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.
>>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?
>>53502713
>uhide
>>53502708
were not arguing that we should get the content for free (although we will, were pirates and poor/greedy thief's) were saying that currently wired at the very least is not worthy of money. Its not, but it has content that some people find interesting. or click bait.
Make better stuff, remove the ad's and put up a paywall. until then, it can take down the pop up's that are trying to get around adblocker and find a better way, hopefully before people get tired of this shit and think "okay, this site isn't worth money, but now its not even worth the annoyance of dealing with this pop up".
>>53501206
Eventually you and all the other adblocking kikes will run out of websites. You are killing the internet.
>>53502708
For this entire thread Hiroshima & co is getting less than a penny total against the cost of hosting it. If you'd consider that not worthless, then ok.
>>53501183
>Thoughts on this?
Stealthy ad blockers coming in 3....2...1....
>>53502662
>pandodaily
looked into it, looks pretty good. wish it was on print.
otherwise thats the model we should strive for this day and age, that's how it's going to work. basically we are going back to the previous model that newspapers used to have, the price of the "paper" covers the content, that means "newspapers" will cost more, but it also means they have proper content, the easy money is coming to an end, that is what they complain about, no one wants to have all the work of building a product from the ground up with quality.
>>53502758
Nah, sponsored content will save the web from adblockers. And the entire internet will turn into one big commercial.
>>53502708
The day 4chan dies because I didn't saw their ads I'll eat my hat, and then look for a p2p alternative that doesn't require running servers, just users. Seems like ipfs is the way to go.
>>53502708
a blogger deserves no money unless someone is willing to pay them to blog. Joirnalksts get paid by the organization they work for. Allof this is retarded anyway wired is owned by advanced publications, which is worth billions.
None of these websites are mom and pop shops teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
>>53502150
This
The only thing on tv i watch is football and my antenna picks it up just fine.
Fuck ads and all those that support them. If your content isn't good enough for people to pay a subscription ie Netflix, then your content is shit and deserves to fail.
>>53502774
The fact is: if you make an ad and use good practices, informing people that it is an ad, then people like OP will block it.
But if you turn everything into an ad then there is no problem.
>>53502758
That seems to imply the internet is mostly useless nonsense nobody actually needs anyway.
So be it.
>>53502783
>p2p alternative that doesn't require running servers, just users.
That will always be slow as fuck.
And hosting isn't that expensive anyways.
Easily something a hobbyist can afford.
>>53502795
>netflix
look at this wonderful example. complete proof that people are willing to pay for subscription based content if its good.
>>53502774
Is that something that consumer's want though?
>>53502764
that may be true, but wouldn't he technically own the writting? couldn't he make a aggregate content from 4chan sift the shit out and publish it for cash? the only work he'd have would be editorial. you and i wouldn't get paid. i guess we'd be the product heh
>>53502815
Federated 4chan clone when
>>53502817
Google will send people to your page anyway.
>>53501183
>Thoughts on this?
It doesn't affect me because I'm using my HOSTS file to block ads, not an extension.
Keep shilling your uBlock, cucks.
The only people saving us from a YouTube monopoly. Funny thing is I've still never seen an ad on either site.
>>53502808
You don't need a lot of things.
Some people might like it. Some people are greedy and block ad's.
Many things in life are pointless. But you would not get rid of them.
>>53502797
>make an ad and use good practices
>people like OP will block it
I you use good practices, the ad is indistinguishable from content and nobody will try to block it. But that's hard and means you actually have to put in some work instead of throwing a <script src> in your page and "give me da monyz!"
>hey, we detect that you're using adblock, pls disable :^)))
>right click
>block element
I don't have time for your shit, cucks.
>>53502774
And normies will swallow it like the good Goys they are.
>>53501183
>Thoughts on this?
Don't go to Wired.
>>53502821
comments are owned by the poster. This is on the footer of every page has been since the start
>>53502758
Good, the internet has led to some of the biggest forms of faggotry ever.
