Have ads ruined the internet?

[HWS]

(And I still think that a search engine that filtered out sites that contain ads--to whatever degree the user wanted--would be a great business model. I wish someone would do it.)

There is no need for it. Everybody can simply install an ad-blocker (and they do).

 

[Paul B]

I don't use any ad blockers at all.

I just ignore them or click away if they are really intrusive.

 

[Kintaro]

I installed ublock only to get rid of all/many EU Cookie Accept things. The adfilters are disabled.
I think that now that I have installed I will enable it only per website basis if ads are too much intrusive.

 

[jauburn]

I don't use any ad blockers at all.

I don't either.

 

[n00bsaibot]

I'm surprised to find so many people without ad-blockers....

I'm using AdBlockPlus + No Script on Firefox. I only allow/enable the pieces of a website I want to see.

 

[TPerry]

I'm surprised to find so many people without ad-blockers....

Really? You are surprised to find that admins that run forums/sites that use ads don't block ads of other sites that they use?

 

[n00bsaibot]

Indeed. It's 2015, ads are played out. If TV is an indicator a chunk of consumers are willing to pay directly for content.

 

[Mike Edge]

webpass.io ?? Webpass.io - receive revenue for ad free site usage

Have you tried this @Mouth How does it compare to Adsense earnings?

 

[Mouth]

Have you tried this @Mouth

No, as far as I can tell it will require an add-on to be able to work with Xenforo ....

When a subscriber visits your website, they will send a request which includes the header 'webpassio-visit'. You should use the value from that header to make a request to our API server to receive details about the visit.
[...]
The 'valid' field tells you whether or not advertisements should be shown. Whenever this field is true, you must meet the conditions listed in the Terms of Service. The primary requirement is that you remove advertisements.

 

[Dude111]

I'm surprised to find so many people without ad-blockers...

I wonder if they just dont wanna admit they have one?

 

[TPerry]

I wonder if they just dont wanna admit they have one?

Why would they want to prevaricate?

 

[Dude111]

I dunno.........

 

[snoopy5]

You can't open a restaurant and allow everybody to walk in and tell them it is free and let them eat, just at the end by telling them that it is not for free.

I do think you are missing here something. It is not the question, what you are technically able to do. It si the question that if you use something, you should also pay for it.

The distribution channel of websites is the internet. That is the only way to offer thier service. Just because you have internet access this does not mean that everything that you can access with your internet connection has to be for free.

It is the same like with a magazine at a newspaper stand. The newspaperstand is the distribution channel.

Scenario A: Now you can go there, read the magazine there without paying for it and leaving afterwards the newspaperstand. You had access to the content for free and left the shop without paying anything although you knwo, that this magazine can not survive without sales.

This is what you do currently with websites. From a moral standpoint not really something you should feel good about.


Scenario B: Or you go to the newspaperstand, look whether the magazine has interesting articles in it and then buy the magazine. There you pay real money out of your own pocket.

If you compare scenario B with websites, than it is even better for you on the internet with ads . Just by Seeing ads you do not pay anything. With the magazin, you pay your own 5 USD. Looking at ads on a website costs you nothing. It is just less "convenient".

 

[sbj]

Getting quoted from a post made in 2015 suprised me, but I am still here to reply back .

I do think you are missing here something. It is not the question, what you are technically able to do. It si the question that if you use something, you should also pay for it.

I think you are missing the point. What you say is not right. Easy as that.

YES, if I use something (which costs), then I should pay for it, IF YOU tell me in advance that I have to pay if I use it.
That is the whole point you are missing.

I will explain this further by using your example below.

The distribution channel of websites is the internet. That is the only way to offer thier service. Just because you have internet access this does not mean that everything that you can access with your internet connection has to be for free.

I never said that. So basically you pull a straw mans, as I never said something similar to this. Where did I say or meant that everything on the internet has to be free?

It is the same like with a magazine at a newspaper stand. The newspaperstand is the distribution channel.

Right. Good example, but below you will see how you misuse your example.

Scenario A: Now you can go there, read the magazine there without paying for it and leaving afterwards the newspaperstand. You had access to the content for free and left the shop without paying anything although you knwo, that this magazine can not survive without sales.

That is not how real life works. I can't go to a newspaperstand and read all the magazines there without paying. I have to pay before I can use it. Where do you live that you can use newspapers for free? In which country? If it is a fruits-stand or a newspaperstand, I know in advance that I have to pay before I can use those items or fruits. That is how real life is structured. There are shops and stores and stands, and if you want something, you pay before you can use it.

