Anyone else both disturbed and annoyed by this trend?
For the past couple years websites have been able to detect ad blocker (even 4chan does this) and display pop-ups. Mostly these are un-intrusive messages where ads usually go, but some websites, such as WIRED have introduced full-page pop-ups for this that force you to refresh the page (only to have them reappear soon), whitelist them or subscribe to some service.
Thoughts on this?
>>53501183
Will make me think twice before reading any of Wired's online content. We can stop patronizing sites that do this. Sends a better message than sidestepping it.
>>53501200
This was my initial response. If they're going to force me to take action then I'll just read the same news somewhere else.
>>53501183
The popup still creates a element on the fucking page though...
If your running greasemonkey you can set a global filter to look for keywords in element's classes and just auto remove them.
what happens when I adblock that too?
Disturbed by what?
The site has set some terms: to browse the content, I have to look at the ads they serve. We respond by using ad blockers. But the terms are still the same as before: if you want access to the content, you need to agree to their terms. That means viewing ads.
The fact that they have a subscription alternative is a great sign. If WIRED and others simply demanded that we participate in the growing ad tracking panopticon, then you'd be up shit creek.
You're complaining that the site is actually enforcing something that was pretty much understood by all conscious parties for over a decade. Your complaint smacks of naivety.
>>53501234
1 sane response. I'll post again if I see another. Odds aren't great tho
>>53501183
did you really just create a separate thread for this?
Have you really not blocked javascript by default?
Have you really not killed yourself yet?
I don't really understand how ads, and adblocking-blocker will generate revenue for these news site.
I mean, most of them are providing ads-free RSS.
i dont give a fuck. more power to websites that beat past adblock and ublock.
seriously will never use internet with out ublock
Nope. Simply stop using the site.
The idiots made that site on their own whim and not based off some demand or necessity for societal survival, which means nobody is obligated to unblock ads or give them revenue as they are passing through.
If they weren't confident that the quality of their site/service will provide a net profit revenue that will upkeep the servers through voluntary donations,
instead of this forced system, then nothing of value will be lost if they go dark.
There's plenty of other news sites out there, and plenty who are willing to fill in the void in case of failure.
I don't see why this has to emotionally affect you OP.
>>53501234
This. These high traffic sites don't run of unicorn farts and magic, they run on servers. Servers that cost money to operate, especially at the volume they serve. This is a concept that /g/, as a whole, really doesn't seem to understand. The degree of childish self-entitlement on this board is sometimes downright embarrassing.
HOSTS FILE
O
S
T
S
F
I
L
E
>>53501234
If at least their ads weren't full of virus.
>>53501323
>Donations
Donations aren't consistent enough, you can't actually grow at a decent rate with donations alone. When you've got a webpage, like WIRED, with people who are employed by them, people who rely on WIRED to keep a roof over their head and food on their table, they cannot reasonably risk not being able to pay their bills because "we don't have any donations."
>Plenty of news sites to fill the void.
Yeah, but if WIRED were to go away people would go to those other sites, putting the same stresses in volume on them, forcing them to adopt measures similar to WIRED to simply meet with demand.
>>53501364
If at least open source wasn't full of malware.
If you don't pay for it then you have no right to complain. Stop being so fucking entitled.
i block everything and weed out every connection leading to spam
>>53501311
>RSS
Not many people use RSS.
>I don't understand how ads and adblocking-blocker will generate revenue.
What are you not understanding?
>>53501183
Don't have thoughts on that since no website managed to detect uBlock Origin as an ad blocker, for me at least.
>>53501183
Do they really make a buck a week off everyone? That seems extremely inflated.
If they just ran ads that didn't track you across the web most people would probably whitelist the site.
>>53501364
If a site is serving you viruses, then you shouldn't be visiting it. Ad blocking is like trying to carve out the parts of bread that have mold growing on them.
Like I said before, if there's a way to subscribe or something, then go for that. Otherwise, don't be their patron.
>>53501346
where do I find good preset resource on how to keep my hosts file up to date?
pretty annoying imo. if i gave money or subscribed to every website that asked i'd be broke. just not doable.
I'll just not read the site. None of these sites are worth paying money to read, nor the annoyance of seeing their shitty ads.
If I go to a site very frequently I'll unblock ads (hackaday) or buy something (4chan). Wired is not worth it.
>>53501380
>>53501407
Many major sites have accidentally served malware via advertisements.
A few examples of sites you might recognize that have done this: Youtube, Yahoo, Wired, The Huffington Post
Ads are dangerous and harmful to users, they are an immoral revenue stream.
>>53501425
>Someone hacks an ad host server and uploads malware.
>ITS THE ADS THAT ARE IMMORAL!!!!
You understand the fallacy in your logic, right?
>Donations aren't consistent enough, you can't actually grow at a decent rate with donations alone.
I know quite a few sites, and we are talking niche within the nice Chinese novel translation sites, who have a nice identifier of how much server costs, and not only get that cost back through voluntary donations but also get net revenue through sponsored chapter releases.
But i digressed, back on topic:
That's not the problem of consumers to fix, that's the problem of the management, the financial function, the book-keeping function, the R&D function within the operative management.
The only thing you've outlined here is that a company was too blind and narrow-minded to strategize and calculate,
they overextended their capabilities relying on only one income stream, and now they are trying to push their own mistake on the viewership in a way that will decrease it.
Do you know why the first lesson in operative management is to learn the influence of society and surroundings on a company and vice-versa? Because a company can't function in a foreign culture (say Muslim Nations) without restructuring its center there to abide by local whims,
because the whims of the consumers supported by a quality service go above in importance of your capital investment and revenue.
If you have no voluntary support, then you are the one making a mistake, and pushing responsibility on the consumers will only lead to failure as happens with EVERY company ever. It's a formula that's undisputed in management, and one that's unfortunately often made.
>Yeah, but if WIRED were to go away people would go to those other sites, putting the same stresses in volume on them
You are assuming other sites will operate and manage in the same fashion as WIRED and that all will lead in its mistakes.
You are incorrect.
No, I am more worried about the trend of adblockers itself. The message in OP's pic is true. IMO it's perfectly fine for websites to make display whatever anti-adblock ads they want, people using adblock have no right to complain as they are unwanted leeches anyway.
It's like someone sneaking onto the bus without paying and then when they get caught they complain about "a worrying trend of not letting people ride the bus for free without consequences". Simply an unbelievable sense of entitlement.
>>53501461
>>53501377
>>53501412
>>53501332
Nah, I run a server too, you don't hear me whining like a little bitch.
Instead of avoiding these sites, they should be DOSed with bogus request to give them a reason.
>>53501233
This. Just block Adblock-blocking
>>53501425
The morality argument sounds like an evangelical trying to moralize every discussion into an up-or-down ethical issue. If you want to insist on that argument, then go do it alone. I won't join you out on that platform.
