Poll: Would you pay for an ad-free Internet?

Would you pay for Ad-free internet?

  • Yes

    Votes: 71 26.5%

  • No

    Votes: 197 73.5%
  • Total voters
    268

uvarvu

uvarvu

uvarvu

Soldato
Joined
29 Apr 2004
Posts
5,081
Location
Bath
Poll please mods :)

Google are launching a new service called Contributor where users can pay around two pounds each month for ad-free access. Would you join? I would sign up if the service worked seamlessly across devices, especially iOS.
 
No, the ads on Google don't bother me, in fact I often find them helpful.

Also, I would rather have an ad supported service than have to pay for it. Same goes for services like Spotify, YouTube etc.

Rgds
 
I would probably buy it if i worked on android, so that i didn't need to root for good adblockers.

I use chrome w/ adblock and its fine.
 
radderfire said:
No, the ads on Google don't bother me, in fact I often find them helpful.

Also, I would rather have an ad supported service than have to pay for it. Same goes for services like Spotify, YouTube etc.

Rgds
Click to expand...

This pretty much. Up until the point where the ads hinder the actual functionality or purpose of the browsing making them impossible to use.

An occasional ad spliced in to a Spotify playlist is fine, and same goes with ad intros on YT etc. Though, it would be nicer if they had 'Skip ad' on all of them after 5 seconds :D
 
Ah the google cyber protection racket. Pay us the money or will break your internet.

The web is becoming bloated with ads, especially news sites. I can see why some people would pay.

Dose the service only work for google ads?
 
Last edited:
TheBDog said:
This pretty much. Up until the point where the ads hinder the actual functionality or purpose of the browsing making them impossible to use.

An occasional ad spliced in to a Spotify playlist is fine, and same goes with ad intros on YT etc. Though, it would be nicer if they had 'Skip ad' on all of them after 5 seconds :D
Click to expand...

I've had a couple of vids where the ads are in the middle, even they don't bother me :p

More than happy waiting 5 seconds to skip :)
 
Ads bother me to no end. So much so that I can't even bring myself to watch TV.

So yes, I would pay extra for no ads.

The good thing is, theoretically, it'd be a really flexible way to access info. Quick and easy, ads on / ads off, contextual, what site, subscribed channels, ect...

The bad thing could be ads getting a lot more aggressive and intrusive (20 secs unskippable twaddle is already common place) under the guise of a two-tier Internet. So be able to also adjust the levels of annoyance would be welcome.

One thing I'd like to know, is how much different ads would be between the tier that pays for a better experience, and the tier that doesn't pay. Lexus and designer watches for the upper tiers, credit cards, loans, the *****tiest ads you can imagine for the free loading crowd :)

EDIT : I also use adblock from time to time. I'm not really a big fan. Ads are a big part of how internet channels finance themselves. If there is a reasonable alternative, I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
I have adblock but allow ads on certain sites that I know rely on ad revenue and can't create content when everyone blocks ads.

I'd consider paying towards it tbh.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. I also make allowances for certain websites, but websites like that, at least for me, are few and far between.
 
I reckon my brain just filters them out for me, I don't fully see the popups, I just see the X in the corner and click it.
Even click bait is failing because I no longer care about "10 things that" or "weird trick to"

Which is a shame because when adverts are done properly I'll happily go and watch them on YouTube. I've watched that vavavoom advert far too much, can't think why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom