Do you run an AdBlocker?

By the way you never did come back to your own question (which I answered) earlier. Would I prefer targeted ('relevant' as you put it, iirc) or non-targeted (random/irrelevant) advertising? I answered neither, and that's why I use an ad blocker. To be fair and actually directly answer you though - if I was forced to choose between one or the other, I'd take the irrelevant non-targeted ones thanks. My privacy and the security of my personal data is worth more to me than you trying to sell me something you think I want, rather than something you have to guess whether I might want.

To be fair, Marmot, you're a self-admitted advertiser trying to convince the world that they somehow need advertising. I don't need to check one of your news publishers with a monetisation strategy to know that nothing's new under the sun there. In other news today, **** still stinks and the sky is still blue. :p Turn this around - say advertising is banned tomorrow (yay). What do we (the public, not you the advertiser) lose?
 
Turn this around - say advertising is banned tomorrow (yay). What do we (the public, not you the advertiser) lose?

You instantaneously lose 95+% of the known internet, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, MSN, Times, Telegraph, and much much more.
 
Still waiting

And as you'll see (again) - I said quality content. Not quality commercial news, not quality Hollywood movies - 'quality content'. I read reams of it every day - code reviews, blogs, benchmarks, industry updates, discussion, sharing of code and software collaboration, opinion pieces... and not a single advert in sight. You just decided I meant 'free non-monetised news sites' because that's what you have a bee in your bonnet about. I don't tend to read the commercial news as it's all biased nonsense anyway. At times of import I'll take a broad selection from around the world and see what sources tend to agree on. I've even been known to follow a link or two to a UK broadsheet (with my ad blocker in tow) and throw them a quid for the article by clicking the donate button at teh bottom. No adverts required. It's a scourge, and it breeds illegal activity and intrusion of privacy (and data protection laws) everywhere. I already answered you in my post above, so feel free to respond to that. Nobody's holding their breath for someone in advertising to decide that nobody wants or needs advertising. Just don't expect the end user to give two hoots about blocking the crap as they go about their business.
 
And as you'll see (again) - I said quality content. Not quality commercial news, not quality Hollywood movies - 'quality content'. I read reams of it every day - code reviews, blogs, benchmarks, industry updates, discussion, sharing of code and software collaboration, opinion pieces... and not a single advert in sight. You just decided I meant 'free non-monetised news sites' because that's what you have a bee in your bonnet about. I don't tend to read the commercial news as it's all biased nonsense anyway. At times of import I'll take a broad selection from around the world and see what sources tend to agree on. I've even been known to follow a link or two to a UK broadsheet (with my ad blocker in tow) and throw them a quid for the article by clicking the donate button at teh bottom. No adverts required. It's a scourge, and it breeds illegal activity and intrusion of privacy (and data protection laws) everywhere. I already answered you in my post above, so feel free to respond to that. Nobody's holding their breath for someone in advertising to decide that nobody wants or needs advertising. Just don't expect the end user to give two hoots about blocking the crap as they go about their business.

Yes yes. all very interesting. Can you name any of them and we'll soon discover if they have a monetisation method.
 
You instantaneously lose 95+% of the known internet, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, MSN, Times, Telegraph, and much much more.

I dunno albeit having to cater to less users but a lot of this stuff existed, ran by enthusiasts, before any significant ad money existed - for several years I hosted some services and game servers off of dedicated servers with gigabit connectivity out of my own pocket (not cheap - even with managing to jump on some good offers) and there are still people with the money and interest to do that kind of thing today if it came to it.
 
You instantaneously lose 95+% of the known internet, including Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, MSN, Times, Telegraph, and much much more.

Rubbish. Google? I hope it dies tomorrow. Facebook? Same. I don't use either of them. Twitter? Meh. Reddit has an option to pay to remove ads anyway, and they could happily take the decision to go pay-only if advertising was banned. The Times is already behind a paywall so your argument's irrelevant there... MSN? LOL Pull the other one, it's full of junk anyway.

