Haha yeah a tenner. Do you do stand up often?
1 mindblowing fact google doesn't want you to know about before you get ios9
- Thread starter kwerk
- Start date
Haha yeah a tenner. Do you do stand up often?
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 454
- Location
- Bristol
Exactly what I get.
TBH if it's a site that really impresses me and the ad's aren't EVERYWHERE, I will disable AdBlockPlus for that site, but everything else is just complete garbage.. Youtube videos.. I mean, come on Google has enough money, we don't want to watch crappy ads before the video, 5 mins after the video, or just any crap they truly do throw at us wherever we look, ad's are ******* horrible.
But from my experience with decent sites, their ad's are NOT everywhere blasting you in the face. Their ads are around the corners of what you're actually looking at.
I support those kind of ads, and as said before I willingly turn off my AdBlock for those sites.
But the mainstream sites which companies that have billions and billions of pounds tend to have ads absolutely everywhere that WILL **** you off, so they get blocked every single ******* time as it's bloody ridiculous
Theres only 1900 users connected including eveyone who left less than 15 mins ago and this is peak time I'd assume. Not exactly reddit.
You need to switch to android for few months to realise just how spammy web and mobile ad world has become. It's beyond joke. It used to be just odd banner at the bottom or rather annoying tendency of apps splitting text into tiny chunks to display more rubbish inbetween (eg. 10 Gadgets You Must Have in 2015, ending up being 15 chapters of [next page]). But now it's like first wave of flash spam again. Banners chasing page scrolls, impossible to close in app popups, screen lockers and widget apps that require you to navigate through full screen ads to answer calls, even popular community based satellite navigation software now displays half screen ads with tiny [x] in the corner, effectively screwing with people's lives, few pence at a time. It needs to end. If it means that websites will have to tone down two columns of spam and charge advertisers more but for less and smaller banners or start working on lead commissions then so be it.
I don't run an adblocker. I run security software that won't allow any page to trigger dozens of sites running whatever scripts they please, as is usually the case. I'm unlikely to turn that off. I am willing to be advertised at and farmed for data to a tolerable extent as a fee for some sites, but it's an inherently hostile thing (the advertiser is taking some of my life, farming me for data and trying to manipulate my mind for their profit - that's clearly hostile) and there's little requirement for them to limit it.
I don't see the current setup lasting. Advertisers get worse, more people block ads, advertisers get worse, more people block ads, etc. I think it will break in one way or another. Either the advertising-based business model fails because enough of its targets find it bad enough to shield themselves from it or the shielding is circumvented by a system users have no control over. Apple are perfectly positioned for the latter, since they have a dominant market position over many people who fully accept that lack of control and they get almost all of their profit from the fashion premium on their products. Having a dominant market position over most use of the net is bound to be an appealing goal, especially when they can then get paid from both sides - users paying a hefty premium for Apple devices to access the low-advertising Apple version of the net and advertisers paying a hefty premium to be allowed to advertise on it, with Apple being able to advertise itself by showing comparisons between sites on Applenet with tolerable adverts and the same sites ruined by advertising when accessed by non-Apple devices. Win all the way round for Apple.
I don't see the current setup lasting. Advertisers get worse, more people block ads, advertisers get worse, more people block ads, etc. I think it will break in one way or another. Either the advertising-based business model fails because enough of its targets find it bad enough to shield themselves from it or the shielding is circumvented by a system users have no control over. Apple are perfectly positioned for the latter, since they have a dominant market position over many people who fully accept that lack of control and they get almost all of their profit from the fashion premium on their products. Having a dominant market position over most use of the net is bound to be an appealing goal, especially when they can then get paid from both sides - users paying a hefty premium for Apple devices to access the low-advertising Apple version of the net and advertisers paying a hefty premium to be allowed to advertise on it, with Apple being able to advertise itself by showing comparisons between sites on Applenet with tolerable adverts and the same sites ruined by advertising when accessed by non-Apple devices. Win all the way round for Apple.
no they won't, they need it implemented by default. This is to protect their ecosystem - it is to stop money from going to advertisers they have little control over rather than to directly generate revenue for them.
they want to control ad content via iAds, blocking other ads from webapps helps to ensure the ads seen by iphone users are controlled by them
I read the reason they implement it in their browser only because it technically interferes with other applications and that is not allowed:
So if the ad blocking software is included as part of your own browser it will not interfere with other apps giving you ad-blocking whilst you browse on your phone. Eyeo already have an ad-blocker browser and apple are just copying. Whether Google follows suit with Chrome is unknown simply because Ad-revenue is a major income source for Google.
It's likely to lead to difficulties between companies such as google and the national telecoms, if ad blocking software gets installed on data centres since Google is likely to have to pay telecom companies to be on their whitelists.
All quotes are from The Economist dated June 6th-12th 2015, from the article Online advertising, Block Shock.
A lot of sites that were started for fun, a lot of car forums for example, as soon as they get a bit popular "network" companies will offer to buy them or monetize them. Then they get plastered with ads. Same with youtube channels and even single viral videos. I can't think of any site that is run for pure fun any more except perhaps Maddox, although he sells books.
The web is completely commoditized now.
The web is completely commoditized now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
We've really only ourselves to blame for intrusive advertising. If we were willing to tolerate discreet ads rather than block them, sites could make some cash. Instead, they have to pursue ever more irritating methods to make a few pennies for their content.
It will be interesting to see how the web evolves in a post advertising world. Will more sites be paywalled?
It will be interesting to see how the web evolves in a post advertising world. Will more sites be paywalled?
It's really very simple, 99% of websites exist to make money. If those websites can't make money, they won't stick around. It is ludicrous to suggest nothing will change and that companies will just create content for free... you would have to be very stupid to believe such nonsense.
Why do people contribute to linux and other open source free software then? In the old days many websites were run for fun, and hosted as a favour at universities or businesses (without ads). Although yes it would be hard to run todays youtube like that. But how much of youtube is pure clickbait dross. Some robot voice going over car specs and stuff like that?
What percent of youtube/google/twitter is pure junk? I would say that useful, honest, original content is maybe 10% of the internet. The rest is varying degrees of plagiarized content, clickbait, spam, link farms, seo rubbish, bots, junk videos, junk tweets, apps nobody would ever buy, etc. all funded by ads.
And the 10% is getting worse and worse as it has to compete with dumbed down clickbait.
500,000 views for some scraped images which dont even match the title on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDl10R2zsrc
And the 10% is getting worse and worse as it has to compete with dumbed down clickbait.
500,000 views for some scraped images which dont even match the title on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDl10R2zsrc
people have been making content for free since the start of the internet.
some of the programs on your PC they you deem necessary are likely open source not for profit.
companies happily sell your data anyway and make a buck from you that way so add block all the way.
if some site wants to go behind a paywall then let it free alternatives will always exist
some of the programs on your PC they you deem necessary are likely open source not for profit.
companies happily sell your data anyway and make a buck from you that way so add block all the way.
if some site wants to go behind a paywall then let it free alternatives will always exist
It's quite simple: I'll let others tolerate ads and pay for them. Anything that forces ads on me just gets closed.