5 ms·

For a brief period of time I turned off my adblocker and temporarily reverted my hosts file to the default to see what was going on. It is 2013 and internet adv

For a brief period of time I turned off my adblocker and temporarily reverted my hosts file to the default to see what was going on. It is 2013 and internet advertising still ruins the browsing experience. Very quickly I've put everything back in place. I don't even care about how I am not supporting website owners. This isn't worth it.

sharkweek 13y ago
It's still surprisingly broken (as a whole) despite everything else on the web moving forward leaps and bounds -- Wish I had an answer, as it's a bazillion dollar industry just waiting for a cleaner solution
untog 13y ago
This isn't worth it. What isn't worth what, exactly? The content isn't worth the ads? Then don't read it. Deciding that it "isn't worth" supporting web site owners is a fantastically selfish way to look at things. If I find a site with obnoxious advertising I close the tab and go elsewhere. It's not like there aren't other sources of iPhone 5S release news.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  Allowing websites to pull in revenue with advertisements isn't worth it if I get dragged through optimized layouts for better ad-CTR, links which look like generic website content but are ads, all sorts of pop-ups with hard-to-find close buttons (this bold red cross which looks like it will close another Javascript pop-up? Here comes browser tab #43, maybe this advertisement interests you!) and other nasty tricks. It might be selfish but it is part of the freedom I have.
  - untog 13y ago
    The part you didn't address: if those things are such a pain for you (and I have no idea what sites you're reading regularly because I get a popup like that very, very rarely) then close the tab and don't read the site.
    - pearjuice 13y ago
      Why would I do this if I have the option to read the site without the annoying parts? You are implying I owe website owners my screen estate to display the ads they run which simply is not the case.
      - untog 13y ago
        There's a store down the road that has really bad security. I could take a bottle of Sprite from their fridge and walk out with it. Should I? Before this descends into a "this isn't stealing" circular debate, my point is that just because you can get something for free that you would normally have to pay for (be it in money or screen real estate) doesn't mean you should. I am not implying that you owe them your screen real estate, I am outright stating it.
        ckrailo 13y ago
        That's... not really how the web works, man. These companies can't enforce that their ads are shown at the other end, so they make a business decision regarding revenue fully knowing that some people use technology to block the ads.
        thatswrong0 13y ago
        All a website is doing is giving me a bunch of bits for free. I can do (mostly) anything I want with those bits. I can leave them how they are, or I can modify them so that the presentation is more appealing to me. The owners of these websites understand that they cannot do anything to prevent me from modifying the way the bits are presented to me. There was no agreement between me and them that I won't modify the bits: they just send me the bits when I ask for them. A better analogy would be a pizza company that gives out free pizzas, no questions asked. However, they get money every time a customer eats an olive on the pizza. When they give me the pizza, they know very well that I can just pick off the olives (I hate olives). So I am well within my right to pick off olives. The problem is their business model, not me picking off the olives.
        pearjuice 13y ago
ChuckMcM 13y ago
If you were a open source user you would not visit the web sites at all. This is the flip side of the open source credo. So if you consider the "You have two choices, user our free software and let everyone who you give it to also use it and modify it, or don't use it." Web sites aren't there yet, but they will get there which will be you can view our site with ads or you can not view our site, your choice. In both the FOSS case and the web site case, the organization is trying to leverage their 'value' (working code, information content) into a desired 'behavior' (giving away code, seeing ads). As more an more web sites shut down and the choices narrow, the value of good content goes up. And at some point they will be confident enough to disable your access to it in response to disabling ads. (Ars Technica did some interesting experiments in this space). As the web matures, and moves past the 'browser experience' I expect you will see more and more of that.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  >If you were a open source user you would not visit the web sites at all. A FOSS-evangelist (like RMS) is not the same as an "open source user". "would not visit" is a bit of an heavy implication for the latter.
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Fair enough. I stick by my assertion that the "free" web sites are going to get stickier about ad blockers as time goes on.
robomartin 13y ago
Ad blockers are tools for theft. Do you avoid all websites that rely on advertising for all or part of their income or are you perfectly fine stealing their work/services by denying them the opportunity to make a little money during your visit? Alternatively, do you only use services for which you pay a fee? Which search engine do you use? Email? Social sites? Just trying to understand this position. Unless someone explicitly gives a product or service away (HN being a good example) the correct moral and ethical position is to not tamper with their revenue generation strategy or otherwise not use their product or service. Anything else is theft. Being annoyed does not entitle you or anyone else to steal. It doesn't magically make it OK.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  Stealing? Really? The content is free to consume by anyone, or it goes behind a pay wall in which case the user decides whether it is worth paying for. Advertisements ruin layouts, can often not be trusted and scream for your attention. I have the right to set up restrictions on which hosts my network adapter can connect to and I don't feel like wasting bandwidth on stuff I didn't ask for in the first place or does everything it takes to track my behaviour. I do use services for which I pay granted they are worth my money.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Yes stealing. Really! > The content is free to consume by anyone Utter nonsense. Opinions like these only come from people who don't understand business, have never run one and never risked their own capital, effort and health launching one. Nonsense. It's just like reading a physical newspaper without paying for it and, at the same time, having some kind of a machine that blacks out all of the advertising. Stealing. Plain and simple. Businesses cost money to run. Advertising is an age-old method to make money. And for some businesses that's the best way to support their operations. Look at Google [0]. It costs TEN BILLION DOLLARS TO RUN GOOGLE FOR JUST THREE MONTHS. TEN FUCKING BILLION. And you would use Google with an ad blocker? How dare you! Take it to an extreme: Starting tomorrow everyone in the world uses ad blockers. The internet would collapse overnight. Either pay for the service or allow the ads. Yes sir! You are stealing. [0] http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG

sharkweek 13y ago

It's still surprisingly broken (as a whole) despite everything else on the web moving forward leaps and bounds -- Wish I had an answer, as it's a bazillion dollar industry just waiting for a cleaner solution

untog 13y ago

This isn't worth it. What isn't worth what, exactly? The content isn't worth the ads? Then don't read it. Deciding that it "isn't worth" supporting web site owners is a fantastically selfish way to look at things. If I find a site with obnoxious advertising I close the tab and go elsewhere. It's not like there aren't other sources of iPhone 5S release news.