If that's seriously 95% of the internet to you, you're not looking hard enough. In fact those are most of the places on the internet I avoid - and I've not run out of internet to use yet. What a nonsensical fallacy for self-justification. What would really happen is sites would run for free like they used to. Those who needed to charge would do so, and people would pay if they were good enough, or those sites would die and others would replace them. Boo hoo.
 
I dunno albeit having to cater to less users but a lot of this stuff existed, ran by enthusiasts, before any significant ad money existed - for several years I hosted some services and game servers off of dedicated servers with gigabit connectivity out of my own pocket (not cheap - even with managing to jump on some good offers) and there are still people with the money and interest to do that kind of thing today if it came to it.

Someone gets it (but also doesn't sell ads for a living).
 
Yes yes. all very interesting. Can you name any of them and we'll soon discover if they have a monetisation method.

Github? Sci-Hub? The forum you're posting on? WeMe? Disroot? Tens of thousands of enthusiast blogs? And a bajillion others. You're honesly trying to tell me no sites exist on the internet with quality content, unless they have ads? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Edit: Also you keep pulling out this 'monetisation method' straw man. We started this discussion about ads, and you saying not viewing them is theft. I replied to say I'd rather pay cash. That's a monetisation method too, you know (not that all quality sites accept that, either). Your initial long rant calling ad blockers thieves said that if people kept up blocking ads, they'd have to start paying.

My response came in two parts. (1) So what? and (2) There'd still be decent quality content from people who - for whatever motive - didn't want paying. The end. It's that simple. Ads are neither necessary nor desirable, unless you happen to sell it.
 
Someone gets it (but also doesn't sell ads for a living).

Mind you one thing that does kind of suck these days is security (and compliance with legal aspects) - back then I stayed on top of it best I could and it wasn't a huge issue but these days it would just tie up way too much of my time (and beyond the scope of an individual with only generalised knowledge of the field like myself these days) or money if hiring a professional company to look after it.
 
There's no contract when you walk into a shop and pick up a pint of milk either?

None what so ever, plenty if you try to leave without paying for it though.

A better analogy would be that I could go into a bookstore, read a book, and leave without paying. Perfectly legal.
 
Last edited:
Github? Sci-Hub? The forum you're posting on? WeMe? Disroot? Tens of thousands of enthusiast blogs? And a bajillion others. You're honesly trying to tell me no sites exist on the internet with quality content, unless they have ads? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Man are you thick or what? I'm trying to tell you no sites exist unless they have ads? Where have I said that?

YOU clearly said "There's an abundance of quality free content out there already, with no expectation of payment or silly intrusive adverts." Ad revenue OR other methods of monetisation. Then when asked to name some you come back with FORUMS and BLOGS? LOL
 
Man are you thick or what? I'm trying to tell you no sites exist unless they have ads? Where have I said that?

YOU clearly said "There's an abundance of quality free content out there already, with no expectation of payment or silly intrusive adverts." Ad revenue OR other methods of monetisation. Then when asked to name some you come back with FORUMS and BLOGS? LOL

You're being clearly disingenuous now. That was one of a string of possibilities and there are many more besides. The fact you're resorting to ad hominem retorts shows how 'strong' your argument is. I asked you what would happen if ads were banned and your only useful examples are Facebook, Google and MSN etc - which I don't and wouldn't use anyway! In fact there's a strong moral and legal argument that they ought to be shut down in their present forms anyway - especially Facebook.

Well they were your only examples, unless we count the couple of examples you gave that were factually incorrect anyway, and are already behind a paywall with no ads.

There are volumes of information out there on coding, operating systems, networking, and related fields all for the taking, on pages set up by enthusiasts (most of whom do it for a day job besides).

No ads, no bull, just people sharing their interest and knowledge for free. Just look at the volume and quality of information shared in the computing world, especially the open source world. The same can be said for every field in existence, pretty much. As I said, no payments or ads required. You keep on moving the goal posts. What exactly is your point?