I'd gladly have the whole internet destroyed if it means silencing SJW, tumblrinas, betacuck nu-males, and fat fucks in general.
Hell i'd give up piracy if it means these fuckers can never have a far reaching platform which to speak upon.
>>53502821
>All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
>>53501685
This is the only correct answer in this entire post. If ads weren't annoying and intrusive as fuck I wouldn't have to block them. If your page has a big overlay when I go to the site I immediately leave (I only encounter this on mobile, even with adblocking on android-- shit is the worst). Fuck the advertisers, until they get their shit straight blocking will be a necessity.
This is like what happened with digital music. It eventually became a product because people could get it legally for a reasonable price and re-download it if their copy was lost or destroyed. Eventually the advertising agencies will have to do what the poster above said and cut the shit if they want to have their bullshit viewed.
>>53501746
I laughed.
While I'm not saying I disagree (I run a old school machine shop, so I know a thing or two about running business), businesses evolve. Markets evolve. This is a natural step for them, and I will for one visit their site anymore, that's my choice. But I won't whine about it either.
>>53502848
>greedy
What does it have to do with being greedy? I have the ability to tune my internet viewing experience to suit my standards so I do.
Business practices on the internet can either follow along and adapt or not.
>>53502878
>give up piracy
anon, lets not get crazy.
I don't aggressively block ads but I do see unblocking as a privilege to be earned. Ads aren't really that annoying, unless they delay content (I block video ads and audio ads on streaming if I can), but I really hate the massive daisy chains of scripts that some sites rely on. I can disable NoScript on some sites and still see nothing because one script relies on a third party script, which relies on another, and so forth. Fortunately, the internet is vast and wide, and even if it was made shallower by social media, I can still find an alternative.
>>53501332
Why not remove all the Javascript and other bloat and just serve basic HTML pages with the actual content then? You would cut down on the bandwidth significantly. Example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20010109085400/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html
>>53502869
>>53502880
how the hell would you enforce that? what stops anyone from collecting all the comments in this thread and publish it in any form for cash?
>>53502758
I'd be happy to kill sites needing to load 30+ different javascripts and other tracking things to display a single textual article.
>>53502634
If he wants to access that content, why should he pay YOU instead of someone else who is providing a better service or doing better?
You are assuming that the loss of yourself means a complete loss of content as an existence,
AKA a loss of supply.
You are retarded if you think that way, and your reply is even more retarded.
>>53502913
>remove all the Javascript
that's crazy talk, anon, we can't step back from web 2.0!
>>53502922
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/05/a-photo-of-a-4chan-post-sold-for-almost-100000-because-art/
>>53502565
if you can't understand this you should get out of /g/
>>53502955
>Caitlin Dewey is The Post’s digital culture critic
remember your adblocker is killing jobs like this you selfish monsters.
>>53502913
>>53502940
To compare, I saved both this and the live version from Wired of the same page using Firefox.
2001: 100 kB (including extra archive.org code)
2016: 2,9 MB
Both pages contain exactly the same actual content, how the fuck is this acceptable?
>>53502955
>But wait, Xhacker02!! We have so many questions. Like, doesn’t the mysterious Anonymous own this “work” of “art,” not Xhacker02?
>Questions one and two are easily answered: It’s clearly a photo of a computer screen, not a screenshot, so Xhacker02 owns it. And this being 4chan, the probability that it’s a hoax is overwhelming
Copyright doesn't apply if you take a picture of it?
>>53502634
>If its so worthless why do you want to access that content?
He doesn't want access to that content, you are providing access in the first place.
He can find access elsewhere in other places for the same shit, and a better place and service.
If you want your argument and insult to have any influence, argue from the standpoint of a pay-wall. In that case the access argument would hold on the water.
In this case, you are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about you fucking retard.
