![25267299-Two-pleading-human-hands-isolated-Stock-Photo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JusgTsH.jpg "25267299-Two-pleading-human-hands-isolated-Stock-Photo[1].jpg")
>Please look at our ads! We need the revenue!
Okay, fine, what's in it for me?
>>53694417
>>Okay, fine, what's in it for me?
Malware and privacy invasion, apparently
>>53694417
having the content you like stay there
>>53694444
/thread
>>53694466
I really have no qualms with losing this precious 'content', I'd be no worse of than some shitty news site or youtube channel stopped producing anything.
>>53694417
As long as they aren't pop-up ads, commercials that play before a video, or insecure enough to get malware from, I don't mind ads. I usually disable adblock on sites that meet those requirements
>>53694533
then dont watch them and give them revenue. if enough people thinks like you do too they'll shutdown. even if they dont why do you care? you weren't liking them anyway.
I'll turn off my ad-blocker when all ads are static, non-animated text or images with no javascript whatsoever. No audio, video, anything that moves. No flash, silverlight, or any active content of any kind.
I'm not turning on third-party cookies no matter what you do. Set first-party ones if you want, they're getting deleted as soon as the tab is closed though.
>>53694569
well I watch them with adblocker so don't give them revenue anyway. like I said I have no qualms, not some vendetta. they can put whatever they want on the internet, they just can't expect me to view all of it. downloading only specific sections of freely available webpages is in no way criminal, and is exactly how it's designed to function.
Why the fuck are you whining about ads? They're not that bad + It's not like you need the time anyways.
>adblock doesnt load properly on a page sometimes
>blue board with japanese dildo ads
I thought the OP image was an ugly man butt while scrolling up
>>53694810
see >>53694444
>Malware and privacy invasion
>>53694839
God damnit anon
Now I can't get that out of my eyes
>>53694852
Maybe that's the price for the content :^)
>>53694533
Then don't visit those sites. It's as easy as that.
>>53694879
okay, lets all block advertising and trackers so that that isn't a viable business model anymore, and they have to either monetize in security and privacy-respecting ways, or go out of business.
>>53695814
Yes. Make everything premium. I agree.
>>53694417
>what's in it for me?
You get to "like and share " their content, which means you get to be a small independent nonprofit marketing agency by helping them get more views and more people they can swine for views.
In the end this is all for a good cause, though: Whichever company is paying them for ads will get more potential clients to buy their shit.
>>53694417
They don't make any money from me looking.
I'd have to click them.
>>53694533
Leeches are disgusting. You like their content enough to actively visit the place, would it kill you to watch some ads?
>>53695824
Do you really think it will change anything? It'll start with premium and no ads, then ads will creep back.
Ads are a security risk.
They very often contain malware.
So no thanks.
PLEASE, WE NEED THE REVENUE FOR OUR SITE TO SURVIVE
>>53697370
>You like their content enough to actively visit the place, would it kill you to watch some ads?
It would potentially kill his computer yes.
Also he isn't a leecher as much as you are stupid.
If you don't like leechers, then don't have an open site and create a paywall.
>B-B-BUT ANON, I WON'T GET ENOUGH TRAFFIC WITH A PAYWALL
Well then suck to be you. It's not the problem of the ones passing through an open site that you don't have any business or management sense.
>use someone elses website
>complain about it and block the revenue model
>still complain about it
What are you even doing on that site ungrateful twat. Just go somewhere else or shut up.
>>53697370
>>Leeches are disgusting. You like their content enough to actively visit the place, would it kill you to watch some ads?
I suppose you'd also be mad at me if I watch a TV show and then hit mute during the commercials? Or channel-surf, or run to the restroom?
Putting a website on the public internet is like publishing a free newspaper where anyone can come and take a copy. You have every right to put ads in that newspaper. I, however, have every right to read the articles and then toss the ads in the trash without looking at them.
>content creators go away if you don't watch ads.
I really don't care.
It would be the equivalent to one less /g/ thread a week.
>>53697332
>They don't make any money from me looking.
Nah, they make like $.01< depending on the ad network
>>53697664
More like
>shitty content creators go away if you don't watch ads, while other content creators who created a site knowing they won't have to depend on ads due to planning everything out prevail
>content never ceases to exist, only content providers cycle
>>53697648
>channel-surf
Yes this is the most autist thing ever, just wait the damn 2 minutes I don't want to watch 10 seconds of 5 other shows and then a minute of one you like just because you're to much of a faggot to watch ads that pay for the shows you want to watch.
