# [TS] Wired: Stop blocking our ads, Pay for an ad-free version or You can go elsewhere



## BiG StroOnZ

Quote:


> Wired Magazine is taking a bold step into the unknown. Starting next week, the site will give its readers who use an ad blocker an ultimatum: either stop blocking their ads, pay to view an ad-free version of the site or turn to a different source for technology news.
> 
> Wired is planning to charge readers $3.99 for four weeks of ad-free access to its website.
> 
> McClusky believes that the portion of Wired's readership that uses ad blockers (roughly 20 percent of its readership) are likely to be receptive to a discussion about their responsibility to support the businesses they rely on for information online. I, for one, am not nearly as confident in their reception as McClusky but I digress.
> 
> Most sites have been offering their content for "free" through ad-supported methods and any pushback against what the general population sees as the norm will no doubt create backlash. That said, Wired's buck-a-week rate isn't set in stone, however, as the publication says it could change based on reader response.


*Source:* http://www.techspot.com/news/63746-wired-stop-blocking-our-ads-pay-ad-free.html


----------



## 8-Ball

Ads are really something these days. Sometimes they take up an entire page. You can't proceed until you click on it. Or you have to fill out a survey. It's ridiculous.


----------



## brownbob06

Sooo... when this fails miserably they're going to just keep dropping the price of an ad free subscription?

It's not like there's a shortage of tech news sites and the like. Traditional websites may have to take a different approach soon to different types of advertising (think radio commercials where the DJ actually does the commercial during a show.)

Sure, it's not fair that companies that are responsible with their advertising have to pay for sites with full page ads and required surveys. But guess what, sometimes a few bad eggs ruin stuff for the rest of us. We, as consumers, know this better than anybody.


----------



## B-rock

$4/month for ad-free access??? I really hope they plan on getting some exclusive content if they're expecting that to work.


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brownbob06*
> 
> Sooo... when this fails miserably they're going to just keep dropping the price of an ad free subscription?
> 
> It's not like there's a shortage of tech news sites and the like. Traditional websites may have to take a different approach soon to different types of advertising (think radio commercials where the DJ actually does the commercial during a show.)
> 
> Sure, it's not fair that companies that are responsible with their advertising have to pay for sites with full page ads and required surveys. But guess what, sometimes a few bad eggs ruin stuff for the rest of us. We, as consumers, know this better than anybody.


This is the problem. For every site that blocks adblockers, there will be several alternative that don't.

But at the same time, ads are getting more and more malicious, forcing more people to use adblockers. Which then squeezes websites even harder, who add more ads and sometimes turn to blocking adblockers.

I only see 2 ways this will be resolved:

A: Websites/companies get organized enough to put pressure on the ad companies, forcing them to clean up their act and tone it down. Ad blocker usage doesn't rapidly increase anymore, the web sorta stabilizes again.

B: We hit the threshold where the majority of the web blocks adblockers, making it easier for the rest to follow suit and kick-starting an arms race between web devs and adblock developers. Subliminal advertising/sponsored content becomes more prominent. I don't know who will win, but it won't be pretty.


----------



## Mega Man

does this remind people of this ?



* this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


----------



## degenn

Never cared for Wired, couldn't give a rats you-know-what.

Good luck with that, Wired....


----------



## alphabet

So wired want's more in a monthly fee than they would probably ever make in ad revenue from a regular visitor?


----------



## JKuhn

Just another site to not even bother clicking on.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *degenn*
> 
> Never cared for Wired, couldn't give a rats you-know-what.
> 
> Good luck with that, Wired....


This will be a growing trend throughout the internet.


----------



## JKuhn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> does this remind people of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> * this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


Exactly. I'm all for supporting the makers, but this (and also the DRM on modern games) is a matter of "let's punish the people who buy our stuff". I refuse to buy a game that I can't play (that also goes for being able to play off-line).

Local movies often aren't that bad though.


----------



## daviejams

I like how they think people will subscribe to this or turn off adblock. More likely that nobody will use their website


----------



## B-rock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HowHardCanItBe*
> 
> This will be a growing trend throughout the internet.


Then they will include packages to certain sites where it will be ad-free for a monthly fee, there will be different tiers and...wait a minute...


----------



## PostalTwinkie

When your Ads stop compromising my security, and certain levels of privacy, we can talk.

All these websites talk about us being the "responsible consumer", yet seem to show zero interest in being responsible advertisers and content producers.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> When your Ads stop compromising my security, and certain levels of privacy, we can talk.
> 
> All these websites talk about us being the "responsible consumer", yet seem to show zero interest in being responsible advertisers and content producers.


hahaha...there is no privacy on the internet or the world.


----------



## warr10r

Ads are malicious, annoying bandwidth-hogs which detract from my browsing experience. So no, I will not turn off my ad blocker.

It looks like Wired is about to become a ghost town...


----------



## Tivan

Quote:


> McClusky believes that the portion of Wired's readership that uses ad blockers (roughly 20 percent of its readership) are likely to be receptive to a discussion about their responsibility to support the businesses they rely on for information online


It's not consumer responsibility to help creators survive. It's respect and the ability of the target audience to express it in monetary terms, that'll serve as a guide to which creators will end up making how much money.

I'm sorry, but if you want to be a good journalist, you'll have to make choices that don't involve shooting for the maximum profitability at times, you'll be having to rely on sources outside of market income (since your readership might not have the money to support you, and increasingly so, looking at current trends.). Unless you're some superstar of a journalist. Anyhow, investigative journalism costs money. And it gives less money than writing articles that serve as marketing of stuff to rich people. (isn't that some lovely indirect coercion)

If you want to make journalism (and many other fields) a dignified field of work, might as well start fighting for an unconditional basic income. Puts some money into all kinds of target audiences, and makes the struggle for success a little less desperate.


----------



## 2010rig

I can't remember which site it was that did this, they flat out said turn off your Ad Blocker or don't view our content. So I closed the window and found the same article somewhere else.

With that said there have been other sites who ask politely, and did it in a way that I ended up turning off my ad blocker. That's only happened twice as far as I can remember.

Wired's attitude is gonna backfire on them, no one likes to be given ultimatums.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> When your Ads stop compromising my security, and certain levels of privacy, we can talk.
> 
> All these websites talk about us being the "responsible consumer", yet seem to show zero interest in being responsible advertisers and content producers.


exactly this, i like places being able to pay bills, i dont like suddenly listening to stuff at FULL VOL when nothing was playing, security /malware risks, full page interruptions ect....

when they are reasonable and can vet themselves we will talk, otherwise it is on you


----------



## somebadlemonade

I don't buy anything that is advertised to me. So they aren't making money off me anyways if there was a service that made nearly all Google ads go away from any and every site I used, I might be willing to pay $10 a month but honestly this just seems like extortion at this point. Since I don't buy the junk they try to shovel down my throat.

I tend to avoid sites that require me to turn off adblocking. If the content is worth it and that site is the only source I will the it off. Though I use an up address blocker to block connections to ad servers. . .


----------



## dragneel

does anyone actually read wired? I honestly didn't know it actually existed, thought it was just a fake magazine Homer Simpson read one episode.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I can't remember which site it was that did this, they flat out said turn off your Ad Blocker or don't view our content. So I closed the window and found the same article somewhere else.


Forbes. I followed a link there just a day or two ago and got that message when on my phone. The article wasnt nearly worth my time to bother with any of that nonsense so I just hit back and continued about my business.


----------



## N3G4T1v3

I'm waiting for an ad-blocker groups to find a way around this blocking if you use an ad-blocker, especially if more sites start to do it.

Anyway, $4 dollar seems a bit steep for a month subscription on content that you would likely find else where. I know I wouldn't pay that for one site, and if others start doing it, those $4/site a month will start to get expensive if you subscribe to a few pay-to-remove-ads sites

The industry needs to change, not the customers, the mass adoption of ad-blockers should be a clear indication that people are getting fed up with the way ads are being implemented/forced onto the user.


----------



## akromatic

well as far as i can see is that ether people would just leave or continue to adblock with an anti adblock killer


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> Forbes. I followed a link there just a day or two ago and got that message when on my phone. The article wasnt nearly worth my time to bother with any of that nonsense so I just hit back and continued about my business.


Yeah that sounds about right









I have subconsciously tuned them out ever since


----------



## xenophobe

They should pay me to view their content. There is so much content and so many aggregated news sites out there, they should be offering me perks for using their service instead of milking me.

Wired can go get screwed for all I care.


----------



## BeerPowered

Guess I will never read Wired again. Not worth getting a virus over it. Already stopped reading Forbes and a few others that pulled the same stunt.


----------



## Kryton

Hey Wired......


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> When your Ads stop compromising my security, and certain levels of privacy, we can talk.
> 
> All these websites talk about us being the "responsible consumer", yet seem to show zero interest in being responsible advertisers and content producers.


Facebook is really doing ads right, on the Facebook app. They show up as if they were regular posts, they're very targeted to your interests, plus they give you the option to hide them, report it, etc. It's very unobtrusive and won't compromise your security. They're the only ones I can think of "who get it"


----------



## Blk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *N3G4T1v3*
> 
> I'm waiting for an ad-blocker groups to find a way around this blocking if you use an ad-blocker, especially if more sites start to do it.


There are a few I think, but it kind of depends on the type of block websites use.


----------



## Im Batman

Too much of a competitive space for them to be able to twist the arm of their users like this. People will just go elsewhere.


----------



## go4life

Not that I read much of Wired, but now they are getting my middle finger for sure! $4 a month for one website? How about nooooooooooope..

Ads can go die in a fire for all I care, same with sites that don't allow you to read without them. In todays world we have 100.000 alternatives anyways, so nothing of value lost


----------



## JKuhn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *go4life*
> 
> Not that I read much of Wired, but now they are getting my middle finger for sure! $4 a month for one website? How about nooooooooooope..
> 
> Ads can go die in a fire for all I care, same with sites that don't allow you to read without them. In todays world we have 100.000 alternatives anyways, so nothing of value lost


Not only that, but it's always a good idea to read several sources. If it's only on one site, then I consider it unreliable.


