3 ms·
This is the internet not television. I'm not obliged to see their ads. Yes, it's their content but my viewport. By the same argument I shouldn't be allowed to s
by islon 14y ago
This is the internet not television. I'm not obliged to see their ads. Yes, it's their content but my viewport. By the same argument I shouldn't be allowed to surf the web using lynx (the console browser) because it doesn't show pictures and many ads are pictures or flash. On my client I can change the content all the way all want, if I don't want to see the word "fuck" I can replace it for "beep" with a greasemonkey script, if I don't want to see ads I use an adblock. Internet is about freedom, television is about not-filterable predefined content down your throat.
- Goronmon 14y agoThis is the internet not television. I'm not obliged to see their ads. I don't think anyone is really saying that. But I agree with criticsquid in that if I think a site has content worth viewing, I want to do what I can to support that site, whether it means subscriptions or viewing ads. So I don't run an ad-blocker. If I run into a site with ads that annoy me, I just don't visit that site. A site decides whether or not to run annoying ads, even if they don't get to pick the ads specifically, so I show my frustration by not giving such sites my traffic at all.
- dubya 14y agoThere are sites that I visit regularly and many more sites that I arrive at only through search results. It's the second set of sites that keeps the adblocker turned on. There is an option in Adblocker Plus, I think, to allow non-annoying ads. If it comes to the Safari version I will try it. OTOH, every time I open a new tab, the Expose version of 12 most visited sites are retrieved with ads, so maybe I'm contributing enough.
- debacle 14y agoIf you filter their ads from their content, they're completely within their rights to filter you from their site.
- Karunamon 14y agoThat's an arms race the site owner will never win.