Is blocking you if you have Ad-Blocker a New thing?

[TranquilMind]

Suddenly, I am noticing there are sites on which I am not able to access the content, or worse, able to access it for 5 seconds or so (I'm a fast reader but not that fast!) before a page blocking notice pops up stating that I have to disable my ad-blocker for this page in order to read it.  Hello, malware!  Yes, Wired, I'm looking at you right now. 

 

What's up with that?  You sneak plenty of ads in already on the 80% who do not  ad-block, by your own admission.  We are already paying huge bucks for the internet itself!  Why do you demand we reduce our internet security just to read some article?

 

I feel the same way about TV, by the way. Once cable was blissfully ad-free.  Now, you aren't even allowed to fast-forward on the ads in many cases.

 

Ok.  Didn't want to watch that show that much anyway.  I mostly DVR and fast-forward these days.

 

I make a mental note in my steel trap brain (for financial issues, anyway) never to purchase any product that is pushed on me without my consent.  That list is getting pretty long, but then, they rarely advertise things you really need anyway, just junk you don't need.  When is the last time you saw an ad for carrots, or salad? 

 

 

[Farrar]

Quality content is expensive to create. Many sites aren't making much money on it, even with ads.

 

Yes, they've figured out how to block users with ad blockers. I've also been seeing it more often. If you exclude the site and clear your cookies, you should be able to get back on. It's a nice thing to do to exclude sites you really like anyway because it helps them make ends meet. I find the ad blocker useful for random sites but I try to remember to turn it off for newspaper and magazine and other content sites that I read regularly.

Suddenly, I am noticing there are sites on which I am not able to access the content, or worse, able to access it for 5 seconds or so (I'm a fast reader but not that fast!) before a page blocking notice pops up stating that I have to disable my ad-blocker for this page in order to read it.  Hello, malware!  Yes, Wired, I'm looking at you right now. 

 

What's up with that?  You sneak plenty of ads in already on the 80% who do not  ad-block, by your own admission.  We are already paying huge bucks for the internet itself!  Why do you demand we reduce our internet security just to read some article?

 

This is kind of a new thing, but seeing as exactly $0 of your internet bill goes to Wired magazine, I can't blame them for trying to find some way to fund their operations.

[Farrar]

This is kind of a new thing, but seeing as exactly $0 of your internet bill goes to Wired magazine, I can't blame them for trying to find some way to fund their operations.

 

Exactly. The money we spend to get on the information highway doesn't go a bit to the content providers.

[TranquilMind]

Exactly. The money we spend to get on the information highway doesn't go a bit to the content providers.

 

Well, there isn't much content I want enough to wade through lots of useless, irritating ads. 

 

Every now and then on Facebook, I click some "article".  It isn't actually an article.  It is 57 pages of advertisements via "slideshow" for you to read the tiny bit of info that you clicked on to get.  I just get off.    Life is too short for that nonsense. 

[TranquilMind]

This is kind of a new thing, but seeing as exactly $0 of your internet bill goes to Wired magazine, I can't blame them for trying to find some way to fund their operations.

 

But they already admitted they are sticking it to 80% who don't know enough to get an adblocker or simply don't mind more ads than content.  That should be enough. 

 

But thanks. It certainly was new to me.  There is always a better source somewhere else. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by TranquilMind

[Farrar]

Well, there isn't much content I want enough to wade through lots of useless, irritating ads. 

 

Every now and then on Facebook, I click some "article".  It isn't actually an article.  It is 57 pages of advertisements via "slideshow" for you to read the tiny bit of info that you clicked on to get.  I just get off.    Life is too short for that nonsense. 

 

FB's trending seems to prioritize crappy content for some reason I simply don't get.

 

There are good content providers online... but there are also a lot of sites that are squeezing as much as possible out of users by putting everything in slideshow and putting a million ads on there. Which... yeah, I leave the ad blocker on because of those sites and when I see one, I usually decide it's not worth it. But, on the other hand, a newspaper article, a well done video, a magazine length piece... I'm willing to have ads for that. And the good providers mostly have them up front or on the side.

[Mom22ns]

 We are already paying huge bucks for the internet itself! 

 

:huh: 

 

The internet is free. Your internet provider may be charging you big bucks, but that goes no further than their pockets.

 

While there are sites that are subscription based and you pay to access content, the vast majority of internet content is free. Creating it is not free. Those who use their time and talents to create the content deserve to be paid. Ads are a very small revenue stream for most, but for many they provide the revenue that keeps the site alive. Right now, this is the choice we have made. We want free content. The way we get free content is to have advertisers pay for the site.

