Do you run an AdBlocker?

[kindai]

I guess as long as you're all happy in the knowledge that eventually you'll have to physically pay for the content you consume, through a subscription model or micro transactions or whatever.

I have no issues when sites need to monetize to work... my issue comes when the content is outweighed by spam ads so im looking at more ads than content.

 

[Marmot]

I have no issues when sites need to monetize to work... my issue comes when the content is outweighed by spam ads so im looking at more ads than content.

Ratio of ads to content is irrelevant. The internet is not free. Content costs money to produce, and you have no right to consume it without paying for it.

 

[kindai]

Ratio of ads to content is irrelevant.

See this is where you are wrong, its completely relevant because if publishers didnt take the **** I wouldnt block them.

Content costs money to produce, and you have no right to consume it without paying for it.

And if a site goes offline because they get ad blocked due to their ****-take attitude, someone else will take their place who will get it right.

 

[Marmot]

LOL... AdBlocking is no more stealing than piracy is. Less so, in fact. If the advertising industry would self-regulate (or at least grow a set of scruples) and not bombard people with impossible amount of popups, overlays, and plain redirection (fake buttons and banners, etc) - not to mention full blown malware - then people wouldn't have an incentive to ad block. That's before we even touch on the underhanded, slimy evil that is beacons, tracking pixels, supercookies, hardware fingerprinting and all the other means of spying on and tracking/profiling people. If they want to mess with people, they can't complain about countermeasures.

Your first point is just opinion, which I'm afraid is just totally incorrect.

What websites are you even using which bombard you with popups, overlays and fake buttons? I do not adblock and literally never encounter these. Perhaps you should get off watch-tv-series-free.com and pay for a Netflix subscription? As for tracking, would you rather be shown irrelevant ads or relevant ads?

Your arguments are spurious at best and strawmen at worst. "You can't go on consuming content for free". Says who? There's an abundance of quality free content out there already, with no expectation of payment or silly intrusive adverts. Comparing it to a compulsory national tax doesn't work.

What are you talking about? Says basic economic theory? People need to be paid for their work or they won't keep working...

What abundance of quality free content please? Could you name five publishers that conduct journalism without any monetisation strategy? No UGC.

As it happens, I do agree with your post in as much as I don't expect everything for free. I contribute to sites I use, I donate to all the projects (free and open source) I benefit from, and I pay towards the content I consume even if it's just a quid in the tip jar or a donation to the site/project. If a site has ads or similar that I can't bypass (which happens incredibly rarely) I simply close their site and get the information elsewhere - usually, ironically, from a higher quality source who doesn't feel the need to bombard people.

You don't expect everything for free but yet only close websites when you can't block their monetisation strategy. Good one.

I don't have a Facebook or Google account, I pay for my own domain and mail (and use a separate paid encrypted email account for other stuff) and I pay MeWe a small amount to use their ad and tracking free social network. If anyone wants to bitch and whine about losing traffic or money because of the ads they run, they'll get no sympathy from me and likely it wasn't content of any importance anyway. Anything people actually want or need is easily available for free (and ad free), whether it be news, video, media, development/code, mailing lists, whatever. If your content is so great you deserve to be paid for it then make it subscription only, or put a tip jar on your page. Then the free market will decide whether it agrees with you.

See earlier request about five publishers without monetisation strategy. No UGC.

 

[Marmot]

See this is where you are wrong, its completely relevant because if publishers didnt take the **** I wouldnt block them.

And if a site goes offline because they get ad blocked due to their ****-take attitude, someone else will take their place who will get it right.

So you understand what you're doing is wrong but you don't care so it's okay? That's what I'm getting from this.

You're basically saying it's okay to steal fuel from a petrol station if the prices are too high, rather than to drive on to the next one. If it goes out of business because of theft it's simply it's own fault for charging what it does.

In fact, worse still, you're actually stealing fuel because OTHER petrol stations have PREVIOUSLY charged you too much. Maybe petrol stations which are completely unconnected to this one.

 

[Rainmaker]

Your first point is just opinion, which I'm afraid is just totally incorrect.

What websites are you even using which bombard you with popups, overlays and fake buttons? I do not adblock and literally never encounter these. Perhaps you should get off watch-tv-series-free.com and pay for a Netflix subscription? As for tracking, would you rather be shown irrelevant ads or relevant ads?



What are you talking about? Says basic economic theory? People need to be paid for their work or they won't keep working... {snip}

I do pay for Netflix. Did you even read my post? Saying my post is opinion but is wrong is ironic. That's only your opinion too. Show me the science that says the poor abused industry is dying because of ads or piracy? I can show you plenty of legitimate science that says otherwise. Literally the opposite in fact.

