I use Brave which somehow (not sure how) still does a much better job than whatever adblocking extensions I can find. I am also behind a PiHole firewall anyway, so most ad servers are blocked in the first place. Hundreds of websites that are completely unusable normally are completely usable as a result.
Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
251–260 of 844 posts
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#252If companies chose to run simple, clean, quiet advertisements there would be no need to block ads. They have only themselves to blame for creating a nightmare user experience.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember this. "People want personalized information on products they are interested in. How else would they find out about them?" As if people would be at a loss buying a car or breakfast cereal or a pair of shoes without ads.
I do think there's a reasonable argument for ads, since people don't always know what they could be looking for [1]. Independent magazines can serve a similar purpose, but the difference is between an organization that claims to be unaffiliated with the manufacturer, and needs to be constantly policed to make sure they aren't lying about it, and just being up-front about your affiliation, and only needing to be const…
If they didn't know what they could be looking for, perhaps they didn't really need the thing in the first place. If the product is good enough, then it should grow in usage through word of mouth.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash This cannot be overstated. Everything today is a battle for eye-balls and ad money. The corruption is insane. You can't even buy appliances designed perform their function well. Instead you can buy cheap junk for less than cogs because they make money selling your data to ad companies instead of making money by making products that…
I have a theory most ads (especially invasive ones) don't actually target most people, not just tech-savvy users but anyone. They target "dumb", very-manipulable people who see these crazy ads and actually spend loads of money on them, out of impulse or whatever reason. I feel cruel saying this but I really think it's true. Just like how most games have microtransactions because a minority of people who will spend an…
Most ads I'm seeing lately have been on relatives' computers while using shady movie streaming sites. Most of the ads are deceptive things like, you click on the movie to play it and it opens a popup of a different movie, which then asks you to make a free account (and presumably uses those credentials to try and steal your other accounts).
On the other side of the spectrum: using the Instagram app was the first time in my life I felt positive about the ads I was being shown. I was shown ads for microdosing psilocybin (it's legal here) which blew my mind hahah. It's almost like I got through the uncanny valley and into the other side where ads are actually relevant!
Pretty weird since I almost never use Facebook. But I use Google, GMail and YouTube all the time ... and yet, the YouTube and Google Ads really suck! (They seem to be based on IP address rather than identity: I keep getting shown stuff that's obviously based on my housemate's browsing.)
To be clear there was still the gross undercurrent of "okay, why the hell do they know that?" but it was nice to see it actually working as intended for once.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I have with BAT is that it tries to give me power over the commercialization of something that I don't want commercialized. It's like someone launched a "Basic Sexual Favor Token" to empower me to take control over the sex work I'm expected to perform every day. I have a hard time being happy that they want to empower me, because I'm too busy being aghast at their assumption that this aspect of my life is…
Could you describe the negative consequence of BAT for a website owner that doesn't want to sell ads?
> for a website owner
Not GP, but when I think about the negative consequences of BAT, I'm thinking about the user and society overall, not necessarily the website owner in specific.
Monetizing attention is dangerous, and I think we should be a lot more careful about when we do so, as opposed to monetizing attention being the default way we fund everything online. BAT is in many ways less harmful than existing advertising networks, but it's still trying to find a way to ethically commoditize otherwise private attention/focus on what we read/see, and I think that the omnipresent commoditization of that attention/focus across society is harmful regardless of whether or not it's invasive or collects PII and regardless of whether or not users get paid for selling something that we shouldn't encourage them to sell. I think that this has an effect on how humans process the world, I think it has an effect on how much energy we're willing to devote to different tasks. I think it has an effect on attention spans, and on what types of content get made, and the way that we spread memes/culture, and how we interact with each other. I think it has an effect on market efficiency and on what products succeed. I'm not going to oversell modern advertising as some kind of giant monster that's responsible for all problems, but I think its effects are likely more negative than positive at this point and that we can build better systems that don't optimize for keeping people hooked on consuming content endlessly just so we can redirect some of that attention to a product.
As a website owner, the social stuff still applies to me, I may not want my stuff commoditized at all. But I also recognize that users have the right to modify code running on their computer, including for the purposes of inserting their own ads, so if it's happening with the user's permission I can't really get mad at the user. In many ways I'm the least impacted person in this situation. However, that doesn't mean that I think Brave's system is good for the user or for society, and I'm not going to encourage people to use it.
My feeling is that Brave is trying to reform a system that I would like to see destroyed.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#256In FireFox I have my ad blockers disabled in Private Mode so nothing is getting in the way if I'm testing or some site is being weird. Sometimes it's SHOCKINGLY different how a page looks with the blockers in place. I really can't believe anyone would user a browser without an ad blocker if they knew how things would look while using one. The web is a much better place with a blocker in place. (Yes, I know, we get a…
There was a report last year that more than 37% of UK traffic in people under 30 had an ad blocker enabled. I think the analytics market is going to have to shift to server-side tracking in the next 5 years if this trend continues globally. I welcome it, though.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#257I've started to think about it differently. I no longer use any ad blockers. I actually want to experience the web (and its decline) the way it is, to take it all in, feel the pain and strengthen my patience in the process. Also, when I visit a website that is truly obnoxious with its ads, I simply leave immediately and never go there. You build your own filter of bad actors, behaviors, and concrete sites. You don't…
This has to be the most unpopular opinion so far I have a few questions for you 1. How long have you been doing this ? 2. What do you think of other (not just monetization) ways ads are bad as in bloating the web, privacy and security issues ? 3. What if you truly need to access a website but it has too many ads ? You give up ? Use adblock ? Continue with ads ?
Not OP, but I find your questions interesting.
I find it intriguing that only in the digital age have we sort of decided that the creator of something doesn't get to dictate the terms of its use.
>3. What if you truly need to access a website but it has too many ads
At least for me, I assume that they created the necessary content and get to decide how it's made available. It seems like only in the digital age do we even consider "I don't like your terms so I'm taking the content anyway" an option.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel zero guilt about ad blocking. There was some period of discussion on the subject back in like 2003 but the ad companies went to war against human civilization and there's been no going back. It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash and an entire generation has now reached adulthood knowing nothing but that hustle touching every bit of media they ever interact with. W…
> I feel zero guilt about ad blocking. The amount of guilt I feel about ad blocking is equal to the amount of guilt advertisers feel about bothering me with their ads.
The tracking is even worse.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#259I'm very curious what would happen if Apple suddenly announced that for the next version of Safari (20% of browser market share when combining mobile and desktop), adblocking would be included and ask the user if they want it on.
Re: Adblocking people and non-adblocking people experience a different web
#260In FireFox I have my ad blockers disabled in Private Mode so nothing is getting in the way if I'm testing or some site is being weird. Sometimes it's SHOCKINGLY different how a page looks with the blockers in place. I really can't believe anyone would user a browser without an ad blocker if they knew how things would look while using one. The web is a much better place with a blocker in place. (Yes, I know, we get a…
I feel zero guilt about ad blocking. There was some period of discussion on the subject back in like 2003 but the ad companies went to war against human civilization and there's been no going back. It corrupts and twists everything it touches into a constant hustle for eyeball-cash and an entire generation has now reached adulthood knowing nothing but that hustle touching every bit of media they ever interact with. W…
There should be no guilt and I'm surprised at even the notion as a possibility. If someone pays for a billboard that does not in any way entitle them to my choosing to look away. That's all an ad blocker does: enforce your choice to ignore advertising by not looking.