Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday March 24 2014, @09:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the ads?-what-ads? dept.

An anonymous coward writes:

"Three weeks ago, video game reviewer and online columnist Jim Sterling used his weekly "Jimquisition" video column (warning: NSFW) at The Escapist to address 'the ever thorny issue' of viewers using ad-blockers while watching his content.

As Mr Sterling relies entirely on ads on The Escapist and his YouTube channel for his income and isn't exactly known for pulling punches regardless of topic, it may have come as a surprise to many that he expressed considerable understanding for those who choose to block ads [transcribed and slightly censored by the submitter]:

"No, I don't like it when someone views my work with Adblock, but I get it. I absolutely understand it, and I find it hard to judge anybody who does it. If I'm p---ed off at anyone, it's the advertisers; those reckless buffoons who brought up intrusive pop-ups, auto-playing video ads, and those f---ing banners with the smileys that scream "SAY SOMETHING" at you.

'There is this horrible cycle in place, if you didn't know, where the less ads that get viewed, the worse the ads are, because the less scrupulous commercial companies will go after the more desperate venues. What this means is, the more you ad-block, the worse the ads actually get.'

After asking his viewers to 'kindly consider' viewing his videos with Adblock disabled (and expressing some considerable distaste for those who publicly state that they block the ads and still insists on criticising his work), Sterling willingly conceded that ads on web sites can represent a real problem for users:

'When ads break web sites, when they ruin your browsing or are offensive to you on some level, how the hell can I blame you for wanting to obliterate them? I can't!'

Whether one likes Mr Sterling's videos or not, he no doubt has a point. Ads are the only available source of revenue for many web sites and content producers, but they have little or no influence over the kind of ads the ad provider serves through their site. As we all know, intrusive ads can significantly degrade the browsing experience and even be a malware vector. Besides asking their users to please endure potentially obnoxious ads, are there ways for web sites (like, say, SoylentNews) and content producers to make money from advertisements?

The story ends with an interesting twist: For those who wanted to support him but just couldn't stomach the ads, Sterling briefly published the URL to an Amazon wishlist as well as his P.O. box address at the end of the video. Last week he revealed that although he had done so in jest, several viewers had indeed sent him gifts (from 7:02 onwards)."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by everdred on Monday March 24 2014, @09:57PM

    by everdred (110) on Monday March 24 2014, @09:57PM (#20594) Journal

    > are there ways for web sites (like, say, SoylentNews) and content producers to make money from advertisements?

    Sure: sell your own ads and host them yourself. You get to exercise quality control, and you don't end up revealing information about your visitors' browsing habits to questionable third-parties [theguardian.com].

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NCommander on Monday March 24 2014, @10:14PM

      by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday March 24 2014, @10:14PM (#20603) Homepage Journal

      While I don't wish to run ads at all on Soylent (rather be funded by donations), if we *have* to go this route, we'll self-host, and make sure no user information is directly transmitted to the ad companies.

      --
      Still always moving
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Tork on Monday March 24 2014, @10:41PM

        by Tork (3914) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:41PM (#20617)
        Please stick to text only ads, please. Even if it means 'sponsored stories'.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Tuesday March 25 2014, @07:05AM

          by Common Joe (33) <common.joe.0101NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 25 2014, @07:05AM (#20846) Journal

          I may be in the minority, but self hosted image ads are cool with me. (If you decide to go down that route.) Just keep them small and unobtrusive. I will change my ad-block settings for y'all. Oh, and thanks for the small comment to let us know that you aren't going to do anything bone headed like most sites. It goes a long way.

        • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday March 25 2014, @07:07AM

          by Common Joe (33) <common.joe.0101NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday March 25 2014, @07:07AM (#20847) Journal

          Tork. Sorry, my other comment was for NCommander. I meant to piggy back off your comment and hit reply to you instead of NCommander. You bring up some good things to talk about, though.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Monday March 24 2014, @11:06PM

        by edIII (791) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:06PM (#20629)

        I have a crazy idea. Don't listen to the others and go with sponsored stories, with images, with a twist:

        It can be downvoted into oblivion and actually removed. It can upvoted and make it onto a list of stuff we just really like. The more informative about what it can do with examples the better.

        While I abhor marketing entirely, there might be some middle ground in discussing things we all clearly like a lot and letting the sponsors pay Soylent to capture our attention in the fairest way possible to everyone.