----------



## go4life

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JKuhn*
> 
> Not only that, but it's always a good idea to read several sources. If it's only on one site, then I consider it unreliable.


No doubt! For anything important I always try to read several sources, can't trust anyone blindly these days.


----------



## prescotter

I remember Adblock etc users allways said if a websites has to survive based of ads, they should look into a different way to generate revenue.

Now they happy







Every website will be behind a pay wall, then those ads werent that bad i guess


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> A: Websites/companies get organized enough to put pressure on the ad companies, forcing them to clean up their act and tone it down. Ad blocker usage doesn't rapidly increase anymore, the web sorta stabilizes again.


Websites are not the victims here. It is not just the ad companies that need to be pressured.
Websites with huge ads, hidden pop ups, ads with sounds or video loading and hogging bandwidth, are the reasons for blocking ads. Small ads, simple banners, none intrusive ads, are fine but most people who already block ads.

Websites need to choose to use ad companies who provide none intrusive ads. They have the power, not the ad companies. If they stop using intrusive ads, the ad companies will be forced to give that option.

Making it sound like it the ad companies fault, is the wrong way to look at it.
The ad companies are only providing what is requested of them.
Arresting the person who sell illegal guns instead of the person buying illegal guns, will only make sure the person wanting to buy, will find another source. If There are no more buying, sellers will stop selling.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blk*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *N3G4T1v3*
> 
> I'm waiting for an ad-blocker groups to find a way around this blocking if you use an ad-blocker, especially if more sites start to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few I think, but it kind of depends on the type of block websites use.
Click to expand...

A lot of sites were detecting AdBlock Plus and denying access to content. I switched to uBlock Origin and those same sites stopped doing it.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prescotter*
> 
> I remember Adblock etc users allways said if a websites has to survive based of ads, they should look into a different way to generate revenue.
> 
> Now they happy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every website will be behind a pay wall, then those ads werent that bad i guess


And sites which don't adjust themselves and make sure their ads are not bandwidth hogging horrors, will disappear if their only revenue is ads.
Other sites which do not make their customers' eyes bleed from the amount of ads on the site, will survive.
Enough pay to view sites have fallen down or switched back to ads based free site, to show that hiding behind a pay wall is a failure.


----------



## p4inkill3r

I have enjoyed reading Wired for 20 years, this sounds like things may be getting a little frayed around the edges there.
I will whitelist them and see what happens.


----------



## Boinz

If Wired along with several "old media" news outlets can stop parroting stories without verifying them, i'd be glad they stay afloat. Otherwise they can go die in a fire along with the rest of yellow journalism.


----------



## Pantsu

It's a hopeless case. Especially for tech related sites people are well informed about the benefits of adblocking and the most ridiculous excuses why they feel justified using it. The reality is no good content comes without a price, and while there's a million aggregate sites, there's no quality to it if there's no money in it. But as long as there are some decent sites running by the good graces of people who actually support said work, adblockers can just continue their "free lunch".


----------



## Anarion

Many sites are completely infested with ads to the point they just really hurt your eyes, your nerves and browser performance. What is even more annoying is that they always find way to fill the screen with even more ads. We are not talking about annoying banners but some of them are huge, some pop up I will keep using my ad blocker and disable it only for some sites I trust and support. All the rest can talk to my ad blocker. Unless they find a way for non intrusive, uncluttered and discreet way to show ads that do not require clicking a tiny X or watch for some secs and generally blocking a straight access to the content. Even Google said that the way ads appear is not the optimal way and they do understand why people using ad blockers.


----------



## Mega Man

see not everyone wants "free lunch" i dont, but take for example youtube, now atm i am in china and cant watch it, ( i am on a 3 week trip )

but i have seen a 30 min ad on you tube, 30 min ! are you kidding me , why--- why? what possible excuse is there? and again as i have stated time and time again, they dont vet the ads, i can get many types of virus and tracked, i also can have my eyes and ears assaulted, taking the whole page, jacking my volume up ect


----------



## Mrip541

Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscription sites even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


----------



## leetmode

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pantsu*
> 
> It's a hopeless case. Especially for tech related sites people are well informed about the benefits of adblocking and the most ridiculous excuses why they feel justified using it. The reality is no good content comes without a price, and while there's a million aggregate sites, there's no quality to it if there's no money in it. But as long as there are some decent sites running by the good graces of people who actually support said work, adblockers can just continue their "free lunch".


That's the things, I'm not sure Weird really has that content that's worth paying for. Every once in a while they have a good article. But I have no problem living without them, so this "you better unblock/pay or leave" is just making it easier for me to leave. Honestly, I left a long time ago anyway.


----------



## Bloodbath

I don't mind reading Wired but I could take it or leave it, and like one of the other posters said there are so many other tech sites that it really means jack.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscriptions even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


?

makes 0 sense sorry ....


----------



## warr10r

I read Ars Technica who have a similar setup (both belong to the same parent company so no wonder), they have subscribers who get perks like additional articles and things, but they don't kick you out for using an ad blocker!


----------



## 364901

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B-rock*
> 
> Then they will include packages to certain sites where it will be ad-free for a monthly fee, there will be different tiers and...wait a minute...


cough *Google Contributor* cough


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscriptions even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


The security and health of my computer are my priority. That doesn't make me a freeloader it makes me a good steward of my property. If these jerks will vet the ads and make sure they are clean before running them I have no problem disabling any ad blocking software, else they can sit on my middle finger and spin. I have the right to maintain my computer's security. They do not have the right to infect me with malware and I have been speaking to a tech lawyer about a class action law suit against websites that have malware in their ads.


----------



## Pantsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *leetmode*
> 
> That's the things, I'm not sure Weird really has that content that's worth paying for. Every once in a while they have a good article. But I have no problem living without them, so this "you better unblock/pay or leave" is just making it easier for me to leave. Honestly, I left a long time ago anyway.


I don't read Wired but a monthly fee really does require them to put up some exclusive content for the people paying that amount, but that kinda requires that there's enough of said paid subscribers.

The thing about these "fine, it's not like that site was important to me anyways" comments is, it doesn't change anything from the point of view of the site in question. Readers who block ads provide nothing, so them leaving doesn't change anything except lower bandwidth costs.


----------



## ejohnson

If they wanted people to turn off adblocker, how about they turn off the 6 pop up ads, and the 15 animated ads that take forever to load and then start playing audio randomly.... Also, they need to stop with multiple page articles... It's the internet, you don't need to make each paragraph a page so you can have 80 ads per article.


----------



## Mrip541

Ads suck. They are giving people a different way to support them and suddenly they're evil. It makes me angry.


----------



## Blze001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscriptions even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


So you're saying you're just fine with a world where we have to pay $5 for every site we want to visit?


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> Ads are really something these days. Sometimes they take up an entire page. You can't proceed until you click on it. Or you have to fill out a survey. It's ridiculous.


I work in publishing - In fact, we have this discussion almost daily.

You really can't have it both ways.

Wired only makes money per click when you SEE the ads. This is how they exist. Adblocker essentially is eliminating their revenue stream.

No views, no ads, no wired.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Ads suck. They are giving people a different way to support them and suddenly they're evil. It makes me angry.


See above.

Ads are a necessary evil if you want publishers to survive.


----------



## ejohnson

It's not that they are evil for wanting people to support, it's that ads are out of hand. They are a huge burden on the site when there are 15 per page. This site has ads, but not tons of them and no pop ups for mobile. So it's bearable

I don't buy magazines because you get 10 pages of content and 60 pages of ads, and you had to buy it


----------



## coachmark2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I work in publishing - In fact, we have this discussion almost daily.
> 
> You really can't have it both ways.
> 
> Wired only makes money per click when you SEE the ads. This is how they exist. Adblocker essentially is eliminating their revenue stream.
> 
> No views, no ads, no wired.
> See above.
> 
> Ads are a necessary evil if you want publishers to survive.


I agree with you Masked. For the majority of sites to survive and pay authors to write content and sys/network admins and webmasters to maintain the site, you need a revenue stream. And ads are one of the most readily apparent ways of doing so. I do not have a problem with ads on a webpage.

What I object to is ads on "legitimate" websites executing malicious code in my browser and compromising my security. That is an unacceptable risk and one that I will go to any lengths necessary to prevent for both myself and the users behind the firewalls that I maintain.

I also reject the counter-argument that "The sites have no control over the ads themselves, they just sell a spot to a third-party ad network." This brings up the question of _why are you as a webmaster loading third party content into your site that you don't trust?!_


----------



## Particle

I've ignored many websites which demand ad blocking be disabled. Wired will just be another dusty carcass in the history of places I might have cared to go before.


----------



## Pantsu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> It's not that they are evil for wanting people to support, it's that ads are out of hand. They are a huge burden on the site when there are 15 per page. This site has ads, but not tons of them and no pop ups for mobile. So it's bearable


I think people either vastly exaggerate the intrusiveness of ads or only visit stream porn sites or other very questionable sources. For the vast majority of sites I visit the ads are perfectly acceptable, and there's no "threat to security" or whatever some people seem to think ads on respectable sites are about. Sure there's places where the ads are overblown or even have malicious content, but for the most part with adblockers people throw away the baby out with the bathwater and block everything regardless if the ad content is reasonable or not.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Why would anyone pay $3.99 a month? That amounts to substantially more than the yearly subscription is worth. I guess this means the ads are worth more than the content of the magazines articles.

_Technically the yearly subscription is worth $114.76, but since you can find it multiple places for $5-$12... I feel bad for anyone paying full price._


----------



## JKuhn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pantsu*
> 
> I think people either vastly exaggerate the intrusiveness of ads or only visit stream porn sites or other very questionable sources. For the vast majority of sites I visit the ads are perfectly acceptable, and there's no "threat to security" or whatever some people seem to think ads on respectable sites are about. Sure there's places where the ads are overblown or even have malicious content, but for the most part with adblockers people throw away the baby out with the bathwater and block everything regardless if the ad content is reasonable or not.


I'm afraid legit sites do get malicious ads. Take for example Nexusmods.com, which not too long ago got flagged by Google for distributing malware because one of the ads happened to be infected when Google's bots scanned the page. The problem in this case was that the mentioned site didn't have direct control over which ads were shown.