And this is what you are skipping in your example. In advance you tell people that they have to pay for it if they use the newspapers or whatever. You don't even tell it, real life is structured like that so you know that is the normal behaviour.
But now look at websites. They don't tell you in advance nothing. When I go to a newspaperstand, I have to give ACTIVELY my money to use those items. Actively, with conscious, with deciding in my mind... which means I have an agreement.

Whereas websites these days earn revenue from me or from you or from anyone else, WITHOUT getting explicitly my agreement! They trick people. If I knew earlier before I enter a website, that they will earn money from me without asking me, I would have never visited that site. But that is the tricking here. They let everybody get in for free, make it look that everything is for free, and without you noticing they earn money from you!

So basically you make the newspaperstand look like a place where you can get magazines for free. Now once I use those magazines, for which I actively hadn't to pay anything, now at the end you earn money from me. Where did I agree to that? You tricked me! Either don't let me in to your website or deal with it that I will come with an adblocker. Easy as that.

This is what you do currently with websites. From a moral standpoint not really something you should feel good about.

Lol. I feel totally good doing that. Sorry, but every website who earns money by using people without having their agreements should feel bad about it. They abuse the system and I should feel sorry for them?

Scenario B: Or you go to the newspaperstand, look whether the magazine has interesting articles in it and then buy the magazine. There you pay real money out of your own pocket.

Yes, that is how real life works. I have to decide ACTIVELY if I want to make those men earn money out of me. I decide, not them. And if I agree with what they offer (a newspaper, chocolate, milk, etc.), I give them their revenue in exchange. But I decide.

If you compare scenario B with websites, than it is even better for you on the internet with ads . Just by Seeing ads you do not pay anything. With the magazin, you pay your own 5 USD. Looking at ads on a website costs you nothing. It is just less "convenient".

Whereas in this example I can't decide anything at all. You tricked me in your website and you decided for me that now you earn money out of me.
And what is the trick here? Yeah:
"Looking at ads on a website doesn't cost me anything!"

Nice trick. It never gets old. It is the same scam lottery people do. Do you know those little one-man-stands before stores or shops or in alleys? They tell you something like this: "We have a lottery and you can win a car!!! The only thing for you to do is to fill out this form, and give your signature. And in the lottery there are many things to win. A car, a ticket to Hawaii, multiple voucher codes for hundreds of dollars, etc. etc. It doesn't cost you anything, just fill in the form."

So you ask yourself, where is the catch here? It is for free and if I am lucky I can win something. Like those websites on the internet. Wait, what? I can use all those websites for free, I have access without a problem? Nice....

So where is the catch? Those lottery people collect your data from these forms (and they have your signature), now they sell these data to companies. And you get spam ads by phone, e-mail or post from then on. THAT IS THE CATCH.

Like the catch you earned money from all those visitors who visited your website and thought "it is for free". The catch was they earn money from your clicks, WITHOUT you noticing and agreeing.

So next time before you make an example, think it through.

 

[snoopy5]

That is not how real life works. I can't go to a newspaperstand and read all the magazines there without paying. I have to pay before I can use it. Where do you live that you can use newspapers for free? In which country?

Everywhere. In big shopping malls and at bookstores like Barnes & nobles etc.

Lol. I feel totally good doing that. Sorry, but every website who earns money by using people without having their agreements should feel bad about it. They abuse the system and I should feel sorry for them?

Now you really start to get unrealistic. As soon as you enter a website, you agree to their terms of use of that website. "The house rules". This is like real life. If you enter a store or any kind of house or public meeting point, you agree to their terms of use. if you do something against their ToU, they throw you out. If you do not like that, open your own garden or own house where you spend your time with friends. Same on the internet. They offer THEIR website as it is designed by THEM, not by you.

So the website is designed with ads. Learn to live with that or search for a wbebsite without ads. That sounds harsh, but you have to accept that if you are not at your own home, other house rules have to be accepted than yours

Whereas in this example I can't decide anything at all. You tricked me in your website and you decided for me that now you earn money out of me.

Again, you neglect reality. Nobody tricked you. Nobody forced you to visit website A or B. Nobody forces you to click on an ad. But YOU "trick" the website owner!

That specific website is with ads. Whether you like it or not. THAT are the house rules of that website. Fullstop.

But you do not care. Obviously your own satisfaction and convenience is worth more than the house rules of the website. You ignore by purposse the house rules by using an adblocker. An adblocker that is neither offred by the website, nor allowed. So you want to have the benefits of the sites but do not want to play by the rules. I will do that the next time when I see a Ferrari with an open door and keys in the car. I just take it and drive around, because I like it but do not want to pay for it

I am fine if you do not like ads and I am fine that you do not like sites with ads. But then be at least consequent in your behaviour and stop visiting sites with ads. Simple as that.

