3 ms·

I have never used an ad blocking service before as my general stance is that if it helps subsidize content presentation, I think it's perfectly fair for the pro

I have never used an ad blocking service before as my general stance is that if it helps subsidize content presentation, I think it's perfectly fair for the provider to serve ads. To be honest, I normally pay them no mind in the first place, which might be overall more harmful.

whichdan 14y ago
I feel the same way re:subsidizing, and honestly if a website's ads are so bad that I would consider using an ad blocker, I would rather just avoid the site altogether.
stephen_g 14y ago
I don't think Adblock is really any worse than fast-forwarding past ads on my PVR (especially having never once clicked on an ad on the internet). But an ISP blocking ads is very dodgy... An ISP tampering with web pages at all is wrong - I think an their job is to deliver only, and exactly what the web server gives them to the person who requested it, who is then free to choose what part of the page they see. All the more reason for more web sites to use SSL/TLS.
- dmsinger 14y ago
  When you skip a commercial on your DVR that ad has already been paid for. That content provider has been paid. When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and the content provider is not being paid (if CPM). They're very different in terms of money-flow. It doesn't mean devaluing an advertiser is better, but they're two different outcomes, even if it just means "no ads" to user/viewer.
  - suresk 14y ago
    More importantly - each incremental user costs the website operator money, but this isn't the case for broadcast content.
  - chii 14y ago
    > When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and the content provider is not being paid (if CPM). it depends on how the ad is actually served, but i would assume that a smarter adblocking tool would "fake" the ad request, so that an ad provider would not be able to tell the difference between a user seeing the impression or not.

whichdan 14y ago

I feel the same way re:subsidizing, and honestly if a website's ads are so bad that I would consider using an ad blocker, I would rather just avoid the site altogether.

stephen_g 14y ago

I don't think Adblock is really any worse than fast-forwarding past ads on my PVR (especially having never once clicked on an ad on the internet). But an ISP blocking ads is very dodgy... An ISP tampering with web pages at all is wrong - I think an their job is to deliver only, and exactly what the web server gives them to the person who requested it, who is then free to choose what part of the page they see. All the more reason for more web sites to use SSL/TLS.

dmsinger 14y ago
When you skip a commercial on your DVR that ad has already been paid for. That content provider has been paid. When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and the content provider is not being paid (if CPM). They're very different in terms of money-flow. It doesn't mean devaluing an advertiser is better, but they're two different outcomes, even if it just means "no ads" to user/viewer.
- suresk 14y ago
  More importantly - each incremental user costs the website operator money, but this isn't the case for broadcast content.
- chii 14y ago
  > When you block an ad on the web it's not being counted as an impression and the content provider is not being paid (if CPM). it depends on how the ad is actually served, but i would assume that a smarter adblocking tool would "fake" the ad request, so that an ad provider would not be able to tell the difference between a user seeing the impression or not.