----------



## looniam

i only care when pr0n sites do this.

but on a serious note - there are most times pausing ad block but ghostery still blocks the ad's content.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> It's not that they are evil for wanting people to support, it's that ads are out of hand. They are a huge burden on the site when there are 15 per page. This site has ads, but not tons of them and no pop ups for mobile. So it's bearable
> 
> I don't buy magazines because you get 10 pages of content and 60 pages of ads, and you had to buy it


That's just it - the ultimate catch-22.

In order to survive, that publisher NEEDS those ads...The less their viewrship sees them, the more out of hand they become because that publisher has to circumvent your disabling their revenue stream.

It's the cycle of poverty.

You don't see the ad - The site makes no money - Site works to circumvent adblocker - Ads get out of hand - Site eventually dies because viewers don't see the ads.

Like I said, you can't actually have this both ways.

@ Magazines...You do realize this is the ONLY WAY those magazines make money? Is advertising...They don't make money off of you buying it at the News Stand for $5.

Even Vogue, has lost so much money, they've had to flood the entire publication with more ads and cut back on actual content.

Again, you can't actually have this cake and eat it too - Have to pick one.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coachmark2*
> 
> I agree with you Masked. For the majority of sites to survive and pay authors to write content and sys/network admins and webmasters to maintain the site, you need a revenue stream. And ads are one of the most readily apparent ways of doing so. I do not have a problem with ads on a webpage.
> 
> What I object to is ads on "legitimate" websites executing malicious code in my browser and compromising my security. That is an unacceptable risk and one that I will go to any lengths necessary to prevent for both myself and the users behind the firewalls that I maintain.
> 
> I also reject the counter-argument that "The sites have no control over the ads themselves, they just sell a spot to a third-party ad network." This brings up the question of _why are you as a webmaster loading third party content into your site that you don't trust?!_


I agree entirely BUT, the malicious code only exists because of blocking apps.

It's the ultimate catch-22 and red herring in a nutshell...Really is.

The maliciousness ultimately roared into existence BECAUSE of ads being circumvented but, now it's so bad that users don't want to visit anyway so, what do you do?

I sympathize with Wired. - Perhaps the takeaway with Wired is that, they'll cut the malicious advertising in an effort to side with their readers?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> I've ignored many websites which demand ad blocking be disabled. Wired will just be another dusty carcass in the history of places I might have cared to go before.


Like I've said a few times now, you can't have this cake and eat it too.

The only way publishers make $$$$ is by you seeing the ads.

They get out of hand because you're not seeing them thus, the publisher does their best to disable adblocker.

It's a vicious circle but, the bottom line is that adblocker costs them a serious amount of money.

There's a reason Adblocker wasn't allowed at the publisher's conference this year - It's killing them.

Either you disable adblocker and essentially keep that publisher in business or...they die. - Really the bottom line.


----------



## xentrox

Over my dead body Wired.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pantsu*
> 
> I think people either vastly exaggerate the intrusiveness of ads or only visit stream porn sites or other very questionable sources. For the vast majority of sites I visit the ads are perfectly acceptable, and there's no "threat to security" or whatever some people seem to think ads on respectable sites are about.


You do not understand how it works if you're willing to make a statement like that. Respectable sites serve malicious ads with some regularity, and it's not because _they_ have any malicious intent but because they use standard ad networks and do not directly control what gets shown. If a bad actor manages to get a malicious payload through the submission process, something which appears to occur regularly, it is served out to respectable sites until discovered and eliminated. Google's ad network has served many malicious ads. So has DoubleClick.


----------



## Mand12

I will turn off my ad blocker as soon as you turn off ads that turn off your content.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> Like I've said a few times now, you can't have this cake and eat it too.
> 
> The only way publishers make $$$$ is by you seeing the ads.
> 
> They get out of hand because you're not seeing them thus, the publisher does their best to disable adblocker.
> 
> It's a vicious circle but, the bottom line is that adblocker costs them a serious amount of money.
> 
> There's a reason Adblocker wasn't allowed at the publisher's conference this year - It's killing them.
> 
> Either you disable adblocker and essentially keep that publisher in business or...they die. - Really the bottom line.


I don't think you quite understand my position. I do not care about their financial problems. I will not accept "because we need to make money" as justification to participate in bad behavior. Nobody should.


----------



## hokk

0.50$ a month

maybe.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> I don't think you quite understand my position. I do not care about their financial problems. I will not accept "because we need to make money" as justification to participate in bad behavior. Nobody should.


Oh, I understand, I was educating you on your ignorance of the publishing world.

You SHOULD care if sites that provide news make money...Because if they don't...You won't have news anymore. It really is //THAT// simple.

It's also not "bad behaviour" - Ads are ads.

Like I said, you can't have this both ways...Either you view the ads and therefor, the site survives, or you don't...and it dies.


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pantsu*
> 
> I think people either vastly exaggerate the intrusiveness of ads or only visit stream porn sites or other very questionable sources. For the vast majority of sites I visit the ads are perfectly acceptable, and there's no "threat to security" or whatever some people seem to think ads on respectable sites are about. Sure there's places where the ads are overblown or even have malicious content, but for the most part with adblockers people throw away the baby out with the bathwater and block everything regardless if the ad content is reasonable or not.


Yes there are sites where the ads are fine, this site for one. I dont use adblockers, if I go to a web page and I see the whole right side of the page covered in ads, then a bunch halfway down the article, then have to click through 5 pages of the article each with its own new set of animated ads, thats where I just leave the site and never go back. On my old computer, this was a problem, the computer wasnt great and it caused most sites to no load, or feel like I was on 56k again.

I think subscription servies are fine to get rid of ads, I pay for youtube red because I dont want to watch the comercials. But with youtube, the content is there and worth the money. I pay for hulu and that shows me ads all the time... Thats why I dont watch hulu (my wife does)

I am also more against click bait ads, the ones where it says "click here for next page" or something like that..... then the website hosting it seems to hide their own next page button just so you click the fake one. Many file hosting sites are like this, you go to the download page, and your greeted with 4 buttons that say click to download. I have seen pron sites with fewer ads than many of these legit sites.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mand12*
> 
> I will turn off my ad blocker as soon as you turn off ads that turn off your content.


Yes! go to site, modal pops up that cant be closed, you have to wait 15-30 seconds or listen to the video, then you can click close, then you can view the site with the rest of the ads.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> Oh, I understand, I was educating you on your ignorance of the publishing world.
> 
> You SHOULD care if sites that provide news make money...Because if they don't...You won't have news anymore. It really is //THAT// simple.
> 
> It's also not "bad behaviour" - Ads are ads.
> 
> Like I said, you can't have this both ways...Either you view the ads and therefor, the site survives, or you don't...and it dies.


You can only educate me on my ignorance if I do not already know about it. I do. You're just being condescending. It's not that I don't know, it's that I do not care. Contributing to an ad-plastered Internet is bad behavior. If the sites die for lack of ads, I'm okay with that.

We just come from completely opposite world views. You'll find no common ground here, move along.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> Oh, I understand, I was educating you on your ignorance of the publishing world.
> 
> You SHOULD care if sites that provide news make money...Because if they don't...You won't have news anymore. It really is //THAT// simple.
> 
> It's also not "bad behaviour" - Ads are ads.
> 
> Like I said, you can't have this both ways...Either you view the ads and therefor, the site survives, or you don't...and it dies.


I think you have an extreme bias here Masked as you always pop up in these adblocker threads defending sites to the death.

Here's your problem : your business model is flawed bud. Consumers don't want your product with the fee that you are charging (ads) It is the producers job, not the consumers job, to find a new profit model and make that work. Else you will go the way of the dinosaur. Consumers drive the market and you know this.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> If they wanted people to turn off adblocker, how about they turn off the 6 pop up ads, and the 15 animated ads that take forever to load and then start playing audio randomly.... Also, they need to stop with multiple page articles... It's the internet, you don't need to make each paragraph a page so you can have 80 ads per article.


Omg, are they really one of those lame sites that do this? Definitely not going to visit, or disable the ad tracker for them. Here's why: @Masked

Sites that do this are manipulating their total page views, in order to attract more advertisers and or simply make more from their ads.

If 1000 people view an article, the total site page views are listed as 10,000! Very very misleading to potential advertisers

Besides I truly hate those sites that make you click to read the rest of the content, it's not user friendly but self serving.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscriptions even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


If we had to pay a $4 subscription for every site that I visit regularly, my subscription fees would be in the 100's or thousands a month!

Are you aware that there are over 800 MILLION sites?

I been working online since 2002, and none of my sites has ever been reliant on ad revenue.

Facebook found a way to display ads that aren't intrusive, and are actually effective. These lame publications remind me of the Music industry, refuse to adapt and change and were left in the dust by Apple & Google for music streaming.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> I think you have an extreme bias here Masked as you always pop up in these adblocker threads defending sites to the death.
> 
> Here's your problem : your business model is flawed bud. Consumers don't want your product with the fee that you are charging (ads) It is the producers job, not the consumers job, to find a new profit model and make that work. Else you will go the way of the dinosaur. Consumers drive the market and you know this.


I've NEVER commented in an Adblocker thread...I've never defended these sites...In fact, this is the first time I've actually commented on AdBlocker, at all. - So...Yeah...

It's not MY business model - It is THE business model. It is publisher's business model.

If consumers don't want to view the ads or pay the "fees" then there will no longer be publishers.

The ad-model has worked until viewers decided they no longer wanted to see ads. Less ads ultimately leads to less or no content...Like I said, it's a proven cycle.

Consumers drive the market true but, consumers can only drive markets when they actually exist. What happens when the New York Times, dies...Or Vogue...GQ...Guitar Mag...Rolling Stone - Publishers that have actually DRIVEN entire industries? Are we better for it? Or worse off?

Rolling Stone has actually made band's CAREERS...They're struggling. NYT is down to rock bottom...You know, you could even swing media bias into this - What happens when only 1 source drives the news? - Answer: They get to make the news whatever they want...Ponder that little intellectual nugget.

