Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some would say that there are a number of auto-playing audio and app store redirect ads on Doubleclick AdExchange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word#/media/File:Weasel... Either they do or they don't. A quick google didn't turn anything up, but does someone have a reputable source?
Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
351–360 of 472 posts
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking adblock users is not as easy as it sounds. Many of the adblockers also maintain rules and filters to actively get around this. Paywalls are the only sure fire way to keep people out.
It may not be easy. Wired seems to know how, they ask me to unblock when I visit. Same with Reddit (years ago) and duckduckgo.
Most adblockers these days get rid of those messages as well. And asking you to unblock is not the same as stopping you completely - the only way to do that is paywalls.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#353I've been a contributor member for several months now, because I firmly believe in two things: 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. So here's what people need to know about Google contributor: 1. I pay for the highest level available. 2. I love not seeing ads. 3. This only works for Google-based ads, which are certainly common…
> 1. Content creators have to be paid, or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist. 2. Life without ads is much better. Yes – content creators should get paid. Also, not all ads are bad. Some campaigns even make such an impression on popular culture that they have their own place in history. But the campaigns that won't? Well, basically anything coming out of ad machines like adsense and what not. Ads can…
Also, fuck Google Contribute. It's just an ad platform's way of realizing their shitty business is threatened by the pervasiveness of blockers, and so they find a way to make people pay for "their" space which wasn't their space to begin with. The internet isn't a walled Google garden, where they can come in and dictate rev-share terms. I'd rather give a site owner 100% of my money, than 30% to Google.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people that dislike ads the statement, "I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" is literally a definition because if you purchase anything because of an ad you've been made worse off. If you were going to buy it anyway then the ad did nothing, if you weren't then you are now worse off as you bought something you wouldn't have otherwise -- you've been manipulated. From this there is n…
But what if you weren't going to buy it because you were not aware it existed? When you see an ad for an interesting movie and decide to check it out, you go watch it, and love it, are you really worse off? Maybe you see an ad for a new restaurant and decide to check it out. Are you worse off? Aren't these examples of positive ads?
I like to operate by word of mouth, sometimes online searches (and I'll take reviews over ads any day, even when searching) and by stumbling across things.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Contributor doesn't work like an ad blocker, which makes ads just "disappear." Instead, you see a big empty block (that is apparently customizable in some way) that says "Thank you for being a contributor. The ad space is still there, it's just blank. So if half of your page used to be covered in ads, now half your page is covered in little blocks that say, "Thank you for being a contributor." The demo images/gifs…
These are the options you're given in the settings: https://austen-screenshots.s3.amazonaws.com/Contributor_Pref... I suppose you could use a 1x1 pixel as a workaround, but that seems to be more of a hack than the way Google designed it to function.
There is a checkbox that says "Use custom URL" - it's even in your screenshot. It is obviously designed to insert something else - a 1x1 pixel for example. That is not a "hack" and as it is there for everyone, it clearly IS the way Google designed it to function.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not your call to make on what's harmful to society. So you don't want to read the "bad" stuff? Ok that's fine, just don't go to those sites. But dont impose your ideals on everyone else who is reading that content voluntarily because they clearly enjoy it.
There are some issues which are really simple. Feeding people lies and bullshit to earn money is rather a clear-cut issue. So is encouraging dysrationalia. And yes, as a member of society it is my right to voice my opinion about whether something is endangering it. It's not just about me not wanting to read the bad stuff. If I dislike a page, I just don't visit it, I usually don't complain. But when talking about mas…
Then educate people. Educate the people who are writing the "bad" stuff in the first place. Educate the people who are making the policies. Become the educator and the policy maker and be the change you want in the population. That's how you fix things.
But complaining about what people should consume because you deem it unworthy seems arrogant, draconian and irrational.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except it's not because it's completely subjective. The reason why people continue to visit all those sites and click all those links? - Because they like it.
Show me an objective argument regarding ad blockers. And what's wrong with subjective, anyway?
This entire post has plenty of objective arguments. What aspect would you like to discuss?
There's nothing wrong with subjective - unless you're actively trying to say you know what's right for everyone else. That's not how we make progress in the best interests of everyone.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or much of the web I know and love will cease to exist I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. Much of the web is noise and regurgitation. The reason that publications have started to churn out poorly thought out crap is that they have to get their pagerank up and stay relevant. The reason they have to do that is because if they don't do it, there are ad revenue dependent content generators out there that wi…
Upvoted because its well thought-out, but here's what I'm thinkin... > If you get rid of the ad revenue, you reduce the velocity of the crap engine, and then good content can again be successful on a subscription model. Sounds like a funny way to try to make the internet more "sophisticated." If you dont like the content of the regurgitation engine, then you wouldnt visit the site and so wouldnt be supporting it. So…
I think the problem is more that there is not that much good stuff out there. I mean look at Netflix. I like it, but it's either films I have seen, often on tv, from maybe ten years ago, or it's really bad. Really bad.
But there might not be enough really good stuff out there. User created content is never going to be like professional globally top notch produced content - or if it is it will take as much talent and time to make. Once I have seen the new Star Wars film, it's not like I am going to be able to see another three hours of similar quality entertainment the next night and the next and the next.
For a thousand years humans have mostly entertained themselves by talking and jossing and laughing with each other. That's likely to be the future of content - just aimed at our niches.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people that dislike ads the statement, "I have never ever been positively influenced in any way every by one" is literally a definition because if you purchase anything because of an ad you've been made worse off. If you were going to buy it anyway then the ad did nothing, if you weren't then you are now worse off as you bought something you wouldn't have otherwise -- you've been manipulated. From this there is n…
But what if you weren't going to buy it because you were not aware it existed? When you see an ad for an interesting movie and decide to check it out, you go watch it, and love it, are you really worse off? Maybe you see an ad for a new restaurant and decide to check it out. Are you worse off? Aren't these examples of positive ads?
What if you see the ad, and decide to check the movie out, and it's terrible - a waste of your time and money? What if you see a slick ad for a restaurant, and it turns out the restaurant spends more money on ads than on being a good restaurant, and it is a waste of money? Are you better off?
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#360If a single tracker gets through, it's missing the point, at least for me.