Major sites have, accidentally, served malware through advertisements. Just as sites sometimes serve malware. Mint recently had malware embedded in the distributions it was serving, but trust will grow again as they re-establish their credibility by being reliable over time. The same happened with Youtube, Yahoo, etc...
I said before that this is a pretty straightforward arrangement - the terms aren't that confusing unless you're an idiot. I don't know what's supposed to "disturb" you about this trend that didn't disturb you 5 years ago, or 10, when things were tangibly much worse.
Again, this all sounds like some child that has just woken up and thinks this is all some new injustice. To the extent that it's an injustice, it's not new at all. More practically, almost any exchange can be framed in moralistic, hyperbolic terms. The exchange of your labor for money is arguably (by real philosophers, not just by dickheads at Occupy Wall Street) ethically wrong.
But you still take a job that pays you a wage or salary for your work. We all still do, because compromising that one ethic to have a workable economy is such a small price to pay that only an obnoxious, pedantic Marxist would insist on principle over practicality.
The same holds here.
Once a month I change some shit on my site to break existing ad block lists.
>>53501548
>re-establish their credibility by being reliable over time.
Anotherfag here.
You can't be reliable with ads since ads can be hijacked any time at any place and turned malicious.
Reliability can't be achieved when damage is done before you can respond, just like in the case of ads.
Ads as a system are for the real world, on billboards, on TV where they are part of a reel. That's because there they can't ruin and affect the operation of the viewership.
On the Internet though, ads get a malicious function, and that's what will forever separate Internet ads from other ad systems.
Internet ads will never ever be reliable, nor credible. Ergo ad-blocking is a logical ethical existence if nothing else.
>>53501461
A quick point to make...
>That's not the problem of consumers to fix, that's the problem of
>the management,
>the financial function,
>the book-keeping function,
>the R&D function within the operative management.
Look at all those roles you mentioned. In any business with the goal of growing and actually being able to make money to see the next day, each one of those individual roles can be filled by a person, full time no less. Do you think that those people are going to work for free? Spend all that time and not get a return on that? That's not even including the people who maintain the server at the most basic level and keep it running.
To be honest, your vision seems to exist in a hyper-idealized state that simply does not exist in the real world.
For a site to grow, be able to serve a large audience, it must be able to have a consistent form of income. Donations simply do not fill that role in the real world. This fact is immutable.
>>53501510
I guarantee your server doesn't get the volume/consume the same amount of bandwidth that a site like WIRED does, so I can guarantee your analogy is already horse shit.
>>53501581
>Ads can be hijacked any time.
The same can be said for any internet service on the internet, this has been shown time and time again in the past.
>>53501388
I assumed most people know and use RSS for these stuff.
Are you children or something? Don't know how the world works?
People need money, ads generate that through their website, they need to draw people to their site so they create content based on what people want to see, they then get money for people seeing their content so they don't charge people for access to the content. If you remove that ad revenue factor, they can't afford to keep creating content and then shut down.
>>53501614
>Are you children or something?
Welcome to gee gee baby.
>>53501183
Of course I'm disturbed by capitalism.
>>53501581
>You can't be reliable with ads since ads can be hijacked any time at any place and turned malicious.
I don't know how this differs from any other content. It's true that ads are dynamic, but so is content. Every time you hit a server there's some element of risk at stake.
And your perspective of advertisements is very naive. On TV and in movies you should be noticing product placement and special consideration. Some of it is really ham-fisted and I can't believe you've seen but not noticed it. The distinction between advertisement and content is so much more blurred than you seem to appreciate, and it has been for some time. If you think this didn't affect the viewership, you're mistaken.
The kind of maliciousness at play when products are weaved into the television show you're watching is a different kind of maliciousness that tells your computer to do things you don't want it to do, but not different enough in this framing for you to make them categorically different.
>>53501407
>If a site is serving you viruses, then you shouldn't be visiting it
every porn site ever?
>>53501609
While true, the nature of ads makes them nearly 99% of the time served by a 3rd party.
You can trust wired.com to the ends of the earth but you don't know what the 3rd party is serving you
>>53501614
>people need money
>need
There are no needs, only wants.
Maybe you should read a book.
>>53501589
>In any business with the goal of growing and actually being able to make money to see the next day, each one of those individual roles can be filled by a person
Those functions aren't magically thrown from the heaven when a single person, or a group, starts a venture. Those functions all start out managed by one person with a goal, as happens with those translation sites that i mentioned which lord over groups of translators, editors, and proofreaders who have to spend approximately 3-6 hours a day to dish out one single chapter.
I am giving you an existing example of what you call a "utopian ideal",
because you are ignorant of what exists out there and are merely narrowing your argument to one site's operation without knowing anything about the forms of management and planning that can occur to satisfy the revenue system of a donation system which will upkeep.
Don't forget that there are journalists with full paid jobs who might be organizing sites like WIRED as a side-gig hobby thing, where they only require donations up to a limit to maintain the server, and the revenue upwards of that can be regarded as a bonus.
Again, you are not giving a solution to a problem,
you are trying to justify a failure in management by speaking empty words that "durr positions aren't free" which achieve nothing by themselves.
If you can't support a position after you calculate your average net profits, don't make it.
If you want to expand, then you first market yourself and make sure that the increase in readership has a coordinated increase in voluntary donations which will pay off that position you want to expand, else you don't do it.
Extension of a venture doesn't depend on your wishes, it depends on the extent of your consumers, and whether your service is good enough to warrant donations.
If you aren't getting enough donations, then your service is shit and your management is inadequate.
Go get some management classes please.
>user tracking/targeting
>interstitials
>animated ads
>interactive ads
>ads with sound
>ads that launch plugins
>ads that run megabytes of javascript
>ads loaded over connections with worse security than the site content
>ads for things totally unrelated to the site content like fast food
>obvious scam ads, fake download buttons, fake message boxes, fake virus alerts, one weird tricks
>popups, "popunders," message boxes
These are all a huge fuck you to your users. Internet advertising is in the state it's in because advertisers have historically been able to do whatever they want. There are no laws governing internet advertising like there are for every other form of media and until recently, most normies didn't know how to block ads while still receiving the content. Now the advertisers are panicking because their free ride is over and because what they're trying to do (force a computer to operate against its owner's will,) is essentially impossible. There will always be anti-anti-adblockers for the anti-adblockers and people are right to use them.
The only way to get users to see ads is to make them not worth blocking. Imagine if the ads on a page were served from the same CDN as the article's images. Users would only be exposed to the same tracking that they would have from just reading the article and the user's information would only be in the hands of the website itself, not shady third-party advertisers. It would also make them harder to block. Not impossible to block, but if the ads were inoffensive in every other way, most users probably wouldn't consider it worth the effort.
>>53501663
People sometimes do things that are bad for them because it pleases them in the moment.
