161–170 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use of AdNauseum is more of a "fuck you" to companies like reddit or google who have turned the internet from a forum for free expression to a tool for censorship and social control.
If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to not participate. But that's a terrible excuse for knowingly causing damage. Or do you also think it's ok to steal from Walmart because you don't like their corporate policies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're hurting the publishers. I'm a software developer at a local newspaper. We've been dealing with floods of fake ad clicks for about a year now, and they severely hurt our bottom line. We don't even use an ad network a la google, we sell our own ads to local businesses and such. You're not sticking it to the man, you're punishing me and my colleagues and friends for writing content that you wanted to read. You're…
On the one hand, I agree with your sentiment in general. However, it's a double edged sword here. LOTS of people are so sick of advertising networks, tracking, privacy invasion and malware from compromised ad networks that the underlying issue, the idea that click and impression based advertising is fundamentally flawed, is something that people are going to continue to protest. If the system is so broken that it's s…
with respect...
_employees_ should be paid for their work
_businesses_ OTOH are not entitled to ANY income regardless of the cost to create their products or anyones opinion on how valuable those products are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no reputable newspaper will have anything harmful, just potentially annoying. That is, unfortunately, very incorrect: https://www.cnet.com/news/new-york-times-bbc-dangerous-ads-r...
That is appalling
Perhaps you can be trusted! But nobody knows that, and it's reasonable to presume otherwise.
Put it this way: do you offer legally enforceable indemnity against people getting malware from ads you serve? If not, then you can't really tell them not to block the ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well why would I do it if I don't have to? You absolutely don't. But if you say, "I would pay you to get rid of ads", and then I get rid of them and you don't pay, that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, no?
Maybe. To me it simply shows that removing ads is not a big enough benefit make people pay. Which makes sense because people are now used to ads. They will consume the content either way.
I hear a lot of people in here saying, "Yay for AdNauseum, they are fixing the broken ad system! If sites start charging instead of ads, I'll totally pay!" Let me add a little perspective. A long time ago at reddit we launched reddit gold. At the time, one of the biggest benefits was that if you had gold you could turn off ads. This was in direct response to people saying, "I would rather pay you then use adblock". Y…
Ad networks don't follow the same laws which all advertisement companies have to follow in all other form of media, so why should people have to pay in order to get rid of them? This is the wild wild west, and paying the bandits to go away is always a bad idea. What would happen if reddit had to use a ad network that vetted every single advertisement they displayed and took legal responsibility that local advertiseme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to not participate. But that's a terrible excuse for knowingly causing damage. Or do you also think it's ok to steal from Walmart because you don't like their corporate policies?
> If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to not participate. Playing your ads in my browser is "the rules" now? If you want to claim it's "the rules", you need a paywall. Oh, you're not putting up a paywall? Fancy that. Do you offer legally enforceable indemnity against people getting malware from ads you serve? If not, then you can't really tell them not to block the ads.
"The rules" in this case are that censorship and social control (presumably) exist on the platform. If you don't like that, don't participate.
But don't say, "OMG censorship" and use that to justify defrauding advertisers while continuing to use the free site that you deride.
From a quick glance at the thread it seems this "extension blacklist" can be quite easily disabled, and the discussion centers more around the position of the author. Perhaps he has a stake in ad companies too? It's not as if it's difficult to revert the change itself either, fork the project, and keep going: https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/Pale-Moon/commit/fe7... Because this extension causes direct and indi…
But it's distinctly passive with ad blockers. Sure, you want to read my content without supporting me (some publications prevent you from doing so, but mine does not). You're just affecting you. With AdNauseum, you are actively attacking our ability to make money off of other users. You're punishing me for writing content that you want to read.
Or in the new york times case, for getting ads in spite of paying. Ads are a fucking poison; i will do anything i can to destroy them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then that tells you that the content you are providing isn't worth much.
I think I said as much above. That most people don't get the same value that the advertisers do.
According to https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/6pxyvy/traffic_pag..., about half of your users are mobile users of the official app, which does not support ad blocking, so at least half of your entire userbase either pays for gold, or has ads. Official statistics you’ve published put reddit at a reach of 6% of US internet users, which would be over 234 million users.
This would mean 117 million monthly users at 4 USD pre-tax each, which would be a monthly revenue that’d rival Google or Facebook. And this is completely ignoring any and all desktop users. So either your user statistics are wrong, or you don’t even get close to the 4 USD revenue per user in ads.
Based on the fact that Reddit officially isn’t profitable, and has 230 employees paid at Silicon Valley wages, and assuming reddit has a factor of 10 less users (so ~11 million mobile users per month, which would assume half of the subscribers to AskReddit would be active mobile users), the actual money you’d get per mobile user per month via ads (again, assuming all desktop users use adblock), would be around $0.21. This also matches much more closely the usual per-user ad revenue statistics.
And $0.21 per month is a price that also is a lot more affordable for people outside of silicon valley. Even a buck a month is still within of affordable range, although less so if you use many different sites. If you visit hundreds of pages per month, paying $4 each would bankrupt people. And no, you don’t get the same revenue via ads either (as explained above, or can be determined via the simple equation that the entire revenue sites you’re visiting make from ads has to be less than the disposable income you spend on products per month).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can remove the "censorship" with a 30-second config change. I don't understand why the people on that forum are so up in arms about something this trivial.
It's more about the position of the Pale Moon maintainer in making this change, than the (lack of) difficulty in reverting it. Even Mozilla currently allows it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adnauseam/ Google, quite understandably, didn't: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to not participate. Playing your ads in my browser is "the rules" now? If you want to claim it's "the rules", you need a paywall. Oh, you're not putting up a paywall? Fancy that. Do you offer legally enforceable indemnity against people getting malware from ads you serve? If not, then you can't really tell them not to block the ads.
We're talking about people who install a program to defraud advertisers. The complaint was, "we're sticking it to people who censor and use social control." "The rules" in this case are that censorship and social control (presumably) exist on the platform. If you don't like that, don't participate. But don't say, "OMG censorship" and use that to justify defrauding advertisers while continuing to use the free site tha…