Fox gets more sensational because they HAVE TO make money. So do the ads...Like I said, vicious cycle is vicious...The real problem is when 1 rules them all...You all complain about competition driving the market...You're single-handedly eliminating the competition, here.


----------



## ejohnson

I just went to wireds home page, there are 5 ads on it. THe top of the page is a giant video ad, then right below it is a animated ad for the same product....
Halfway down the page are 3 animated paypal ads. OK you have 5 ad slots, covered by 2 companies... how about you remove 3 of the ads, and only show the 2 that are actually there. No need to double or triple up on the same ad in the same field of view.

I visited one of the actual articles, there are 3 ads, on that page. One GIANT video ad at the top, then 2 ads at the bottom that match the style of the related article links and are nested in with the related article links... so they look like related articles.

While its not a huge amount of ads, its the way they are presented. Giant video ads can effect site performance. Nesting smaller ads to look like links to your other content is just trickery. People see a article that might be good only to find out its a ad for something and not a article at all.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I've NEVER commented in an Adblocker thread...I've never defended these sites...In fact, this is the first time I've actually commented on AdBlocker, at all. - So...Yeah...
> 
> It's not MY business model - It is THE business model. It is publisher's business model.
> 
> If consumers don't want to view the ads or pay the "fees" then there will no longer be publishers.
> 
> The ad-model has worked until viewers decided they no longer wanted to see ads. Less ads ultimately leads to less or no content...Like I said, it's a proven cycle.
> 
> Consumers drive the market true but, consumers can only drive markets when they actually exist. What happens when the New York Times, dies...Or Vogue...GQ...Guitar Mag...Rolling Stone - Publishers that have actually DRIVEN entire industries? Are we better for it? Or worse off?
> 
> Rolling Stone has actually made band's CAREERS...They're struggling. NYT is down to rock bottom...You know, you could even swing media bias into this - What happens when only 1 source drives the news? - Answer: They get to make the news whatever they want...Ponder that little intellectual nugget.
> 
> Fox gets more sensational because they HAVE TO make money. So do the ads...Like I said, vicious cycle is vicious...The real problem is when 1 rules them all...You all complain about competition driving the market...You're single-handedly eliminating the competition, here.


My students and even myself are getting our news from other sources than print and text media. If Rolling Stone and NYT can't adapt then they will fail. That is how the market economy works. If the publishers want to exist they have to remain relevant. I'd go back and dig up the other times you defended them but I dont have the time and I am at work right now. The only reason I am even commenting in here is because my students are taking a test and I am caught up on grading.


----------



## coachmark2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I agree entirely BUT, the malicious code only exists because of blocking apps.
> 
> It's the ultimate catch-22 and red herring in a nutshell...Really is.
> 
> *The maliciousness ultimately roared into existence BECAUSE of ads being circumvented* but, now it's so bad that users don't want to visit anyway so, what do you do?
> 
> I sympathize with Wired. - Perhaps the takeaway with Wired is that, they'll cut the malicious advertising in an effort to side with their readers?


I'm not sure that is the case, but I'll admit my ignorance on that particular part of the whole issue.









Be that as it may though, executing malicious code is never an acceptable way to get around an ad blocker. If sites know that users are using adblockers to halt benign ads, then a simple "Hey, please disable your adblocker. Click here to learn more" banner would work.

By using dirty tricks and dangerous programming, ad networks only alienated users further and gave a battle cry to the ad blocking community. Furthermore, they alienated me, a sympathetic network engineer/administrator. There are innumerable devices behind the firewalls that I maintain. Not one of those devices can connect to the hostnames that ad networks run on. Why? Because malware infestations and drive-by downloads were so bad that my hand was forced.

I have no moral objection to ads and, even if I did, it would not be right for me to impose that upon my users. However, I do have an obligation to protect the network's security. Therefore, I did what I had to do. The day that ad networks realize that it is their malicious code to blame for people flocking to ad blockers is the day I'll drop those shields and let the ads back through.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> My students and even myself are getting our news from other sources than print and text media. If Rolling Stone and NYT can't adapt then they will fail. That is how the market economy works. If the publishers want to exist they have to remain relevant. I'd go back and dig up the other times you defended them but I dont have the time and I am at work right now. The only reason I am even commenting in here is because my students are taking a test and I am caught up on grading.


So you make a baseless accusation, I review my post history, tell you, you're wrong and the response is "but I don't have the time".

If you're going to toss an accusation, it's honorable to actually defend it...Especially when it's proven wrong.

Media bias is a real thing. Less media, more bias.

It doesn't change the fact that this IS the model. Ads are a necessary evil and you actually can't have this both ways.

Either you support the website by viewing the ads and thus, prolong it's existence.

Or you don't and it will wither away and die.

Again, I point you to bias. The less sites we support that uphold our views, the more biased the overall sourcing becomes.

Just think about a world run by Fox News. - I'm a republican and I HATE Fox...The sensationalism is off the charts but, that's how they get viewers.

I'm not saying do away with AdBlocker, I'm saying support the sites that uphold your views or, just like voting in America, it will eventually just suffocate and die.


----------



## 2010rig

@Masked

A quick Google search reveals that New York times could be worth almost $19 BILLION









http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/02/15/the-nytimes-could-be-worth-19bn-instead-of-2bn/

But hey, let's focus on their current market cap of $2 Billion. They're worth more than AMD







they sure are about to hit "rock bottom"
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> My students and even myself are getting our news from other sources than print and text media. If Rolling Stone and NYT can't adapt then they will fail. That is how the market economy works. If the publishers want to exist they have to remain relevant. I'd go back and dig up the other times you defended them but I dont have the time and I am at work right now. The only reason I am even commenting in here is because my students are taking a test and I am caught up on grading.


The thing is, the NYT has adapted, they made $169 Million in revenue on 910,000 *digital* subscribers they didn't have 7 years ago. I'll need to see proof of how NYT is about to hit rock bottom


----------



## rapidtransit

I subscribe to the WSJ, and at ~ $30/month You would expect no ads. :wth :. And honestly I will only click on ads that use the https://acceptableads.org/ policy.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> @Masked
> 
> A quick Google search reveals that New York times could be worth almost $19 BILLION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/02/15/the-nytimes-could-be-worth-19bn-instead-of-2bn/
> 
> But hey, let's focus on their current market cap of $2 Billion. They're worth more than AMD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they sure are about to hit "rock bottom"
> The thing is, the NYT has adapted, they made $169 Million in revenue on 910,000 *digital* subscribers they didn't have 7 years ago. I'll need to see proof of how NYT is about to hit rock bottom










Someone clearly knows nothing about publishing.

NYT has laid off over 75% of their staff over the past 5 years and is struggling to maintain their payroll - IN FACT, the only reason they made a net profit last year WAS the layoffs...Publishing is a small industry and in fact, my family knows the Sulzbergers quite well...Don't get to toot that horn too often but, it's nice to do it occasionally...Let me assure you, they're feeling the pressure.

Just because you're net worth is 19b doesn't mean the industry in and of itself, isn't struggling - Doesn't mean you're not struggling, either...Especially when you lay off over 3/4 of your editorial staff AND print staff...Was just at the facility on Queens like 6 weeks ago checking out their new software because we're thinking of using it...

So yes, like most publishers, the NYT is struggling especially in revenue. Since you know, I can be Bernie Madoff and have a net worth of billions but, if I spend it all guess I go broke? Don't I? Is that rock bottom? You know when you don't make enough money to actually have a positive cash flow?

The reality is that the industry in and of itself, is struggling and adblocker is, as many publishers have put it "Hammering the last nail in the coffin".

IN FACT - Read the comments section on your own source.


----------



## L36

The publishers need to adapt to ever changing times. Just as the milkman was put out of business by the refrigerator, if a publisher is whining that ad blocker is killing off their revenue; maybe they should look in other sources of revenue.

Ads nowadays are cancer anyway, they're so intrusive and annoying.


----------



## Yvese

Not happening.

I use ublock origin on FireFox but recently tried Chrome with no adblocker. Just going to my normal sites I was filled with popups. I even got one that was so annoying that I couldn't close it since the popup kept coming back - this is one of the biggest reasons I started using an adblocker over a decade ago. This is also how a lot of people get malware/viruses.

No thanks.


----------



## Use

One word: *Farewell*


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone clearly knows nothing about publishing.
> 
> NYT has laid off over 75% of their staff over the past 5 years and is struggling to maintain their payroll - IN FACT, the only reason they made a net profit last year WAS the layoffs...Publishing is a small industry and in fact, my family knows the Sulzbergers quite well...Don't get to toot that horn too often but, it's nice to do it occasionally...Let me assure you, they're feeling the pressure.
> 
> Just because you're net worth is 19b doesn't mean the industry in and of itself, isn't struggling - Doesn't mean you're not struggling, either...Especially when you lay off over 3/4 of your editorial staff AND print staff...Was just at the facility on Queens like 6 weeks ago checking out their new software because we're thinking of using it...
> 
> So yes, like most publishers, the NYT is struggling especially in revenue. Since you know, I can be Bernie Madoff and have a net worth of billions but, if I spend it all guess I go broke? Don't I? Is that rock bottom? You know when you don't make enough money to actually have a positive cash flow?
> 
> The reality is that the industry in and of itself, is struggling and adblocker is, as many publishers have put it "Hammering the last nail in the coffin".
> 
> IN FACT - Read the comments section on your own source.


I don't know anything about publishing?

I'm not the one whining that unless you click my ads my poor little magazine will die. I've had many membership sites, and the most paid members I had was a measly 8,500 paying members at $30 a month. NYT must be at over 1 Million by now. None of my sites has EVER been reliant on paid ads, when much better business models exist for delivering paid content.

You think Facebook is ever worried about whether you have an Ad Blocker or not? Are they ever going to threaten users by saying "pay us a monthly fee or bounce"

Google has never whined that they couldn't show me ads in Gmail due to my ad blocker, yet I'm sure they've made thousands off me over the years. Their monthly unique visitor value is an amazing $277

By all means, continue with your business model of "let's get as many eye balls to our content, so they can click our ads" and those who who refuse to see our ads can bounce.