>>53697699
You'll get content ads and end up spending more time on it then nicely boxed away ads.
>>53697592
>It would potentially kill his computer yes.
Doesn't happen with normal ads. Less porn, anon.
> It's not the problem of the ones passing through an open site that you don't have any business or management sense.
Obviously not and there is nothing wrong with that behavior either. Visiting the same site over and over again while having adblock on is hypocritical and parasitic behavior though. Also it harms everybody.
The small sites will either go down or write sponsored articles without mentioning the "sponsored" bit. The bigger ones will spread their propaganda unaffected.
>>53697648
>if I watch a TV show and then hit mute during the commercials? Or channel-surf, or run to the restroom?
Doesn't have a direct effect on anything because only a minority does that at every ad. Same with newspapers. The publishers don't get paid for you reading the ads.
>>53694569
And the free market strikes again.
You just figured out why advertising is not a source of revenue.
Congratulations, welcome to the enlightened group.
Enjoy your stay, and don't forget to turn on your adblock.
>>53697745
Small websites under the delusion that they are not a business are doomed to fail.
Who are we to judge someone who runs a business out of giving things away?
A website that claims they are a hobby should be just that. Hobbies are by definition a waste of money and happen to produce some sort of satisfaction for the hobbyist.
Everyone else is a business and needs to grow the fuck up and start thinking like one. If your revenue model fails, like advertising inevitably has, then you need to come up with another or fucking die.
>>53697745
>Doesn't happen with normal ads.
It does. It's call ad domain hijacking, or ad code injection. And many other myriads of ways, that have been documented to happen on many trusted sites.
That's the problem with digital ads.
>Visiting the same site over and over again while having adblock on is hypocritical and parasitic behavior though.
No, it's not. It's not parasitic because the site was free in the first place and there was never any obligation from those passing through to be anything more than parasitic.
It is hypocritical of you though to talk about parasitic behavior while not sporting a paywall system and instead having an open website.
>Also it harms everybody.
It doesn't. It saves computers, and it only harms idiots who should have thought better than to make an open website if they didn't through their future upkeep for it on a wider margin than just ads.
Plenty of sites out there maintaining servers perfectly with donation systems while without ads.
>The small sites will either go down or write sponsored articles...
Yet a big site like Wired is bitching and whining while many smaller news sites are perfectly functional, opposite to your idiotic generalization.
Also
>a small site with a shitty owner who couldn't manage his shit properly gets fucked
>other sites with owners who can manage their shit prevail
>content is still there, just in different locations
This is pretty much capitalism at its best.
Don't like it? Don't do it.
>>53697853
An Internet lead purely by business interests will rape any chance of neutral reporting. Oh well, if you want to read the review how innovative the new Apple toy and Intel cpu is or how amazing Windows 10 is, keep it up, anon.
>>53697860
>That's the problem with digital ads.
Not not a fault of ads per se to be fair.
>It's not parasitic because the site was free in the first place and there was never any obligation from those passing through to be anything more than parasitic.
Just because there is no obligation to contribute the the upkeep by allowing ads, doesn't mean you get a free pass to abuse somebodies goodness. Sure, it's legal but you're just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run
>a paywall system
Yay, let's limit access to information! Fuck free Internet!
>Plenty of sites out there maintaining servers perfectly with donation systems while without ads.
Like Wiki with their monthly begging? Shit, no ad can be as annoying.
>Yet a big site like Wired is bitching and whining
That's a case of mismanagement indeed.
>many smaller news sites are perfectly functional
Hidden under paywalls, limiting the access to information. #rip semiaccurate
>This is pretty much capitalism at its best.
And the winner will be always the one with bigger pockets. Will it be shilltech, shillreviews or rather shillnet?
>>53698002
>neutral reporting
Oh no, scientific journals that have existed for at least a hundred years under paywalls have suddenly been found to be something other than neutral.
You're also still pretty delusional if you think that a small website is going to be doing anything more than "ayy lmao I went to GDC and they had this shit" or "I played this game and this is what I thought, totally doesn't belong on youtube or anything"
And why are you so caught up on news sites?
>>53698060
>scientific journals that have existed for at least a hundred years under paywalls
Which negatively impacts sharing of knowledge aka. our progress.
Because news sites are the most dependent on ads. You can keep a blog up in your free time, you can't expect actual reporters doing their job for free until we get basic income.
>>53698002
>Not not a fault of ads per se to be fair.
It's still a problem that isn't present in any other ad form except digital ads, and it will keep existing to the ends of times. So that's one argument you will never win against ad blockers.