>>53502913
>Removing Javascript
But it needs fifty different analytics vendors because each one gives me a different pretty graph!
I use chrome for most of my web browsing, in the event that I come across I have firefox with noscript/tons of other blocker shit that just prevents it from happening.
No big deal
Cat and mouse game. Ultimately the content creator will have to decide from being a charity, taking their content offline, or using a subscription service to create a paywall where only paying users have access to it.
Don't care, adblock was the best antivirus I could get my parents.
>>53503018
>>53502996
>digital culture critic
>doesn't understand the regulations regarding culture
>>53502878
So pretty much you would ruin an open platform of communication just to meet your political agenda....?
People like you should not be on the internet or have a say in it.
>>53503039
>Ultimately the content creator will have to decide from being a charity, taking their content offline, or using a subscription service to create a paywall where only paying users have access to it.
Or any of the other 100 ways to create revenue that you can't think of,
or to have a subscription service with some benefits which isn't being pushed as a mandatory alternative to ads,
but is being established without a public relation disaster that this situation has become for wired.
Or instead of expanding revenue, they can restructure their group and make it so their human resources are manageable by the existing revenue stream by firing.
>>53503060
So pretty much you would kick off this guy from your open platform of communication just because of his political leanings....?
People like you should not be on the internet or have a say in it.
>>53502816
This
My gf and i have given up on cable packages. Netflix has 4k content with no ads and amazing shows and older shows that i watch on repeat. the amount Netflix charges is amazing for what you get.
>>53503060
found the trans fat
>>53503080
Kudos
>>53503090
>4k content
Yea, 4k resolution at a bitrate barely acceptable for 1080p. I don't know if you can really call that 4k.
I agree with you. I'm just complaining about nonsense.
>>53503090
go shill elsewhere
>>53503111
mine comes in just fine. Explain?
>>53503105
Not trans fat.
I just believe that the internet should be enjoyed by everyone. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Or anything else. What a concept :D
>>53501183
Use anti ad blocker filters.
>>53503120
Not even shilling, not even mad
>someone likes what i dont like? oh i know... i'll...i'll call him a shill. That'll show'em.
Really?
You like the internet right? You pay a company for internet access. Guess that makes you a shill huh?
>>53501407
You're right forbes is shit but this is pretty amusing anyway...
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/
>>53503150
>You like the internet right?
No, I fucking hate this place!
only really shitty sites that the majority doesn't care about does this due to 95% of their content is scammy click-bait, riddled with ads.
having an AAB (Anti-Adblocker-Blocker) on your webpage is a effective way to inform visitors that your services/content is not worth paying for.
>>53503111
>>53503127
The human eye can only see 1 kbps
>>53503128
Until the persons beliefs end up fucking things up for everyone i.e. Anita/game censorship
No, sometimes privileges are better off not in the hands off some people.
>>53503128
The Internet should be enjoyed by everyone as a concept,
but individual sites don't have a reason to be enjoyed by everyone. That's what leads to cancerous deterioration of the purpose of some sites,
like the anti-weeaboo faggots coming on this site from stormcuck central.
>>53503127
You can have something be 4k in resolution and be an abysmal 500 kb/s or something. The resolution has little to do with the quality of the video.
Normal 1080p video has an acceptable level of bitrate and going below that starts to introduce artifact and banding. Netflix tries to find the absolute minimum bitrate that people will only kind of not notice to save money.
>>53503150
if I started talking about how awesome my isp was and how it was so much better than other competing isps in an unrelated topic then yes I would be a shill.
>>53503128
How would commercial websites dissapearing change that? Internet started and was for a long time free of commercial enterprises and it survived and was enjoyed by anyone who had access to it.
