3 ms·

This article conveniently ignores that advertising is a flawed revenue model in the first place, seeking to attack people who want to access content without bei

This article conveniently ignores that advertising is a flawed revenue model in the first place, seeking to attack people who want to access content without being annoyed - this a natural market reaction. People don't want to be tracked, they don't want intrusive irrelevant ads, but they clearly want to access content. I think AdBlock, NoScript etc. are symptoms of consumers reactions to this flawed revenue model, not attacks on content creators. Content creators need to either find some other way to monetize, or else accept that this is the risk they undertake by monetizing through ads. Maybe a better way would be to draw down revenue directly from ISPs, since people access the internet to view this content and ISPs can track which IPs a given user points at. That does put us on dangerous ground with respect to net neutrality.

dmoy 14y ago
At least for me, NoScript is less a reaction to annoying ads, and more a reaction to "not wanting to see your god damn web 3.0 flashy bullshit." Unless I explicitly need to interact with a website, I'll just leave it in a dumb js-less state so I can read without having random signup forms, broken scrolling, moving graphics, etc. popping up in my face every minute or two. If those flashing blinky annoying things are ads, then those are disabled too, but it's by no means the main reason I use NoScript. I couldn't understand if the article was serious or not. The point about AdBlock seems sort of in the right direction, if a bit missing the point - but the next two just left me scratching my head.