Better yet, break down your articles into 5 - 10 pages so you can show even more ads to each visitor and increase your page views in the process. Win-Win

That article is a year old, obviously a lot can happen in a year. I did a quick Google search for NYT valuation and that's what came up. You got me I don't follow the NYT as closely as you do.

Let me ask you something, if that business model is failing for so many publications, why are you following it?

If a huge publication like NYT is about to hit rock bottom, what chance of success do you have? Especially since you're following THE business model?


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I don't know anything about publishing?
> 
> I'm not the one whining that unless you click my ads my poor little magazine will die. I've had many membership sites, and the most paid members I had was a measly 8,500 paying members at $30 a month. NYT must be at over 1 Million by now
> 
> You think Facebook is ever worried about whether you have an Ad Blocker or not? Are they ever going to threaten users by saying "pay us a monthly fee or bounce"
> 
> Google has never whined that they couldn't show me ads in Gmail due to my ad blocker, yet I'm sure they've made thousands off me over the years. Their monthly unique visitor value is an amazing $277
> 
> By all means, continue with your business model of "let's get as many eye balls to our content, so they can click our ads" and those who who refuse to see our ads can bounce.
> 
> That article is a year old, obviously a lot can happen in a year. I did a quick Google search for NYT valuation and that's what came up.
> 
> Let me ask you something, if that business model is failing for so many publications, why are you following it?


Facebook's entire page script actually circumvents adblocker - In fact, their entire setup, circumvents any adblocking.

Those "suggestions" you see on your feed are actually paid advertisements...Yeah...and most of the content that gets "shared" - People are often paid/offered incentives to share it.

Facebook in and of itself, is an advertising "dynasty" - You're making them more $ per click than you ever realized...I actually do a lot of facebook advertising and it's really eye opening. I can pay for suggestions, offer users incentives...I can pay to be on the right-hand side or I can self promote, pay even more and get pushed into your recent events feed...

Google circumvents Adblocker as well...In every search you do, the top 3 suggestions are paid...So Google makes money, regardless...Same setup as Facebook BUT, I actually pay per click, not view...So It can be viewed 100000000000 times, if it's only clicked 1x, I only pay for that 1x...Comparable to facebook which is per view.

I never said it was a GOOD business model - I said it is THE business model...

Again, the NYT could be worth 200b, it's irrelevant when your cash flow is massively negative - So negative you layoff 3/4 of your staff...It paints a dramatically different picture of the market, itself.

Like I said, if you actually like a website like Wired, IGN (See the ads at the bottom) or PCGamer (Again, ads at the bottom), IMO, disable adblocker, show them you support them by helping them to generate that ad-revenue...because if you don't...Regardless of your opinion on the model - They won't be around anymore...And then you'll have the Fox News of the computer industry swinging as much irrational bias as they choose - which, really helps nobody.

You know that saying? Information is power? Why not help those that inform you, actually earn a living? Empower them to inform you.


----------



## Rustynails

well if only 20% of the people are using adblockers and those 20% stop looking at there articles what does that mean to them?
,,,,,
so many people are saying they will lose money but in fact they will be making money.
they will lose money if they keep those 20% of people viewing there content .


----------



## PappaSmurfsHarem

It costs more than their magazine subscription.









*Yes I realize that the magazine would still contain ads*

I want to hate them for this.

But I still love typing

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

in any of the: .co.uk sites. (or any site owned by Conde-nast for that matter)


----------



## Zer0CoolX

I just recently started using an ad-blocker. On one hand I understand that ad's are a source of income for many sites and they rely on this income to continue providing content and services. That i can respect.

The issue isn't ad's in and of themselves. I do not mind ad's that do not intrude or otherwise interrupt my experience. Ad's that interrupt what im doing ive always just chose to leave the site. If you have a full page ad, an ad I have to scroll past or fill out a survey, i just leave the site.

The big issue nowadays is that ad's frequently get used for malicious purposes. So now not only do they intrude upon the user but they place many people in situations that can compromise their security. I now use an ad blocker to protect myself, not because i find ad's themselves bothersome. It may be too late to repair this perception in alot of people, but until they make ad's that are safe, I for one will simply not go to sites that either force ad's on me or prohibit using an ad blocker. Its the internet, there are no exclusive stories, anything your site is doing is being done by 100 others. One of those sites is more than likely not forcing malware laden ad's on its users, and thats where I will go to read the "news".

What Wired is going to find out is people who are savvy enough to use an ad blocker and read their site are also savvy enough to find other sites to read. Id expect the vast majority to simply stop using Wired. A better move would be for sites like this to not use ad networks and instead handle advertising in a way that provides them more control and their users a safer browsing experience. Then to openly commit to their users that if they allow ad's on their site they will only be provided ad's that are safe and do not intrude on the experience. I think people would react much more positively to that.


----------



## bigkahuna360

Wait... you mean to tell me that OCN is not the source of every other tech news site?


----------



## ejohnson

Web page ads started out like billboards on the side of the road, ignorable, sometimes usefull... then they moved the billboards to the middle of the street so you have to drive around it. Now the billboards are in the middle of the street and have roving groups of bandits that hide behind them ready to pull you from your car and steal it.

Web pages, learn from billboards, they dont put them in the middle of the road and neither should you.


----------



## Humafold

I don't think that Wired truly cares about the advertisers. They just want to sell more impressions. If you run an ad-blocker I'm sure that when they attempt to show the ad that it doesn't count as an impression. Therefore, I can' sell it. The only way for Wired to collect money from those lost impressions is to charge a fee. Thus, they don't lose the revenue from lost impressions.

I understand the theory, but you are selling a lie. If we all take off our ad-blockers and you sell an extra 4 million (made up number) impressions to advertisers, than you just ripped them off. We aren't going to view the ads regardless of the blocker or not. You just want to sell them.

Not really a good idea.


----------



## Zer0CoolX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rustynails*
> 
> well if only 20% of the people are using adblockers and those 20% stop looking at there articles what does that mean to them?
> ,,,,,
> so many people are saying they will lose money but in fact they will be making money.
> they will lose money if they keep those 20% of people viewing there content .


This really depends on how they make revenue from the ads. If your statement is to imply that the people using ad blockers cost the site money (because they use its resources, which have a cost, without providing revenue back to the site), then you are right that in a fashion and to a degree those users cost the site money. However, if the ad's pay per click for example, then users without ad blockers can cost the site the same if they elect not to click an ad.

Wired expects that of those 20%, a reasonable amount of them will pay (which is silly imo). What will happen is the same thing happening now. People who dont use ad blockers will keep going to the site, of that 80% some of them will subscribe. The people clicking ad's and paying to subscribe will essentially be paying for everyone using the site (as the revenue they contribute will pay for the services/content as a whole, not just their own), which is what happens now just via ad's only.

Essentially the cost of keeping the 20% blocking ad's is nominal. The cost of bad publicity is much higher and unpredictable.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HowHardCanItBe*
> 
> hahaha...there is no privacy on the internet or the world.


Actually, there is a certain level of privacy on the Internet. Thus why I was very specific in stating a certain level.

Examples:

Ad with malicious code that would monitor/active microphones and webcams plugged into a system without consent. Something that is currently happening. Another, compromised advertisements that actively track financial information being entered into checkouts at purchase.

EDIT 2:

To be even more clear; that level of privacy is that line between just tracking browsing habits, auto-fill forms, etc, and one of actually invading the living space. By doing things like activating webcams and microphones without a person's consent.


----------



## Skillers Inc

There is a twitch streamer/former youtuber named Kripparian, he actually made a video about how you should use adblock, basically he was saying that you can always whitelist things you deem worth supporting, youtube took down the video at one point because he was advocating blocking their revenue stream lol.


----------



## Asmodean

These kinds of things happen over such long periods of time, that people seem to just accept them as the social norm.

Go back 10 years ago, if you had something like this; where a website was forcing obnoxious ads on you, and charging for you to remove them. Then had the audacity to tell you to gtf out of their site if you try and avoid their ad spam lol. The site would have had only tumbleweed as viewers.

If people keep letting companies get away with this stuff.....in the not too distant future...





We'll all be having dreams like this.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

Little does Wired understand that readers do not need Wired, but Wired needs readers. Readers can just go elsewhere to get the info they need.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> The ad-model has worked until viewers decided they no longer wanted to see ads. Less ads ultimately leads to less or no content...Like I said, it's a proven cycle.


That's why wikipedia has been flooded with pop-up adds, and the content is never updated. Makes total sense now. Gotta follow THEE model or die, right?


----------



## outofmyheadyo

How about take your adds and your page and delete it, I`ll probably never stop using adblock.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> You mean the terabytes and terabytes of content that cost thousands of dollars yearly to operate and hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to update/maintain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know because, Wikipedia runs on God's power and that's free, forever. God also gives Wikipedia FREE hundred thousand dollar racks and angels maintain them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The troll is STRONG with this one.


What? Wikipedia just does a donation drive every year to cover their costs, and it works.

If OCN went no adds, and stayed free, and did a donation drive whenever needed, I would donate, just like I do to wikipedia. OCN is a great resource with a strong community, I have little doubt that an annual donations drive would bring in more income than the ads ever could. No one is obligated to do so, but wikipedia is a great example of if you put out a good product, simply by asking for donations once a year to stay ad free you can easily cover the costs of operation and probably give yourself a nice salary to boot.

No trolling here, just saying there actually are models out there that have proven effective other than the archaic face smashing ads approach.

The catch is you have to actually be able to have a good product and a strong community. if you have a trash product with no real community support, yeah, the in your face ads are the only way to go. I'd prefer losing 10 trash websites on the net and gaining 1 quality website anyway to help reduce the clutter and spam.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DNMock*
> 
> What? Wikipedia just does a donation drive every year to cover their costs, and it works.
> 
> If OCN went no adds, and stayed free, and did a donation drive whenever needed, I would donate, just like I do to wikipedia. OCN is a great resource with a strong community, I have little doubt that an annual donations drive would bring in more income than the ads ever could. No one is obligated to do so, but wikipedia is a great example of if you put out a good product, simply by asking for donations once a year to stay ad free you can easily cover the costs of operation and probably give yourself a nice salary to boot.
> 
> No trolling here, just saying there actually are models out there that have proven effective other than the archaic face smashing ads approach.
> 
> The catch is you have to actually be able to have a good product and a strong community. if you have a trash product with no real community support, yeah, the in your face ads are the only way to go. I'd prefer losing 10 trash websites on the net and gaining 1 quality website anyway to help reduce the clutter and spam.