>>53501183
Thoughts? There's a simple solution that nobody in internet content production acknowledges. Make ads non-invasive. Put banner ads up, sure, don't let them fill the screen, start blaring sound and blocking your own fucking content. Even fucking porn sites get it right. The content producer has a small ad below their video, the banners around you are related to what you're watching; even the shitty bait ads that are everywhere just sit at the side of the screen, none of them slow down the loading of the site. Suddenly, on a news site, pop ups, music as soon as your mouse crosses the banner, and the ads slow the site down a tremendous amount. They cause shit to stop loading, to glitch because the ad won't load, and they load in late causing everything to move around (causing you to click the article two above the one you wanted, or even the ad itself).
In a nutshell, internet advertising wouldn't be a problem if it were done properly, you could still offer premium content and sponsorship offers if you used your brain for two seconds, and regular users wouldn't be pissed off and blocking your ads.
>this literally solves the entire issue
>porn sites do it better than basic news sites
>fucking roosterteeth bitches about adblock when their ads slow down their site to the point it's unusable
>>53503163
from what I've seen it's sites owned by conglomerate publishing houses doing this mostly.
>>53501234
Nobody agreed to view ads to view content. It is their problem that their business model isn't profitable. I don't have to let my computers to connect to any ad servers.
>>53503179
>Thread about ADs on net content
>Netflix - content delivered via the net
>Netflix has no ADs
>Not relevant?
Are you fucking retarded or just pretending
>>53503205
This.
Where is the clause that states that i must view ads to view their content?
When your model doesn't work change models
Adapt or Die
>>53503224
The reason netflix is considered irrelevant to this discussion is because they require a fee to even get on their site (past the 30 day trial). This discourse is largely concerned with the delivery of content for "free" (i.e. without charging the user directly).
If its a proper paywall I wouldn't mind but this half-assed thing where you make users subject themselves to worthless and potentially harmful "content" needs to die.
>>53503070
There are a handful of other ways but for a primarily text based site like WIRED you can't simply bake an ad into a HTML5 video and expect people to watch it like people like LinusTechTips does with his videos on youtube with hardcoded ads in the intros. The video element will be blocked outright [unless the video is actually relevant to the article like local news stations typically stream their IRL broadcastings on the page]. Firing people only lowers the costs of keeping a site online and doesn't really solve the revenue issue.
There is the "get this additional benefit" which will only work if the benefit is actually worth the money but that is just a variant of the typical paywall pornography sites use. It's like Playstation Plus or Youtube Red. [although being required to pay a yearly fee for something normally taken for granted like online gaming sucks]
>>53503254
gotcha, i see your point.
I stand corrected. My apologies
advertising online is the greatest scam anyone has ever pulled on advertisers because number one they actually believe it is cost effective, number two that if it works 1% of the time then it's worth it.
>>53501964
The only reason I got adblock was because the ads these days are not inconspicuous and often times they are obtrusive. I really am not bothered by banners or the like it's the full page ads and the ads that play the videos with sound that you can't turn off that puts me off. I simply wouldn't have bothered with adblock if ads were confined to banners on all/most sites but they're not.
I whitelist sites with unobtrusive ads because I get that they need to make a living (4chan included). I keep my adblock for everyone else. If your site desperately needs full page ads or sound ads then you can go fuck yourself for having such a greedy strategy.
>>53503242
>be hypothetical
>be content producer for interwebs
>be working full time because money
>produce content
>people like content
>don't want to be ad dick
>ask for donations
>nobody donates
>no money
>no time to make content as working full time
>"dude why don't you make more content"
>if I advertise I can cut down on hours
>fucking self entitled cunts say
>"I'm not gonna view your ads, I don't give a shit about that product, I just want your content.
And so the circle continues.
>>53503187 is a good solution, with the addition of losing all of the tracking features of ads as well.
We don't have the moral obligation to keep their websites alive. One less clickbait rehash of the rehash of another news site by a journalist that doesn't understand the topic he's talking about is not of my concern.
>>53501346
Doesn't work with such ads
>>53503310
>be hypothetical
>produce content
>ask for donations
>nobody donates
>no money
>no time to make content as working full time
welcome to real life.