I'm going to draw the line here and say that if you need people to make really basic observations about behavioral psych stuff, you should enroll in an intro course at your local community college.
>>53501676
Maybe you should move out of your moms basement.
>>53501676
don't worry mate, you can put your kids through school by trading goats with the principle or sucking his wife's son's dick
>>53501183
I mean, no website that I need to access has done this, I would simply stop visiting those sites. so uhh, Wired is just trying to kill itself clearly.
>>53501332
So we should go for the ADS OR DIE meme?
>>53501658
>And your perspective of advertisements is very naive.
>ads that can brick a computer vs ads that can't do anything to a person except be an eyesore from time to time
>IT'S THE SAME
You are a special kind of retarded, aren't you?
>>53501704
Not him, but in this so-far pretty short thread we've already brought up at least one other approach - subscriptions/patronage/whatever you want to call it.
You need to read the longer posts and the fuller contexts of the conversation in this thread.
>>53501419
I assume once this catches on there will be super sites or paid portals for groups of similar sites. Technobuffalo, the verge, anandtech, androidcentral, 9to5 mac and other sites of the like could band together to split subscription revenue as a reliable source is income. This does come across as a dystopian cable package world, though. So maybe not.
It will only get worse as sponsored content will become more prominent. Video game reviews are already paid. Soon all sectors will have that. And you can read about your favorite hardware by posts sponsored by amd.
>>53501234
Yes, we definitely need another news website to deliver the same content as the thousands of other sites. We are literally allowing hipsters to live by supporting sites like this.
News being less profitable is 100% fine with me. If anything it will mean less clickbait and more actual news.
>>53501710
Is there a particular instance of ads that bricked computers that you're referring to? This sounds like something you would point to but you're noticeably not pointing to that instance.
Fuck them
>most ADs aren't relevant to my tastes anyways
>ADs longer than 10 seconds are too long "here watch this 1 min AD before this copy and paste 30 sec video"
>These "journalists" (read: tumblrina faggots) just copy and paste their shit anyways.
>Most of these "journalists" (read: tumblrina faggots) Don't know anything about technology. They are just tech users, not engineers.
>Most of their copy and paste content isn't worth money.
They are just better off fucking with tactics like this. They need to either accept that users WILL use AD blockers or they lose viewership all together when viewers just go to another site.
>>53501731
And articles about privacy from Facebook.
>>53501684
There is one HUGE fuck up in your long winded post.
>side-gig hobby thing
You realize that once something becomes your job instead of a hobby it becomes a completely different ballpark, right? When something is a hobby, you don't mind taking donations. If your hobby doesn't survive, "Eh, that's fine, I didn't need that to survive anyway", but once it becomes your job and you rely on it to survive, its a whole different game, you need consistency.
You say, like someone who can't take any form of disagreement,
>Go get some management classes please.
But you continue to only prove to my point that you're living in some idealized fantasy and have no real grasp about how people actually function in the real world.
>>53501332
Should have thought about this shit before they started a fucking business.
>>53501737
>he thinks blocking ads will lead to less clickbate instead of bullshit sponsored content
ayyy lmao
>>53501737
Are you complaining about the diversity of journalism sites?
I don't really know how to reply to this. We benefit from more people reporting on the news, even if there's lots of overlapping coverage, as long as each covers just one story that the others didn't see or wouldn't have covered.
>>53501746
They did, they use ads.
Simple.
>>53501748
>ads
>you get paid just for clicking on the article
>this means only the headline and photo must be appealing
>subscription
>people will only subscribe if they really enjoy your content
>this means your articles must have some actual content in them
>>53501761
>their whole business relies on forcing people to look at things
That was pretty dumb of them.
in the words of bill hicks, if you work in advertising, kill yourself.
>>53501746
They did. That's why they have ads.
Even if you convinced everyone you met that they should block ads (and you won't, because acting like a kid with Asperger's having a tantrum tends to alienate people), these companies would still find ads profitable. Only the more responsive sites (and the ones that cater to more tech people, like WIRED) even respond to ad blocking in any meaningful way.
Get a grip on reality.
>>53501772
Subscriptions wj never be profitable for most sites. Sponsors are way more reliable.
>>53501332
luckily IPFS and ZeroNet will make this stupid way of doing things obsolete.
>>53501778
Are you saying that was dumb of television networks?
>>53501332
>Servers that cost money to operate
then shut them down
>>53501778
No it's effective.
>>53501799
you know 4chan falls under this category too, right?
and if that doesn't pique your interest, then your precious reddit will disappear too.
>>53501424
I'll just block the ads.
>>53501684
>failure in management
Why is it a failure? Not everyone is going to like what you do, that doesn't mean it's a failure.
From everything you're saying, it sounds like you a) have never had a management role and b) would fail if you ever started a business of any kind.
These translation sites require very few people who work for very little and therefore have small donation requirements. I don't know why you bring them up as though it's scalable to other sites.
>>53501183
disable javascript
What pisses me off is instead of telling me to fuck myself they are being nice about
>>53501183
Every time I've ever seen this a simple Cmd+W fixes the issue
>>53501792
Maybe. My grandmother used to record movies onto VHS and cut out the ads. I guess the difference between that and ad blocking on the internet is that it takes more effort, so maybe you're just dumb if your business relies on forcing people to look at things over the internet.
>>53501808
Not for much longer, senpai.
>>53501471
>unwanted leeches
Why would you put something publicly accessible if you don't want it to be publicly accessible? Put it behind a login page. Oh, right, no more free google publicity. Well, tough shit! Switch business models if you can't handle "teh webz".
>$1 per week
>$4 per month
>to read wired
lel
no
Has Wired already done this? I'm literally reading an article on there right now and it's not happening.
>>53501745
>There is one HUGE fuck up in your long winded post.
It's not a fuckup. I have already given you an example of why the job based ballpark doesn't work in terms of consumer relations (you are not giving any argument for why WIRED's action here should be successful or a logical step, rather you are evading why it is a failure, which i have outlined why), and it is irrelevant if WIRED goes down (as they will have failed their job and will stop wasting time and move onto other things). I am giving you a set example of "other sites that will replace WIRED who will work differently".
Those other sites who do it as a JOB, will extend appropriately, and not overextend like WIRED.
I don't know why you lack the basic understanding of what over-extension is, but whatever.
As far as managing a site like WIRED as a JOB, i have given you an example of those translation sites, one of them Wuxiaworld where the guy's JOB is that site precisely.
Do you know why he survives and still expands his site? Because he has the management down, he doesn't alienate his viewership by making them feel like they are being forced into a chore (THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT), and he operates based on what is, rather than what he thinks or assumes should be in the future.
This arrogance and narrominded focus on forcing a single revenue stream is what pushed WIRED into now alienating viewership.
