Game on.
Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
91–100 of 462 posts
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big issue with paid subscriptions is that it dilutes the strength of the ad network, since you're specifically excluding desirable target customers.
I think that argument is aging fast; it dates from before ad blockers were the increasingly big deal they are now. You've got two basic choices with a user who has demonstrated their passion to remove ads, spend money to play an arms-game race with the ad blockers to pound through their defenses, or directly make money from that passion, possibly an order-of-magnitude more money per user. Is it really so obvious that…
There is another basic choice: write a code that is intentionally incompatible with ad blockers.
They can name an important navigation element "ad", so ad blocker will hide it for example. Then, when a bunch of users start complaining that the website does not work, point out that it's all ad blocker's fault (because without it everything works).
I've seen a few precedents already.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Facebook already owns my personal data and any content that I publish. Why should I also have to look at ads?
That data and content is (near) worthless if they can't serve up ads against it.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#94The arms race continues.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#95They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway, so I don't really see the problem.
That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#96Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#97They are welcome to try. And I am welcome to try harder to block them. As long as they don't try to force some sort of legislation on how people can use their internet connection, and their internet browser to fetch and display content, there's no problem. The real problem is Facebook is already full of advertising disguised as content. From sponsored posts to content from things you "like". So I'm kind of surprised…
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
When you allow targeted ads into your life, you're putting changes in your behavior on the market each time you touch a device. Those behavior changes are intended to make you give the buyer more money than they paid. The market will find every flaw in your psychology that can be used to take money from your pocket. These flaws exist: Las Vegas is built on them. Targeted ads are the Las Vegas of the mind.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#98Why not just allow users to pay to not see ads? It's a crazy idea, but it just might work. Hulu's getting a lot more from me per month for their ad-free tier than they could ever dream of getting from me for ads with my watching habits, probably at least an order of magnitude more.
Presumably because it rather directly puts the question of just how much the use of Facebook is worth into user's minds. Compared to alternative monetization schemes it's limited and sticky.
How much does Facebook receive for the ads they display on my page?
If they are making $10 dollars a year, then charge me $10. Up to me. I can get it for free with ads, or pay without.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#99It seems strange to me how many people feel entitled to block the main source of revenue that allows sites such as Facebook to operate, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of the site. It's very dishonest behaviour, and tantamount to theft.
Even worse of course are companies like Adblock Plus, who essentially hold sites to ransom, by removing them from their blocking lists in exchange for a substantial chunk of their ad revenue.
The bottom line is, if you don't want to see the adverts, don't use the site at all.
Re: Facebook will force advertising on ad-blocking users
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: Why do you block FB ads? I wouldn't say that FB ads are any more disguised as content as, say, newspaper ads. And follow up: If FB decided to shut down some features to ad-blocking users, do you think that would be unfair?
Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway, so I don't really see the problem. That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
> That some advertisers think they should pay by impression and not by click is their own stupidity.
It's not. Ads can be entirely successful without a click - sometimes it'll just be a reminder of the brand's name the next time you are shopping for their product. "Users running adblockers likely wouldn't click the ads anyway" is a pretty naive view of how the ad industry operates.