>>53503310
If nobody gives you money for your content, maybe it wasn't good to begin with. Just look for a different job.
>>53503354
>>53503310
having a good product isn't enough
good products don't sell themselves
there are 1000s of good products launched every year that don't make it. even established products that are good can't make it.
>>53503310
>people like content
not enough to give you money it seems; get a real job, fag
>>53503373
protip: they're not good; stop living a fantasy
>>53503310
>be hypothetical
>be content producer for interwebs
>be working full time because money
>produce content
>people like content
>don't want to be ad dick
>ask for donations
>nobody donates
Guess people didn't really like the content to begin with. People WILL pay for stuff they like ( i mean that they really like and is good). If you advertise your content for free then don't be stupid enough to believe people will give donations for it. If you want money then charge money.
>Hurrr take this free content, its totally free
>Cool thanks!
>Hey wait a minute i need money for that free content
>Well then you need to not say its free then huh, fucktard. Maybe next time if you want money for your content so that you can keep making content, then you should charge money for it and say you will be charging money for it from the get go.
>>53503310
>I'm 8 years old and I just realized that real life doesn't consist of constant hand holding
It is still your problem if your business depends on people doing things that they don't want to. Real businesses change their business model when they realize that it isn't profitable.
>>53503338
Ads don't work when you don't have readers anymore. All it takes is for all those readers to refuse to disable their adblockers and stop visiting the site and the site would collapse. The "readers" of these sites have all the power here they just don't have any sort of organization.
>>53503373
Cut your bullshit, there are people getting a shitton of money in donations for translating chinese web novels
>>53502641
Ugh yes but it was inaccurate.
>>53503499
>reading comprehension
>>53503478
I know all that jazz, I'm just saying some ads like in the OP aren't blocked with host file. At least with the mpvs one I have. not even ublock0 with reek's list did, I had to use umatrix and block the page script here.
>>53503521
I linked your post by accident my bad.
53501183
You need Umartix,Noscript,or Ublock in advanded mode, bruh. If most people don't even realize how intrustive website these days are.
Stop acting like there's that many people running ad blockers. We are probably in the minority here.
>>53503565
People running adblock are still a minority but the number is growing rapidly. Within the last few years adblockers have taken off for some reason.
>>53503346
So according to real life content producers on the internet don't exist? There's no reason they shouldn't, and advertising isn't a bad way to create revenue while still allowing your users to use your site without paying directly.
>>53503429
>>be hypothetical
>>be content producer for interwebs
>>not be working full time because money so far
>>run ads either way because why not?
>>produce content
>>people like content
>>want to be working full time
>>consult viewerbase
>>test the waters for donation
>>get paid to draw pin ups
>>alternatively if popular enough put content behind paywall
>>53503373
Indeed. Reputation is key. Look at Apple, release a shit product, make bank. Some smaller company could release a better product and nobody would give a shit.
That is until, one person used it, and said "Hey why are we using the Apple version when it's shit?" At least, this is the way it works in theory. Apple's a bad example because fanbois.
>>53503429
>if you want money then charge money
Excellent idea, except for the fact that every faggot in this thread bitching about ads, would also bitch about required payment for a news site. The idea that's been had is to allow the consumer to view the content without direct payment, instead the creator makes money in other ways. For example, advertising.
You're one of the many people that says, "Well, why don't they just charge for the content if they want money for it." The problem is,
1. A lot of people view content on the internet because it's freely accessible.
2. Direct charging creates a barrier between your content and potential viewers. The majority of people will simply not want to pay and will pass you by.
3. Piracy. If your content can be accessed without payment then there's no need to pirate it and you can still make money out of the deal.
>>53501602
If they served static pages they wouldn't have any relevant hosting costs too. Then again, the Internet is now better off without Wired. This is going to be full supply and demand in action.