My point is clear. The internet doesn't need advertising to survive or be useful. Advertising is a scourge, and fuelled by immorality, illegality and intrusion of privacy (not to mention with the odd bit of malware thrown in for good measure). The internet outside of advertising is alive and well, and we'd all be better off if it was banned tomorrow. I use an ad blocker and don't give two hoots. You response was that it's theft and if people kept doing that they'd have to pay to use services instead. I said well who cares? I already do pay. I pay for social networking (ad and tracker free) to avoid the cesspit of tracking and deceipt that is Facebook. I pay for email because I don't want my inbox to be read by others and made available to advertisers. I pay for websites so I can help keep them alive and not have to see the nonsense the 'adtech' industry puts out.

Your only retorts are that I'm clearly thick, and that there are no good resources or sites online that don't have a 'monetisation strategy' and/or adverts. Bonkers. You started on about ads, now it's broadened to 'monetisation strategies' in general. As I said in my first post and I'm saying again - they want money? Great! If they're good enough, I and others will pay. They shouldn't use advertising and I never ever see one online anyway. Just as it should be.

Edit: Thinking on, you said 'FORUMS and BLOGS lol' like it was some kind of ****show. If you put down the kitten posts and hentai long enough, there are some exceedingly valuable blogs out there. It's not all teen angst and porn you know? NASA folks, engineers, physicists, medical researchers, people who write operating systems for a living - the list is endless. Just last week I learnt an absolute tonne on a "BLOG lol!" of a guy who writes the networking stack for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Right the way down from beginner intro to kernel networking stack integration and driver queues context switching from user space to kernel space and back. It culminated with a published, peer reviewed, ten or so page academic journal article on the very same... and enabled me to finish building and coding my edge router for our network (from scratch). This same guy charges thousands to share this knowledge by day in his official job, but shares it freely on the internet (with no ads or pay wall in sight) as part of his hobby at night. But hey... blogs! LOL!
 
Last edited:
You're being clearly disingenuous now. That was one of a string of possibilities and there are many more besides. The fact you're resorting to ad hominem retorts shows how 'strong' your argument is. I asked you what would happen if ads were banned and your only useful examples are Facebook, Google and MSN etc - which I don't and wouldn't use anyway! Well unless we count the couple of examples you gave that were factually incorrect anyway, and are already behind a paywall with no ads.

Luckily for the industry it doesn't really matter what you "don't and wouldn't use anyway". Whether you like it or not, these are some of the highest traffic domains the internet has to offer. On the bold, I'm super keen to hear which ones these are. Please do let me know.

There are volumes of information out there on coding, operating systems, networking, and related fields all for the taking, on pages set up by enthusiasts (most of whom do it for a day job besides).

No ads, no bull, just people sharing their interest and knowledge for free. Just look at the volume and quality of information shared in the computing world, especially the open source world. The same can be said for every field in existence, pretty much. As I said, no payments or ads required. You keep on moving the goal posts. What exactly is your point?

Everything you mention falls into user generated content, which is by and large hobbyist activity. I stand by my point that there are no profit making businesses out there who provide free content to the world without a monetisation strategy. Even your tinfoil hat MeWe social media platform has a premium version which funds it. If nobody paid for their premium service then the platform would cease to exist. So yes, payment and/or ads are totally required. I am not moving the goalposts, from my first post I've maintained people need to be paid for their work one way or another.

My point is clear. The internet doesn't need advertising to survive or be useful. Advertising is a scourge, and fuelled by immorality, illegality and intrusion of privacy (not to mention with the odd bit of malware thrown in for good measure). The internet outside of advertising is alive and well, and we'd all be better off if it was banned tomorrow. I use an ad blocker and don't give two hoots. You response was that it's theft and if people kept doing that they'd have to pay to use services instead. I said well who cares? I already do pay. I pay for social networking (ad and tracker free) to avoid the cesspit of tracking and deceipt that is Facebook. I pay for email because I don't want my inbox to be read by others and made available to advertisers. I pay for websites so I can help keep them alive and not have to see the nonsense the 'adtech' industry puts out.