Would I rather be shown irrelevant ads or relevant ones? Neither. That's why I run an adblocker and pay to use sites ad free instead. As for people needing to be paid for their work, whoever said that 'Person who puts things on the internet' had to be a career choice instead of a hobby or adjunct? You say that as though there is a binary choice between being able to put things online and receiving cash monies, or not having things online at all.

EDIT: Sorry I'm trying to rush (kids at heel etc). Journalism (specifically) sites that don't rely on advertisements? Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times Online (UK) and many others. Some have a half-way house (eg Ars, Reddit) who offer a choice between adverts or payment for an ad-free subscription. Not to mention all the academic journals etc.

It's not difficult to have an internet without tracking and intrusive ads. I note you actually specifically said 'publishers' rather than content creators. The world would be better without those taking a slice on the whole, too.

 

[uvarvu]

@Marmot If you need an incentive to use an ad blocker then try browsing any local world website. That's if you can tolerate the content which has gone from bad to worse.

 

[Parkinson1NX]

I've tried to avoid running an AdBlocker as websites need to pay for their hosting but i'm starting to get really annoyed at the ridiculous amount of 3rd party links that need to load before you can even scroll the webpage.

It's pretty obvious that a lot of websites don't care about user experience.

I don't run one no but, like yourself I'm getting fed up with them.

 

[uvarvu]

On a side note has anyone with the brave browser actually managed to donate money to worthy websites? Nothing has ever been deducted from my balance.

 

[koolpc]

Adblock every time for me.

 

[malachi]

Decided to fire up 4oD on my TV, haven't done in months to watch a show. Not only did the stupid long ads pee me off but now they have removed the timer to show how long the ads are.

Pi Hole is getting done this week!

 

[Rroff]

@Marmot If you need an incentive to use an ad blocker then try browsing any local world website. That's if you can tolerate the content which has gone from bad to worse.

Yeah it is like they don't want people to actually use them - my local one for instance about 5 seconds after you've finished initially loading the page loads in some ads altering the layout just as you go to click on something... has more banner and side bar ads than actual content and even the page background loads in as an ad (clickable which makes it difficult to navigate) after a few second. Every 3 to 4 clicks it redirects the whole page to an ad partner and you have to manually navigate back and you can't scroll more than 1/4 of a page before it throws up a google survey thing over the top of the content* and just when you actually get to finally reading a story a floating video ad appears and starts playing with audio without any kind of consent and follows as you scroll down the page as often as not blocking half of what you are trying to read.

Or you can run an ablocker, they get pretty much nothing and you can actually use the site and none of this is exaggeration - although today the video ad is coming up as muted by default which is a change.

* This is actually timed so does it initially then doesn't do it again for another 5 minutes or so before it is triggered again next time you scroll more than 1/4 down an article.

 

[Moley]

Decided to fire up 4oD on my TV, haven't done in months to watch a show. Not only did the stupid long ads pee me off but now they have removed the timer to show how long the ads are.

Pi Hole is getting done this week!

4od seems to be able to detect Pi Hole.

 

[Marmot]

Saying my post is opinion but is wrong is ironic. That's only your opinion too. Show me the science that says the poor abused industry is dying because of ads or piracy? I can show you plenty of legitimate science that says otherwise. Literally the opposite in fact.

Dear me.

"Adblocking is no more stealing than piracy is" - This is an opinion, friend.
"Show me the science that says the poor abused industry is dying because of ads or piracy?" I work in AdTech and I speak to exchanges, platforms and publishers on a daily basis.
"I can show you plenty of legitimate science that says otherwise." - Legitimate science? What are you talking about?

Would I rather be shown irrelevant ads or relevant ones? Neither. That's why I run an adblocker and pay to use sites ad free instead. As for people needing to be paid for their work, whoever said that 'Person who puts things on the internet' had to be a career choice instead of a hobby or adjunct? You say that as though there is a binary choice between being able to put things online and receiving cash monies, or not having things online at all.

You're saying that people working for the likes of News UK are hobbyists and not doing it to pay the bills or what? I'm confused.

EDIT: Sorry I'm trying to rush (kids at heel etc). Journalism (specifically) sites that don't rely on advertisements? Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times Online (UK) and many others. Some have a half-way house (eg Ars, Reddit) who offer a choice between adverts or payment for an ad-free subscription. Not to mention all the academic journals etc.