I can confidently say to you that WIRED will either get eaten up, or shut down,
and i an confidently say to you that other sites who get the new influx of viewership will have better management and appropriate extension, without alienating users.
It's on you to argue why they wouldn't. So far, i repeat, all your arguments are "durr the position isn't free", which indicates nothing, and doesn't even have relation to why WIRED's business decision is shit. Less empty words, more actual arguments.
>>53501737
The entire fucking reason clickbait exists is because it's cheap as fuck to make. Why would you bother writing a good piece of journalism which a few people will read, when you can make some fucking gif list for much less effort and time and which more people (therefore more chance of someone not having an adblocker) will read.
>>53501676
Yeah, man, that's why you live in the woods and hunt every meal and don't use things like the internet, computers, transportation, or anything else someone who's an adult with a job would use. Nope, you just live off the land and only eat because you want to.
>>53501814
4chan never made shit from advertising, thats why moot left.
its not like websites are immortal, the cycle goes on, bitching about a failure in business model means you can't keep up with the times.
and don't give me 'ads are the only way' either, do some god damned research.
>>53501816
that too, but if I site tries to be pushy I just fuck right off. Like a lot of sites have pop up "subscribe to our newsletters". Those cunts receive the fastest Ctrl+W this side of the internet
>However, The New York Times claims readers spend the same amount of time on sponsored articles as traditional news stories. This is backed up by a study from Sharethrough and IPG Media Labs. They found that consumers actually look at sponsored articles more than typical editorial articles (26 percent vs. 24 percent) and spend a similar amount of time on each (1 minute vs. 1.2 minutes).
Welcome to the future.
>>53501820
>Why is it a failure? Not everyone is going to like what you do, that doesn't mean it's a failure.
It's a failure because it alienates viewership and pushes responsibility onto them. That's the first sign of a failing business.
And it's precisely because not everyone is going to do the same as WIRED does, that other sites who fill in the void after its failure will succeed.
>These translation sites require very few people who work for very little and therefore have small donation requirements.
If you know nothing about those sites, or how translation works, please don't speak anything.
>>53501183
I just block the popups.
There's nothing they can do about that.
>>53501684
>don't expect the consumer to pay for the site, it's not their burden
>don't expand your site unless the consumer pays for the entire venture out of pocket
Yeah man, total sense. You're some kind of genius, eh?
>>53501614
>hey guys I created this little statue by baking feces in an oven
>give me money for it
>why don't you give me money for it?
>HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KEEP MAKING SHIT STATUES IF YOU DON'T PAY?
good riddance
>>53501183
advertisements in general should be illegal, and its insane that it is so big.
stop saying that companies lose money on adblockers, they can simply stop buying ads. nobody is gonna see them anyway.
personally i am more likely to avoid a brand based on how annoying their ads are.
>>53501869
On what? You can't just say that, it's the same non-answer as "check your privilege".
>>53501892
>he visits baking feces sites and then complains about it
>>53501183
>he STILL doesn't use a HOSTS file
K A A K
A
A
K
>>53501691
>kids
nobody forced you to take on responsibilities you can't handle
>>53501890
Yeah, it's such a tough thing to realize that income and potential expansion isn't based on your whims, but on how quality your service is to have the users pay you properly,
and it's so hard to have a cost indicator on top of the site to help the users with awareness of how much is needed.
>>53501869
moot left because of the fappening. he was under more legal pressure than he had ever experienced. he talked about this in his Q&A. did you even listen to it?
moreover, the point is that 4chan stayed afloat - if barely - on advertising and later on subscriptions through the 4chan pass. if you're not seeing how that puts 4chan in the same boat as WIRED and others, then it's because you're deliberately overlooking it.
as for websites being mortal, the reason you see churn is because the cost of getting into the game is low and because there are reasonable odds of making it work financially. if you're categorically ruling out entire forms of revenue like ads, then you're going to see a decline. the cycle you describe hinges on volume, which only works if everyone has access to proportionate, scalable revenue - like ads (subscriptions don't scale down small enough).
I never said that ads were the only way, and in fact i've been saying that there are other ways in response to idiots here who seem to think that's the dichotomy being presented ("ads or die"). i don't even know how you concluded that i was in that camp, unless you just created a strawman and that was a characteristic you imagined of me.
>>53501380
>B-BUT MUH CLOSED SORES!!! OH-OPEN SORES SUCKS BECAUSE MUH MALWAREZ!!!!
most of the time it's a WEBSITE HACK.
>>53501814
you don't seem to understand supply and demand
>>53501787
T H I S
H
I
S
>>53501843
what makes it dumb? your grandfather had nothing better to do with his time than splice together episodes of a show he'll have then seen like a dozen times, and the ads at that point were pretty onerous. online ads today are so much less noticeable in a user's experience that it's likely most users wouldn't even notice whether ads were turned on or off unless you asked them. they're woven into the design of the websites they visit, and carefully tailored to look either inconspicuous or exactly like real content.
>>53501183
Advertising runs the world? Fuck that?
>>53501900
>what are analogies
>>53501901
>he STILL uses a HOSTS file
Blocking enforced through the HOSTS file can easily be detected.
>>53501183
Noscript.
I hate the friend bs they pull like the op image. At least with dmca shit there's none of that hey bro yeah I'm cool like you dawg but consider maybe not stealing our stuff but not calling you a thief but this is still like no different really so yeah cool check us out we're pretty chill like you.
fuck off just say no ad blocking and shut the site off to those users or go behind a paywall. I'll never whitelist a site for fucking ads.
shit they'd have better luck just targeting browsers or app makers than end users but that would cost actual money.
>>53502011
NoScript is shit. Use uMatrix instead.
Advertising doesn't run anything. It's only purpose is to consolidate competitiveness.
The only thing that matters for users is that supply exists, and that it will always exist.
Advertising doesn't cut off supply, it just cuts off some minor parties who can't compete while there will always be someone supplying the same thing besides them.
If anything, one can regard ad-blocking as a form of fighting over-saturation of firms doing the same shit.
>durr but they lose their jobs hurr
Find another one faggot, i have no compassion towards people who never had compassion towards me when their ads forced ransomware on my computer.
Thankfully all my data is on external backups unconnected, so i didn't lose anything.
>>53502018
they've done tests on this - not just A/B, but academic studies - and normal people without difficulties socializing prefer the candid human approach.
>>53501183
I don't mind small banners but most pages use popups and annoying flippy backgrounds.
>>53501323
Also this.
>>53502011
And this. 99 % of conventional users are too dumb and won't even use adblock.
>>53502023
Use both. NoScript with scripts enabled globally for XSS blocking (uMatrix isn't as good) and uMatrix for blocking scripts
this thread is plagued by people who seem to think that advertising and other sponsored media is necessarily inextricably linked with all the other components we're familiar with. Things like:
- tracking software
- high bandwidth ads
- obnoxious ads
- etc...
if you're objecting to that stuff, that's just normal. if you're objecting to advertising in principle, then go back to your Black Lives Matter campaign or something.