>Just because there is no obligation to contribute the the upkeep by allowing ads, doesn't mean you get a free pass to abuse somebodies goodness.
You do actually. Unless you make a paywall.
>you're just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run
No i am not. Other content producers will make the same content. Your foot is being shot for your lack of management skills.
>Fuck free Internet!
Yeah! Fuck the freedom to block ads!
The point of this whole thing is that your argument is a double edged sword that goes both ways. The only way you hold a higher moral ground is if you have a paywall being breached. Your talk of goodwill doesn't behest anything in return, and the users passing through your site aren't asking you to do it for them.
Instead of users stopping using ad block because you are too stupid to figure out an income route out of hundreds utilized by many successful sites, how about you stop having a site?
It seems your argument is wholely revolving around you trying to justify yourself from shutting down your failure, and forcing responsibility of your own failure on the users.
That's where your argument goes down the toilet. Users don't have any responsibility for something:
1. They didn't ask for.
2. Which is open.
3. Which you started with expectations, but now want your selfish expectations to be pushed onto others while doing a double standard on hypocrisy talk.
>And the winner will be always the one with bigger pockets.
Well yes. The one who made a site as a hobby, or who sold shirts and cool goods with the site product label as substitute for ads.
>Will it be shilltech, shillreviews or rather shillnet?
Anything that defeats your argument is "shill". Butthurt viewpoint of a child.
>>53698129
Our progress is defined by a large set of top secret, secret, and confidential research papers, along with a larger set of proprietary research that nobody that isn't part of a DARPA grant has access to.
It's hardly worth worrying about, and university research that is actually important always goes to SIGGRAPH or DEFCON, and are always public access.
>>53694533
yep, "content" is ki...nope, content is shit
>>53697584
"click to expand"?! holy shit!
honestly i don't give a shit if the whole fucking internet goes away
>>53698002
>DURR I MAED THIS SAND CASTLE ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET
>I MAED IT OUT OF GOOD WILL AND EVERYONE WHO PASSES BY AND SEES MY CASTLE HAS AN OBLIGATION TO BUY IT OR BUY MY SPONSORED ADS FOR VIEWING IT
>EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T IS A PARASITIC HYPOCRITE DURR HURR
I hope you realize how retarded you sound.
>>53697760
i don't understand what I understand
Why do "content" creators feel entitled to perform operations that I do not approve of on my machine?
My bandwidth, my cpu, my rules.
>>53698144
>Other content producers will make the same content
Perhaps but if it won't be freely available as before, it's still a loss for everybody.
>the users passing through your site aren't asking you to do it for them
I already mentioned that passing users are pretty irrelevant and in the right for having adblock on, since as you said, security can be a valid concern with hijacked ads. Besides, browsing without adblock is slower, uses more data, yidda yadda.
Now if the same users keeps coming back, he/she is clearly abusing the goodwill of the creator. The person is still not obliged to contribute for using the service ... but using a free service over a period of time without contributing ... that's just low.
>The one who made a site as a hobby
Will never have the time to compete with content quality of somebody who gets paid for it. So this site will be updated less frequently, have shorter articles, shit like that.
, or who sold shirts and cool goods with the site product label as substitute for ads.
Got some examples? I see it working for some sites but as a general model it just won't work.
>Anything that defeats your argument is "shill".
It's just given in an non free Internet. Tons of shill sites and couple of hobbyists. Well, and the guys selling shirts.
>>53698261
A more accurate example would be making an actual castle and letting everybody enter it but display ads on the walls. Then some faggot who comes there every day removes them. You can't pay for the upkeep of the castle. Lose - lose.
>>53698374
>Perhaps but if it won't be freely available as before, it's still a loss for everybody.
Other content producers will have a mix of good management and bad management. Some will be free, some won't, some will be in-between.
I like how you are taking the extreme absolute counter-argument. If proves that you are overestimating your value and your deluded idiocy has pushed you into thinking that if you can't achieve something free, nobody else can.
This is another flaw in your arguing that i'm happy to point out.
>Now if the same users keeps coming back, he/she is clearly abusing the goodwill of the creator.
No, they aren't. They will be abusing the goodwill if they start obstruction the operation of a site by shitposting on it, DoS-ing it, or copying its content letter by letter, bit by bit.
>but using a free service over a period of time without contributing ... that's just low.
That's not low. That's just you as a content provider not having an enticing offer or alternative that is correctly priced as a substitute for ads.
