for those who have a moral problem with ad blockers...

[nifta]

Ads do help us save money. Otherwise we'd have to pay directly to access all of the news and tech websites we read, just like how we did when bought magazines in newsagents. Journalists don't write that stuff for free.

 

[philipyoungg]

I think ads should be restricted to genuinely new products or services, which won't be known to people unless you advertise. And that too should be completely non-intrusive, non-bandwidth hoggin simple text ads. what really is the point of say Coke advertising to me? I know they exists..i know pepsi exists, and all their sub brands. When I want to buy a soda i goto a soda machine and pick one. Why would they need to advertise to me the whole day? I'll anyways pick the one I like.

Same with established companies with established products. If you have nothing new to offer, whats the point of advertising it.

Coke keep displaying ads about themselves to remind you that they "exist". The ad will trigger and prime you to buy them when you see them.

Even if it doesn't work to you, It'll work to somebody else. Restrictive advertising to only new product is not viable.

 

[philipyoungg]

You do realise that this is precisely the reason why these websites load so slowly? The problem is often not the visual component of advertising, it is the intelligence in the form of extensive JavaScript and concurrent data connections that puts a burden upon your browser and violates your privacy. What we need are ads that are not targeted anymore, like they were before. Like TV commercials, billboards and ads in newspapers and magazines.

So, what do you think the best solution if online advertising is not viable? Would you pay macrumors / the verge / others website monthly to access their articles / content?

 

[electronicsguy]

Coke keep displaying ads about themselves to remind you that they "exist". The ad will trigger and prime you to buy them when you see them.

Even if it doesn't work to you, It'll work to somebody else. Restrictive advertising to only new product is not viable.

It's not viable only because its never been tried?

 

[philipyoungg]

My utopian proposition is:

There should be one big ad channel that regulate advertising in this world. Every apps / website use their service to get money for "freemium users". Users who don't like ads simply can pay monthly fee to disable all ads from respective apps / website.

The monthly ads price then distributed by an indicator (screen time, clicks, or whatever) to respective apps / website.

But I think this is won't happen in this world, because it'll be considered monopoly.

 

[philipyoungg]

It's not viable only because its never been tried?

In my subjective opinion: yes it won't be viable, because majority company that use ads are big company. Other than that, web still need to track and guess what "brand" that you already know.

Yes, we both know Coca Cola is a beverage, but we can't actually say how many people aware of them.

 

[thekayman]

I know it's utopic, but the way I pay for music subscription I guess I would be willing to pay for an ad free internet that does not track every move I make

Here's another article from a guy who is a journalist and supposedly lives off ads

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9467107/walt-mossberg-web-ads

 

[bushido]

some pathetic big german publisher has started to sue people that post "how to use adblockers and filters" on YouTube asking for 1.600€. "scare tactic"

reasons like those is while i will keep blocking out of spite

 

[C DM]

some pathetic big german publisher has started to sue people that post "how to use adblockers and filters" on YouTube asking for 1.600€. "scare tactic"

reasons like those is while i will keep blocking out of spite

What basis is there to sue someone?

 

[bushido]

What basis is there to sue someone?

some guy posted a tutorial on how to use adblockers and filters to get access to the Bild.de website. (they block people from entering the site if they got adblocker enabled) so he simply showed how to add a filter manually on YouTube.

according to their redic lawyer its copyright enfrigment when they would never win a case in court. thats whats wrong with the legal system here. lawyers of big cooperations can threaten the little guy hoping he gets scared and just pays

 

[Narcaz]

some guy posted a tutorial on how to use adblockers and filters to get access to the Bild.de website. (they block people from entering the site if they got adblocker enabled) so he simply showed how to add a filter manually on YouTube.

Bild tries a new approach and uses the german copyrights infringement paragraph, which is normally used to ensure dvd copy protection. Bild lawyers say those youtube tutorials violate the copyright of the content of the Bild paid subscription. If they succeed, this could be a way to also sue Adblockers. But according to other experts it could fail in court. So far it's more a "scare tactic", by asking steep numbers from a poor video guy.

 

[andyw715]

The amount of bytes to me isn't the issue, its the time of synchronous loading.
Maybe these websites that use the ads should design their sites to load properly, separating the content from the ads.