from the two-googles-is-enough-for-anybody dept.
Two stories about Google graced The Register in recent days.
The First was about Google (allegedly) stripping SSL from British Telephone (BT) mobile users search requests, even when the users had started from https pages, and were using BT WiFi subscribers piggy-backing off wireless connections, (I have no idea what exactly is meant by piggy-backing in this context). Personally, I would suspect BT of having a hand in that.
The open secret here is that for some VIP customers, search requests coming from their networks have SSL stripped as a service. This was mostly developed for schools where Google supplies their mail , web, and search services. Some of these places are statutorily obligated to filter their networks. BT may have been setting this bit themselves, but is difficult to tell.
A google engineer Adam Langly posted in a public forum that you can bypass any institutional ssl stripping by always accessing Google Searches via a different URL:
"However, if you want an encrypted search option, 'https://encrypted.google.com' is always encrypted and isn't affected by these methods."
You might want to set that as your Google landing page on mobile devices if you use wifi on some business or school campuses.
The second story concerns a trial balloon that Google is floating in a few markets called "Contributor" where, for a small(ish) fee, Google will strip ads out of pages, and share that fee with the web site in lieu of advertising revenue. The monthly fee, ranging between $1 and $3 per site, will be paid to the site operator after Google takes its cut.
El Reg speculates:
Perhaps Google and websites heavily reliant on ads are tired of netizens using ad-blocking browser plugins. Perhaps Google just wants to prove that the vast majority of people are OK with ads, and few want to spend even $1 a month on a web subscription.
So the question is, Soylentils: Are there any sites you would be willing to pay a dollar a month to visit without ads?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @06:19PM
I hate ads, even if they paid me a dollar for each ad I would rather use an ad-blocker so I wouldn't have to see that crap. Any ads that do get through are just a reason for me to never do business with them. Got that advertisers? If I see your ad I won't buy from you.
(Score: 1) by N3Roaster on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:15PM
Conversely, if you don't see their ad you won't know they exist and also won't buy from them. That's not an argument that's going to persuade anybody against running ads.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:41PM
I'm not paying $50 a month for broadband to see ads, hence ad-block and ghostery. If it were free internet access I could see where ads might be acceptable, otherwise advertisers can shove them where the sun don't shine. Websites that depend on ad revenue to exist should think twice about shoving them down our throat, it just adds an annoyance to the websites appeal and less likely to visit that website again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @03:04AM
That's like saying you paid for your car so you don't see why you need to pay for your hamburger. What does McDonalds care that GM made some money?
Now, if Comcast's webmail has ads, your argument might be valid.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 23 2014, @06:32PM
As long as the ads are not too obnoxious, I don't mind the ads themselves. I do, however, mind the tracking associated with the ads.
If paying Google for not showing their ads, you still have tracking, even worse, the tracking has to be directly linked to an identity (how else would Google know that someone who opens the page actually has paid to not get ads shown?). So it doesn't solve the main problem with showing ads, it actually exaggerates it.
Also, why should I pay Google for the privilege of not being shown their ads? I mean, if I want to give the provider of the web page some money, I'd rather do it directly, and have all the money going to the provider, instead of paying to Google for not doing something I don't want them to do.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:34PM
Thanks, but no thanks. I think I'll stick with my "subscriptions" to AdBlock and NoScript, plus selective blocking of tracking domains at the DNS level.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:16PM
I strongly disagree. The tracking itself is abhorrent and should be Constitutionally barred from happening. I feel that strongly about Big Data, and that Big Data needs to be regulated out of existence with sweeping privacy reforms as strong as the 1st Amendment.
As for the advertisements, the marketers and their products have no place in any advanced society whatsoever. The entire enterprise is bereft of any noble influences, and only seeks to use (admittedly in their learning materials) deceit, manipulation, and science (psychology) to influence a consumer to do something normally otherwise prevented by a state of information symmetry.
