6 ms·

no, don't be parasite

by spats 12y ago

crazypyro 12y ago
Loading ads and not clicking or accidentally clicking on ads you have no intention of pursuing would also be parasitic behavior by that logic. The hurt party is just the advertisers instead of the webmasters.
e40 12y ago
Every time I try and go back to not using one, I last less than a day. The number of really annoying animated ads is astounding.
edgyswingset 12y ago
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf Just one example, but there's plenty of stock in the hypothesis that online ads really don't do anything to begin with.
coldpie 12y ago
Marketers broke "the contract" first.
jgrowl 12y ago
Who exactly is feeding off of who in this relationship?
mindslight 12y ago
You seem to have it backwards. The ecosystem's parasites are the parties that corrupt useful information with distracting crap. Everyone who cares about the health of the web should run adblockers and install them for friends/family.
- dwild 12y ago
  It all depends on your definition of health. I would probably not be here if it wasn't because of the free information on the information. If I had to pay for all of it, all of my youth wouldn't have been spend learning programming skills. For me an healthy web is one that is easy to access and cheap. You can't get this if everything is blocked by pay wall.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    I'm certainly not arguing for locking information behind paywalls. I too am where I am today because of free information on the web. But those sites did not have ads - they were published by people driven by having something to say, when the distraction of monetized shallow sites hadn't quite arrived. It's harder today, but you can still manage to sift through the noise and find the rare gem of basic html, no ads, and very thorough independently-organized information. I would love if some search engine were to make an option to only return results from sites without ads - I believe the quality would be much higher.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    We already have free and cheap content, so there's really no problem if savvy users block ads as they've been doing for 15 years.
    - dwild 12y ago
      Even cheap content isn't an option, the simple action of doing a transaction wasn't possible for me (and still today I wouldn't wan't to pay for every website...). The percent of people blocking increase everyday, it's no longer the simple tech-savvy consumer, it's much more.
      - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
        Sorry, I just don't see a big problem with it. What companies have gone out of business because of this? Have you got any statistics to share?
        dwild 12y ago
        I haven't talk about business that went out of business because of that. If you remove their only revenue... how can they stay in business without creating paid content? Reddit is a good example, they now have subreddit restricted to people with gold. Multiple news website switched to paywall. Surely they haven't gone out of business, they changed for an internet where you not only have to pay for access but also for content. I'm not saying it's bad to have to pay for content, content creator also need to get paid, I'm saying it's an restriction that's against what I would call an healthy internet. An healthy internet would be one that have both, sadly ad block doesn't allow that, it force them to ask for money even though they don't wan't to or it doesn't make sense for them to. If there was a business in selling that information or service, then someone would do it, why don't you? I would really love to see ads provider offer a way to pay to get no ads. You see 1000 ads a month which cost usually $5 cpm? Then you pay 5$ a month and you get no ads. I would gladly pay for that on Youtube, in fact I would probably pay more than what's they get from ads because of the quality of content.

no, don't be parasite

by spats 12y ago

no, don't be parasite

Loading ads and not clicking or accidentally clicking on ads you have no intention of pursuing would also be parasitic behavior by that logic. The hurt party is just the advertisers instead of the webmasters.

e40 12y ago

Every time I try and go back to not using one, I last less than a day. The number of really annoying animated ads is astounding.

edgyswingset 12y ago

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w20171.pdf Just one example, but there's plenty of stock in the hypothesis that online ads really don't do anything to begin with.

coldpie 12y ago

Marketers broke "the contract" first.

jgrowl 12y ago

Who exactly is feeding off of who in this relationship?

mindslight 12y ago

You seem to have it backwards. The ecosystem's parasites are the parties that corrupt useful information with distracting crap. Everyone who cares about the health of the web should run adblockers and install them for friends/family.

dwild 12y ago
It all depends on your definition of health. I would probably not be here if it wasn't because of the free information on the information. If I had to pay for all of it, all of my youth wouldn't have been spend learning programming skills. For me an healthy web is one that is easy to access and cheap. You can't get this if everything is blocked by pay wall.
- mindslight 12y ago
  I'm certainly not arguing for locking information behind paywalls. I too am where I am today because of free information on the web. But those sites did not have ads - they were published by people driven by having something to say, when the distraction of monetized shallow sites hadn't quite arrived. It's harder today, but you can still manage to sift through the noise and find the rare gem of basic html, no ads, and very thorough independently-organized information. I would love if some search engine were to make an option to only return results from sites without ads - I believe the quality would be much higher.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  We already have free and cheap content, so there's really no problem if savvy users block ads as they've been doing for 15 years.
  - dwild 12y ago
    Even cheap content isn't an option, the simple action of doing a transaction wasn't possible for me (and still today I wouldn't wan't to pay for every website...). The percent of people blocking increase everyday, it's no longer the simple tech-savvy consumer, it's much more.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      Sorry, I just don't see a big problem with it. What companies have gone out of business because of this? Have you got any statistics to share?
      - dwild 12y ago
        I haven't talk about business that went out of business because of that. If you remove their only revenue... how can they stay in business without creating paid content? Reddit is a good example, they now have subreddit restricted to people with gold. Multiple news website switched to paywall. Surely they haven't gone out of business, they changed for an internet where you not only have to pay for access but also for content. I'm not saying it's bad to have to pay for content, content creator also need to get paid, I'm saying it's an restriction that's against what I would call an healthy internet. An healthy internet would be one that have both, sadly ad block doesn't allow that, it force them to ask for money even though they don't wan't to or it doesn't make sense for them to. If there was a business in selling that information or service, then someone would do it, why don't you? I would really love to see ads provider offer a way to pay to get no ads. You see 1000 ads a month which cost usually $5 cpm? Then you pay 5$ a month and you get no ads. I would gladly pay for that on Youtube, in fact I would probably pay more than what's they get from ads because of the quality of content.