Once everybody is paying to avoid looking at ads, what will be the point of advertising?
Who cares about advertising, when everybody is paying already.
Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
441–450 of 472 posts
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#442> This is cool for several reasons: 4. Google gets paid, rather than all the money going to the actual website.
I believe that Google's cut of contributor is smaller than Google's cut of AdWords. (I did a quick search to verify and couldn't find it, so don't take my comment as gospel).
Why would it be smaller? If anything, it should be exactly the same, you're just outbidding advertisers with your own "ads".
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#443Earlier 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…
That's not exactly true. If I'm looking for, say, a bluetooth speaker, find an ad that looks interesting (of course I do a bit of product research), that may of more utility to me than the "frustrated, and did not buy anything" option. However, things like Taboola are a cancer on the internet. Distracting and useless.
If I'm looking for a bluetooth speaker, or metal snips (got ones the other day), I will look for:
1. Specs 2. Reviews 3. Teardown 4. Product comparisons
Ads just don't give me any of that, the landing pages too often don't even have the specs, and I am never going to choose a brand name if their specs/reviews/teardown/price is worse than any other brand's or non-brand product's.
The only ads that "could", "maybe", "in theory" work on my are from Amazon, since free 1-day shipping is a cool thing... except I already search Amazon when I'm looking for a product, and by the time they get to show me ads about it, I've already made a purchase and are no longer interested.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#444Sounds like a great business model:
1. Get a lot of web pages to show your ads
2. Charge advertisers for showing their ads
3. Charge users for not seeing ads
4. Let the bidding wars begin!
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Considering a needed mechanism for an ad-blocker to function is to be undetectable That's just not true. Lot's of sites can and do detect them just fine, and display custom messages.
You are correct, in that currently it's a feature of anti-adblock killer and some other scripts/plugins with a similar goal, and I was conflating some comments about an adblock detector[1] and it's inability to detect ublock initially (most likely because it wasn't trying). My apologies. That said, I don't think we're that far away from ad-blockers blocking detection. As soon as some large sites detect and bypass ad-…
One of the reasons technical people use ad-blockers is because they don't want to download 10 MB of crap for a 300-word page. "The customer hasn't downloaded our crap" should be trivially detectable.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I shouldn't need to pay every network or affiliate to block ads." And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. It is amusing to see Google trying to push this "contribution" scheme. Clearly, ad blocking is sending a loud signal to the websites that "make you the product". Websites that are "free" through advertising sales but also attempt to make a record of everything you do at the…
> And you don't. You can do it for free. DNS is quite effective at blocking ads. uMatrix is a much more effective way of using DNS to block ads than HOSTS file editing. You can select only certain items from certain domains. Sure, I block Google cookies on most sites, but those sites are dependent on scripts coming from the same domains. With uMatrix, I can permit just the scripts that the site needs. And I can quick…
For blocking, I use zone files, not the HOSTS file.
I can select specific subdomains; I can also use wildcards.
I doubt there is anything an ad blocker can block that I cannot block using DNS. But if you have examples, post them and let's see.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that Google's cut of contributor is smaller than Google's cut of AdWords. (I did a quick search to verify and couldn't find it, so don't take my comment as gospel).
Why would it be smaller? If anything, it should be exactly the same, you're just outbidding advertisers with your own "ads".
I thought I read something somewhere that Google is deliberately taking a smaller cut to encourage adoption.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I was trying to be polite, not weasly. https://blog.malwarebytes.org/malvertising-2/2014/09/googles... http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/247982/google-... http://www.csoonline.com/article/2924309/malware-cybercrime/... http://readwrite.com/2014/05/15/app-redirects-mobile-spam-ad...
Ah sorry, I misread your tone then.
As far as I'm concerned, no need to be polite with Doubleclick. If they're serving malware, they can fuck right off.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
People don't want to pay because it requires friction on every purchase and much of the content on the internet adds up to fractions of a penny per impression. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Think of like a movie: you can pay $10 to see the whole thing or $0.001 per each frame. That's what the web is like with each frame possibly being from a different publisher. That kind of granular payments is very hard…
It's not hard at all to get those kind of payments. You already pay your ISP a connection fee. Thats the payment we make to see the content.
You're paying the ISP for infrastructure access. Not for content.
It's possible to have a separate "content" subscription but that will mean ISPs have far more tracking and net neutrality issues than now so it's best to have another 3rd party doing this.
Re: Give Google Contributor a try: Pay to remove ads
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your attention (via looking or interacting) is the form of payment. This attention is given to the advertisers who pay the publishers who produce the content. If you went elsewhere, there's no issue. But when you breakdown the billboard and still see the sunset (assuming the sunset is copyrighted and original content) then you're changing the value exchange unfairly.
You can't feed a family on people viewing stuff. Money needs to change hands. The billboard operator charges the advertiser. There is no obligation on the part of the viewer to look at anything. Under your definition, getting up to go to the bathroom during commericials or making a conscious effort to look away from ads is ...immoral? Illegal? Fraud? There is no contract no quid pro quo. The content providers are sel…
You can because this is how many publishing companies are run today.
The obligation is to accept the ads with the content. It's actually in the terms and service of many sites and doesn't require a signature. This is completely legal and binding, just not easily enforceable.
Sure there might be natural losses due to leaving or not looking at the screen but adblockers are all about your intent to completely remove the ads from the content before you even seen it. That's the issue.