4 ms·
Or, you know, keep visiting the site until they switch to making money in a way that is not annoying. And it's not just the sounds and the graphics and the non-
by weland 11y ago
Or, you know, keep visiting the site until they switch to making money in a way that is not annoying. And it's not just the sounds and the graphics and the non-obvious placement and framing. It's the bloody tracking as well. If they want to play dirty to make money off my ass, I can play dirty, too.
"Monetization strategy" makes it sound good. It's not. If it's so bloody disgusting, it's a ripoff, not a business done in good faith. It deserves about as much respect as a scam.
- manigandham 11y agoYou don't think paywalls are annoying? Because that's the only other model.
- RogerL 11y agoThe only possible choices are ads that flash, pop up, and play music, or a paywall? That is a false dichotomy. It is possible to serve tasteful, malware free, silent ads. Most sites choose not to. I, and an increasing number of people are choosing not to view the invasive ads.
- manigandham 11y agoThe choices are paywall or ads. If you don't like the ads, don't visit the site. That's how you show them you don't like the experience.
- weland 11y agoHow about: * Free, but with ads. * Paid, without ads No paywall, no annoying ads, and I still pay my share if I want to keep away from the ads. What about ads like Facebook's sponsored content? Non-flashy, clearly marked as advertising, in the upper-right portion of the screen or something, so that I can read the text without getting flashbanged.
- manigandham 11y agoI agree with all that. That's in fact all my company does. However blocking ads is a brute force approach that's causing more harm then good right now.