>>53501882
>>>53501820 (You)
>It's a failure because it alienates viewership and pushes responsibility onto them. That's the first sign of a failing business.
You literally advocate for users being responsible for donating to a site for their continued operation. That's equally as voluntary as subscribing to a site. The difference is that sites running ads can be seen for free because they get passive income from viewed advertisements. No donation required, no subscription required. Nobody is leaned on as responsible for the financial success of the site whereas if you don't donate enough, site goes away. Which I'm sure you have an "i don't care" attitude towards, which makes you an awful resource for relative information.
>And it's precisely because not everyone is going to do the same as WIRED does, that other sites who fill in the void after its failure will succeed.
That's some assumption right there.
>If you know nothing about those sites, or how translation works, please don't speak anything.
I admit i know very little other than anime nerds who are spending their free time doing translations because they're fucking weeaboos. Donation is very little. Provide proof of otherwise.
>>53502063
on what website are those things ever separate?
>>53501964
>they're woven into the design of the websites they visit, and carefully tailored to look either inconspicuous or exactly like real content.
What the fuck? Which websites have you been using? Are you an advertiser? Online ads are designed to be as visible as possible so they get noticed and clicked on. Also, a lot of sites use interstitials and ads that pop over the content.
>>53501892
>oh hey i will visit this site where this person shapes their feces and bakes them, that's neat... Oh wait a dollar to view? Nah i am not that interested.
>site owner: oh no hey wait, you can view them, no charge. There's just going to be an advertisement playing in the background for the oven i use to bake my feces but just ignore it
>oh okay wow these are some fine fecal sculptures, very food craftsmanship, you obviously have a good diet.
Is that so hard to understand?
>>53501332
t. Shlomo Goldstein
>>53501234
the internet is not tv merchant im going to archive.is all your articles to make sure you go bankrupt
>>53501183
Yes, the Forbes site is asking me to disable my adblocker before I can load their site. My answer? I stopped using their site. Simple.
>>53502102
Are you retarded or did you just wake up from a 20-year coma?
>>53501234
I saw enough ads and fake ads in the 90's to last me into the 22nd century.
Yeah, a lot of sites use ads legitimately to generate income, but the problem is that the few have ruined it for the many. Fact remains that ads were abused, and still are being abused. I don't want to leave my house and see ads on every wall/car/pavement any more than I want to see ads on every fucking page I access.
I'll never watch another ad in my life and luckily the better ads get at avoiding blockers, the better blockers get at blocking ads.
tl;dr don't give a fuck, not seeing another ad.
All in all it's legal for consumers to block ads.
The site asking for their visitors to not block ads is fair game, as much as putting ads up and not telling they can be blocked is fair game.
Internet being a pull media, the ones acting entitled are the sites, not the visitors.
It's on them to adapt.
>>53501183
HERE'S THE THING WITH ADS
We put 1000 ads on every blank on our site. We know they are completely random.and inimportant to you and make it hard to read our content, but if they don't load, we can't count a view and we can't go back and collect out .000005 cents from the advertiser.
>>53502069
>users being responsible for donating to a site for their continued operation
What's wrong with that?
>they get passive income from viewed advertisements
For now.
>Nobody is leaned on as responsible
Really? Then what's with the "if you block ads you're hurting us" shit?
>if you don't donate enough, site goes away
As it should. If there's no demand for the content, fuck off with your useless supply.
>>53502123
Are you retarded? Why the fuck would anyone design and pay for an ad that, in your words, "users wouldn't even notice."
>>53502102
Might be talking about things like native advertising where the ads are in the same format as the rest of the site so sponsored articles and things.
>>53501730
don't porn sites already do this?
>>53501183
Block the pop-up with the ad-blocker.
>>53502135
Forgot to mention that I stopped watching TV because of ads and began pirating.
Only cucks pay for cable/satellite AND watch 20 minutes of ads an hour.
>>53502109
at no point did I say anything about a site; are you this mentally ill?
>>53502101
Maciej Ceglowski wrote and gives talks about this
http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm
the trend is to lump them together, but this isn't the trend OP is commenting on.
>>53502123
maybe you should turn off your adblocker for day and find out.
I don't believe for a second anyone here is not using an adblocker.
>>53502063
What made you draw that conclusion? If ads didn't track, weren't obnoxious and didn't leech unreasonable amounts of bandwidth, I probably wouldn't block them and I wouldn't be complaining in this thread. People aren't confusing those aspects of advertising with the concept of advertising, they're just saying what they hate about advertising. Pretty much every ad network suffers from those problems. If they were separable, why has no one separated them?
How do I blacklist Forbes and Wired from my Google search results? I need to get rid of some clutter anyways.
>>53501380
What does this have to do with the topic of the thread though?
>>53502109
>advertisement playing in the background
why does it play at all? just to consume resources? what you actually meant is POPPING UP OUT OF NOWHERE FULLSCREEN AT MAXIMUM VOLUME WITH A CLOSE BUTTON WITH ALMOST THE SAME COLOR AS THE BACKGROUND SO YOU STRUGGLE TO TURN IT OFF!
>>53501908
What's this whims jazz? There's no one guy behind this stuff. There are market researchers who see trends that consumers respond well to and advise on implementation. There are segments that work and segments that don't, but they try to see what sticks. They even ask the public what they want from their site and try to implement it without charging the public anything. Instead you would have them beg for money, "oh I'm a dependant child, please pay with your own money for what i want with my site" or "oh you want something? Hope you got some money for me then!!". Are you a woman, by chance?
May the entire internet armageddon'd
I'll never, never, NEVER, N E V E R
N E V E R
E
V
E
R
DISABLE MY ADBLOCKER
FUCK OFF
>>53501332
>>53501377
adapt or die capitalism bitch
>>53501183
Suck a dick you entitled little cunt
You don't have any right to complain while consuming everything for free without giving anything back
>>53502139
The users notice it, what they don't notice is that it's an ad. The issue is when it looks like content. Like when search engines or video sites put ads results first. Users intentionally ignore ads. That's why click-through rates are usually below 1%. Disguising the ads as regular content is shady and has people clicking on things they think are real content from the website.
Watch someone without an ad blocker use google. They'll frequently click the paid results because they think it's relevant to their search. It's not, it's trash.
>>53502069
>You literally advocate for users being responsible for donating to a site for their continued operation.
Nope. And this is why you don't get anything about management.
A donation bar and a donation system is not forcing users in a responsibility. It's purpose is to operate on good-will of users where they feel that they are doing good. It's their own choice, they aren't being forced on it.
WIRED's way of doing things is forcing them, and not giving them any other choice.
This is some basic management psychology in relation to PR that you don't get.
>That's equally as voluntary as subscribing to a site.