        You show us a Kardashian and be prepared for the Abyss. Show us Tyson giving us all the information and cool parts about some new 3-d maker and we might just want to talk about it for a minute.

        I mean if it's really a thing to were we just have to deal with the devil, we might want to try and it make it as pleasant as possible. Otherwise it's just back to the good ol' war with Adblock/Ghostery/DoNotTrackMe.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by everdred on Monday March 24 2014, @11:46PM

          by everdred (110) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:46PM (#20640) Journal

          Reddit actually does something like this.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by etherscythe on Tuesday March 25 2014, @12:05AM

          by etherscythe (937) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @12:05AM (#20646) Journal

          By way of example, if we had this set up, Fluke would be in a great position to take advantage of it what with the whole Sparkfun multimeters-seized-in-Customs thing. The story itself was likely to hit our frontpage anyway - but what if we got to hear from somebody at Fluke or maybe Sparkfun about the ordeal directly? It would be both interesting and probably marketing gold given the participants on this site.

          --
          "Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by velex on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:41AM

          by velex (2068) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:41AM (#20702) Journal

          You're not quite +5 yet! Argh, my mod points were used too soon!

          However, that does raise a legitimate question. The goal of advertisement is essentially intrusion and the creation of a want (and its portrayal as a need) where no such want exists. Would advertisers even be amenable to such a system?

          The trouble is that the advertisers we want, well, we want because we already have the want. There is no creation of the want in that dynamic. Essentially, a system that enables the "audience" to downmod ads is antithetical to the very reason for ads to exist. (I.e. the premise that there even is an "audience," which I hope we're all here to demonstrate that we're not.)

          I guess what I'm saying is that the devil would not make a deal if there were no evil outcome (even if the outcome would be beneficial to him/her), at least as I understand devils.

          Perhaps a devil's advocate can offer a rebuttal.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mojo chan on Tuesday March 25 2014, @01:55PM

            by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @01:55PM (#20941)

            Advertising should be about offering something that fulfils a need. There is no need to create a want unless what you are peddling some POS that no-one wants anyway.

            --
            const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:29PM (#20996)

              >> ... unless what you are peddling some POS that no-one wants anyway.

              See: Advertising

          • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:12AM

            by Nobuddy (1626) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @03:12AM (#21300)

            Ads that work are those that make me aware of a product I never knew existed.

            A Coke ad is not going to impact me, I am aware of Coke and know my position on that product. An ad for a product or service I have never seen will get a look, and if it fills a real need at a reasonable value for me it will be purchased.

            So, if you are Coke, or Ford, or some other major company that even Iceman knows about, quit wasting your money on ads. When you have a new product, then make an ad. It won't need to vibrate, play, popover, black out the page, any of that shit that makes us hate you all with the fiery passion of a binary supernova. A simple text and graphic is all you need.

            "Oh, Ford has a new electric vehicle. I wonder how much they cost...." CLICK

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30 2014, @12:33PM (#23134)

              So why do they spend so much on advertising if they're already the number one or two?

              $48B revenue
              from 584B servings

              $4B marketing

              $8B profit ... They could increase profits by 50 percent if they didn't spend on marketing.
              How is that spend needed?
              For every $1 in marketing, returns $2 profit.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:59PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:59PM (#20980)

          Wouldn't that be vulnerable to shill upvoting, though?

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2, Funny) by halcyon1234 on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:52PM

            by halcyon1234 (1082) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:52PM (#21014)
            Let them. It should be easy enough to spot. Such unscrupulous cretins would assume this site is "just like all the others" and that "moar is better". They'll flood the ad with upvotes from a bunch of accounts that don't have an established posting history / karma. It's a simple SQL query to spot them. Flag those ads for human review-- either by staff, or in a subforum. With human eyes looking at it, it's incredibly easy to spot. Seriously, just look how quickly and efficiently Slashvertisments got called out-- twice as fast when they were shill stories planted by Dice employees.

            Let them self-identify as idiots, and then ban their ads. Oh, and no refunds. Thanks for the free money to support the site.

            Or, even better-- put in the advertiser's T&C (which will be ignored anyways) a Shadowban clause. Continue to show their ads-- only to their shill accounts. Or to actual users, but the ad is shrunk to 1px x 1px. Continue to charge them for monthly usage fees and impressions. See how long you can continue to get paid to not show their ad. =)
            --
            Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:23AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:23AM (#20699) Homepage

        Thank you. And I too would appreciate if you'd stick to text ads, or simple banners (nothing more noxious than a basic GIF). I might even pay attention to those, if they're halfway relevant.

