61–70 of 112 posts
It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burning energy, bandwidth, and our time. Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.
Ads will never go away and these ad blockers will soon become worthless if the advertising companies ever think they're a threat. There are so many easy ways to defeat ad blocking. This is why I despise Apple for trying to publicize web ad blocking while letting their ads be displayed in their little gated community. Apple is essentially ruining it for the people that do use ad blockers because we're going to reach a…
I'd also argue that the way Apple implemented things, it actually takes more savvy to block ads on iOS than on a web browser on a PC. If it were just a default setting in Safari, you'd have a stronger argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?" Yes? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to change the station during a commercial?
No, but you do allow the presence of advertising on your TV or radio so why should web pages be different? That's the contract you agree to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Does the same logic also apply to your TV and radio?" Yes? Or are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to change the station during a commercial?
No, but you do allow the presence of advertising on your TV or radio so why should web pages be different? That's the contract you agree to.
If I wanted to hurt advertising, I'd create an extension that would fire a thousand click-throughs on their stupid ad, and vacuum up all their AdSense budget. Get a few million people world-wide doing that, and companies would quickly realize that they are spending an even more ridiculous amount of money on advertisements, and they would stop spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say it like it’s a bad thing.
Youtube alone hosts a vast amount of content - everything from archival footage to MIT lectures to people's cat videos, and all of it more or less free. Just because you personally dislike Google doesn't mean the world is better off without the services it provides.
The Mozilla Foundation has come out against ad blocking: "Content blocking software should focus on addressing potential user needs (such as on performance, security, and privacy) instead of blocking specific types of content (such as advertising)."[1] This is sad. Their slogan used to be "Work for mankind, not for the man". But the Mozilla Foundation is ad-funded. They currently have a deal with Yahoo to make Yahoo…
Well, as someone who doesn't earn money from ads, I'm on their side. I agree with the arguments against ads, but I also remember what it was like to not have a CC or money to spend, and ads work as a redistribution mechanism; until someone can make a good argument why the poor won't be left out of the brave new world of paid-for content, I still won't use an ad-blocker.
Quite simply, produce something of value and you won't have a problem financing it. The worlds smallest violin plays for those websites producing garbage to feed the never ending stream of garbage that comes through the data pipe that I pay for. No one owes you anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as someone who doesn't earn money from ads, I'm on their side. I agree with the arguments against ads, but I also remember what it was like to not have a CC or money to spend, and ads work as a redistribution mechanism; until someone can make a good argument why the poor won't be left out of the brave new world of paid-for content, I still won't use an ad-blocker.
Here's a counter argument; just because you can throw clickbait articles up onto a website doesn't give you the right to rape my personal details for your personal profit. Quite simply, produce something of value and you won't have a problem financing it. The worlds smallest violin plays for those websites producing garbage to feed the never ending stream of garbage that comes through the data pipe that I pay for. No…
But that's Mozilla's argument: block tracking, not ads.
Google Analytics and other services are not ads, but still track.
Project Wonderful, on the other hand, has ads but doesn't track.
Shouldn't we block the former, and not latter?
By the way, have I pointed out that I make absolutely no money on ads? I work for a B2B startup that charges for its services. No ads at all.
I think we are missing one key thing in this debate. Ads and ad-blocking is just a symptom of the fact that you cannot make money in this industry. The only ones making money on IT are companies who's main thing is not technology, but who can utilize technology to make there business more efficient. A good example is logistic companies who have a business that's been around for ever, but smart algorithms allows them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not our problem. It's the reporter's. We are not responsible for helping businesses prop up their failing revenue streams.
Arguably, you are somewhat responsible if the revenue stream is failing because you want to consume content without caring whether anyone gets compensated for it.
It was inevitable that this would happen. I remember when Opera first added pop-up blocking and plenty of people got mad. This is the same thing: ads are burning energy, bandwidth, and our time. Now that consumers have been subjected to piles of abusive ads, they're just blocking all of the ads regardless of how bad they are.
Did you ever give consent for ads in your print newspaper? They "load" on the page, without asking