Even the dumbest Kickstarter scammers have figured this out, yet you haven't. How am i to take your argument seriously when your mentality is inferior to fucking KICKSTARTER scammers.
>Will never have the time to compete with content quality of somebody who gets paid for it.
Incorrect. The only thing a hobbyist can't compete is quantity. As far as quality goes, because the quantity is more specified the focus on the quality proportionally increases. Learn some journalism. Of course, this isn't an absolute formula.
>I see it working for some sites but as a general model it just won't work.
I like how you argue for ads as if they are a general model, but then argue off substitutes because "general models don't work". The hypocrisy you talk of is ingrained in you.
I don't do news sites, but examples of all other sites on the Internet go from artists (Patreon) to TekSyndicrap and novel writing sites.
>>53698374
>A more accurate example would be making an actual castle and letting everybody enter it but display ads on the walls. Then some faggot who comes there every day removes them. You can't pay for the upkeep of the castle. Lose - lose.
Your "accurate" example depends on the premise that the one removing ads is automatically blocking all other users from viewing them.
Also, all castles get revenue from Museum tickets, subsidization, educational school project walks. No castles get revenue from ads.
The original example still stands.
PSA
STOP SHARING ADBLOCK
STOP RECOMMENDING PEOPLE USE ADBLOCK
THE NON-ADBLOCK MAJORITY IS THE REASON WE GET FREE CONTENT WITHOUT HAVING TO SEE ADS
IF EVERYONE USED ADBLOCK, THEY WOULD REMOVE THE CONTENT OR KILL ADBLOCK
>>53698261
Your analogy is wrong.
You made a deliberate action to access a website - you don't just walk past one. You type in the URL or you click a link that goes to that page. You are saying that you *want* to see the sandcastle - and then you whine that the sandcastle is presented in a way that you find disagreeable, i.e with ads.
Not only that, but you care too much about what people call you. So what if you get called a parasitic hypocrite?
Not only that, but if you don't want to see ads, then the content doesn't get funded and you don't get it. The reply from people like you is invariably "I never wanted to see the content anyway, it sucks and I don't care if they make any more, because it's shitty content."
It's like the fox and the grapes, but in its most obvious form.
>>53698636
no, the more normies use adblock, the more those clickbait articles supposedly lose money. So they lock shit down.
Nobody clicks on that shit anymore, or at least, nobody reads their shit. They lose either way.
Top quality content does not have any advertising sitting on these days. Or at least in a very limited manner
>>53698636
Cat's out of the bag, anon, can't stop it now.
Besides, the ease of bringing in ad money is the reason why so much of today's "content" is shitty lowest-common-denominator clickbait. Getting normies to block ads is a *good* thing, because it means the Day of the Rope will come all the sooner for outfits like BuzzFeed and (if they survive the Hulk Hogan lawsuit) Gawker.
I for one can't wait for widespread ad-blocking to make running sites like that economically nonviable. It'll be a return to the days when the people producing the "content" are hobbyists who do it because they're interested in it, and not marketing scumbags who just care about how many views they can get and how many ads they can display.
>>53698660
>You made a deliberate action to access a website
I made a deliberate action to go through a street.
>you don't just walk past one.
I pretty much do. Unless your castle is closed behind a paywall, i am pretty much passing through.
>You are saying that you *want* to see the sandcastle
I never said i don't want to see a castle. I do however not have to view ads if it doesn't force me to. If you want to force me to view ads, then i will not view your castle. Don't just go whining that it's other people's fault your maintenance income was focused on ads and nothing else. You are shifting blame.
The ball is in your court.
>The reply from people like you is invariably "I never wanted to see the content anyway, it sucks and I don't care if they make any more, because it's shitty content."
Nah, the reply from people like me is: "Your content is not good nor shitty, it is content that other people also provide. I can get it by simply going down a different road. Your value is no more or less than other castle builders."
You are butthurt about the fact that other content providers are doing something better than you are, which is shifting traffic over to them than keeping it at your own place.
You don't want the piece of the cake, you want the whole cake.
That's your infantile prerogative, fine. But don't insult others (users) for your shitty business practices.
>>53698553
>I like how you are taking the extreme absolute counter-argument.
That comes more down to you ignoring any subtlety. Though to be fair, it also might be my wording. Pretty tired yo.
>some will be free, some won't, some will be in-between.
Sure, just the balance of free and non free ones will drastically shift. An if the left over free sites absorb the traffic from the dead ones, their serve costs will further increase. If they don't sell enough shirts every month, it doesn't look too good for them.