No. What you said was "There's an abundance of quality free content out there already, with no expectation of payment or silly intrusive adverts." All of the ones you listed above have a monetisation strategy. Honestly, how can you post such nonsense.

It's not difficult to have an internet without tracking and intrusive ads. I note you actually specifically said 'publishers' rather than content creators. The world would be better without those taking a slice on the whole, too.

Once more, you have little idea about that which you're arguing. In media, Publisher is a very commonplace term for any platform (newspaper, website, whatever) which hosts content (generated in house by their content team, or from elsewhere).

 

[kindai]

So you understand what you're doing is wrong but you don't care so it's okay? That's what I'm getting from this.

Lol, why is it wrong? I dont "agree" to allow ads in exchange for the sites content, theres no pre-contract or anything to enforce this. Therefore it is fair game

 

[Marmot]

Yeah it is like they don't want people to actually use them - my local one for instance about 5 seconds after you've finished initially loading the page loads in some ads altering the layout just as you go to click on something... has more banner and side bar ads than actual content and even the page background loads in as an ad (clickable which makes it difficult to navigate) after a few second. Every 3 to 4 clicks it redirects the whole page to an ad partner and you have to manually navigate back and you can't scroll more than 1/4 of a page before it throws up a google survey thing over the top of the content* and just when you actually get to finally reading a story a floating video ad appears and starts playing with audio without any kind of consent and follows as you scroll down the page as often as not blocking half of what you are trying to read.

Or you can run an ablocker, they get pretty much nothing and you can actually use the site and none of this is exaggeration - although today the video ad is coming up as muted by default which is a change.

* This is actually timed so does it initially then doesn't do it again for another 5 minutes or so before it is triggered again next time you scroll more than 1/4 down an article.

What you describe is obviously a poor user experience and needs to change. I would however question the rigidity and quality of any content which houses such intrusive ads though.

 

[Marmot]

Lol, why is it wrong? I dont "agree" to allow ads in exchange for the sites content, theres no pre-contract or anything to enforce this. Therefore it is fair game

?

There's no contract when you walk into a shop and pick up a pint of milk either?

 

[SquirrelMadness]

Always run ad blocking extensions on Firefox & Chrome as well as using Youtube Vanced for Android which blocks ads and allows you to play videos with the screen off.

 

[Rainmaker]

Dear me.

"Adblocking is no more stealing than piracy is" - This is an opinion, friend.

I agreed with your analysis of the same, friend.

I work in AdTech

Haha! Yes, we already gathered that; as you're the only person on the internet* (*not literal) rushing to defend the poor publishers, the use of advertising online, and the use of tracking.

"I can show you plenty of legitimate science that says otherwise." - Legitimate science? What are you talking about?

It wasn't an especially difficult paragraph.

You're saying that people working for the likes of News UK are hobbyists and not doing it to pay the bills or what? I'm confused.

No, and so I see. I'm saying nobody forces anyone to post stuff on the internet. If they want to publish and charge, go ahead, see if anyone cares enough to buy it. If not, go away. To post content online surrounded by intrusive levels and qualities of advertising, replete with redirects, obfuscation, malware, obfuscated and invasive cross-site tracking and God knows what; and then complain people don't like your adverts is at best self defeating. Put it up for free, put it behind a paywall and see if you really do have a place in the market, or shove off. It's not difficult, but I don't expect anyone who works in the 'AdTech industry' to agree (or even, as you say, understand)! That's like asking an estate agent to understand scruples.

No. What you said was "There's an abundance of quality free content out there already, with no expectation of payment or silly intrusive adverts." All of the ones you listed above have a monetisation strategy. Honestly, how can you post such nonsense.

Monetisation strategy != 'adverts', and those were two different parts of the conversation. But as you said, you're confused.

Once more, you have little idea about that which you're arguing. In media, Publisher is a very commonplace term for any platform (newspaper, website, whatever) which hosts content (generated in house by their content team, or from elsewhere).

No you just missed my point by a mile in your glee to stamp up and down on 'thieves' who choose not to see your putrid advertisements or subject themselves willingly to intrusive and often illegal tracking and profiling. If advertisement was banned tomorrow nobody would weep except those in advertising. Some sites on the internet may choose to paywall (eg news or media) and the market could decide what it wanted... or not. Please don't pretend like it's adverts or the internet disappears, because that's baloney and you know it. It's also not the only 'monetisation strategy' - just one of the more profitable ones because selling users' data from profiling is more lucrative than selling them the crap the advert is trying to sell them in the first place.

 

[malachi]

4od seems to be able to detect Pi Hole.

Any work round yet ?