Except that subscribing in the case of WIRED isn't voluntary, but is being forced as an alternative of ads. Limited choice etc.
>The difference is that sites running ads can be seen for free because they get passive income from viewed advertisements.
Except you can't extend as a business beyond the revenue that the ad system brings back.
When you extend beyond your current limits, you require extension of revenue. Extension of revenue in this case of WIRED, depended on a PR disaster way of doing things which doesn't depend on the good-will on users anymore.
My "don't care" attitude is based on the fact that i am not here to convince you have you should operate your own service,
but why WIRED's business decision is a failure and will lead to failure.
Refer to
>>53501857
>I admit i know very little other than anime nerds
Relating Chinese novels to Anime shit is like relating Iceland's book writing scene to the same.
You tried to be offensive and baiting, but you only ended up looking stupid.
>Donation is very little. Provide proof of otherwise.
I have given you Wuxiaworld as a source. You can go on there and find out for yourself on how and why it is successful.
Or you won't because you are evading the main argument. Suits me either way.
>>53502139
Buzzfeed, Facebook, Instagram, Google, etc... all do this; it's called "native advertising". Basically it looks like a post on the respective site but it's an ad.
Chances are you've seen it a dozen times today but not realized it, because I'm getting the impression that you had no idea this was a thing until this minute.
>>53502191
>without giving anything back
why give anything back? they didn't ask for anything
>>53501332
I'm fine with non-intrusive advertising, not with flashy animations and popups that waste MY resources. My computer doesn't run on unicorn farts and magic, it runs on electricity, and the more ads there are, the more processing needs to be done for nothing. My life doesn't run on unicorn farts and magic, it runs on time, ads get in the way of that.
>>53502165
> If ads didn't track, weren't obnoxious and didn't leech unreasonable amounts of bandwidth, I probably wouldn't block them and I wouldn't be complaining in this thread.
True shit. Like 4chan ads are legitimately not annoying and I unblock them if I'm not using a 4chan pass. Moot wasn't an assclown when he implemented the ads.
>>53501183
There is infinite supply
I'll just use another site
>>53501471
>don't want to download certain strings of text
>be a "dangerously entitled" thief
>>53502198
>Buzzfeed, Facebook, Instagram, Google
I don't have accounts on those websites.
>>53502180
>Instead you would have them beg for money
No. I would have them not overextend beyond their capabilities to return,
and not to extend in a way that will be a PR disaster which it is at this point.
>>53501685
Fucking this.
>>53502101
LITERALLY
THIS
SITE
WE'RE
ON
RIGHT
NOW
>>53502210
>and I unblock them
meh, why bother; I keep the blocking always on
>>53501183
Blocking Ads is stealing, clean and simple.
>>53502216
you don't make an account on buzzfeed, but honestly the bigger issue is that you're clueless about this subject but you decided that we all needed to hear the authoritative insight of someone who is completely in the dark about this subject and more or less driven by a priori judgment
>>53502236
Showing me ads is stealing my time and attention, clean and simple.
>>53502157
Website obesity is only one of three problems you mentioned. It's true that it's separable, but an ad can be lightweight and still track you or be obnoxious.
>>53502223
Not post-hiroshima. 4chan uses an external ad network with external tracking javascript now. I had 4chan ads unblocked when moot was in charge.
>>53502232
cus I like 4chan
>>53502236
t. Rajesh
>>53502236
I'll stop blocking ads when people stop using them for malicious purposes. So never.
>>53502200
What kinda of stupid logic is that?
>Why I killed your mom? she didn't me to not kill her lmao
Why do you think they putting ads on their side retard? for the lulz?
I don't mind anti-adblocking measures, as you can often just sidestep them. What really pisses me off is hipster journalists from San Fransisco bitching and whining about ad blockers. Find an another way to get money or stop whinibg
>>53502198
>>53502241
It's not the only kind of advertising. Those sites still have regular ads and everyone would notice if they were gone.
>>53502216
>I don't have accounts on those websites
Other sites do it too. Those are just a few that make ads look like content. Again, chances are you've seen it a lot today without realizing it, because you're evidently expecting a very clear announcement to precede an ad that gets past your filters, which is not how the world works.
>>53502241
>don't judge getting fucked in the ass until you try it
ok
>>53502150
>watching ADs on TV
>not using the ad downtime for shitposting
Fag confirmed
>>53502247
yes, sites can be at different points on all these dimensions. that's the point of my original post; that people in this thread are lumping them all together but the truth is it's a much more complex problem than this.
Most ads are total shit, its probably better now than the glorious age of flash ads? Maybe?
Wired can go fuck themselves though.
>>53502264
>Why do you think they putting ads
I don't care. HTTP is not all-or-nothing, I can cherry pick the content I want.
>You're holding it wrong.
I do as I please.
This thread really shows how /g/ has been taken over by consumerist cucks.
The /g/ of ten years ago wouldn't be defending online advertising so vehemently.
>>53502270
I'm just asking you to know what the definition of "sodomy" is before you preach, not to go try it. I don't think that's an insane request - go have a vague sense of what you're condemning.
This is evidently too much for you though, because I just had to explain and give examples of native advertising to someone whose mental model of advertising is so naive and simple that I'm not even sure you have a way of incorporating it. let me know how it goes.
>>53502245
Nothing on the internet is stealing. All is virtual.
Laws evolved and gave some legal valor to online things because people can't keep things private and secure themselves.
Ads are not even protected by law.
>>53502268
>make ads look like content
That's great then. If it behaves like content, it's content to me (useless, but still). But no 3rd party requests and script execution, right? Because I block those. Otherwise I'm fine with them mixing ads in the content.
>>53502289
But no ad networks have zero points on all dimensions. Why shouldn't people lump them together if they are literally always lumped together in reality? It's possible to make lightweight, tracking-free, unobnoxious ads, but no one does it.
>>53501234
>Your complaint smacks of naivety.
So does their complaint. They want a guarantee of income/money per article? Put up a paywall. Otherwise fuck off.
an ad blocker shouldn't even have a whitelist.
these sites make more money seling collected data than displaying ads anyway
>>53502333
>paywall
b-but muh free publicity on search engines and click bait aggregators!
>>53502138
>>>53502069 (You)
>>users being responsible for donating to a site for their continued operation
>What's wrong with that?
Site operators stay small and niche and there's stagnation. Especially for technology and science related sites that don't provide a service other than information. Formatting and design are important but cost money. It's more likely people will visit a free site with ads, therefore generating more money to make the site and/or it's content better than to have viewers support the site out of pocket. Stability is greater in one than the other and that usually means consistent with for content providers, which means more content.
>>they get passive income from viewed advertisements
>For now.
Slippery slope, eh?
>>Nobody is leaned on as responsible
>Really? Then what's with the "if you block ads you're hurting us" shit?