That's not what you ORIGINALLY said.

Your original premise was that because Wikipedia was never updated, the ads don't have a purpose, IE, they don't deserve to make any money. - That's really kind of a horrifying stance.

I'm not disagreeing with the rest but, the stance of, "you don't update wikipedia so you don't deserve anything" when it costs hundreds of thousands yearly...Get where I'm coming from?

I don't disagree that the system currently in place isn't a good one...It's not...But, claiming you're essentially a Robin Hood because of how bad the ads have gotten is a misnomer. The ads are bad because we pushed them, here.

Like I said, you can't have this both ways...Unfortunately. This is an either - or industry and either way, we're going to do some serious collateral damage.


----------



## magnek

His original statement was intended to be sarcastic; the "wikipedia has been flooded with pop-up adds" bit should've been a dead giveaway.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> His original statement was intended to be sarcastic; the "wikipedia has been flooded with pop-up adds" bit should've been a dead giveaway.


The psychic network just called to remind everyone that sarcasm doesn't work over the internet due to TONE not being present.

Sorry.


----------



## magnek

I had no issues detecting the sarcasm, I guess I must be a psychic then.


----------



## OC'ing Noob

I could tell it was sarcasm as well. I guess someone's detection meter is broken.


----------



## Questors

Ads are obnoxious, period! The ads with voice (websites) are worse than obnoxious. These ads remove the ability of users to control what come to their home over their Internet connection. As for E-tailers using ads at their site where people go to PAY MONEY to BUY products, it is completely unnecessary and out of line. I can't say I don't use some of these sites, but I used to frequent them as a customer. Now I go to them if I need something I can't find elsewhere.

I get sick of advertising splashed all over everything everywhere. Television is a great example. Ads supposedly originally paid for over the air (free to use) TV signals. Along came cable and satellite with paid service. Their fees are supposed to take care of cable services and programming, but WHAM-O! We PAY to get overdosed with ads that now take up as much as 20 minutes of every 60 minutes of TV viewing. No wonder my TV watching comprises about 2 hours a week... maybe.

Stop using Adblocker? Not in this lifetime!


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ejohnson*
> 
> It's not that they are evil for wanting people to support, it's that ads are out of hand. They are a huge burden on the site when there are 15 per page. This site has ads, but not tons of them and no pop ups for mobile. So it's bearable
> 
> I don't buy magazines because you get 10 pages of content and 60 pages of ads, and you had to buy it


Magazine ads don't force me to read them, make me wait so many seconds before I can turn the page to read the content I'm interested in, blare loud or otherwise obnoxious audio, throw pop-ups in my face, or display distracting animation or other video. I've never had a problem with magazine ads since I could choose to look at them or not, and I often did. The things I hate are the bound in card inserts that make it difficult to keep a certain page open.


----------



## brownbob06

This thread is exhausting. I said in the 2nd comment of the thread I believe that websites just need to change their model. I even gave an example where radio stations do ads where the DJ actually does the advertisement themselves, right on the air.

What's to stop a news site from doing articles that are genuine and have affiliate links. Why not a yearly anti virus review with affiliate links to all of the programs, why not an interview with the creator of the app or some sort of hardware, why not plugs during interviews with affiliate links. Affiliate links are only hated when they're sneaky about it. If it's made clear that there is an affiliate link consumers will understand.

I fully undrstand that will take more work than just paying an ad company to fill their banners with advertisements. But if you can't adapt, you don't get to keep making money, that's the way entrepeneurship has always been.

Those ideas may be terrible, they may not be, I don't know, but my paycheck doesn't depend on coming up with an idea for it, theirs does. So instead of trying to ram ads or subscriptions down the throats of consumers who clearly reject them, modify your revenue model. Innovate a little bit.

If a company refuses to change and goes out of business, it's not the consumer's fault, some of you need to realize this. A company can't threaten consumers by saying "either watch our ads or pay us $4 a month or we're going out of business." Do you know who's going to feel bad about that?" Nobody.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brownbob06*
> 
> If a company refuses to change and goes out of business, it's not the consumer's fault, some of you need to realize this. A company can't threaten consumers by saying "either watch our ads or pay us $4 a month or we're going out of business." Do you know who's going to feel bad about that?" Nobody.


You mean until there aren't any left...Or the only one that's left is so biased, there is no original content - By which, you'll wish in hindsight, you had folded to their demands....


----------



## looniam

it's a wonder the internet survived before ads, huh?


----------



## ejohnson

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lady Fitzgerald*
> 
> Magazine ads don't force me to read them, make me wait so many seconds before I can turn the page to read the content I'm interested in, blare loud or otherwise obnoxious audio, throw pop-ups in my face, or display distracting animation or other video. I've never had a problem with magazine ads since I could choose to look at them or not, and I often did. The things I hate are the bound in card inserts that make it difficult to keep a certain page open.


oh god I hate those cards.... When I used to buy magazines, I would shake them out of the magazine before I even took it home.

But yes, magazines dont yell or flash at you, but if I pay 8-14 bucks for a magazine, I would rather have more than 10 pages of content with the rest being adds.

Yes, the adds pay for the magazine, but if you dropped 60 pages of ads, you just saved 60 pages of printing too.


----------



## Master__Shake

an ultimatum eh?

that'll get people to support you


----------



## cookieboyeli

Did they not see what happened to forbes? If a reddit post source was forbes I either went to the same article written on another site or only read the comments. I don't turn off my adblocker for anyone and I CERTAINLY won't pay $4 /mo for a website I only see occasionally that has a zillion competitors with the same content.

I give it 3 months before they give up. Nobody is stupid enough to pay for that consistently. A couple people will sign up but cancel after they realize it's a waste in a month or two when they don't use it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> does this remind people of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> * this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


The sad part is this isn't even accurate anymore. It's not even the full picture. I'm sure many people wouldn't mind dealing with all the crap before the movie if it weren't for the other limitations on current video services.

Think about this:

*If you choose to pirate you can:*

Download whatever bitrate and resolution you want or works best for your time and internet speed.
Watch it on your computer without an optical drive in your favorite movie player with madVR and SVP.
Watch it offline whenever you want.
And there is no limit or region locking to your library. It it exists, you can have it.
It's free*, but requires some technical skill and knowledge.

*If you choose not to pirate you can:*

Stream it through one of a few paid video services! (If it's available, eg: not region locked. Your internet is consistently fast enough to provide the native resolution of your screen, and a "transparent" bitrate for your taste - or potato quality if your ISP throttles it. _And_ you don't mind watching it in a crappy locked down player with horrendous rendering).
Make a trip to the store JUST to buy a physical copy when you want it and pay a lot more for it. (You must wait not only for a TV show season to end but another 6 months for them to put it on disk and start selling it too). However, your choices are limited to either Blu-Ray or DVD! (You must own the corresponding drive). That all adds up pretty fast, but at least you can watch it on your terms!







...Well, after the unskippable screens, previews, warnings.
Go online and order a physical copy that takes two days to arrive.
Gee, I wonder why this is still an issue.


----------



## Skillers Inc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brownbob06*
> 
> If a company refuses to change and goes out of business, it's not the consumer's fault, some of you need to realize this. A company can't threaten consumers by saying "either watch our ads or pay us $4 a month or we're going out of business." Do you know who's going to feel bad about that?" Nobody.


I think big banking would like to have a little chat about your statement being wrong lol.

Ads aren't problematic at all. It is the manner they are presented in that is the problem. And part of that comes from the owner of the advertisement, not just the companies that host them. Advertisements trying to hide themselves as articles are waaay too subliminal for many people's tastes because they try to act like news. On the other hand the adverts that play a video or can take control of poor coding (I'm looking at you flash player) are too intrusive. I don't mind ads around articles, I can choose not to click them or even look at them when they are static, but when they start to overshadow the actual content I am looking at/for I have a problem.


----------



## criminal

Wired sucks and is biased anyway. Good riddance.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

I resisted getting an ad blocker for years because I knew that websites depended on the revenue to support the websites. I had no problem with ads that just sat there and did nothing since I could choose to look at them or not (and I would look at the ones that were of interest to me). Eventually, though, I finally got fed up with the increasing number of pop-ads that were hard to get rid of, ads that blared loud audio (and no, do NOT suggest I turn my sound off; my computer is my entertainment center and I listen to music while browsing), ads that had annoying and distracting video running, with or without sound, ad pages for products or services that I had no interest in that blocked the website's content for a certain period of time, announcements from my AV and anti-malware programs announcing a malicious action that had been embedded in an ad was blocked, etc. and got an ad blocker. Now, there are websites (mostly TV programming sites, such as CW, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. as well as sites like Forbes) that block me from using their sites just because I have an ad blocker installed, even if I whitelist their site to allow their ads to be shown (those sites can just kiss my lily white behind).

For the life of me, I cannot understand why companies think that ramming an objectionable ad down my throat will endear me to their products or services. What it does do is ensure that I will never, ever use their products or services.


----------



## bigjdubb

Meh, the web is better off without publications like Wired (and Forbes). We have enough unoriginal sponsored content on the web. I will ride out ad blockers as long as possible, my guess is the ad revenue bubble will pop before ad blockers get shut down.


----------



## girugamesh

Just a hint: bandwidth costs would be lower if nowadays we didn't had 5MB of JavaScript, HTML5 and god knows what else for every 500 bytes of text.


----------



## Lindwurm

Not really surprising. The ad-based model's been breaking down for some time. honestly, I'm more worried about what will follow. As annoying as ads can be, I think native advertising is far, far worse.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I can't remember which site it was that did this, they flat out said turn off your Ad Blocker or don't view our content. So I closed the window and found the same article somewhere else.
> 
> With that said there have been other sites who ask politely, and did it in a way that I ended up turning off my ad blocker. That's only happened twice as far as I can remember.
> 
> Wired's attitude is gonna backfire on them, no one likes to be given ultimatums.