There is no place for such behavior in our world, and it's wholly incompatible with a strong moral and ethical center. I find every advertisement of any kind to intrinsically offensive on an intellectual basis, and functionally no different than me having to listen to Nazi's wax poetic about their fascist dream of genetic purity. I'm not interested in hearing anything they have to say. Ever.
I mean, who talks like that? Listen to advertisements. The very tone of voice, the inflections themselves, it's all acting. Not very good acting either. Not like Rachel Weisz convincing me in soft tones about the benefits of some tschotske in my life. It' some idiot speaking to me like I am 5 years old. Honestly, unless I had a head accident and became an ignorant beer swilling asshole, I don't see how the ridiculous situations and poor decision making in the advertisements are strong impartial arguments for a product. I damn well know the only thing that beer is going to do is make me fat and immobile on a couch for awhile, and the only young girls in skimpy clothing will be from PornHub. I live no where near the Rockies either.
No, I truly have zero patience for almost all marketing materials. My initial reaction is always, "Geez, just stop fucking lying to me or bullshitting. Where are the specs?". Even then, I have to spend 10 minutes going everywhere else on the Internet to find the stuff they don't want to talk about. Like how specific Intel NUCs cannot possibly (even if they say they do) support specific Linux distros. Basically if it's Bay Trail, that's Intel saying "just fuck you" to Linux.
I'm tired of information asymmetry. It only exists to abuse me and take advantage of my state of ignorance, and I get piping hot when I see corporations use legislation and law to enforce a policy of information asymmetry. All marketing, and marketers by their actions, are wholly negative, without any redeeming value to society, bruise fruit, and scare children.
With all that being said, yes, I would pay $3 a month to Google through some account (or some other form of micropayment aggregation). I do realize that advertising provides revenue, but just like the Nazi's deal, I don't give a flying fuck about participating in their bullshit. The opposite in fact. I'm very passionate for my dislike of advertising and have no problems doing everything possible to strip it out of my life. In the last 10 years I've been exposed to almost no advertising of any kind on the Internet, and I don't have TV or a Cable subscription. It's truly blissful, and after a few months you will never want to go back again. I promise.
I don't object to compensating any website (even if that is above and beyond by ISP monthly fee) fairly. Great enjoyment is derived from these sites and I would be happy to support them like that. It's less than a cup of coffee each month that I would be handing to Soylent.
As a NOTE TO THE SITE, the moment I can pay with something other than Paypal (criminal banking organization that needs to DIAF) or Bitcoin (I'm too depressed about missing a million dollars on that one to mine), I would happily buy you a few cups of coffee. Or beer.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 23 2014, @11:00PM
If the advertisement makes a sound, it's not one of the not obnoxious ones I've been talking about.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday November 24 2014, @09:43AM
Then I don't know what devices you are using. With the devices I've had access to in a transient fashion they've had no ad blocking mechanisms enabled. I get full 30 second unblockable ads that blare at full volume. There is actual sound involved which I don't think is appropriate for a hand held device in any situation (social contexts--noise disturbance). Just like the BS in Congress over the loudness of commercial advertisements on TV, somebody apparently needs to address hand held devices too.
My great dislike stems from the fact that the entire presentation of the information is, at best, a farce in multiple ways. The general idea of an advertisement is not the problem. This is solely derived from the implementation. In many ways, advertisements can occur without even being considered as traditional effective advertising.
Would I like to know about a new root beer? Uhhh, sure. Tell me about it. If I was treated like an adult, it would not be so bad. However, the truth is that advertisements are like trying to extract information out of a bunch of playing 3 year olds. They're telling you in sweeping generalizations, flawed logic, and bad terms about their plans. Then sometimes the little shits are lying to me to get away with something, and hoping their cuteness will save them.
I'm spending a lot more time with relatives (Thanksgiving rocks) and I'm quite unfortunately exposed to far more advertising. The TV is left on, and like a horror movie to me, the commercials get to seep into my reality.
It's so stupid now. I thought reality TV was stupid, I thought the tabloids were stupid, I was not prepared for how stupid advertisements have got. Any commercial targeted to the 18-35 demographic is as if the advertisers themselves felt their prospective customers were mentally challenged rednecks with poor attention spans.