        You might want to solicit SN users who are also authors for Amazon affiliate links.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by darinbob on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:17AM

      by darinbob (2593) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:17AM (#20727)

      I actually find it very strange in some ways that "how the hell am I supposed to make money at this otherwise?" argument. Ok, I may be a bit naive. But maybe one does not need to make money at it? Maybe I'm old enough when I remember when the internet was not about commerce, and I remember when advertisement revenue was not the overwhelmingly most important focus of high technology. Maybe write a blog that has interesting things to say because you want people to read what you said, or comment on it, start a discussion, you know... the whole democracy thing.

      Ie, on soylent/slashdot/whatever, I don't think the commenters are out there asking for payment.

      This vaguely reminds me a bit of early PC days. I had come from Unix and VMS with minicomputers where people exchanged tapes for the cost of a tape, and the Amiga world with lots and lots of stuff for a minimal cost to reproduce. Then on the PC I saw the model flipped, and almost everything was shareware instead, and the sort of shareware that said "I wrote this to learn how to program, if you used it you now owe me $15", or nagware, crippleware, and all that other stuff that said "give me money, I don't do this for the fun of it!"

      Granted I am a cheap bastard, but I do pay for some software. I'm even paying for my free antivirus, and I am one of the 12 people in the world who payed for Netscape Navigator.

      • (Score: 2) by everdred on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:36AM

        by everdred (110) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:36AM (#20790) Journal

        Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of SoylentNews going this route, or suggesting that they do so. Just answering the question posed in the summary...

        But your point is well-taken.

        • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday March 25 2014, @12:42PM

          by Open4D (371) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @12:42PM (#20921) Journal

          I am in favour of text and/or static image ads on Soylent, for non-subscribers. (I would subscribe.)

           
          But it doesn't seem efficient for individual websites to be negotiating all that stuff with individual advertisers. I'm assuming AdSense [wikipedia.org] only gives you money if you serve up content that they host, and which you have no say in. So, are there any competitor ad agencies that take a different approach?

          Even an agency that does host the ads on your behalf but promises (through contractual obligations) not to track the recipients (victims?) of the ads?

           
          It wouldn't surprise me if the answer is no, and if the most hassle-free approach is just to have no ads whatsoever, despite potentially serious financial implications. But if so, I'd find that slightly regrettable - not just for Soylent, but in general. As much as I want to simply pay for what I use rather than rent out my eyeballs in exchange (and I wish other people would do the same), I do suspect that there would still be a useful role for advertizing to play, funding things that otherwise wouldn't get funded. Some ads are even mutually beneficial.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by rts008 on Monday March 24 2014, @10:07PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:07PM (#20597)

    When something unpleasant is forced on me, I resist. Try to shove something down my throat, and I will fight back.

    I don't think I'm too different in that from most others.

    Back when there was only 3-4 commercial breaks during an hour program, I was annoyed, but basically okay with this.
    When it got to the point of every 5-6 minutes, and at least one-third of the hour was advert.'s, I threw in the towel and quit watching TV.

    As long as there is something like Adblock and NoScript/Flashblock, etc., I will stay online. When this is no longer possible, I will give it up like I did TV.

    There are too many good books out there that I have not had a chance to read yet anyway. :-)

    • (Score: 1) by Mr_Flibble on Tuesday March 25 2014, @05:57AM

      by Mr_Flibble (286) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @05:57AM (#20825)

      I don't use ad block, yet however I do use my memory, if a site as to many ads that keep resizing my screen as they load I never go back.
      I believe this attitude has lost a few 'friends' on facebook after some stupid campaign I followed a link to resulted in a tirade of abuse from me about linking to websites that have over %80 of the content as adds.

      --
      Just because I suffer from paranoia doesn't mean people aren't out to get me.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by GeminiDomino on Monday March 24 2014, @10:08PM

    by GeminiDomino (661) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:08PM (#20598)

    As much as I enjoy Jim's stuff, even his amazingly enlightened and more than reasonable request wasn't enough for me to unblock that site since the Escapist has not only run some incredibly scummy ads/trackers in my past experience, but they consider discussion on the topic to be a bannable offense. Yes, even in the forum thread for that video.

