As someone who runs an ad-supported site, I would really prefer if you just blocked my ads and did not register fake clicks on them.
Because who needs reasons?
...
So, why..?
Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
81–90 of 253 posts
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. There's something quite mean spirited about this.
Well yes, this is designed to actively disrupt (and not in the usual constructive sense) the ad-supported site model AFAICT. It'll do this by making the data useless, by getting sites thrown off ad-networks and (in less well monitored cases) by draining the coffers of the ad networks for ads never seen. I like the idea of an ad-free 'net, but it's not really up to me to dictate to site owners what they can do, which…
Do you also like the idea of ad-free net that is controlled by megacorps, because only large entities will be able to monetize their content in ways that are not ad supported?
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strongly agree. Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers and routinely have additional negative consequences. The reader doesn't need permission to defend themselves.
Do ads in a newspaper "hijack the real world"?
Ex-Advertising layout designer here for Hearst. Ads in a newspaper are typically laid out in a pyramid fashion to specifically avoid breaking up news articles into more difficult to read formats. 'Flow' is important when laying out every page. Ads on the web adhere to no such flow and often inhibit the experience of reading. Newspapers want their ads to be as unobtrusive as possible while still being seen. Advertisers on the web tend to scattershot ads and want to be seen at all costs without consideration for the viewer. I can easily skip the flow of ads in a newspaper only looking at those that interest me if I choose, I have no such options on the web and so block them all to be less distracted and able to easily digest content.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#84It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. And if it actually were to take off, it would then be bad for the anarchists who no longer get that free access to the information they wanted. Who wins? Edit: Seriousl…
I wouldn't use this extension, and I also don't use ad blocker, but I kind of understand it. People using this extension considers those ad networks as evil, so they want to fight against them.
In my personal opinion, WWW was invented for free spreading of information. The company beyond ad network, or any company for that matter, shouldn't have a guaranteed right, that WWW have to provide a platform for commercially exploit it. Also, those ad network does that by tracing users and selling that information, and that is not ethical to do without visitors content. So I believe such an extension has the right to exist.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#85I don't understand this, they say it prevents tracking but, actually, this helps ad companies track you since they will now know you will click their ads whenever you are visiting a certain site. With ad blockers that prevent the HTTP request, those third party sites aren't able to track you. The publisher can always track you but that won't be shared with their advertisers or networks. Disclaimer: I work in the adte…
Doesn't the ad network get that information already when you load the ad?
In addition to psykovsky's comment, the ad network is not the only player in this space (or the one you should be more concerned about)
When you see and click on an ad, you might be also getting tracked by DSP / retargeter / affiliate / analytics companies.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#86I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…
I guess, they feel pretty secure, because there are many devices with no or limited ad-block capabilities like phones and tablets.
(Or are there addons for my ios Safari that work without jailbracking the device?)
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#87I realize this won't be popular, but I really have no feelings for ad networks. - They allow shoddy security on their servers - They track users against their will - Info on me is sold w/o my knowledge or consent - Ads are a poor business model since they can be blocked - There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs I block all ads, tracking cookies, beacons, all of it... I…
Strongly agree. Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers and routinely have additional negative consequences. The reader doesn't need permission to defend themselves.
>Ads (and even ads placed by primary distributors and authors) hijacked the internet without permission from browsers/surfers
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would support this if I believed sites would start paying the people who write for them.
Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue. If you have to pay to access most sites, the only websites left would be owned by the already wealthy that can cover losses till they're big enough that people are willing…
> Most sites do pay people who write for them. Either they pay the writers, and generate revenue for themselves by advertisements, or if it's an independent website, the website owner gives their time to write the content, in exchange for ad revenue.
Not in my experience. Most offer "exposure" to writers, who go on to die of exposure. Even the sites that pay don't pay much. $20-50 isn't bad for the effort, but you only get it if they accept your pitch.
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There is no moral imperative for me to view ads since I've paid to access the Interwebs" When I go to McDonald's, I don't pay for my Big Mac. I already put gas in my car!
Not even close with the analogy. Unless the content is behind a paywall, it's "free". Want to make money? Charge access. If your content is THAT compelling, people will line up and hand you money. Using a backhanded revenue machine like ads that track me and violate my "anonymity" is beyond the pale. So, yes. If I arrive on your site and there is no paywall, I will gladly view said content without allowing ads. If th…
No, it's a pretty good analogy.
You're paying for the transport of the bits, you haven't paid for the content of those bits.
The content seems to be good - you chose to use it after all. You could boycott ad-supported content but you chose not to.
(I agree with the rest of what you say btw).
Re: Ad blocker that clicks on the ads
#90It's a shame this is even receiving front page publicity. This is ultimately terrible for everyone except maybe a few anarchists that think they deserve every websites information for free while sabotaging the publishers who work to develop the sites. And if it actually were to take off, it would then be bad for the anarchists who no longer get that free access to the information they wanted. Who wins? Edit: Seriousl…
We don't agree with ads as a means for 'paying for your hosting and content'.
Charge people for your content and hosting, but this ad business doesn't work because of one reason: the user has control now.
Can't be as shady anymore.