It's not the sound. It's my, perhaps irrational, fear that I will live Idiocracy in my life time. Perhaps before Thursday. So maybe I'm biased against such methods of communicating information that are childish, ineffective, and only funny to five year olds.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 24 2014, @01:51AM
Wow. What a rant...
As for the advertisements, the marketers and their products have no place in any advanced society whatsoever. The entire enterprise is bereft of any noble influences, and only seeks to use (admittedly in their learning materials) deceit, manipulation, and science (psychology) to influence a consumer to do something normally otherwise prevented by a state of information symmetry.
Lets say edill invents a new flashlight bulb which requires 1/10th the energy for the same light output, (by way of example).
But, following his own proscription, he can't advertise it, he can't even mention it. Which means he effectively can't sell it. Which means any benefit to society of edill's invention is irrevocably lost.
Edill, wanders off into the wilderness, eventually to commit suicide, his very purpose on earth defeated by his short sighted vow of silence.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @03:11AM
Phillip Morris loves this arrangement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @03:14AM
That's why no one uses SoylentNews. As they aren't a big commercial site, they have no advertising budget, so there's no way for anyone to know it exists. The result is that every thread has zero comments.
Wait, no, that didn't happen. Word of mouth advertising exists. As do informational resources like reviews sites. If I want to know what X to buy, I'm going to go to a search engine and research Xs. If there's some brand-new product that's so amazing that I'll want it once I've heard about it, then other people who found it amazing will tell me about it. I manage to exist in society with ad-block.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday November 24 2014, @10:00AM
Yeah... except that's a false dichotomy, and your example is terrible. If I've invented something, then chances are I was participating in the scientific community. We have different ways of "advertising" our inventions, designs, and ideas irrespective of our economic choices.
Is Google advertising *anything* when it lists a product for sale someplace for x$? I think they are not.
This comes down to what constitutes an advertisement. I guess I don't feel that listing your product someplace and participating in reviews and consumer reports is truly considered advertising. Word of mouth is not advertising too. Opening up a retail shop, with a nice and respectable sign, is not advertising.
Advertising is when you actively interfere in the communications of others to force your own, or hijack a space and pollute the public with your communications. Making it worse is when you speak to those you've interfered as child like idiots you can fool with tricks that make any confidence man snicker. Even worse yet, is when they very act of the communication puts you at risk (malware) and costs you money (bandwidth).
So advertising may really be the industry of child like deceit during story telling, both malicious and benign. However, I don't feel irrational in saying that now the child is rather brutish, crude, and needs a bath and some discipline. I'm also paying for the little bastard to have the privilege, so I vote we make him get a switch from the backyard.
Not sorry for the rant :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 25 2014, @09:19AM
Advertising is when you actively interfere in the communications of others to force your own, or hijack a space and pollute the public with your communications.
Bullshit. You don't get to define advertising just so you can demonize it. Work within the common definition, or admit your argument was pointless rabid ranting.
The most you can say is if you try hard enough, you can pick a certain small segment of advertising from the vast array of advertising and use that example as soap box to spin your evil conspiracy theories. Who the hell are you to say that one beer is not better than another, or one car is all we ever need? Who are you to say no one should be able to put forth a competing product and tell the market place about it?
We are not a command economy. There are choices of beers, Computers, potatoes, and shoes. And people have the right to find out about these competing products without visiting every little cobbler shop on the planet, or waiting till word of mouth spreads from some tiny Bavarian brewhaus half way around the world.
Advertising serves a vital role.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:19PM
No, it does not. Advertising only serves for evil. Which, is genuinely funny, you saying I have demonized it.
It serves no purpose at all, other than the entirely selfish purposes of the advertiser. While evil is a nice fun thing to say, I wholly grant you is often used for hyperbole. Just for the sake of common definitions:
Well, morally bad is just way too vague and we can argue that for all time.
"Causing harm or injury to someone" is a completely different situation though. I *do* get to rationally make the statement that advertising is evil, as it causes harm or injury, or is intended to be so".