Your only retorts are that I'm clearly thick, and that there are no good resources or sites online that don't have a 'monetisation strategy' and/or adverts. Bonkers.

I'm afraid to say that you really are thick if you truly believe that paying for niche services like MeWe provides you with the moral justification to steal from ad based businesses, which you laughably claim you could easily do without, yet still require them enough to install an adblocker.

You started on about ads, now it's broadened to 'monetisation strategies' in general. As I said in my first post and I'm saying again - they want money? Great! If they're good enough, I and others will pay. They shouldn't use advertising and I never ever see one online anyway. Just as it should be.

I guess you missed the second line of my first post in this thread where I mentioned monetisation strategies.
 
We clearly are not going to agree, even though basically we actually seem to. This is a thread about advertising. I said it's a ****show and I don't give two hoots about it. You said in your OP that if there was no advertising sites reliant on an income to keep publishing content would need to start charging. Again - SO. WHAT? I'd rather pay than have advertising be a thing. Bring it on. That's my point.

My 'tinfoil hat social network' (which includes Reddit btw, who, via Reddit Premium, allow me to browse ad free), proves my point even if you do try to weaponise its existence against my own argument. We don't need ads. If someone wants to charge, I'm all for that. Just don't use bloody adverts. You tried initially to say 'Ooh but if you don't view (my) ads then you'd have to pay instead', as if it were a threat. My reply was simply, GOOD! I don't mind paying. I just want advertising, tracking and profiling to die a thousands deaths. Bring on the pay wall. If Facebook couldn't advertise and profile, it'd start charging and turn into the 'tin foil hat' social network too. So what? If people still want to social network, they can pay. If not they can pick up the phone or meet up - or use an alternative free site. If Google couldn't read/scan your emails and use the content for advertising, they'd start charging for email services just like ProtonMail, Disroot and hundreds of other successful companies do already. Again, so what?

Facebook and Google are popular? I didn't argue to the contrary, but more's the pity. Force them to stop advertising and profiling people and then selling the resultant datasets, and see how popular they are when they decide to start charging instead. Some people would rather pay with their privacy than cash, and that's the unfortunate populace your livelihood preys on. More fool them. It doesn't mean it's right.

You were correct about my examples being user generated content. Again, my point. I don't see a need for a commercial internet. I wouldn't miss it a bit. Commercial media can go swing from a tree for all I care. It wouldn't bother me one bit. I'll just keep on happily paying for the stuff I like, consuming the (professional) user generated content available for free, and the world will keep on turning. Meanwhile, I'll keep on installing adblockers (and 1st party isolation, tracker blockers, etc) on every PC, phone, tablet and device I come across, and advising others to do the same.

We agree that paying for content is viable. My only point is I'd prefer that every day of the week and twice on Sundays to having to view adverts - targeted or otherwise. I choose with my wallet.

As for your comment about 'visiting sites with ad blockers enabled even though I disparage the usefulness of those same sites' - newsflash. I use them to block trackers primarily, because that god-awful stuff is everywhere and tries to follow you everywhere. So yes, I am 'armed to the teeth' - mostly to stop bull analytics, beacons and other crap from traipsing around the web after me and profiling me to within an inch of my life, so they can sell my data to... yeah... more advertisers. Screw advertising, screw analytics. What more do you want me to say?

BTW, that's twice you've called me thick. This forum has rules about that. Please read them. Good evening.
 
Can you imagine if TV channels disabled your remote while adverts were playing or made you press a button to confirm you had watched them?
 
Can you imagine if TV channels disabled your remote while adverts were playing or made you press a button to confirm you had watched them?

Apparently there are some imported Xiaomi Tv's / STB that show ads when you turn on the device, and possibly when you switch inputs.
 
Back
Top Bottom