I mean solely. Donation sites tend to have smaller user bases so the strain in higher per view financially on the user than advert sites where there are a lot of viewers who pay nothing.
>>if you don't donate enough, site goes away
>As it should. If there's no demand for the content, fuck off with your useless supply.
I understand what you're saying but it's not as simple as that. I'm just having trouble formulating an argument while getting ready for work, too.
>>53502320
then yeah, it's fine.
but an example of "native advertising" on buzzfeed (so several levels of shittiness piled on) was "9 things that have changed since the 90s", and it was sponsored by motorola. one of the items was a comparison between an old razr and a new droid razr, but otherwise you wouldn't have known it was sponsored by motorola (the other shit was about how boy bands have changed and stuff, par for the course at Buzzfeed)
>>53502143
Do they? I don't know. If they do, how effective is it?
>>53501183
>such as WIRED
>>53502138
>As it should. If there's no demand for the content, fuck off with your useless supply.
If I had to pay individually for every website I used I probably wouldn't even use the internet.
the WIRED editors are out in full force I see
>>53502333
This is the paywall, dummy. You're being asked to disable adblocking or pay for a subscription.
it's a paywall with an easy way out (re-enabling ads).
>>53502299
You missing the point retard, I am blocking everything too but you know what's the difference between me and you?
I don't whine like a little bitch when a site calls me out, because I am the scumbag here and I know it.
You don't care if they survive but they should care about your entitled ass ad/pop up free desirable experience?
Get over yourself idiot
>>53502236
>give's virus's
>can literally get the same content for free
It ain't stealing if your service isn't original, its just using your head. I'm not gonna pay for certain service's no matter what, if they want to try and find a way to make money off me, thats fine. But ad's aren't gonna work because they disrupt me, annoy me. If they try to get around my decision, then I'll go to another place.
Can't be called stealing if its either ad blocker or not go to your site at all.
>>53502383
>This is the paywall
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
I run a review and comparison site.
No ads here senpai.
>>53502333
decent idea, except then their site would die. No one pays for something you can get for free.
>>53502383
gotta agree with this person, basically is a paywall with a god damn pop up that gets in your way.
>>53502383
their site is only worth $2 annually, but they are asking $1 weekly
hopefully the site dies
>>53502367
Xtube's advanced search doesn't seem to work well when you have an adblock enabled for example.
>>53502364
I never click links to anything titled "X things", "Best X" or similar. It's always shit content.
>>53502383
>install ublock
>go to wired.com
>click bunch of articles on front page
>no warnings, no paywalls
what am i doing wrong?
>>53502364
buzzfeed has very good news articles sometimes like the match fixing in tennis one but their listicles all read like sponsored content now hard to always tell the difference.
Every magazine type website has these articles too.
>>53502379
>I probably wouldn't even use the internet
That means you don't really need it. You'd be more productive in your life.
>>53502457
>what am i doing wrong?
going to wired
so question, how does this make you feel.
kissanime has ad's and won't let you watch their content unless you turn adblocker off, but then it gives you an option to hide all of the ad's.
You don't need to see the ad's for them to get the money, they just need to be on your screen for a moment.
>>53502383
>This is the sneaky paywall
ftfy; fuck them
>>53502449
honestly i gave that example to illustrate one not-so-subtle way this stuff can be woven in. lots of sites do it in their own ways. the point is that it looks *exactly* like native content in many ways.
if your primary concern is tracking and whatnot, then this eschews those issues. but it's still garbage material (even by buzzfeed standards) used as a pretext to get to the ad for the droid razr
>>53502352
>Site operators stay small and niche and there's stagnation.
You have no proof of this. The popularity of products and companies, say like many kickstarter projects,
was never connected to an absolute formula.
Stagnation isn't assured.
And stagnation in case of news sites is good. Less articles, means more quality articles,
in comparison to Verge and GAWKER bullshit OH WAIT
>>53502419
>decent idea, except then their site would die.
and your point is?
>>53502488
oh I'm just saying, bad in their interests. Nothing else.
>>53502468
if that's just some illegal streaming site or link hosting site fuck them they shouldn't be making any money or shoving ads.
someone should make an adblocking virus that updated everyone hosts file
>>53501234
>I have to look at the ads they serve.
99% of websites that serve ads do not give any amount of fucks about whether or not you look at the ads. They only care that you load them, so that they get their money. They wouldn't mind an adblocker that just puts up blank space where the ads would be, so long as they still get paid.
Win-win, right? We don't have to look at ads (ignoring the tracking and security concerns) and content creators still get paid. Who would lose in that deal?
What about the advertisers? They pay out money to these websites to get their ads viewed, but do 99% of websites with ads care? No, they just want to write their articles, slap ads on top and get free money. If adblocking didn't deprive them of that free money, they wouldn't be complaining.
They don't care about advertising, they care about losing their gravy train.
>>53501183
Host static ads content on the same server who provide the content of the page and I am good with that.
As long as their idea of ads remain malicious tracking software masked as advertisement content they better go suck niggers cocks for a living because I am not going to give them a single penny (nor by viewing ads nor by paying for a subscription).
If we didn't have ads we wouldn't have any good websites
/thread.
>>53502385
>I am the scumbag here and I know it
I don't have self esteem issues over this. I feel sorry for you.
>they should care about your entitled ass
Nope, they should force a login step. What's that? Their spam wouldn't get indexed by search engines anymore? Tough shit. Why do they expect to have it both ways?
>ads, still picture/banner
>no problem
>ads, flashing crap all over the place
>fuck you
Its fairly annoying. I use adblock and noscript, but I have no issue whitelisting 4chan. 4chan is the only place where I can stand the ads. Anywhere else, I wont even consider it.
Some decent youtube channels just put ads at the end or the start of their video which you can just skip to the usual timecode and its not too big of a hassle.
I cant imagine living with ads anymore. It must be a nightmare. I watched one video on a friends tablet once, it was a pretty quiet video so I turned up the volume. Somewhere in the middle of the video, suddenly an advertisement for tomato somethingsomething pops up. It was so loud and sudden than I dropped the goddamn tablet on the ground.
Good thing it didnt fucking break. Just one more reminder why you should never whitelist youtube or any channels there for any reason. Most good channels have a patreon or something like that up anyways, if you really feel like supporting the channel, give them a few jewgolds directly.
>>53502503
>Host static ads content on the same server who provide the content
But they don't want to do that; they want to externalize the ad serving in order to keep costs low but reap the benefits of advertising. Fuck'em.
>>53501737
Exactly. If Wired can't stay alive in an adblock world then maybe it should wrap up and leave. The market isn't big enough for everybody.
>>53502509
>Nope, they should force a login step. What's that? Their spam wouldn't get indexed by search engines anymore? Tough shit. Why do they expect to have it both ways?