    --
    "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:15AM (#20777)

      > the Escapist has not only run some incredibly scummy ads/trackers in my past experience

      Really? I've been a member of their Publisher's Club for so long I hadn't noticed. It's funny: Originally I paid the $20 for all the other perks, but I stopped visiting and the $20/year became worth it to have videos delivered via RSS... without ever visiting the site.

      > consider discussion on the topic to be a bannable offense.

      It is in a lot of places. Actually one of the contributing factors to why I dropped one of my Twitch livestreams. I had a sub for it, but the place was getting more and more user-hostile, I found. Ultimately I not only stopped subbing, but stopped watching entirely and dropped their Youtube accounts as well. They lost the fiver and the ad revenue. I appreciate the need for some modding, but when you're undoing at least a ban a week because you banned an innocent person and got called on it....

      > Yes, even in the forum thread for that video.

      (Checks site.) Wow. Isn't he editor in chief or managing editor or something else big? Seeing him not being able to rein in the mods is... kinda sad.

      • (Score: 1) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:49PM

        by GeminiDomino (661) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @12:49PM (#21455)

        The user-hostility was what made me decide that I would *not* ever be registering for the Pub Club, as much as I'd have liked to have access to the HTML5 videos, even though I only watch 2 of them anymore (Jimquisition and ZP).

        Isn't he editor in chief or managing editor or something else big?

        I think he's a big shot on Destructoid, and just a "columnist" on Escapist. ICBW though...

        --
        "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Dale on Monday March 24 2014, @10:23PM

    by Dale (539) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:23PM (#20609)

    Even if what he says is true that in mass if everyone quit using blocking tools the quality and annoyance would come down, overall it is still in the best interest of the individual to block. Great for the whole if no one does but bad for the individual. Individuals will (should or probably?) act in their own best interest, which in this case is opposite of the supposed good of the whole.

    The individual has other things to consider. The amount or risk of tracking, the risk of viruses, connection functionality (speed and/or data caps) all point to the blocking of ads being a good thing for the individual. Unless the lack of ad revenue starts shrinking the overall quantity of information available I see no reason for the trend of more blocking to stop or reverse.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Monday March 24 2014, @10:24PM

    by tathra (3367) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:24PM (#20610)

    ads (and tracking, for that matter) absolutely ruin the browsing experience. i have no problem with non-intrusive, non-annoying, non-disruptive ads (no popups, auto-playing videos, flashing banners, etc), but since thats basically the default for every ad online these days, i simply block them all. i know i'm not the only one that feels this way either.

    the advertisers fucked themselves on this one. the 'free market' spoke and said, "we dont want your shit," but then the advertisers got even more forceful in trying to shove down our throats something we made clear we didnt want, which resulted in ad-blockers, anti-tracking methods (since they willingly ignore the "do not track stuff", we had to do that ourselves too), etc. take the hint and stop polluting our internet with shit nobody wants.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Ken_g6 on Monday March 24 2014, @11:03PM

      by Ken_g6 (3706) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:03PM (#20627)

      It's funny, there have been a few sites that requested I turn off AdBlock, I did so, and nothing changed. Why? I also run NoScript. Which means the ads on that page were not simple images - not even animated gifs. No, the advertisers insisted on either the site (sometimes I leave the site blocked in NoScript too) or themselves running a script to inject unknown code into my browser. I might occasionally allow an ad on a page, but not that way.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Marand on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:58AM

        by Marand (1081) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:58AM (#20765) Journal

        That's exactly what's wrong with advertising online that makes it so scummy. It's not the bandwidth use, it's the expectation that they be allowed to run code on your system. Nobody expects the advertisers to be able to enter their homes and change their TV's volume or channel or anything else when a commercial comes on. (Though I bet if any advertisers are reading this, they just started salivating at the idea.)

        So why is there an expectation that they be allowed to fuck with my computer?

        Normally I wouldn't do this, but I posted something a few weeks ago that's more relevant here, so I'm re-posting it:

        The primary problem with advertising sources, and the reason I block them, is that the current design with external advertisers is that you have to trust the advertisers to run executable code (javascript) on your computer. Not only does that enable the option of doing obnoxious things (animations, audio, etc.), but drive-by malware through adverts is an issue, and it's one that's mitigated by adblockers or strict NoScript settings.