I have seen different definitions, and cannot find the one I've used for decades, and that indicated that evil possessed the property of awareness. Meaning, that to cause harm or injury with no intention or awareness is not evil.
So let's be clear on what is evil, and that to demonize anything is to state that it is possessing of evil qualities in the majority.
I have not defined it in a way that demonizes it all, nor am I playing language games and attempting to redefine it.
Here is the definition, straight from a Google search (noun, verb):
Now, let's just get straight to the meat of the argument. Movie audiences are NOT receptive to advertising.
For my entire life, and the history that I have been exposed too, advertising as a process dramatically changed. I deny your assertion of any common definition, when the process itself no longer meets the definition.
You act as if advertisements were passive, and merely information you just happen upon during your journey here. They most certainly are not anywhere near as passive or benign as the definitions indicate.
The issue with "advertising" is entirely in the presentation of the information to the public. You take away the fancy technologies, and what you have WRT the movie audiences is one person realizing they have a captive audience.
It's not a coincidence that I've had many heated arguments with marketers, and that they have been quite offended when I remind them that they are "demons".
As a process, and with respect to what actually occurs during the process, advertising includes captive audiences normally unwilling to be exposed to the presentation of the information.
That's a fact buddy. Not an opinion. Millions upon millions of dollars and human man hours have been pumped into technologies, legislation, and court battles to prevent the natural progression of the underlying indisputable fact: People don't fucking want it.
Whether or not you intellectually recognize the importance of this flow of information to the abstract concepts that are economies is irrelevant. You are not in the position to argue that I changed the definition, or that advertising is not evil.
All advertisers are cognizant that they must fight to achieve a captive audience, become aware of the technical tools available to the audience to escape captivity, and that new mediums must be actively discovered that have their desired properties .
I honestly don't see how you have any leg to stand on, but I'll play along.
Advertising, according the strict and archaic definitions that include no visible harm, is required to allow information to flow and for consumers to be aware of new options. Okay. I'll play along. This is advertising.
Except... that's not what occurs is it? Enter information asymmetry (my favorite). If the advertisers were acting in accordance with your definition, you would think the information would be salient and shows how good and effective the product is.
So advertising, even in your definition that clearly excludes the challenges with the presentation, still has a problem in that it does not maturely communicate the required information. If it *did*, then maybe we wouldn't have created Consumer Reports, the FDA, FTC, and the FCC? If we are going to play your game, then Wall Street is "advertising" all the time. I guess we *did* need some regulations to prevent unwanted and undesirable advertisements?
You tell me Frojack, is advertising as we know and understand it, the simple act of transmitting information so that people with challenges are aware of their options? It's not. Don't pretend it is. It's not. If you want to say advertising is required for society to function, *fine*. However, we don't actually need advertising the way it *is*.
I'll stop ranting when the advertisers are not in a real and actual assault mode upon my person to be pushing their information in my face when I don't want it, and when the information doesn't appear to have been directly inspired by the movie Idiocracy. I'll stop when advertisers start actually advertising again instead of what they are doing now, which I guess we don't have a word for that I get to use right? I wonder what the word is that describes the ability to go on the Internet, visit a website, and review the "advertised" specs and features.... It's not advertising, but what *is* it? Accomplishes the same thing, but isn't exactly advertising?
Yes, obviously I'm being a little bit sarcastic at the end here. We all know what advertising is, as advertising is what advertising does. Even a man with a substandard IQ, knows that something is what something does, not what somebody says it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:00PM
but not if Google is going to get a cut out of it.
they are determined to find a way to extract money from every interaction between
everyone and everyone else about anything. its a nice search engine and browser, but
itsn't that a bit steep?
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:06PM
I already pay nothing to view the entire Internet without ads. Why should I pay something to get what I already have?
Now, are there sites where I'd be willing to chip in a few pennies here and there to support a worthy cause? Perhaps.