There was a site very recently that posted an article about online security. They wouldn't let you view it with an adblocker enabled, but when disabling the adblocker you were served with a compromised ad network that would download malware onto your machine.


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L36*
> 
> ...if a publisher is whining that ad blocker is killing off their revenue; maybe they should look in other sources of revenue.


Obviously they are: most of these sites are going to switch to a subscription service and offer zero free content. For example, Vessel has shown its worth as a premium content alternative to Youtube.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> There was a site very recently that posted an article about online security. They wouldn't let you view it with an adblocker enabled, but when disabling the adblocker you were served with a compromised ad network that would download malware onto your machine.


Hmm that's good to know.


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

I don't watch TV anymore because of ads. I don't buy magazines because of ads. I don't even read the paper anymore because of ads. I think I can survive without random generic "news" website, and if it comes down to it without most websites.

There will always be people out there who don't sell their souls to fund their website.

Advertisers deliberately lie to and manipulate people in order to con them out of money for goods and/or services they don't need. The world would be better off without them.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> If we had to pay a $4 subscription for every site that I visit regularly, my subscription fees would be in the 100's or thousands a month!


Precisely, i hate this "whale hunting" get rich quick money schemes that most business and outlets are trying now a days.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> You mean until there aren't any left...Or the only one that's left is so biased, there is no original content - By which, you'll wish in hindsight, *you had folded to their demands*....












Oh no, how will i ever survive without a very biased, blogger hiring, yellow journalism outlet? /s


----------



## Chakravant

Until ads pay for the wire that contains the bandwidth they use and provide me some additional benefit, as far as I am concerned they have no business on the internet. As long as my data is my data, ads in every way, shape, and form can go to hell for all I care.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

I have ad blocker installed, but almost always have it disabled. I only use it when some ad is misbehaving on certain sites, and I will enable ad blocking only for that site. It's the fair and considerate thing to do.


----------



## HMBR

one of the reasons I stopped watching TV (5 years ago) was the excessive amount of ads, as for the Internet, during the late 90s early 2000s all that I would do is block popups (it was fairly common for ads to do that), but it didn't bother me much, but nowadays it's quite terrible, some websites are not usable without an adblock, even the time it takes to load some ads (and facebook, twitter integration) is a disgrace, not to mention the visual pollution and privacy problems... not saying is the case with wired, since I never visit the site anyway, also, $4 per month? is that how much they make per person with ads? (I mean a regular person, which probably never clicks the stupid ads, I think)
since 1997, I think I only clicked regular ads by accident.


----------



## brownbob06

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> You mean until there aren't any left...Or the only one that's left is so biased, there is no original content - By which, you'll wish in hindsight, you had folded to their demands....


I can assure you, I will not regret not folding to the demands of a site I rarely, if ever, visit. The fact that you think the way companies should survive is by getting consumers to "fold to their demands" is a problem by itself. Luckily, for me and most other consumers this isn't the majority opinion.

Like I said, it's not up to me to figure out a new revenue model that works. This only works if every single tech site takes the same approach. Then there will be a few that survive, but most won't. So it's in their own best interest to figure out something that actually works.

Someone on overclock.net telling everyone they should fold now or they'll regret it isn't going to make a bit of difference whether they're successful or not.

Give me some content that is 1. Unique 2. Worth paying for. Then we can talk. There's a reason I pay a subscription fee for my satellite radio when there are free alternatives, there's a reason I pay a subscription fee for my Netflix when antennas work just fine, etc. Etc. Subscriptions only work when there aren't thousands of others offering the same service as you with the same quality of content.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscription sites even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


And consumers like you are the reason consumers continue to get pimped.


----------



## neurotix

If given the option between 1) disabling my ad-blocker or 2) not reading a website I will almost always pick 2) not read the website.

Especially how some of the embedded ads redirect you to rogue websites/malicious software installs.

I see my adblocker as not just removing unwanted ads but being essential to my security.

Good luck with this. Wired is garbage anyway.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Only on xxx sites are were ads a problem. As far as im concearned if people want no ads then you have to pay for your internet browsing lol.

I really think its hillarious and cant wait for people that use ad blockers to start complaining that they have to pay to see their favorite content. Like its their right to get content for free!


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> You mean until there aren't any left...Or the only one that's left is so biased, there is no original content - By which, you'll wish in hindsight, you had folded to their demands....


It's stupid to expect people to pay for an "ad free" experience, because of their outdated business model that dates back 100+ years. Get with the times.

I already thought of 2 ways to monetize the "Ad Blocker traffic" , instead of telling people to beat it. You're an expert, you should've thought of it too.









In regards to your other post, I'm all too familiar with Facebook's advertising platform, as well as Google's and others.

No offense, but I get the feeling you don't truly understand the art of advertising.

Adapt or die. Your answer is always dying.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hatlesschimp*
> 
> Only on xxx sites are were ads a problem. As far as im concearned if people want no ads then you have to pay for your internet browsing lol.


I'm pretty sure I do pay a monthly fee for the ability to browse the internet. I'm also pretty sure no ad company pays me to use "my" internet that I paid good money for. Maybe corporations should pay me for the privilege of advertising to me.


----------



## Alvarado

I'm all for ads but screw those video ones.


----------



## TheReciever

Even OCN has had issues with intrusive ads from time to time. Sometimes taking around 35% of the screen real estate though typically its ads that make sense considering our demographic.

There is no guarantee that the ads wont be intrusive, or filled with malware so it only makes sense to deny that possibility outright.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hatlesschimp*
> 
> Only on xxx sites are were ads a problem. As far as im concearned if people want no ads then you have to pay for your internet browsing lol.
> 
> I really think its hillarious and cant wait for people that use ad blockers to start complaining that they have to pay to see their favorite content. Like its their right to get content for free!


What part of buying a domain, setting up a host, and publishing a document on the world wide web requires anyone who visits your site to view advertisements against there will?

You realize billboards on the highway don't jump in front of your car if you don't look right?

The backwards attitude of people who don't understand how the world works is quite comical.

Let me guess, next I'll have to pay an ad-free tax at the restaurant I eat in to avoid advertisements being displayed at my table?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> I'm pretty sure I do pay a monthly fee for the ability to browse the internet. I'm also pretty sure no ad company pays me to use "my" internet that I paid good money for. Maybe corporations should pay me for the privilege of advertising to me.


Sometimes we become the fools for making such an obvious point to others. Then again we can see why so many companies get away with things.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hatlesschimp*
> 
> Only on xxx sites are were ads a problem. As far as im concearned if people want no ads then you have to pay for your internet browsing lol.
> 
> I really think its hillarious and cant wait for people that use ad blockers to start complaining that they have to pay to see their favorite content. Like its their right to get content for free!


I use an ad blocker and have no problem paying for ad free content when it's available (and worth it). Netflix, Prime, Spotify, and now Hulu all offer ad free content that I gladly pay for. I donate to forums I love when it comes that time of year and I also donate to game servers that I play on religiously, because someone uses an ad blocker does not mean that that person feels they have a right to free content.

Looking at ads to read an article about a product that was only written because the maker of that product paid to have it written is not my idea of worthy content. Not every website has content worth paying for, and some of them have content that has already been paid for.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coachmark2*
> 
> I agree with you Masked. For the majority of sites to survive and pay authors to write content and sys/network admins and webmasters to maintain the site, you need a revenue stream. And ads are one of the most readily apparent ways of doing so. I do not have a problem with ads on a webpage.
> 
> What I object to is ads on "legitimate" websites executing malicious code in my browser and compromising my security. That is an unacceptable risk and one that I will go to any lengths necessary to prevent for both myself and the users behind the firewalls that I maintain.
> 
> I also reject the counter-argument that "The sites have no control over the ads themselves, they just sell a spot to a third-party ad network." This brings up the question of _why are you as a webmaster loading third party content into your site that you don't trust?!_


This is the precise problem that the on-line industry needs to tackle frontally, otherwise it will not go away. But it gets more complicated than that.

The reason that sites make cross-site requests to third parties is because these don't trust the sites to tell them the truth about viewership. As a bonus they get to have way more data to mine than they would traditionally, being able to build profiles on people across a wide range of sites.

All of this is perverse.

The whole relationship between sites and advertisers is built in a way derived out of a lack of trust. Understandably so, mind you. But then they ironically expect us, the consumers, to trust them without question with both our browsing habits and on-line security. It's cognitive dissonance at its best. Or pure hypocrisy. In any case, they should just acknowledge the problem once and for all and build a different model from scratch. The question is, will advertisers relinquish some of the data that they are currently mining for some more basic numbers?

The way I see it, all the parties involved, businesses than have an on-line presence and advertisers and some form of government body should all come together and make a model upon which an independent entity is made, that all of us - public included - can scrutinize, whose job is to act as an interface between the businesses and the advertisers. They would certify the viewership numbers for sites in a way that protects people's privacy and can be trusted by advertisers and from then on the sites would do business directly with the advertising company and host the content themselves.

The model as it stands is too much fast food derived, sure it's simple, but sites have very little to no power over what actually gets displayed on their own site.

As I said, this would also benefit everyone's privacy. The question is, are advertisers willing to let go of the unprecedented power that they have today?

Compare it with the experience of buying a paper newspaper at the stand. The only person that knows for sure what you bought is the guy at the stand. But even he doesn't know what pages / articles you read, when, how long it took you, if you looked at the ads, etc. With on-line as it is today we are giving a select few companies way too much power. And in my opinion it doesn't have to be this way and can be made to actually work.

The current system is going to get progressively unworkable. You certainly don't build trust in your viewers by making an ultimatum and not solving the underlying issues, namely of trust. Trust in who gets our information and trust that the ads won't deliver malware (this last part is mostly because the advertisers don't want to limit themselves to traditional forms of advertising - non pop-up text and pictures).


----------



## umeng2002

Never went to Wired much, don't really care.

