5 ms·

> if Ad-Blocking were to go truly mainstream, especially if ISPs started to block ads themselves, a major portion of the internet as it stands today would be fi

by gasull 14y ago

> if Ad-Blocking were to go truly mainstream, especially if ISPs started to block ads themselves, a major portion of the internet as it stands today would be financially unsustainable, especially when it comes to content sites. It your business model doesn't work anymore, you have to move on. That's what the music and movie industry should learn. Maybe Google will have to learn it too. The NYT paywall is working pretty well. Maybe you're worrying that paywalls will be raised everywhere. I don't think so. There will always be free content. Also, maybe we need some P2P protocol instead of HTTP, so content can be delivered for cheap.

mtgx 14y ago
But do you think people would actually choose Adblocking if virtually every website on the Internet would not be free anymore? I think even those who use Adblock today think that they can afford to do it, because it's not that many of them who do it, so they get the benefit of having free content, while not seeing any ads.
FreeKill 14y ago
Agreed, I did say "as it stands today." Sites would adapt to the new reality and those who didn't would get buried. I do think though that people who adblock now do so cause it's relatively fringe and they feel like they are a drop in the bucket and not harmful to the site. If it was suddenly mainstream, I think a lot of folks would realize the old ads weren't so bad as the new paradigm and would opt for ads over paywalls.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- belorn 14y ago
  Contrary, I rather have paywalls. When data is being sent to my device, I want to be allowed to decide if it is shown on the screen. If executable code is sent to the computer, I want to decide if it will run. If code design to track and monitor my is being sent to my computer, I want to decide if it will be running or blocked. When people have ownership of their device with the option to block ads, people will block ads. The only way to enforce ad-viewing is to take away that ownership. In that world, I rather take paywalls.
OGinparadise 14y ago
It your business model doesn't work anymore, you have to move on. That's what the music and movie industry should learn. Maybe Google will have to learn it too. Google can always ask the webmasters that lost everything after Google updates as Google's earnings skyrocket quarter after quarter.
jsmeaton 14y ago
I Ad-Block, but specifically white-list sites I frequently visit. If I'm just cruising around some no-name site and will never be back, and I'm not going to click your ad anyway - I feel justified in my decision to block those ads. Same as if I'm channel surfing - if an ad comes on, I change the channel. If I'm engrossed in a particular programme and ads come on, I generally don't change the channel. I think ad-blocking software should encourage the use of white-listing more. Perhaps by 'packaging' domains that people may want to white-list during the install.

by gasull 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

But do you think people would actually choose Adblocking if virtually every website on the Internet would not be free anymore? I think even those who use Adblock today think that they can afford to do it, because it's not that many of them who do it, so they get the benefit of having free content, while not seeing any ads.

FreeKill 14y ago

Agreed, I did say "as it stands today." Sites would adapt to the new reality and those who didn't would get buried. I do think though that people who adblock now do so cause it's relatively fringe and they feel like they are a drop in the bucket and not harmful to the site. If it was suddenly mainstream, I think a lot of folks would realize the old ads weren't so bad as the new paradigm and would opt for ads over paywalls.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
belorn 14y ago
Contrary, I rather have paywalls. When data is being sent to my device, I want to be allowed to decide if it is shown on the screen. If executable code is sent to the computer, I want to decide if it will run. If code design to track and monitor my is being sent to my computer, I want to decide if it will be running or blocked. When people have ownership of their device with the option to block ads, people will block ads. The only way to enforce ad-viewing is to take away that ownership. In that world, I rather take paywalls.

OGinparadise 14y ago

It your business model doesn't work anymore, you have to move on. That's what the music and movie industry should learn. Maybe Google will have to learn it too. Google can always ask the webmasters that lost everything after Google updates as Google's earnings skyrocket quarter after quarter.

jsmeaton 14y ago

I Ad-Block, but specifically white-list sites I frequently visit. If I'm just cruising around some no-name site and will never be back, and I'm not going to click your ad anyway - I feel justified in my decision to block those ads. Same as if I'm channel surfing - if an ad comes on, I change the channel. If I'm engrossed in a particular programme and ads come on, I generally don't change the channel. I think ad-blocking software should encourage the use of white-listing more. Perhaps by 'packaging' domains that people may want to white-list during the install.