        I don't even run an adblocker, I just keep NoScript fairly strict, and I don't see 99% of advertisements because they all rely on javascript. I have no issue with your site generating revenue through advertising, but if you depend on me allowing advertisers to run code on my machine, I won't be seeing a single one.

        Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose, and the advertisers are far into the negatives on that score. Why should they care if you get malware from their ads? They won't be held accountable and the viewers aren't the ones paying them.

        • (Score: 1) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:31AM

          by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:31AM (#20787)

          > Nobody expects the advertisers to be able to enter their homes and change their TV's volume or channel or anything else when a commercial comes on.

          Except commercials do seem to be louder than the shows they accompany, so they are in a sense changing the TV's volume.

          • (Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:49AM

            by Marand (1081) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @04:49AM (#20800) Journal

            Except commercials do seem to be louder than the shows they accompany, so they are in a sense changing the TV's volume.

            Apples to oranges. They're just using the same tricks as the music industry in its "loudness war", not actually changing your settings. It still won't exceed the volume you chose and can't negate being muted.

            It's the audio equivalent of using bright colours to attract attention. Neither practice is comparable to arbitrary code execution, which is what I was primarily talking about, and should never be a requirement for advertising.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ben4jammin on Monday March 24 2014, @11:08PM

      by Ben4jammin (3964) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:08PM (#20630)

      I agree, especially with auto playing videos and flashing banners...that generally results in me not visiting that site anymore.
      If you want people to not use ad-blocks on your site, then YOU have to raise the bar on the ads on your site. I do allow ads on some of my favorite sites, as long as there are no auto plays or flashing banners. I think it is a fair trade. I just want to be able to view your site without unexpected sound blowing me out of my chair and not having an epileptic seizure from flashing ads.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:35AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:35AM (#20701) Homepage

      Same here. Back in the olden days, I might actually notice relevant ads. The old Google text ads were cool, and there were some very clever small banner ads -- I even saved a few of them for my own amusement. But then the text ads became a drag on performance (took forever for the server to respond, and meanwhile the rest of the page wouldn't load) and banners started to sing and dance and grow to fill the page, and swoop across the page or leap out in front of the actual content, and in short order they all entered the depths of my HOSTS file and suffered various forms of death-to-javascript.

      It's their own damn fault. I had nothing against the original ads, and other than occasionally turning images off because 14.4 dialup sucks, they were allowed to do their thing. But when the annoying type became a significant fraction, they all suffered for it, because I don't feel a responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff when it's all being blown in my face.

      I use one site that has several basic banners. I've become pretty much blind to them, except for the first day that a new one appears, then I will often notice it. This is as it should be -- the ad does its job, but lets me ignore it when I don't care to be bothered by it.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by michealpwalls on Monday March 24 2014, @10:30PM

    by michealpwalls (3920) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:30PM (#20613) Homepage Journal

    I like what duckduckgo.com [duckduckgo.com] has done. A subtle message added to their search results page:

    Anonymous adblock user, [X]
    We respect your use of adblock. Some of us use it too. Will you please make an exception for our one ad?

    It persuaded made me to add my first exception :O

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday March 24 2014, @10:33PM

    by Tork (3914) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:33PM (#20615)

    I actually don't mind advertising on the web to a certain extent. I like to watch the Nostalgia Critic, for example, and I'm okay with the commercial break in the beginning and *one* commercial break in the middle. The thing to understand, though, is that that show is a half hour long. What I absolutely cannot stand is when a 2 minute video gets a 30 second spot. And you know where this happens? News sites. Today I read a headline that a train crashed through a platform in Chicago and climbed the escalator to the upper level. Eep! I clicked on a link to watch a video report on it and... 15 seconds of some ad for a steak house. This is NEWS, right? Sometimes I click on a link to an article and after the page loads the entire content is COVERED by another layer of some nonsense they think I need to know about. (Cracked.com is a big offender here...) Um, no, this is the sort of thing that makes me want to install AdBlock.

    I do think most understand that advertising is needed to keep a site alive. Heck, I even appreciate when asked nicely to respect that. (I vaguely recall a post on the Nostalia Critic forums about ad revenue and its impact on the show...) But please please PLEASE show some restraint. For example: Again, the Nostalgia Critic, the ads on that show are fairly limited in number. I've heard that stupid ass "sharing is caring" sony video about 6,000,234 times now. Why can't I just click a thing that says: "Yes, I know the Playstation 4 exists, can you acknowledge that and let me watch this in peace?"

