5 ms·

Or you could stop using a website you don't think does ads correctly.

arthulia 13y ago
I don't think that's completely fair. The people who are providing the content on a lot of web pages are not the same people who are responsible for the monetization scheme. Some sites have good/decent content, but really obtrusive advertisements that the authors aren't responsible for.
- debacle 13y ago
  The people providing the content are still being supported by the monetization scheme - you're taking money from them when you use their content without viewing their ads.
  - mike-cardwell 13y ago
    No. Those people are exposing us to mass cross-site tracking before we even get to see their content, without our permission, and without most people even knowing it's happening.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer. The only winning move is to not visit a site.
      - ris 13y ago
        "Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer." No, it really isn't.
        diminoten 13y ago
        Way to add to the discussion.
      - codygman 13y ago
        IIRC running a program meant to delete the users computer on your website would likely get you in a bit of trouble.
      - mike-cardwell 13y ago
        "Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer." Unless you configure your browser otherwise. Which is what I'm recommending people do.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- diminoten 13y ago
  So what? 99 times out of 100, the people monetizing the site are also the ones who pay the bills. You aren't entitled to content just because it's good.
  - throwaway2048 13y ago
    and you arnt entitled to my personal information and browsing history just because i clicked a link.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      ...yes, I am?
mike-cardwell 13y ago
You don't know if a site contains ads until you visit it, and by then, they've already passed off your information to their Ad network partners and exposed you to the risk of Ad network malware. The safe thing to do is to block Ads by default. And only disable them when they've shown that they're not just letting mass third party Ad networks embed arbitrary script in their page whilst harvesting your private information.
- diminoten 13y ago
  The safe/private thing to do is not visit any website at all. Ads don't have special access to your computer that a normal website does not. By visiting a new website, ads are by far the least of your worries. Being online at all exposes you to risk and creates a footprint of your existence. Much like moving around in public does. And just as in moving around in public, the safest and most private thing to do is to not be in public at all.
  - barrkel 13y ago
    You're ignoring opportunity costs, even in your meatworld analogy. There's real dangers to staying at home all the time, from social isolation to diseases of inactivity. Similarly, without using the web and visiting new sites, you're missing out on a lot of opportunity to communicate, learn, and yes, buy things. It may well be a lot less safe to avoid those things in the longer term. Personally I block ads because I value my attention higher than advertisers value it. There is always an adversarial function built into ads; the advertising wants your attention, if nothing else, while I am interested in maintaining my focus. For similar reasons, I disable auto-suggest in Google search, animated gifs in the browser, and I use flashblock in all browsers that support it. Anything continuously animated on the page whatsoever - no matter whether it's an ad, a subscription div popup, a "read next article" popup link, or a sharing toolbar - I block them all with element hiding helpers. Because the greatest risk to me in browsing a random site is getting distracted and sucked down some rabbit hole. I use all the tools at my disposal to eliminate visual distraction.
    - 13y ago
abalone 13y ago
Well then. I suppose you are also opposed to * pop-up blocking * cookie blocking * readability ..all of which are common browser features now. Because you can just not visit bad sites. Yeah, didn't think so.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - Groxx 13y ago
    Readability is in Safari, so many (many) millions of users. There are extensions for basically everything, bookmarklets for everything else, and many news-reading applications use the same scripts to render their 'text' views. And popup / cookie blocking has been standard (not just common!) for a while, so I assume you didn't mean that.
    - nthnclrk 13y ago
      I've been using Evernote Clearly for a while, which is easily the best extension for this in Chrome. http://evernote.com/clearly/ http://evernote.com/clearly/
- diminoten 13y ago
  The only relevant thing you've mentioned in your list is pop-up blocking, which is a subset of advertising (cookie blocking doesn't prevent impression and click tracking, and Readability has nothing to do with ad blocking, as the most common use case for Readability is after you've visited a page already). Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts. There is an implicit social contract created when a content distributor attempts to monetize the content - you can only obtain the content if you go through the monetization strategy. Sometimes that's a price on the content, other times that's an advert. Circumventing the monetization strategy is a statement that you believe you're entitled to the content without paying for it. Almost universally, you're not, and this entitlement complex is pervasive through Internet users. TV shows, movies, music, software, anything that's been given artificial scarcity is a target for this entitlement attitude. For some content, this attitude doesn't hurt the content producer enough to be meaningful, or the content producer has adapted. This is almost universally the most valuable and previously established content producers. Your large game studios, your record labels, etc. For other content producers, however, those who aren't as well established, the harm is more severe. The independent web comic, the unsigned band, the budding writer, the local newspaper. These people suffer because Internet users think they deserve the content these people create without providing compensation, and subsequently, less content gets made, talent can't be developed, gifted individuals can't specialize, and the world is a less beautiful place. So sure, we can continue to use ad blockers, but at what cost? It's not hurting U2, and it's not hurting J.K. Rowling, but it's hurting other people, people who feel the kinds of pain a 1.5% vs. a 2.5% CTR might bring.

I don't think that's completely fair. The people who are providing the content on a lot of web pages are not the same people who are responsible for the monetization scheme. Some sites have good/decent content, but really obtrusive advertisements that the authors aren't responsible for.

debacle 13y ago
The people providing the content are still being supported by the monetization scheme - you're taking money from them when you use their content without viewing their ads.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  No. Those people are exposing us to mass cross-site tracking before we even get to see their content, without our permission, and without most people even knowing it's happening.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer. The only winning move is to not visit a site.
    - ris 13y ago
      "Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer." No, it really isn't.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        Way to add to the discussion.
    - codygman 13y ago
      IIRC running a program meant to delete the users computer on your website would likely get you in a bit of trouble.
    - mike-cardwell 13y ago
      "Visiting a site is giving that site permission to run whatever it wants in your browser/on your computer." Unless you configure your browser otherwise. Which is what I'm recommending people do.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
diminoten 13y ago
So what? 99 times out of 100, the people monetizing the site are also the ones who pay the bills. You aren't entitled to content just because it's good.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  and you arnt entitled to my personal information and browsing history just because i clicked a link.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    ...yes, I am?

mike-cardwell 13y ago

You don't know if a site contains ads until you visit it, and by then, they've already passed off your information to their Ad network partners and exposed you to the risk of Ad network malware. The safe thing to do is to block Ads by default. And only disable them when they've shown that they're not just letting mass third party Ad networks embed arbitrary script in their page whilst harvesting your private information.

diminoten 13y ago
The safe/private thing to do is not visit any website at all. Ads don't have special access to your computer that a normal website does not. By visiting a new website, ads are by far the least of your worries. Being online at all exposes you to risk and creates a footprint of your existence. Much like moving around in public does. And just as in moving around in public, the safest and most private thing to do is to not be in public at all.
- barrkel 13y ago
  You're ignoring opportunity costs, even in your meatworld analogy. There's real dangers to staying at home all the time, from social isolation to diseases of inactivity. Similarly, without using the web and visiting new sites, you're missing out on a lot of opportunity to communicate, learn, and yes, buy things. It may well be a lot less safe to avoid those things in the longer term. Personally I block ads because I value my attention higher than advertisers value it. There is always an adversarial function built into ads; the advertising wants your attention, if nothing else, while I am interested in maintaining my focus. For similar reasons, I disable auto-suggest in Google search, animated gifs in the browser, and I use flashblock in all browsers that support it. Anything continuously animated on the page whatsoever - no matter whether it's an ad, a subscription div popup, a "read next article" popup link, or a sharing toolbar - I block them all with element hiding helpers. Because the greatest risk to me in browsing a random site is getting distracted and sucked down some rabbit hole. I use all the tools at my disposal to eliminate visual distraction.
  - 13y ago

abalone 13y ago

Well then. I suppose you are also opposed to * pop-up blocking * cookie blocking * readability ..all of which are common browser features now. Because you can just not visit bad sites. Yeah, didn't think so.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- Groxx 13y ago
  Readability is in Safari, so many (many) millions of users. There are extensions for basically everything, bookmarklets for everything else, and many news-reading applications use the same scripts to render their 'text' views. And popup / cookie blocking has been standard (not just common!) for a while, so I assume you didn't mean that.
  - nthnclrk 13y ago
    I've been using Evernote Clearly for a while, which is easily the best extension for this in Chrome. http://evernote.com/clearly/ http://evernote.com/clearly/
diminoten 13y ago
The only relevant thing you've mentioned in your list is pop-up blocking, which is a subset of advertising (cookie blocking doesn't prevent impression and click tracking, and Readability has nothing to do with ad blocking, as the most common use case for Readability is after you've visited a page already). Blocking one form of advert is not even slightly the same as blocking all forms of adverts. There is an implicit social contract created when a content distributor attempts to monetize the content - you can only obtain the content if you go through the monetization strategy. Sometimes that's a price on the content, other times that's an advert. Circumventing the monetization strategy is a statement that you believe you're entitled to the content without paying for it. Almost universally, you're not, and this entitlement complex is pervasive through Internet users. TV shows, movies, music, software, anything that's been given artificial scarcity is a target for this entitlement attitude. For some content, this attitude doesn't hurt the content producer enough to be meaningful, or the content producer has adapted. This is almost universally the most valuable and previously established content producers. Your large game studios, your record labels, etc. For other content producers, however, those who aren't as well established, the harm is more severe. The independent web comic, the unsigned band, the budding writer, the local newspaper. These people suffer because Internet users think they deserve the content these people create without providing compensation, and subsequently, less content gets made, talent can't be developed, gifted individuals can't specialize, and the world is a less beautiful place. So sure, we can continue to use ad blockers, but at what cost? It's not hurting U2, and it's not hurting J.K. Rowling, but it's hurting other people, people who feel the kinds of pain a 1.5% vs. a 2.5% CTR might bring.