But, honestly, I've found that the labor-of-love sites are generally the ones I'm most interested in in the first place. The advertisement-laden commercial sites just don't tend to draw my interest. (At least, I'm guessing that those are the sites heavy with commercials...I honestly wouldn't know....)
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:09PM
Of course, as long as the ad companies insist that their ads need to be 'web apps' instead of HTML, I almost never see them anyway, but it's not because I dislike the ads in particular, it's because I dislike the insanity of 'web apps.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday November 23 2014, @08:31PM
Adverts that move, adverts with videos, adverts with videos that auto-play, adverts with videos that autoplay with sound. It just gets worse and worse. I'm not talking about ones in front of youtube videos, I'm talking ones on a news webpage.
Fortunately most sites aren't so obnoxious. I don't mind relevant adverts, Marriott are trying to get me to join their loyalty scheme, fortunately hotels.com are reminding me of their far better (for me) setup.
Last time I ran a website I got paid per view -- upto 5 cents per impression. Does that type of advert still exist, or is it all pay-per-click?
The most obnoxious stuff I block at the DNS level though - outbrain.com and dailymail.co.uk.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:31PM
A monthly fee per site, no. Except a very few sites,such as crunchyroll.
Per month for all my browsing, possibly.
How much revenue am I generating by ignoring all those ads, anyway?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday November 23 2014, @07:32PM
and were using BT WiFi subscribers piggy-backing off wireless connections
That doesn't make sense. Did the word "using" slip in there by mistake?
The users weren't using BT WiFi subscribers [etc], they are BT WiFi subscribers [etc].
The second story concerns a trial balloon that Google is floating
Given that Google has been literally floating trial balloons [wikipedia.org] recently, that choice of metaphor seems confusing.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Sunday November 23 2014, @08:47PM
I definitely don't see why should I pay google and not the site itself if I wanted to support it. Imagine funding Soylent, but through Google, it just doesn't make sense.
I definitely could see a +1 become "send 1c" (or whatever), if you find something helpful around.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 24 2014, @02:04AM
I definitely don't see why should I pay google and not the site itself if I wanted to support it. Imagine funding Soylent, but through Google, it just doesn't make sense.
Lets take Google out of the picture.
Now just discuss micro-payments in general. (That is after all, what google is trialing with this program).
Would you buy into a site that didn't show ads, but did require micropayments per page views? Maybe a quarter or a tenth of a cent per session/page/bundle-of-pages?
There are sites, are there not, who have nothing to SELL but still provide a service. Are we not both staring at such a site here on SN? I see you have a star by your name. Wear it proudly, my friend, because YOU have already bought into payment for content.
But Look up at that fund rising progress bar! Pathetic.
Now if such a service came around such that you could put a few bucks into a pot, and they would dole it out to the sites you visit, while making the freeloaders suffer ads, would that not be a good idea? And would that service not be deserving of some revenue for themselves?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday November 25 2014, @11:24AM
I'd much prefer to do choose which content to pay for. Like a tip, if you want to call it that way.
It'd be so easy to write a simple opensource, decentralized service with it (no third parties involved) with a cryptocurrency, that it'd be ridiculous to ask a % on it. Or if eventually should such a third party system arise, it's be trivial to replace it with an open source version (btw, lots of such things already exist).
The problem is not technological, but cultural.
Google is big anough to gain a critical mass to adoption before a grassroots movement could.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:06PM
Just as the open source fanatics who complain most bitterly about Microsoft are the ones who will almost never contribute a penny to any software project, commercial or not, I'm pretty sure that all of the ad hating, Ghostery and AdBlock using complainers would, in fact, never be willing to cough up a single cent to support the sites that they claim to love.
They're not standing on principle, they're just cheap.*
And to those who claim that they are never, ever, influenced by advertising: HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Get real folks, you're wearing Nike shoes, own an Apple computer, drink RedBull and Coke, buy Levis jeans, and watch either network television or NetFlix, and will line up to see the next Marvel branded movie. And buy the overpriced popcorn. You're as influenced by advertising as anyone else.
