ads get too annoying. So I just close the tab and go on with my life without it. It turns out I rarely need most of the stuff that I come across randomly.
- simion314 2y ago
  Even USA gov recommends running an ad blocker for safety reasons.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  This is what I do as well. I don't like the price of entry, so I don't partake. Not my stuff to take outside of the price of entry.
- hinkley 2y ago
  I started using an ad blocker, oddly enough, because a web comic I read had a shitty habit forever of having ads above the comic that would load in and shift the page down. That shift would be late enough that it would happen just as I was clicking on the comic to make it full screen. Now I get a popup saying “please support us” and I think I’ve supported you enough, sir, with unplanned clicks on ads and whatever tracking bullshit they’re doing.
- bigDinosaur 2y ago
  And how exactly is using an adblocker depriving the website owner of revenue if you simply close the tab instead? And 'annoying ads' are the precise reason I use an adblocker; if they were as intrusive as google's ads from the early 2000's I would hardly care, but we've long careened past that. I'm unsure the premise of your argument makes much economic sense.
  - mikedelfino 2y ago
    Before trying to answer you, let me just reassure that I am not, by any means, preaching that people should stop using ad blockers. I was just sharing how I manage to not bother using one anymore. You're right that using an ad blocker isn't worse than closing the tab when it comes to revenue that comes from actually clicking on the ads. And I can only assume that's how it works, I don't know. What I was trying to say is that authors intend to share their content with ads. It's like having the ads there is what they're charging me for their otherwise free content. Not that I click on the ads. Not that I even read the ads. Just to have the ads there. Half the time, it doesn't bother me too much, and I consume their content to their terms. However, many sites are unreadable with so many ads. So, using an ad blocker would help me consume their content, yes. And since it's very rare for me to actually click on an ad, it wouldn't make much economic difference to them anyway. The central point of my comment wasn't about this, though. It was that most of the internet isn't worth reading. So when I'm faced with content I'm not willing to "pay" for by having all the ads on my screen, it's okay to just let them go. It doesn't really matter. They won't be missed. So I prefer to see the ads from those I keep reading, just because it's what they've implicitly asked to do by sharing their content. Then again, this is not an advice. I'm not defending a point. That's just what I've been doing.
bee_rider 2y ago
While I run an ad blocker, I think it is something everybody ought to do, and I can’t think of many reasons not to do it, IMO we should still consider the blocker-less experience to be the default one. For better or worse, (almost certainly the latter) it is what you get out of the box.

May I ask why you’re not running an ad blocker?

by Luc 2y ago

May I ask why you’re not running an ad blocker?

swayvil 2y ago

By running an ad blocker you are forcing them to create more ads, to make up their losses.

duggan 2y ago
Hardly, if done correctly, you're probably improving the CTR by reducing the number of ad impressions that would never result in a click.
bee_rider 2y ago
The goal is to eventually make ads completely unbearable for the handful of people that allow them, eventually destroying that whole toxic sector.
- swayvil 2y ago
  Imagine you're a mother, with a baby. Full of motherly love. High on bonding hormones and such. Breastfeeding. So nice. Now give that baby a chihuahua's head. Grotesque. And those teeth are sharp. But still, it's your baby. So you go with it. Now give the baby spider claws. Then 20 eyeballs. At what point do you reject your child?
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I don’t understand the analogy really, are ads the baby? I don’t think ads are anybody’s baby, ads are the monetization strategy of last resort.

mikedelfino 2y ago

I'm not the person you're asking to, but in case you're interested in another opinion, I also no longer use ad blockers. I think it's fair to consume content in the way the author intended, especially because it seems that ads often give the author or the platform some revenue. That said, I do refuse to browse sites where the ads get too annoying. So I just close the tab and go on with my life without it. It turns out I rarely need most of the stuff that I come across randomly.

simion314 2y ago
Even USA gov recommends running an ad blocker for safety reasons.
robertlagrant 2y ago
This is what I do as well. I don't like the price of entry, so I don't partake. Not my stuff to take outside of the price of entry.
hinkley 2y ago
I started using an ad blocker, oddly enough, because a web comic I read had a shitty habit forever of having ads above the comic that would load in and shift the page down. That shift would be late enough that it would happen just as I was clicking on the comic to make it full screen. Now I get a popup saying “please support us” and I think I’ve supported you enough, sir, with unplanned clicks on ads and whatever tracking bullshit they’re doing.
bigDinosaur 2y ago
And how exactly is using an adblocker depriving the website owner of revenue if you simply close the tab instead? And 'annoying ads' are the precise reason I use an adblocker; if they were as intrusive as google's ads from the early 2000's I would hardly care, but we've long careened past that. I'm unsure the premise of your argument makes much economic sense.
- mikedelfino 2y ago
  Before trying to answer you, let me just reassure that I am not, by any means, preaching that people should stop using ad blockers. I was just sharing how I manage to not bother using one anymore. You're right that using an ad blocker isn't worse than closing the tab when it comes to revenue that comes from actually clicking on the ads. And I can only assume that's how it works, I don't know. What I was trying to say is that authors intend to share their content with ads. It's like having the ads there is what they're charging me for their otherwise free content. Not that I click on the ads. Not that I even read the ads. Just to have the ads there. Half the time, it doesn't bother me too much, and I consume their content to their terms. However, many sites are unreadable with so many ads. So, using an ad blocker would help me consume their content, yes. And since it's very rare for me to actually click on an ad, it wouldn't make much economic difference to them anyway. The central point of my comment wasn't about this, though. It was that most of the internet isn't worth reading. So when I'm faced with content I'm not willing to "pay" for by having all the ads on my screen, it's okay to just let them go. It doesn't really matter. They won't be missed. So I prefer to see the ads from those I keep reading, just because it's what they've implicitly asked to do by sharing their content. Then again, this is not an advice. I'm not defending a point. That's just what I've been doing.

bee_rider 2y ago

While I run an ad blocker, I think it is something everybody ought to do, and I can’t think of many reasons not to do it, IMO we should still consider the blocker-less experience to be the default one. For better or worse, (almost certainly the latter) it is what you get out of the box.