But this debate is meaningless. You want to have a free ride and some of us are thinking that this is not fair. Waste of time to discuss this even further...

 

[sbj]

Everywhere. In big shopping malls and at bookstores like Barnes & nobles etc.

So you telling me I can go in there, read the whole magazine, and put it back and come out? I have never seen people reading stuff for free. Sure, scanning multiple pages to see if they want to buy it or not, that is normal. So at the end they decide if they want the whole of it. But I can't go on a website, look at some pages and come out and say I didn't like what I found. I already made revenue for the website just by visiting. The bookstore didn't get a revenue from me just because I skimmed through some pages of a magazine. Yet the website owner did and does it every second.

Now you really start to get unrealistic. As soon as you enter a website, you agree to their terms of use of that website.

No, I don't. Who said that? Who said as as soon as I enter I agree? It is not unrealistic, it is a fact. Where is your proof for the agreement that I agreed?

"The house rules". This is like real life. If you enter a store or any kind of house or public meeting point, you agree to their terms of use. if you do something against their ToU, they throw you out. If you do not like that, open your own garden or own house where you spend your time with friends. Same on the internet. They offer THEIR website as it is designed by THEM, not by you.

Just because I entered a store, I didn't agree to all of their terms of use. This is one of these misconceptions people have. You are talking without knowing laws and this is the reason why you think you are right. Cause you base your opinion on something you think is true, which isn't. Because I do also have rights, just as the owner of that place. For example just because I entered your house, it doesn't mean you can force on me your terms. Because I do also have rights. Yes, they can throw me out. Then throw me out from your website. I stated multiple times. There is nothing wrong with you blocking me from your site or house. Your rights. As I have a right of blocking your ads if you let me in cause I never agreed to that. Where again is the agreement?
Your assumption "just because you entered, now you are a slave of my terms" won't hold up in front of the court. There are court decisions about that. Again, base your stuff on the real life, instead of your business scheme.

So the website is designed with ads. Learn to live with that or search for a wbebsite without ads. That sounds harsh, but you have to accept that if you are not at your own home, other house rules have to be accepted than yours

Lol. I learned to live with that. I am not complaining at all. I just block ads. Easy as that. The best experience one can have on the internet. You can design your website as you want, not my supper. And I will block as much as I want, cause not your supper. Again, I don't have to accept anything just because I entered somewhere. You clearly have no clue about how laws are working. At least I can say about that where I live. It might be different in some other places but you have to show me a proof of your falsely made assumptions. Easily can be done by showing court decisions... If what you said was true, all big companies could have sued adblockers and adblock creators. Easy as that. And? Sue me. Cmon. I want to see that. Did you hear Facebook/Google sue its users cause they were blocking ads? Or the creators? By what law are you making those assumptions?

Again, you neglect reality. Nobody tricked you. Nobody forced you to visit website A or B. Nobody forces you to click on an ad. But YOU "trick" the website owner!

I don't neglect anything. You are negleting reality. I base my opinion on facts, on court decisions (there are about ToS) and the abstinence of them (show me a website sued its user because of blocking). I never said that one forced me to visit a website. Where did I? Read again what I said. Don't make false arguements about things I never said.

I don't trick the website owner at all.
Today websites can be made publicly or privately accessible. You have the power of deciding it. If you let the public in, I can come in. Which doesn't mean I agreed on everything you put on your website. Where is the trick?

That specific website is with ads. Whether you like it or not. THAT are the house rules of that website. Fullstop.

Repeating the same stuff won't bring you far, cause clearly you have not an understanding of how laws work. The specific website can put whatever it wants, it doesn't mean just because I entered I agree to all of that.

But you do not care. Obviously your own satisfaction and convenience is worth more than the house rules of the website. You ignore by purposse the house rules by using an adblocker. An adblocker that is neither offred by the website, nor allowed. So you want to have the benefits of the sites but do not want to play by the rules. I will do that the next time when I see a Ferrari with an open door and keys in the car. I just take it and drive around, because I like it but do not want to pay for it

Of course I don't care. Of course my convenience is more worth. I don't let anybody decide upon myself what I can do or not within my rights. Yes, I ignore on purpose the house rules by using an adblocker, cause I never agreed anywhere that you can make money out of me. Get my agreement, then we can talk. Or just throw me out, block me from your site. Totally fine. But you can't have it both ways.

