7 ms·

And it's so effective I forget it's running until I use a web browser without (like say my iPad) and realize how much ads some sites have.

danmaz74 12y ago
Yes, and if everybody will do like you you'll soon find nothing interesting to read, because every free content website will end like DrDobbs.
- findjashua 12y ago
  Disagree. I'd rather pay (a reasonable amount) for a subscription, than put up with cluttered UX.
  - testrun 12y ago
    Are you currently subscribing to a mag/journal/newspaper?
    - mooreds 12y ago
      Especially of a magazine in the area of software development.
- Yizahi 12y ago
  No, there will be left free some small percentage of useful content, maybe 00,01% or less. And personally for me, these several tens of millions of pages left will be enough. Additionally some will survive on subscriptions.
- TheSisb2 12y ago
  No, that's not strictly true. People will always do what they enjoy whether money is attached to it, whether they'll go to jail for it, or otherwise.
- VLM 12y ago
  In the internet era you simply don't need a multinational corporation to publish your blog post for you. They're already being published for free. You still need a trusted editor to collect and curate... but that editor certainly doesn't need the multinational corporation, not anymore. Its not 1975 and ink on paper. The future probably looks a lot like "Clojure Gazette", which is a curated edited list of links to blog posts and projects focusing on a rather small field, and THE (emphasis, "the") only human involved is a trusted editor and he gets beer money plus considerable fame out of being the editor. Reading between the lines, at Dr Dobbs a small team can pull down less than a million bucks. To a multinational megacorporation, thats hopeless, sunset it. Divided among a very small team, however, that's one heck of a lifestyle business...
- thirdtruck 12y ago
  The unscrupulous advertising practices out there (e.g. straight-up malware deliver) make it too dangerous to not run ad-blockers. Until the security issues around advertising are addressed adequately, I consider blocking entirely ethical. Compare it to the idea of Target shaming users for not trusting them with their credit card info. Besides, I expect direct patronage models to supplant advertising for smaller sites sooner rather than later. And yes, I already use Patreon.
  - porker 12y ago
    Any recommended reading for how direct patronage will work, and how it differs from a paywall? Thanks.
    - Perdition 12y ago
      Look-up Patreon.com. It works by people opting to either donate money for a specific project, a certain amount of money a month, or a certain amount of money per article/comic/video etc. There are no paywalls, it is like a wealthy patron paying for a public concert.
    - thirdtruck 12y ago
      I can't think of any reading off the top of my head, but Patreon and other services usually work this way: many creators provide their primary work (the web comic, the podcast, etc.) for free, regardless of backing. Backers typically get extras. For example: I received a digital sketch of my choice for backing a comic artist.
- drivingmenuts 12y ago
  > Yes, and if everybody will do like you you'll soon find nothing interesting to read, because every free content website will end like DrDobbs. Ad-blocking is a necessary form of protection from corporate stalking. It wouldn't be necessary if advertisers would restrict themselves to tracking what's necessary to create a functional ad (browser, capability, etc.). But they are bound and determined to mine for every possible bit of information they can and that's where I draw the line. If you wouldn't want an individual doing that, why on <deity>'s green earth would would want some anonymous company doing it in an automated fashion such that they can almost guarantee a far more exact picture of you? Does this not completely subvert the idea of privacy? Especially when security is not absolute guarantee? I think if people really, truly understood just how easy it is to collect the data, store the data and then still manage to get it wrong, they'd be horrified beyond belief. I'm sure a lot of people here have some inkling of how that's done, but if that could be communicated to the people who aren't as tech-savvy ... Well, sad to say, there'd be a lot of pitchforks and torches and still nothing would be truly done about it. But it's nice to think about burning down some corporations and lining up a few executives against the wall.
  - lbotos 12y ago
    I like you, think that ad tracking is a little "overbearing". That said, I'm interested in knowing if you have any type of rewards cards or saver-club cards (super market, clothing stores, etc) from the physical stores you shop at?
    - mstolpm 12y ago
      Not the addressed poster, but regarding rewards cards (that I avoid as well) vs ad tracking: You only show your rewards card when buying something in the store the card is valid in/offered by, not when entering a random 3rd party building or when crossing the street. But ad tracking (especially retargeting) spies on you whenever you browse the web without precaution.
    - drivingmenuts 12y ago
      No, I don't have rewards cards, etc. Aside from my grocery store, I don't shop at any one store regularly enough for the savings to overcome my queasiness about the information gathering. I have had so-called Loyalty Cards in the past, but they didn't increase my loyalty. My opinion is that the stores are instead ripping off the people who don't have them. There's no need for my grocery store to know that I, personally, use a particular type of condiment or toothbrush. The aggregate sales should be enough to determine what they need to buy and advertise. None of this should suggest I'm some kind of altruist, except in the sense that I believe in level playing fields. Also, I'm human so some irrationality or self-interest is sometimes OK.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  You could make exactly the same comment in regard to clicking ads and buying things from ads. If everybody stopped doing that then ads would become valueless and ad revenue would go away. The thing is, a lot of people who use ad block never click on ads to start with. The idea that people should be forced to suffer, by viewing ads that are useless to them, in exchange for viewing free content is a very silly concept born of puritanical ideals. If a site can't sustain itself with users running ad block then it needs to figure out a better business model, period.
username223 12y ago
Get some Ghostery on that iPad. It's horribly buggy, but at least it's better than the web with ads.