>DoS-ing it
Constantly accessing a site meant to be paid by ads with adblockers is pretty close to it.
>That's just you as a content provider not having an enticing offer or alternative that is correctly priced as a substitute for ads.
Because they don't always exist, specially if the content is meant to be freely accessible without paywall cancer.
>as if they are a general model
Well, they are. The most accessible one with minimal downside for the user if they aren't cancerous. You don't have to worry about buying shit or donating.
>artists (Patreon) to TekSyndicrap and novel writing sites
Neither requires the resources journalism does nor has the amount of visitors that requires high investment into the site. And teksyndicate got ads, all the deals and shit. Plus the whole "like us, tweet about us" and the likes is similar to ads.
>>53698604
>privately built modern castle
>Museum tickets, subsidization, educational school project walks
Good luck with that.
>premise that the one removing ads is automatically blocking all other users from viewing them.
Adjust it to "people come daily and remove ads, but you're fast enough with adding new ones, so some people get to see them"
>>53698835
>An if the left over free sites absorb the traffic from the dead ones, their serve costs will further increase.
The vacuum is always filled in the free market. There is no study or case scenario proving that traffic shifting has resulted in a dead site yet, assuming the site was good at management. If it wasn't it deserves to go dead. Someone better will replace it again.
>Constantly accessing a site meant to be paid by ads with adblockers is pretty close to it.
If it was meant to be paid by ads, it would be forcing ads. But then nobody would want to visit your site. Catch 22. Figure it out.
>Because they don't always exist, specially if the content is meant to be freely accessible without paywall cancer.
Well i guess that i must be accessing the Internet through a dream, it shouldn't exist currently according to your logic which focuses only on ads and resists business evolution much like Television dinosaurs are not keeping up with technology.
>Well, they are. The most accessible one with minimal downside for the user if they aren't cancerous. You don't have to worry about buying shit or donating.
Nobody worries about buying shit or donating if the buying shit and donating is made as a free choice and not a forced choice. Sales psychology is part of the 101 in any business book.
You made the site, you have to beg from the traffic, not the other way around. Figure it out like many sites already have.
>Neither requires the resources journalism does nor has the amount of visitors that requires high investment into the site.
Actually novel sites do have big visitor counts in the tens of millions. You just aren't aware of it. Especially East Asian sites.
>And teksyndicate got ads, all the deals and shit. Plus the whole "like us, tweet about us" and the likes is similar to ads.
So basically, you have finally learned that ads alone are worthless and not a good system. Congrats! Some will unblock ads, others will donate, it all depends on your skills.
>>53697370
Very few websites put up ads that are tolerable
>space preallocated so shit doesn't move around on the page while its still loading, causing me to misc lick
>static image or a gif with slow animation
>no taller than 200px
>no wider than 600px
>no audio or video of any kind
>>53699696
I'd put more stringent requirements on it than that even. I'd say that any animated image at all is unacceptable, as is any javascript, flash, or active content of any kind.
>>53694444
quads speak the truth
>>53694922
>Then don't visit those sites. It's as easy as that.
What's in it for me if I stop visiting those sites?
>>53700471
You don't have to watch the ads (or the vapid content for that matter).
>>53700471
A better question is: Would the site owner compensate you for your computer getting fucked due to his ads, due to your good-will of unblocking them leading to that scenario?
Of course the answer is that they wouldn't. And that's why the real hypocrites and lowest of the low filth are the people arguing against ad-blockers.
Welp, /g/. This is the future you chose; Paywalls. You could've kept ad blocking quiet, or at least disabled it from some major websites, but paywalls are coming
>puts 10 different DOWNLOAD NOW "ads" right next to the actual link
>wonders why i install ad blockers on every single computer i come across
Normies are too stupid not to click on that shit. It's like cats and laser pointers.
>>53700658
the next thing will be changing your browser and user agent to look like a search-engine crawler to bypass paywalls. you heard it here first.
>>53697302
who is this qt trap?
>>53694417
Goodby Silverstein & Partners
>sites that have no idea of what ads they're running
>run bullshit like auto-play video ads and auto-redirect-to-the-App-Store as a result
>no one owns up to it
>ad blocker blocks entire CSS of a page
Um, what?
>>53697760
Don't use the adblock. Stop visiting the website. You either see the website with the ads or go away. No adblock.
>>53694417
clickbait tier, unverified, non proof-red """""""content"""""""
>>53702792
>proof-red
I think this entire issue can be avoided if we just block ad serving URLs in our hosts file.
