21–30 of 63 posts
If publishers start to really notice ad blockers, they are just going to proxy everything through their web servers.
Wouldn't that necessarily lead to an increase in ad quality? If I proxy ads through my server, that increases my costs, which increases what I would have to make from the ads, which means the advertisers will have to see a higher return from their campaigns to justify the higher cost.
I feel no guilt, personally. I began using an ad blocker after receiving a nasty bit of Flash based malware via an ad served by one of the major ad networks (I can't recall who, but I want to say it was via MSN at the time). That was it for me. The moment viewing ads on otherwise-safe sites became a threat, I started blocking without guilt. Because it was an advertising network, it wasn't just as simple as saying "I'll block ads on site xyz"
No, no it won't. People have been predicting micropayment for decades now. To call the attempts "failures" would be kind. Patronage (like Patreon, for instance) and bundling are much better bets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange. Any industry would be up in arms with people walking away with their goods without paying. It's really not that different than the MPAA or RIAA, especially in that since we don't like them, we feel justified in behavior that normally we wouldn't take. Does the RIAA being a…
These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange. Any industry would be up in arms with people walking away with their goods without paying. It's really not that different than the MPAA or RIAA, especially in that since we don't like them, we feel justified in behavior that normally we wouldn't take. Does the RIAA being a…
These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
Yes, sites should block users that use ad-block if they care, but the ecosystem isn't to the point that something like that is tenable for most sites. I'm not fighting against ad-blockers here, I'm fighting against the entitlement that I see exhibited. I think it's counter-productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument isn't that it's unethical to not watch ads, it's that it's unethical to not watch the ads but still take what they offer in exchange. Any industry would be up in arms with people walking away with their goods without paying. It's really not that different than the MPAA or RIAA, especially in that since we don't like them, we feel justified in behavior that normally we wouldn't take. Does the RIAA being a…
These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
Is this a serious question?
Quite optimistic views there. Most content doesn't have a real monetary value beyond generating views. There won't be an acceptable ads consortium, advertisers will only get more ruthless or die.
It really does seem like a race to the bottom at this point, but it's a releif to see that we're starting to move past calling people theives for ad blocking. Except for the scolding, this situation reminds of the days shortly before everyone had popup blocking built in to browsers; for normal people the internet is broken, and for us, it's hard to realize how awful it is until we use grandma's computer, and get a ho…
I don't run an ad-blocker and I don't run into too many problems. I avoid sites that annoy me with ads, it's pretty simple. I actually have the reverse outlook that you have. I feel like most people over-exagerrate the ad problem to more easily justify running an ad-blocker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?
Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.
Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request.
If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.