danmaz74 12y ago

Yes, and if everybody will do like you you'll soon find nothing interesting to read, because every free content website will end like DrDobbs.

findjashua 12y ago
Disagree. I'd rather pay (a reasonable amount) for a subscription, than put up with cluttered UX.
- testrun 12y ago
  Are you currently subscribing to a mag/journal/newspaper?
  - mooreds 12y ago
    Especially of a magazine in the area of software development.
Yizahi 12y ago
No, there will be left free some small percentage of useful content, maybe 00,01% or less. And personally for me, these several tens of millions of pages left will be enough. Additionally some will survive on subscriptions.
TheSisb2 12y ago
No, that's not strictly true. People will always do what they enjoy whether money is attached to it, whether they'll go to jail for it, or otherwise.
VLM 12y ago
In the internet era you simply don't need a multinational corporation to publish your blog post for you. They're already being published for free. You still need a trusted editor to collect and curate... but that editor certainly doesn't need the multinational corporation, not anymore. Its not 1975 and ink on paper. The future probably looks a lot like "Clojure Gazette", which is a curated edited list of links to blog posts and projects focusing on a rather small field, and THE (emphasis, "the") only human involved is a trusted editor and he gets beer money plus considerable fame out of being the editor. Reading between the lines, at Dr Dobbs a small team can pull down less than a million bucks. To a multinational megacorporation, thats hopeless, sunset it. Divided among a very small team, however, that's one heck of a lifestyle business...
thirdtruck 12y ago
The unscrupulous advertising practices out there (e.g. straight-up malware deliver) make it too dangerous to not run ad-blockers. Until the security issues around advertising are addressed adequately, I consider blocking entirely ethical. Compare it to the idea of Target shaming users for not trusting them with their credit card info. Besides, I expect direct patronage models to supplant advertising for smaller sites sooner rather than later. And yes, I already use Patreon.
- porker 12y ago
  Any recommended reading for how direct patronage will work, and how it differs from a paywall? Thanks.
  - Perdition 12y ago
    Look-up Patreon.com. It works by people opting to either donate money for a specific project, a certain amount of money a month, or a certain amount of money per article/comic/video etc. There are no paywalls, it is like a wealthy patron paying for a public concert.
  - thirdtruck 12y ago
    I can't think of any reading off the top of my head, but Patreon and other services usually work this way: many creators provide their primary work (the web comic, the podcast, etc.) for free, regardless of backing. Backers typically get extras. For example: I received a digital sketch of my choice for backing a comic artist.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
> Yes, and if everybody will do like you you'll soon find nothing interesting to read, because every free content website will end like DrDobbs. Ad-blocking is a necessary form of protection from corporate stalking. It wouldn't be necessary if advertisers would restrict themselves to tracking what's necessary to create a functional ad (browser, capability, etc.). But they are bound and determined to mine for every possible bit of information they can and that's where I draw the line. If you wouldn't want an individual doing that, why on <deity>'s green earth would would want some anonymous company doing it in an automated fashion such that they can almost guarantee a far more exact picture of you? Does this not completely subvert the idea of privacy? Especially when security is not absolute guarantee? I think if people really, truly understood just how easy it is to collect the data, store the data and then still manage to get it wrong, they'd be horrified beyond belief. I'm sure a lot of people here have some inkling of how that's done, but if that could be communicated to the people who aren't as tech-savvy ... Well, sad to say, there'd be a lot of pitchforks and torches and still nothing would be truly done about it. But it's nice to think about burning down some corporations and lining up a few executives against the wall.
- lbotos 12y ago
  I like you, think that ad tracking is a little "overbearing". That said, I'm interested in knowing if you have any type of rewards cards or saver-club cards (super market, clothing stores, etc) from the physical stores you shop at?
  - mstolpm 12y ago
    Not the addressed poster, but regarding rewards cards (that I avoid as well) vs ad tracking: You only show your rewards card when buying something in the store the card is valid in/offered by, not when entering a random 3rd party building or when crossing the street. But ad tracking (especially retargeting) spies on you whenever you browse the web without precaution.
  - drivingmenuts 12y ago
    No, I don't have rewards cards, etc. Aside from my grocery store, I don't shop at any one store regularly enough for the savings to overcome my queasiness about the information gathering. I have had so-called Loyalty Cards in the past, but they didn't increase my loyalty. My opinion is that the stores are instead ripping off the people who don't have them. There's no need for my grocery store to know that I, personally, use a particular type of condiment or toothbrush. The aggregate sales should be enough to determine what they need to buy and advertise. None of this should suggest I'm some kind of altruist, except in the sense that I believe in level playing fields. Also, I'm human so some irrationality or self-interest is sometimes OK.
InclinedPlane 12y ago
You could make exactly the same comment in regard to clicking ads and buying things from ads. If everybody stopped doing that then ads would become valueless and ad revenue would go away. The thing is, a lot of people who use ad block never click on ads to start with. The idea that people should be forced to suffer, by viewing ads that are useless to them, in exchange for viewing free content is a very silly concept born of puritanical ideals. If a site can't sustain itself with users running ad block then it needs to figure out a better business model, period.

username223 12y ago

Get some Ghostery on that iPad. It's horribly buggy, but at least it's better than the web with ads.