Your examples are just thin as barbie dolls. A Ferrari is a property. You can't take away other people's property without their agreement. As I can't take away your website from you. First, your example makes no sense.
Second, but you made your website PUBLICLY available. Like the Ferrari owner letting everybody use his Ferrari by everyone. So where is the agreement of the Ferrari owner doing that? There is none, that is why you can't use the Ferrari just because you want it. Whereas you made your website publicly available to anybody. I have your agreement to use it. Of course you may have expilicit rules of how I may use your website. Totally fine. But then you have to get my agreement that I am accepting your rules WHICH YOU DON'T have, that is why I can block your ads and it is totally fine, cause you had not my agreement to earn money out of me.

I am fine if you do not like ads and I am fine that you do not like sites with ads. But then be at least consequent in your behaviour and stop visiting sites with ads. Simple as that.

You are not in a position to tell me what I want to visit or not. As a site owner you can block me anytime you want.
For me it is a matter of principle. Yes, I don't like ads but what I don't like more is that people tricking people and making money out of their backs. It is a scam. And I show no mercy to those people. So I will explicitly visit any website with ads and block their ads. 2 people can play this game. If they think they are smart, I am too.

But this debate is meaningless. You want to have a free ride and some of us are thinking that this is not fair. Waste of time to discuss this even further...

It is not about the free ride, it is about the scam you people do. It is a matter of principle for me. You scam people without having their agreement, I block your ads. I also think it is not fair. What do I get out of it? If lucky a decent content, but 99% garbage without needing to see ads. What do you get out of it? Money, money, money.
I think the punishment for you people should be much more than people blocking your ads.
If the discussion is a waste of time, don't discuss it then. Accept the reality. And the future is bright for adblockers, learn to live with it. I can't complain actually.

 

[snoopy5]

And the future is bright for adblockers

At least at this point we agree. Partly. I do not think that in the longterm adblockers are still necessary. We will have soon an environment, in which most people use their smartphone for browsing the internet and the more people user the smartphone for this, the more is the concept of banners etc. dead.

So basic line is that you get angry because you fear that hidden private information gets stolen from you while visiting a site.

You are correct with this. But this is not a question of adblockers. The advertisers (and not just the ones who show ads on that site) get all information even if you use adblockers. If this is the only reason why you are using adblockers, you should research more what they can and what the can not avoid

 

[sbj]

@snoopy5
Well I am not obsessed with private data protection that I try to protect every single thing about me. Just by using Google I give many things away. But I don't use Social Media (FB, Twitter, etc.), I don't use Google Chrome, and I use adblockers. But I don't go that far to use VPN. I can't be arsed to go after every blocking method there is on the internet, but having an adblocker is convenient and morally I have the upper hand and legally, too.

Sure, with smartphones on the rise the traditional way of ads are disappearing. But new other methods are rising up. 99% of site owners don't put a website just for the fun of it, they do it because they want to earn money. So, if you want to run a business, and running a website creating revenue is a business, then you have to obey social norms, which they obviously don't as tried to explain, that is why I will always use adblockers.

And in the future TV will be just smart TV and Kodi and such, so based on PCs. There will come a time where we will be able to block TV ads, too. The technology isn't ready for it yet. So the future is really bright for adblockers.

 

[snoopy5]

And in the future TV will be just smart TV and Kodi and such, so based on PCs. There will come a time where we will be able to block TV ads, too. The technology isn't ready for it yet.

it is already. Ask your friends: How many of you watch movies etc. at a time tehy decide on? I am sure that 70-90% will rise the hand. People nowadays either record TV and play it later (and thereforen skipping the ads) or they use amazon prome et alii and skip terefore the ads too.

But even if you look "live" and there are ads (i.e. main sport events), you can check the statistics- The peak in traffic for twitter & co is during the advertising breaks during these sport events. So even if there are ads, nobody is looking at them. The industry just neglects that.

Same for the internet. Even if you would not use an adblocker, almost nobody is clicking nowadays on ads. So this is an income model of the past and we all should work hard on getting a better idea on how to generate income outsides of banner ads...

 

[sbj]

@snoopy5

You are right with these good examples and I totally agree with what you said in your last posting.
I don't have a problem that people want to earn money with their websites, just as long as it is not a "behind-the-back"-model like it was the past 15 years (or in another way a tricking they do.) All the SEO abusing stuff, blackhatworld stuff, and click generating stuff were done to make money out of people without they noticing it by using ads.
That needs to stop and it needs to be a better, transparent and friendly way. So we all need that better idea.
What I don't like is this idea of "my website is the grace of god, you should be thankful and accept our terms just because you visited it, we need to pay bills". That I will never accept and will always act against it. So hopefully you understand my point and even if you don't agree, it is ok. I can't complain, but website owners do...