Linked by David Adams on Tue 12th May 2009 16:43 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes As you may know, the global economic depression has hit the media hard, due in large part to the fact that ad rates are in the toilet. OSNews is in the same boat. Despite the fact that we still have good advertisers, our income from advertising this year will only be a fraction of what it was last year. We probably won't make enough to cover our costs. Other news sites, as they've seen revenue decrease, have responded with more, and more intrusive, advertising. We don' t want to do that. We feel we have a covenant with our readers. If you'll be respectful of our need to run ads, we'll be respectful of your need to read the site without having ads shoved down your throat. Please read on, for more discussion of our ad "covenant," and a plea for help, including a plea to all Adblock users to please unblock OSNews.
Thread beginning with comment 363659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Don't believe in adblock
by reflect on Thu 14th May 2009 16:10 UTC in reply to "Don't believe in adblock"
reflect
Member since:
2007-07-10

Websites aren't free, they are ad supported. Just because I am able to get it for free, doesn't make it ethically right. If a website has ads that irritate me too much, I just don't visit it.

Unfortunately, most peoples ethics are in direct correlation with their chance of being caught. There is no chance of being caught at this, which is why everyone who can does it.


Wow, had to read this twice to be sure I read it right. Just cause there's an ad somewhere, I don't need to look at it. If I chose to switch channel when there's commercials, I don't cheat anyone. Nor do I cheat anyone if I decide not to download advertisements when I visit a site. It's my bandwidth and my CPU power. This has nothing to do with the ethics of the one being subjected to advertisements. Blame the ads that are bad, steal focus, scream loudly from your speakers or opens windows on your screen, and opens another once you close it.

I won't disable my adblocker, or whitelist any sites, simply cause I don't trust the ad firms to "keep it subtle" for very long. I'd much rather donate money to sites I enjoy and visit than subject my online experience to advertisements.

Reply Parent Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It's your bandwidth and cpu, but it is consuming someone elses content. That content isn't free, it is ad supported. By blocking the ads, you are taking their content for free, but not giving them anything in return. People aren't forcing you to go to their sites, if they did then you would have a point. You are choosing to go to ad funded sites, and also choosing to circumvent the way they make money. Considering the margins per visit, you are costing them money by visiting them. So what entitles you to consume peoples content at their expense?

It is not like ads are the only option. http://contenture.com/ is a service where users pay a subscription, and sites get a per visit fee. You and people like you are ushering in that vision of the internet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

reflect Member since:
2007-07-10

It's your bandwidth and cpu, but it is consuming someone elses content. That content isn't free, it is ad supported. By blocking the ads, you are taking their content for free, but not giving them anything in return. People aren't forcing you to go to their sites, if they did then you would have a point. You are choosing to go to ad funded sites, and also choosing to circumvent the way they make money. Considering the margins per visit, you are costing them money by visiting them. So what entitles you to consume peoples content at their expense?

It is not like ads are the only option. http://contenture.com/ is a service where users pay a subscription, and sites get a per visit fee. You and people like you are ushering in that vision of the internet.


That's just wrong. This site is free. They made a choice to add advertisements to help pay for hosting, bandwidth etc. They could have closed the site and offered memberships, or they could have added a donate button, or add whatever alternative here. But whatever they choose to do, they've so far kept the content free probably to keep the user base.

It seems that with your logic, visiting this site with a text-only browser is somehow being a leech. If that is so, I think that business model needs to be re-thunk - back to the drawing board and come up with something that doesn't annoy the hell out of your visitors and potentially slowing down the site load times considerably, making the user experience a bad one.

Reply Parent Score: 1