Protip: there's so much free quality content on the Internet that you can't justify anti adblock. Running anti-adblock makes you destined to die, and rightfully so.
>>53502758
>adblocking
>kikes
pick one
>>53503434
>>I'm 8 years old and I just realized that real life doesn't consist of constant hand holding
>It is still your problem if your business depends on people doing things that they don't want to. Real businesses change their business model when they realize that it isn't profitable.
To what model? Please, enlighten me with your wisdom from your superior maturity... Take a news site. If you're asked to pay directly,
>lolno, I'm gonna go find this news elsewhere
or in general
>lolno, I ain't paying for your content, I'll find it for free or I won't watch it
On the internet people want everything to be free. A good way of allowing for this is for sites to advertise, if done properly, this isn't an issue, people get their content, and the site makes a bit of money. However, the majority of the time, it isn't done properly which prompts the circular discussion of
>content costs money to produce
>need money
>advertise
>users use ad block
>no money
>stop producing content
>What happened to them?
>I don't know, shame, I liked them
I understand why people hate ads, I do too in most cases, I think the root of the issue is the way in which online advertising is done >>53503187.
People keep saying,
>you should just charge users directly
But when this happens, your user base very quickly disperses, unless the content is extremely niche and can't be found elsewhere, or you offer a major leap in quality and ease of access (e.g. Netflix, compared to streaming illegally).
I'm not here defending Let's Play faggots or Youtubers. The only good thing about the idea of the internet you propose is that all of those people would go away (pewdiepie would never have happened in a payment based model).
>>53501738
Ads run JavaScript. Browsers interpret said JavaScript. Browsers have exploits, so does JavaScript.
Done?
>>53502419
What would happen if a good percentage of people started blocking ads? I understand giant websites going under, but honestly, wouldn't we just go back to a time with hundreds of hobbyist websites like that one chart about internet expansion over the years.
I miss when the internet had no ads in my feeble mind back in '96 - 97' and if adblockers destroyed modern-day internet and it reverted back to that point, I'd be immensely happy.
>>53501234
>The site has set some terms: to browse the content, I have to look at the ads they serve.
there's absolutely nothing legally binding about those terms. implicit consent rarely stands up if it's actually challenged in court.
furthermore, the website serves you the content in full before you have a chance to even review the terms, let alone accept them - you've already received the content even if you decide ultimately to reject their terms. how that content displays is your choice.
The only people that bitch about adblockers and say nobody wants a paywall are neets and underage.
You can get enough content from your disposable income if you're not on welfare to keep you occopated on all your free time.
And you shouldn't spend all your free time online anyway.
>>53504115
A lot of quality content comes from website that you do not regurarly visit, but appear as niche sites in the search results.
If you want to know something basic like how to fix your bike then you dont find that on established news sites.
>>53504174
>regurarly
regularly
>>53503904
I get your point but the situation is like this
>content on the internet was created for fun
>web 2.0 happens and corporations try to treat the internet like a commercial playground
>they try to earn money with a method that requires the user to view something that they don't want
It is like trying to sell computer parts in a kindergarten playground and complaining about why the children aren't buying the computer parts that you are selling instead of finding another business model.
I'm not trying to say that anyone trying to make money over the internet should kill themselves, I allow static, disturbing ads that don't consume much bandwidth and increase the page loading times.
This whole adblocking thing wouldn't go this far if some retards who saw the internet as a cash cow tried to shove a shitload of intrusive ads into the internet users' throats. The thing is you can make money over the internet but you shouldn't treat it as a reliable source of income or as a commercial playground as the users have more control than in real life (i.e. blocking ads).
>>53504241
>was created for fun
used to be created in people's free time for fun*
>>53501737
This, this, so much this.
I promise you that every hipster willing enough to swallow their pride and engage in capitalism has thought of doing a "journalism" site like vice and clogging it with ads
>>53502210
Please turn your ad blocker back on until the malware ads are removed. For your own security as well. Thank you.