pearjuice 13y ago
Allowing websites to pull in revenue with advertisements isn't worth it if I get dragged through optimized layouts for better ad-CTR, links which look like generic website content but are ads, all sorts of pop-ups with hard-to-find close buttons (this bold red cross which looks like it will close another Javascript pop-up? Here comes browser tab #43, maybe this advertisement interests you!) and other nasty tricks. It might be selfish but it is part of the freedom I have.
- untog 13y ago
  The part you didn't address: if those things are such a pain for you (and I have no idea what sites you're reading regularly because I get a popup like that very, very rarely) then close the tab and don't read the site.
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    Why would I do this if I have the option to read the site without the annoying parts? You are implying I owe website owners my screen estate to display the ads they run which simply is not the case.
    - untog 13y ago
      There's a store down the road that has really bad security. I could take a bottle of Sprite from their fridge and walk out with it. Should I? Before this descends into a "this isn't stealing" circular debate, my point is that just because you can get something for free that you would normally have to pay for (be it in money or screen real estate) doesn't mean you should. I am not implying that you owe them your screen real estate, I am outright stating it.
      - ckrailo 13y ago
        That's... not really how the web works, man. These companies can't enforce that their ads are shown at the other end, so they make a business decision regarding revenue fully knowing that some people use technology to block the ads.
      - thatswrong0 13y ago
        All a website is doing is giving me a bunch of bits for free. I can do (mostly) anything I want with those bits. I can leave them how they are, or I can modify them so that the presentation is more appealing to me. The owners of these websites understand that they cannot do anything to prevent me from modifying the way the bits are presented to me. There was no agreement between me and them that I won't modify the bits: they just send me the bits when I ask for them. A better analogy would be a pizza company that gives out free pizzas, no questions asked. However, they get money every time a customer eats an olive on the pizza. When they give me the pizza, they know very well that I can just pick off the olives (I hate olives). So I am well within my right to pick off olives. The problem is their business model, not me picking off the olives.
      - pearjuice 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago

If you were a open source user you would not visit the web sites at all. This is the flip side of the open source credo. So if you consider the "You have two choices, user our free software and let everyone who you give it to also use it and modify it, or don't use it." Web sites aren't there yet, but they will get there which will be you can view our site with ads or you can not view our site, your choice. In both the FOSS case and the web site case, the organization is trying to leverage their 'value' (working code, information content) into a desired 'behavior' (giving away code, seeing ads). As more an more web sites shut down and the choices narrow, the value of good content goes up. And at some point they will be confident enough to disable your access to it in response to disabling ads. (Ars Technica did some interesting experiments in this space). As the web matures, and moves past the 'browser experience' I expect you will see more and more of that.

pearjuice 13y ago
>If you were a open source user you would not visit the web sites at all. A FOSS-evangelist (like RMS) is not the same as an "open source user". "would not visit" is a bit of an heavy implication for the latter.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Fair enough. I stick by my assertion that the "free" web sites are going to get stickier about ad blockers as time goes on.

robomartin 13y ago

Ad blockers are tools for theft. Do you avoid all websites that rely on advertising for all or part of their income or are you perfectly fine stealing their work/services by denying them the opportunity to make a little money during your visit? Alternatively, do you only use services for which you pay a fee? Which search engine do you use? Email? Social sites? Just trying to understand this position. Unless someone explicitly gives a product or service away (HN being a good example) the correct moral and ethical position is to not tamper with their revenue generation strategy or otherwise not use their product or service. Anything else is theft. Being annoyed does not entitle you or anyone else to steal. It doesn't magically make it OK.

pearjuice 13y ago
Stealing? Really? The content is free to consume by anyone, or it goes behind a pay wall in which case the user decides whether it is worth paying for. Advertisements ruin layouts, can often not be trusted and scream for your attention. I have the right to set up restrictions on which hosts my network adapter can connect to and I don't feel like wasting bandwidth on stuff I didn't ask for in the first place or does everything it takes to track my behaviour. I do use services for which I pay granted they are worth my money.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Yes stealing. Really! > The content is free to consume by anyone Utter nonsense. Opinions like these only come from people who don't understand business, have never run one and never risked their own capital, effort and health launching one. Nonsense. It's just like reading a physical newspaper without paying for it and, at the same time, having some kind of a machine that blacks out all of the advertising. Stealing. Plain and simple. Businesses cost money to run. Advertising is an age-old method to make money. And for some businesses that's the best way to support their operations. Look at Google [0]. It costs TEN BILLION DOLLARS TO RUN GOOGLE FOR JUST THREE MONTHS. TEN FUCKING BILLION. And you would use Google with an ad blocker? How dare you! Take it to an extreme: Starting tomorrow everyone in the world uses ad blockers. The internet would collapse overnight. Either pay for the service or allow the ads. Yes sir! You are stealing. [0] http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG http://www.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG