3 ms·
Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude, and I will filter them.
by Semiapies 17y ago
Ads keep the sites I'm looking at funded and available. However, obnoxious ads (flashing, disgusting, NSFW, etc.) are rude, and I will filter them.
- TallGuyShort 17y agoBut the ads only pay if people click on them. I don't click on ads, EVER. I never have, and have never even been close to. Some people do click them, obviously. Since I'm not clicking them, anyway - me using an ad blocker only saves the advertiser bandwidth money.
- zargon 17y agoI have only clicked an ad once in my life. I was searching Amazon but couldn't find anything suitable. Then I noticed they were showing me an ad from a 3rd-party site for exactly what I was looking for. I clicked it, and bought the product. So at this rate, ads help me out about once every 15 years.
- eli 17y agoLots of ads are per-impression not per-click. Really that's the only sensible way to do a brand-building campaign. Anyway, I have no problem clicking ads if they're relevant and for something I really want to learn more about. It's just that they rarely are.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou're not the internet. If nobody clicked on those ads, they certainly wouldn't exist.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- TallGuyShort 17y agoI explicitly said "there are people that click on those ads". Those people don't have Ad Blockers. I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker. All I was saying was that it doesn't present an ethical problem.
- lucumo 17y ago> I don't click on those ads, so I have an Ad Blocker. It's probably the other way around: You have an Ad Blocker, so you don't click on ads.
- antipaganda 17y agoNo,seriously; there are a TON of people online who hate ads and NEVER click on them. Ever. So we use AdBlock.