* GENERALIZATION, and yes, I know that YOU are the exception.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:37PM
Yes, I do contribute to FOSS, but never M$, my Nikes lasted 16 years, my Levis almost the same. I buy/invest in quality, not whats on the boob tube commercials. And, I'm the one that made the first post above "Absolutely Not" Ads are for suckers, and the weak minded.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday November 23 2014, @10:27PM
I am happy to provide you with a counter-example. I use AdBlock Plus, Ghostery, NoScript, and all social blockers that exist out there. There are no ads in my browsers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 24 2014, @02:11AM
Interesting that you block ads, and wear a star after your name, and the GP has no star, and trash talks blockers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @04:21AM
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Monday November 24 2014, @04:12PM
That reminds me, I've been meaning to buy a subscription. brb
... 30 seconds later...
Done. Holy shit, SN, that was amazing. I was actually able to go to subscription, click a button, go to Paypal, and be back in 30 seconds. I didn't even have to allow Javascript on SN to fill out a stupid form. Just temporarily allow requests from SN to PP to see the button. Wow, seriously-- having done some truly painful checkouts in my time, your process should be an exemplar to any other ecomm
Also, I block ads, so let me just add an extra "fuck you" to GP.
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 23 2014, @11:13PM
No. And before you ask: Also not Adidas or Puma. Indeed, I have no idea who made my shoes (well, OK, strictly speaking, the owners of Nike shoes don't either).
No.
Never.
Rarely. And I honestly don't care if it's Coke, Pepsi, or some other one. ItÄs just that most of the time Coke is the one you get.
No.
What exactly is "network television"? If you mean cable: Yes, I use cable TV; I have to pay it anyway (it's part of my rent), so why shouldn't I use it? But then, I almost exclusively watch public TV channels (for which I also would have to pay if I didn't watch them).
Unlikely.
Extremely unlikely.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @12:13PM
Na, we just hate malware.
(Score: 1) by No Respect on Sunday November 23 2014, @10:44PM
No.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @04:27AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Sunday November 23 2014, @11:10PM
I find some comedy in this article and comments. Soylent News is ad free and pays for itself with paid subscriptions (well, attempting to anyways). The money has to come from somewhere. So anyone who says they adblock and would never support a site with paid subscription should probably think a bit about SN's future. Google's service is about creating a subscription feature for any site using adsense. Of course any of those sites could do what SN is attempting to do. But that would require putting in your credit card for every site you want to support. That would suck.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday November 24 2014, @02:15AM
Google is "gingerly" looking at micro-payments as a service, with ads as a backup revenue source.
For me, it would depend on the revenue split. If it was 90-site and 10-Google, I'd be all in.
50-50, I'd be less in.
10-site 90-Google, I'd choose to suffer the ads.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 24 2014, @01:06AM
"Pay us to not get malware from ads on our site"
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday November 24 2014, @03:02AM
That is reason #1 for my installing ad-blockers.
Reason #2 is ads that change my settings.
Reason #3 is ads that are downright annoying with animations.
Reason #4 is ads that surprise me ( and sometimes embarrass me ) by emitting sounds.
That being said, I did install ad-blockers because I wanted some peace and quiet.
But I am not against all ads. It is how they are presented to me that is annoying to the point I installed anti-ad software.
I welcome relevant ads presented to me as a small image in the page. If I am interested in it, I will click on it.
However, the way some sites present ads is like having a door-to-door salesman with one of those canned-air noisemakers blasting the hell out of anyone who shows him the courtesy of opening the door. After a few encounters of this, people will bar their doors and will not answer a salesman's knock - no matter what he's selling. Would you open the door to a salesman if the last one threw a bucket of crap into your house so he could sell you a vacuum cleaner?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by lizardloop on Monday November 24 2014, @12:45PM
I think most people complaining about Google getting a cut of the revenue are missing the point of this. Most people who provide content to websites are not developers or cannot afford to hire a developer to create their own micro payment system and correctly hide the adverts for those who have paid. Google can now say to the millions of websites that run their ads "hey, we can offer a micro payment option for minimal work on your part, all we ask is a small cut". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.