2 ms·

I currently don’t use ad blockers. The only time I used ad blockers was when a previous employer specifically asked me to, when using a company machine. > Can'

I currently don’t use ad blockers. The only time I used ad blockers was when a previous employer specifically asked me to, when using a company machine. > Can't understand why they put up with it To see which (rare) sites don’t put up a million ads and actually care about the reading experience. A lot of the top-listed sites on HN are small blogs without ads (or in the case of danluu.com or lwn.net - without almost any formatting). daringfireball.net is notable for actually having small, non-intrusive ads that I wouldn’t ever feel the need to block (unless you consider the entire site an ad for Apple but that’s a seperate concern). > do they just think that it's part and parcel of the internet to have every page look like a slot machine from hell? It is integral to the business models of the sites putting up those ads. And if those sites don’t make money then they’ll also be unable to pay writers. Much like herd immunity or financial speculation there will always be “somebody else” to watch the ads and essentially subsidize the ad-blocking audience, but I’d rather not be one of those people, I want my usage to be worth the while for the writers. I am sometimes (rarely) willing to pay for an ad-free experience if I’m a repeat visitor. But more often I’d rather not visit at all if a site is too annoying. Another unfortunate situation is that even if you pay for a subscription, some sites have no ad-free option, such as the New York Times. The big exception is YouTube, where I visit often, am bombarded with ads but also don’t want to pay Google.

inigyou 2mo ago
Most of those sites that would shut down without ads are providing negative value and would make the world better if they shut down. Sometimes I make an exception. Sometimes.
- Tyr42 2mo ago
  Then don't visit? Or realize how bad they are with ads and bounce? They probably track bounce rate as ads load.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    They're crowding out actually good sites.
GeneralMaximus 2mo ago
In an ideal world, I would do exactly what you do. I don't WANT to block ads everywhere. I would love to support my favorite websites, and if watching a couple of ads is what it takes for them to stay online, then I don't really mind. Problem is, the ads I see when I disable my ad-blocker are uniformly terrible. Maybe this is because I'm in India, but I've never once seen an ad that wasn't outright disgusting, let alone useful. I regularly see ads for: escort services, shady hair loss prevention pills, shady weight loss pills, astrology, TV shows and movies in languages I don't understand, gacha games, gambling apps, educational programs I can't sign up for, apps that are clearly malware. Once Instagram inexplicably showed me ads for expensive lab equipment only available in Germany for a whole week. I would like to see ads for: local businesses around me, concerts and gigs in my city, new restaurants around me, indie fashion brands, TV shows and movies in languages I can understand. Basically, ads based on my interests and recent search terms. The ad networks insist on delivering the worst kinds of ads to me, sometimes accompanied by imagery I would prefer not to see (e.g hair loss and dermatology ads). The websites I frequent and want to support don't get to choose what ads I'll see. All they can do is insert the ad-network's JavaScript into their pages and hope for the best. Unless the networks can guarantee that I won't see something illegal, harmful, or plain disgusting when I enable their ads, I'll keep my ad-blocker on. I'm not going hurt myself for somebody else's business model.
- squigz 2mo ago
  While I think I agree with you in principle, it's worth pointing out that at least some of these targeted/relevant ads you want come with privacy concerns which, at least in my opinion, are just as important if not more so than the content/experience of the ads themselves. Either way though, GP putting the responsibility on the viewer, at this point - given what we know about how the ad companies operate and use our data - is just absurd. We're not the ones who burned up any good will in this particular social contract.
- dabinat 2mo ago
  In theory site owners could be more selective about the ad networks they partner with. They bear a responsibility for a poor user experience, but many don’t care. I remember hearing about a lawsuit several years ago from several news organizations against an ad blocking company in which they described themselves as “ad companies that serve content” as opposed to “content companies that serve ads”.
soulofmischief 2mo ago
The situation has been manufactured by the advertising industry such that the individual's rational response, blocking ads for multiple reasons, hurts the web in the long run. At the end, it will be said, "it was the ad blockers' faults", not "there were too many ads + tracking systems and ads could contain malware"

inigyou 2mo ago

Most of those sites that would shut down without ads are providing negative value and would make the world better if they shut down. Sometimes I make an exception. Sometimes.

Tyr42 2mo ago
Then don't visit? Or realize how bad they are with ads and bounce? They probably track bounce rate as ads load.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  They're crowding out actually good sites.

GeneralMaximus 2mo ago

In an ideal world, I would do exactly what you do. I don't WANT to block ads everywhere. I would love to support my favorite websites, and if watching a couple of ads is what it takes for them to stay online, then I don't really mind. Problem is, the ads I see when I disable my ad-blocker are uniformly terrible. Maybe this is because I'm in India, but I've never once seen an ad that wasn't outright disgusting, let alone useful. I regularly see ads for: escort services, shady hair loss prevention pills, shady weight loss pills, astrology, TV shows and movies in languages I don't understand, gacha games, gambling apps, educational programs I can't sign up for, apps that are clearly malware. Once Instagram inexplicably showed me ads for expensive lab equipment only available in Germany for a whole week. I would like to see ads for: local businesses around me, concerts and gigs in my city, new restaurants around me, indie fashion brands, TV shows and movies in languages I can understand. Basically, ads based on my interests and recent search terms. The ad networks insist on delivering the worst kinds of ads to me, sometimes accompanied by imagery I would prefer not to see (e.g hair loss and dermatology ads). The websites I frequent and want to support don't get to choose what ads I'll see. All they can do is insert the ad-network's JavaScript into their pages and hope for the best. Unless the networks can guarantee that I won't see something illegal, harmful, or plain disgusting when I enable their ads, I'll keep my ad-blocker on. I'm not going hurt myself for somebody else's business model.

squigz 2mo ago
While I think I agree with you in principle, it's worth pointing out that at least some of these targeted/relevant ads you want come with privacy concerns which, at least in my opinion, are just as important if not more so than the content/experience of the ads themselves. Either way though, GP putting the responsibility on the viewer, at this point - given what we know about how the ad companies operate and use our data - is just absurd. We're not the ones who burned up any good will in this particular social contract.
dabinat 2mo ago
In theory site owners could be more selective about the ad networks they partner with. They bear a responsibility for a poor user experience, but many don’t care. I remember hearing about a lawsuit several years ago from several news organizations against an ad blocking company in which they described themselves as “ad companies that serve content” as opposed to “content companies that serve ads”.

soulofmischief 2mo ago

The situation has been manufactured by the advertising industry such that the individual's rational response, blocking ads for multiple reasons, hurts the web in the long run. At the end, it will be said, "it was the ad blockers' faults", not "there were too many ads + tracking systems and ads could contain malware"