Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Sep 2015 14:37 UTC
Internet & Networking

Let's talk ad-blocking.

With the arrival of iOS 9, ad-blocking is coming to mobile in a big way, and it's causing a lot of talk all over the web. It is highlighting the internal struggle some feel about the practice, but also the hypocrisy of some of its staunchest proponents. So far, it seems like the real 'bloodbath' isn't taking place where people thought it would be - namely, publishers - but among personalities.

Thread beginning with comment 617986
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The elephant in the room
by kwan_e on Sat 19th Sep 2015 15:33 UTC in reply to "The elephant in the room"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

3rd parties should not interfere with my web experience without my explicit approval


But your web experience won't exist if the people making the content can't get paid by the ads they serve. At this stage, unless a better solution can come along, ads are a necessary evil.

At this stage, I think the least that can be done is to stop making ads in Flash or in any way animated.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Wondercool Member since:
2005-07-08

This is not really true, it is a fallacy that people need ad money to make websites. Just like that if music doesn't make any money, people will stop playing music or book writers writing books.

Before 1998 there was no advertising yet the content was of high level because people put websites up out of enthusiasm, dedication. Just like this website btw. Started mainly for the love of BEOS. I doubt Thom/David/Eugenia and others made/make any money but that is not its purpose.

The only thing then you had to worry about were the blink tags on geocities ;)

I know I am not holding a popular opinion but most tech sites are mostly iterating the same press releases (BGR, Engadget, Anand, Alphr, etc etc
If they don't and throw out some opinionated piece, while it often entertaining to read, you have to ask yourself, would you pay 50 euro per year for that and think for most people the answer is no.

When the ads stop working, we will lose some of those sites, but isn't that a blessing?

Give me back the internet without ads and if the site is really good, like for instance Wikipedia (what an oasis in the world of ads!) or Wayback machine, I am happy to transfer some money - and I have.

Reply Parent Score: 10

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

This is not really true, it is a fallacy that people need ad money to make websites.


Good. Because that wasn't the argument.

Before 1998 there was no advertising yet the content was of high level because people put websites up out of enthusiasm, dedication.


I think that is a fallacy. Or at least an observational bias.

I doubt Thom/David/Eugenia and others made/make any money but that is not its purpose.


It's not about making a profit. It's about paying for the hosting. Or have you lived in a silver-platter world so long you forgot that simple things like websites have operational costs?

When the ads stop working, we will lose some of those sites, but isn't that a blessing?


No, because if you understood the points others have made, it's the small sites like THIS one that will be lost. The ones people make for quality content and not just for the ad revenue.

Reply Parent Score: 4

CowMan Member since:
2006-09-26

The cost of web services has also dropped handsomely in that time, with a greater proportion of sites partially or completely deriving value from user uploaded media, discussions, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

The problem with that argument is they refuse to take responsibility for the very real damage they are causing through selling ads from third parties that often sell to anybody, including malware pushers.

I had this argument with Jim Sterling of The Escapist when they had him going "boo hoo, blocking ads are stealing, boo hoo" and I simply placed links showing how many times The Escapist had shown malware infected ads. I asked "so is your company gonna pay for the very real damages you've caused by infecting users PCs? Are you gonna pay for the cleaning, the time they waste getting CC changed, any losses from stolen IDs?" and you'd be amazed how quickly they started throwing the ban hammer.

They keep comparing themselves to B&M newspapers and shops? Fine and dandy but when stores get hit with malware they have to pay sometimes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. You can't have your cake and eat it too ad pushers, you want people to view your ads then you have to be responsible if they cause damages and pay for the losses. Don't like that? Then you have NO RIGHT to complain when people protect themselves by blocking your malware.

Nobody has a "right" to profit and I can tell you from years of working PC shop that if you block all ads? the infection rate drops so low one really doesn't even need an AV, the #1 source of malware is ads by such a large margin nothing even comes close.

Reply Parent Score: 4