    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NoMaster on Monday March 24 2014, @10:53PM

    by NoMaster (3543) on Monday March 24 2014, @10:53PM (#20621)

    "What this means is, the more you ad-block, the worse the ads actually get."

    Not for me - I use AdBlock.
     
    If you don't like how you and your viewers are being fucked by advertising weasels, perhaps you should stop climbing into bed with them...

    --
    Live free or fuck off and take your naïve Libertarian fantasies with you...
    • (Score: 1) by mverwijs on Monday March 24 2014, @11:21PM

      by mverwijs (2457) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:21PM (#20633) Homepage

      Also, I've no idea what he's talking about. I'm using Adblock Edge (a fork I think), and sometimes Privoxy. I get near zero ads. I therefor could not care less how much worse the blocked ads are getting sincs they're well... blocked.

    • (Score: 1) by Tork on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:35AM

      by Tork (3914) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:35AM (#20746)
      Ad block won't prevent Peter Griffin from drinking Diet Coke on Hulu.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday March 25 2014, @06:04PM

        by TK (2760) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @06:04PM (#21094)

        In those situations, I use my special alt-tab plugin, coupled with the mute button on my keyboard.

        --
        The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 24 2014, @11:02PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday March 24 2014, @11:02PM (#20625) Journal

    Often, when you are least aware of it, issues that are on you mind can affect decisions in a subliminal way. Even such a simple task as approving submissions to a news site can be affected. Suddenly a lot of pieces on micro-payments and advertising revenues can mysteriously appear, for no reason. Or it is meant to be subliminal for the members?

    Points on the market reacting against ads, since the internet is not a monopoly (yet), are well taken.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday March 25 2014, @01:04AM

    by BradTheGeek (450) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @01:04AM (#20661)

    Ads do not get worse because of ad blockers. I work in a PC repair shop. We also do business IT. I rarely if ever see a single machine with ad-block. Perhaps my view is a bit skewed, but I still do not believe it to be a large percentage of the internet using population.

    That said, ads DO continue to get worse. Why would that be? Could it be that our current model requires companies to sustain what would be unsustainable levels of growth to keep investors happy? This is why we lay off thousands and ship jobs elsewhere. It is why product quality seems to drop consistently. I think it is also why advertisers try more and more devious ways to get their message across to you.

    By that logic, ad annoyance levels will only increase, and -that- is what drives further usage of blocking tools. The cart is before the horse here.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Skarjak on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:06AM

      by Skarjak (730) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @02:06AM (#20689)

      I'm going to bet that the people who bring their PCs to you are probably not the most technically literate group of users. They would do their own repairs.

      A videogame or tech website will attract a more technically literate crowd. I have forgotten the exact figures, but the percentage of people visiting these sites with adblock is non-neglibible.

      • (Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday March 25 2014, @06:17AM

        by BradTheGeek (450) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @06:17AM (#20830)

        Of course the percentage depends on the site and the viewers average competence. However I would wager the percentage is still low and my point still holds.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by darinbob on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:05AM

    by darinbob (2593) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @03:05AM (#20722)

    Out of respect for the author's wishes to not use adblock, I have refrained from following any of the links in the summary.

  • (Score: 1) by aardvark on Tuesday March 25 2014, @05:11PM

    by aardvark (3517) on Tuesday March 25 2014, @05:11PM (#21064)

    Ads that require running a script in my browser, and ad providers who track my Web usage are forever banned by me. I would be willing to allow unobtrusive ads that don't require me to allow anyone to do pretty much anything with the browser. Unfortunately, that's not the way Web advertising works, so it's all filtered out.

    I recently improved my browsing life further by installing Fanboy's Annoyance List [adblockplus.org]to AdBlock, thereby removing all those supremely annoying Facebook, Twitter, and other "social" app buttons from every page. Lovely...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @11:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 25 2014, @11:22PM (#21234)

    while I'm not reading tfa (btw wasn't the summary a bit too long?) I could perhaps add to the discussion that ads in themself is leading to more consumption* which is a bad thing. You and I and every sane person you know might use ad-block+ or similar, but since not all people do it, the ads lead to people buying things that they wouldn't bought otherwise - so things are produced and resources are wasted with no real need behind it.

    (* well, if you are like me and avoid buying things that you have seen advertising of, perhaps -your- consumption decreases, but generally ads do increase consumption)