[chiguirre]

But they already admitted they are sticking it to 80% who don't know enough to get an adblocker or simply don't mind more ads than content.  That should be enough. 

 

But thanks. It certainly was new to me.  There is always a better source somewhere else. 

 

But why should the 80% pay for your content? Either you accept the ads or you pay for premium ad-free access or you go find that better source. That seems fair to me.

 

There really is no such thing as a free lunch.

[TranquilMind]

:huh:

 

The internet is free. Your internet provider may be charging you big bucks, but that goes no further than their pockets.

 

While there are sites that are subscription based and you pay to access content, the vast majority of internet content is free. Creating it is not free. Those who use their time and talents to create the content deserve to be paid. Ads are a very small revenue stream for most, but for many they provide the revenue that keeps the site alive. Right now, this is the choice we have made. We want free content. The way we get free content is to have advertisers pay for the site.

 

Well, you are right, of course.  I should have been more precise.  Let's just say Comcast is hauling it in on us, and all the other poor saps stuck in this area who cannot get a decent rate or better provider. 

 

But so are advertisers.  They wouldn't do it if they didn't make money from someone.  Let them pay the sites. 

 

[TranquilMind]

But why should the 80% pay for your content? Either you accept the ads or you pay for premium ad-free access or you go find that better source. That seems fair to me.

 

There really is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

Because they clearly don't mind, or they would do something about it or find other sites? 

 

I find a better source.  Everyone should put on ad blockers.  They can't block every reader out there or that sort of defeats their purpose. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

FB's trending seems to prioritize crappy content for some reason I simply don't get.

 

There are good content providers online... but there are also a lot of sites that are squeezing as much as possible out of users by putting everything in slideshow and putting a million ads on there. Which... yeah, I leave the ad blocker on because of those sites and when I see one, I usually decide it's not worth it. But, on the other hand, a newspaper article, a well done video, a magazine length piece... I'm willing to have ads for that. And the good providers mostly have them up front or on the side.

Slideshows are pretty much an auto-reject these days. 

[chiguirre]

I find a better source.  Everyone should put on ad blockers.  They can't block every reader out there or that sort of defeats their purpose. 

 

Websites have to pay for their server and their staff if they're professionally run. They can either advertise, be fee based or ask for donations (or be backed by a wealthy donor who wants to get their message out -- but I'd be leery of the bias inherent in that content).

 

ETA: If everyone used ad blockers, more websites would have a pay wall or we'd have to put up with constant fundraising or there would be much less content that's professionally produced. It's not an evil plot, the money has to come from somewhere.

Edited July 14, 2016 by chiguirre

[TranquilMind]

FB's trending seems to prioritize crappy content for some reason I simply don't get.

 

There are good content providers online... but there are also a lot of sites that are squeezing as much as possible out of users by putting everything in slideshow and putting a million ads on there. Which... yeah, I leave the ad blocker on because of those sites and when I see one, I usually decide it's not worth it. But, on the other hand, a newspaper article, a well done video, a magazine length piece... I'm willing to have ads for that. And the good providers mostly have them up front or on the side.

 

I have very little that is good to say about Facebook and its crappy policies.  I wouldn't use it at all, but I have one kid group I have to get. 

 

[TranquilMind]

Websites have to pay for their server and their staff if they're professionally run. They can either advertise, be fee based or ask for donations (or be backed by a wealthy donor who wants to get their message out -- but I'd be leery of the bias inherent in that content).

There is bias in everything.  Extreme bias in most.

 

Every now and then you find something that is somewhat unpolluted though. 

 

[Farrar]

There's bias in everything, but professional news organizations with professional, well-paid journalists can strive for a level of objectivity and following professional guidelines that help eliminate more bias. But that takes money. On the other hand, it's why an outlet like the NY Times or the Post or the LA Times or whatever is more reliable than a site like Huffpo or Breitbart. They pay better, they follow journalistic guidelines. They draw a clearer line between opinion pieces and reporting. But, again, it takes money.

[hornblower]

you can turn off all the news etc from fb by using FBpurity. It's a browser extension that works differently than an ad blocker. It lets you personalize your feed in lots of different ways & can remove the "trending topics" section completely for example. 

[LucyStoner]

There's no free lunch. So long as the content sites you are visiting are reputable, I don't think a blocker is a matter of Internet security so much as personal preference.