Are you having an aneurysm? You make 0 sense
Try writing again in actually English
And btw I don't get anything from wired, you just don't know how to use adblock
This is simple.
I am under no legal obligation to load or see the ads. I don't like ads, because of annoyance, being tracked, and malware. I can easily circumvent the anti-adblockers.
So I block the ads. If the website dies, oh well. If they all die and we're back to a hobbyist internet but with retail sites like Amazon and Newegg around, even better.
>>53502500
>free money
You know writing articles, managing a site and even making advertising deals is work, right?
That's like saying you steal from stores because they aren't entitled to free money.
>They don't care about advertising, they care about losing their gravy train.
fucking duh, Why would anyone care about advertising a product that has nothing to do with them?
>>53502468
just torrent your gook cartoons like a proper weeb
>>53502500
The analogy here is like saying that the TV network that shows you ads doesn't really care if you buy the products, but if you see the commercials. In a sense, that's true, but in a broader sense, the value of the commercial time is directly tied to the likelihood of people buying the product. If there was a channel with a million viewers and you knew that every single one of those viewers would buy a product if a commercial for it was shown on TV, then the value of that commercial time would be very high. It's a sure thing.
The reality is that that's not how it works, and everyone knows it, but a channel wants to be able to point to the ad campaign on their network, point to a corresponding bump in sales, and make the claim that the commercial time is valuable to that degree.
So they'll never come right out and say that they don't care whether you buy the products in the commercials or not, but they're showing you commercials because it's implied that some proportion of you (viewers) *will* buy the products. If you didn't, then the commercial time would be worthless.
Same with ads online. Maybe 1 out of 1,000 or 10k or 100k loads will lead to a click, but that's baked into the formula that determines how valuable the ad is.
>>53502565
>I'm a retard
ok
>>53502573
>hobbyist
>only use's internet for learning, gaming and watching cartoons
>well and that one 4-chan place.
i see nothing wrong here.
>>53502488
I'd gladly pay for articles, but not on the internet, I love magazines, they used to be awesome. Good papers and good magazines exist and make money, there are publications as thick as phone books that only exist on print cost a pretty penny and come out one a month.
Everyone ("content" producers) is complaining because they established themselves publishing "easy garbage" aka clickbait articles. The blocking of ads kills that model, and good riddance, same reason lots of magazines and newspapers die, because lots of times their content is shit or copied from AP and literally their news are like news from any other damn paper word for word. I'd love to get more magazines at home if so many of them weren't six months behind trends of what's going on with no more insight than you can already get at the manufacturers website. I want people who question the damn thing they are reporting on, feel good stories are often ads in themselves that's the mindset that drives places like reddit, I want questions to be raised about the content they supposedly are reporting on, nooo let's just make a catchy title so we can increase page view count.
>>53502577
>You know writing articles, managing a site and even making advertising deals is work, right?
Sure, just like digging a hole, filling it up and repeating the process endlessly is also work. Doesn't mean I should pay you for performing it. Do something that's worth money to someone and you'll get paid.
>>53502587
kek
Given up already?
Too easy
>>53502614
Hard to argue with illiterate shits.
>>53502577
>You know writing articles, managing a site and even making advertising deals is work, right?
it's basic bitch work it should be paid min wage at best
>>53502614
my god, you ARE retarded. and I don't even mean that insultingly. I honestly feel bad for you at this moment in time.
>>53502577
Almost anyone can write. You're doing it now, and you're doing it for free. The money doesn't come from writing, it's from clicking the "put ads on this article" button, and 99% of the time it's not even a button, it just happens.
>>53502151
Well this entire thread is about websites so.......
>>53502607
If its so worthless why do you want to access that content?
It's because you're a fucking imbecile who has no idea what he's talking about.
>>53502633
Well the thing you replied was an analogy so... do you know what that is?
it's only ever these shitty tech news sites, personal blogs and porn sites bitching about adblocking.
oh yeah and the pirate sites too.
>>53501183
10¢/year? Sure. 52$/year? Lolno. They would never make 1¢ off one person with ads in a year
>>53502634
>why do you want to access that content
I don't. I was tricked by click bait on the search engine's results page.
>>53502623
>>53502629
You're so desperate after getting btfo that you started samefagging now?
I am literally laughing out loud
>>53502634
if it's worth something they are free to put it behind a paywall.
>>53502606
>I'd gladly pay for articles, but not on the internet,
I'm not the guy you've been talking to, but I used to feel the same way, and then I started reading NSFWCorp (which got reabsorbed into PandoDaily) and there are a few places that are just behind paywalls (like PandoDaily) that are definitely worth supporting. I don't necessarily care about *every* topic they cover, but they go into depth on their stories that you just couldn't hope for an ads-supported outfit to do. And they don't show ads on the site so that's nice too.
That and a few other services have opened me up to the idea that really good, hard work is worth paying a little for. I'm still very careful with what's worth how much (and I might be on the stingy side), but we can't hope to get the tentacles of advertising off of our faces unless we're willing to support a handful of businesses through subscription/paid models of some sort, if only to show that we're willing to operate on that paradigm for good content.
>>53502634
Not everything worthwhile has a price attached, as evidenced by this internet fight giving everyone here a net income of $0 for it.
>>53502634
If it's so useful why don't you ask for my credit card before allowing me to see it?
>>53501234
>they can have "terms"
>the users can't
>>53501183
Just block the pop ups the same way you block the ads.
>>53501380
>what are hashes?
>what are signatures?
>being this novice
>>53501450
Generally there's no hacking involved, just idiots who don't check to see if the ad they're being paid to display is serving malware.
>>53501234
>The site has set some terms: to browse the content, I have to look at the ads they serve.
I've set some terms of my own: to browse your content, I will block ads.
>disable uBlock for WIRED
>ads get filtered through hosts file
Only downside is ad boxes with PAGE FAILED TO LOAD
>>53502596
This honestly sounds like a better internet
>>53502694
then you end up at the OP's impasse.
Glad we could catch you up to the post that started this thread.
>>53502625
Well duh, writers almost never make bank.
But you still need them, and they need to get paid. Thats why they advertise, it's not because they want "free money", it's because they want money in exchange for services.
>>53502630
The money does come from writing, as the writing is why people visit the site in the first place.
I use adblock as much as the next person, but I at least understand the situation.
>>53502656
Well yeah those suck, but that doesn't mean every piece of writing on the internet is bait.
>>53502661
>>53502667
Some sites do have a paywall. One of my local news sites does.
>>53502663
This does have a price attached. It costs money to run 4chan's servers.
>he is using adblock instead of ublock origin
Suits you right.
>>53502708
>muh costs to run a server
Being a communications delivery medium brings great power, one that usually surpasses the costs involved. They don't have to backstab their readers to stay afloat.
>>53502708
>and they need to get paid
Are we getting paid? We're writing, and apparently we can't write without a price attached, so who's paying up?