There is a reason why ads blocking has been popular. Simple banner ads turned into Flash animation banner ads, that turned into Flash animation banner ads that played a sound automatically.

Then they turned into full video ads that play automatically.

Then they turned into ads taking up 75% of the screen space.

Then they turned into all of the above plus pop-up windows that grey-out the background.

Then they started delivering malware/ ransomware/ and viruses.

Now they're using AJAX pop-up windows.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> What part of buying a domain, setting up a host, and publishing a document on the world wide web requires anyone who visits your site to view advertisements against there will?
> 
> You realize billboards on the highway don't jump in front of your car if you don't look right?
> 
> The backwards attitude of people who don't understand how the world works is quite comical.
> 
> Let me guess, next I'll have to pay an ad-free tax at the restaurant I eat in to avoid advertisements being displayed at my table?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes we become the fools for making such an obvious point to others. Then again we can see why so many companies get away with things.


The premise for your argument is flawed. Billboards don't jump in front of your car, but at the same time the highway isn't owned by the billboard company. The billboard company isn't paying the upkeep for the highway. When you visit a site, any site for that matter you download resources from that site, it costs the site owner money in bandwidth to provide content for free to you. Using your highway example using websites, a portion of the highway is paid for the site owner, and the portion of highway is paid by the user. However, as the user is trying to access the portion paid by the highway owner they are subject to the highway owner's rules. When you are sharing a site for 10 people, the costs are relatively small, but when you operate a site that is accessed by dozens, hundreds, or thousands, then you need some sort of revenue to pay the costs of dedicated servers, the bandwidth, and possibly people to keep on hand for downtime issues. None of which are cheap. Not many options for covering those costs. Don't even get me started on DDoS attacks.

Lets also be honest, nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying I want you to access Google. You CHOOSE to use Google. Same goes for any other site.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> The premise for your argument is flawed. Billboards don't jump in front of your car, but at the same time the highway isn't owned by the billboard company. The billboard company isn't paying the upkeep for the highway. When you visit a site, any site for that matter you download resources from that site, it costs the site owner money in bandwidth to provide content for free to you. Using your highway example using websites, a portion of the highway is paid for the site owner, and the portion of highway is paid by the user. However, as the user is trying to access the portion paid by the highway owner they are subject to the highway owner's rules. When you are sharing a site for 10 people, the costs are relatively small, but when you operate a site that is accessed by dozens, hundreds, or thousands, then you need some sort of revenue to pay the costs of dedicated servers, the bandwidth, and possibly people to keep on hand for downtime issues. None of which are cheap. Not many options for covering those costs. Don't even get me started on DDoS attacks.
> 
> Lets also be honest, nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying I want you to access Google. You CHOOSE to use Google. Same goes for any other site.


By your argument, switching the TV channel during a commercial break is just as "unethical."


----------



## Conspiracy

lol good luck


----------



## umeng2002

Plus I think we're entering a era were sites are blaming ad-blocking for their failures to adapt, in the same way that video game companies blame piracy when some title doesn't perform as expected.

If you ran your business expecting 100% monetization efficiency on every web page delivered, you shouldn't be in a position to run a company.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> By your argument, switching the TV channel during a commercial break is just as "unethical."


What? Completely different things, TV ads don't have bandwidth limitations, in addition extra users probably have very little in terms of resource consumption for TV audiences, while websites have a lot more. In addition, if you skip an ad it doesn't change the fact that the advertiser has prepaid or is pays for their commercial or ad to be displayed during such and such time to X amount of estimated users. Web ads are billed per click or per 1000 impressions/views.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Plus I think we're entering a era were sites are blaming ad-blocking for their failures to adapt, in the same way that video game companies blame piracy when some title doesn't perform as expected.
> 
> If you ran your business expecting 100% monetization efficiency on every web page delivered, you shouldn't be in a position to run a company.


Adapt to what? There are like a total of three ways to collect revenue. Donations, subscriptions, or ads. There is no hidden fourth adaption, unless you sell products and can use the profits or costs from the products to cover your website operational costs.

You can't measure lost sales to piracy, but you can measure how many users view your content with adblock. If 10 users viewed the page, but my ad network reported 6 page views, that means 4 users didn't load the ad. You can argue that maybe this is something else, but its not difficult to track which content a user downloads and which content a user does not download, or which content a user requests, but does not request.

Point being there should be an upwards statistical correlation if the amount of user views goes up then the amount of ad views should also go up.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> What? Completely different things, TV ads don't have bandwidth limitations, in addition extra users probably have very little in terms of resource consumption for TV audiences, while websites have a lot more. In addition, if you skip an ad it doesn't change the fact that the advertiser has prepaid or is pays for their commercial or ad to be displayed during such and such time to X amount of estimated users. Web ads are billed per click or per 1000 impressions/views.


Well the online industry already has an answer - GET OFF PER CLICK BASED AD REVENUE. Website go to advertisers. "We have X views per month. We have Y percent of ad views per month. Let's negotiate."

The same way TV does it now. No TV advertiser actually expects 100% of a shows rating to all view the commercials. Why is it expected online?


----------



## Clocknut

I personally think Ad blocks software went a bit too far on blocking.

If all the ad blocking only block ads that contains

Video/audio
Animated flash/html5

only allow static image. No popups etc. I want an internet like this.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> The premise for your argument is flawed.
> *it costs the site owner money in bandwidth to provide content for free to you.*
> 
> Lets also be honest, nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying I want you to access Google. You CHOOSE to use Google. Same goes for any other site.


Of course my argument is flawed, I don't sit and spend quality time replying to many of the irrational comments of others. Flawed example or not, the reality remains the same. There is 100+ posts with better examples than mine that you can't pick apart, of course if you're trying to go in depth on this subject.
What exactly is free?

Is the internet I use to access the internet free? No.
Does it cost to money to buy a domain and pay for hosting on the internet? Yes.

If your lively hood depends on me viewing advertisements against my will then you might as well starve and disappear. Get a daytime job and host a website as a hobby, or don't give me ultimatums as to how I process your html code into my desired web browser.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> By your argument, switching the TV channel during a commercial break is just as "unethical."


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Well the online industry already has an answer - GET OFF PER CLICK BASED AD REVENUE. Website go to advertisers. "We have X views per month. We have Y percent of ad views per month. Let's negotiate."
> 
> The same way TV does it now. No TV advertiser actually expects 100% of a shows rating to all view the commercials. Why is it expected online?


See my edit above firstly, since you quoted after I addressed your second point.

How does that change anything? If you are blocking ads before, it means you still block ads now. I fail to see how switching to CPM solves any of the gripes of the people complaining about ads now.

If you calculate that a rough estimate of 1/4th of your viewer base is using adblock, that means you are allowing 1/4th of your viewer base to view the content without ads. That means you either need to increase the costs to the advertiser or cut the people downloading content off, or evaluate a different model such as subscription or donation.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> Of course my argument is flawed, I don't sit and spend quality time replying to people who aren't worth that time or effort. Flawed example or not, the reality remains the same.
> What exactly is free?
> 
> Is the internet I pay for to access the internet free? No.
> Does it cost to money to buy a domain and pay for hosting on the internet? Yes.
> 
> If your lively hood depends on me viewing advertisements against my will then you might as well starve and disappear. Get a daytime job and host a website as a hobby, or don't give me ultimatums as to how I process your html code into my desired web browser.


First off, nothing is against your will, quit making up nonsense. Is someone forcing you to access Wikipedia? Is someone forcing you to access Google? No. Don't like that site? You don't have to access it.

Content on the web that you access without paying is free. Period. You pay your ISP for the ability to have your connection routed to any IP address in the world, and to have the ability to have a pipe allocated to you with the promised download and upload speeds. That is what you pay for. That is literally what an ISP does for you.

I pay for a web server where I can publish my content (may that be videos, articles, etc). I also have to pay my hosting provider/ISP the ability to host that content, except I have to pay for it when someone consumes it. My web server does not go to your house, kick down the door, and say look at my website. You come to my site through your own methods and consume stuff from me. That is the whole basis for how web pages work.

Before you continue arguing with me on something that is fact, look up how the HTTP protocol operates. Its request, respond. You request, I respond. Much like life, if you don't like my response, you don't have to request anything from me. Deal with it.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> First off, nothing is against your will, quit making up nonsense. Is someone forcing you to access Wikipedia? Is someone forcing you to access Google? No. Don't like that site? You don't have to access it.
> 
> Content on the web that you access without paying is free. Period. You pay your ISP for the ability to have your connection routed to any IP address in the world, and to have the ability to have a pipe allocated to you with the promised download and upload speeds. That is what you pay for. That is literally what an ISP does for you.
> 
> I pay for a web server where I can publish my content (may that be videos, articles, etc). *I also have to pay my hosting provider/ISP the ability to host that content, except I have to pay for it when someone consumes it.* My web server does not go to your house, kick down the door, and say look at my website. You come to my site through your own methods and consume stuff from me. That is the whole basis for how web pages work.
> 
> Before you continue arguing with me on something that is fact, look up how the HTTP protocol operates. Its request, respond. You request, I respond. Much like life, if you don't like my response, you don't have to request anything from me. Deal with it.


The same way you should deal with if I access your publicly available website on the internet, you are not entitled to earn ad revenue off me as an involuntary consumer of your ads









Awww, you have to pay for bandwidth when I visit your website? I also have to pay for bandwidth and when your ads consume 50x more bandwidth then the content of your website you don't see me complaining. What you pay for is your problem, you are the one hosting a web page, not me.

Simply deal with it as you stated.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> What? Completely different things, TV ads don't have bandwidth limitations, in addition extra users probably have very little in terms of resource consumption for TV audiences, while websites have a lot more. In addition, if you skip an ad it doesn't change the fact that the advertiser has prepaid or is pays for their commercial or ad to be displayed during such and such time to X amount of estimated users. Web ads are billed per click or per 1000 impressions/views.
> Adapt to what? There are like a total of three ways to collect revenue. Donations, subscriptions, or ads. There is no hidden fourth adaption, unless you sell products and can use the profits or costs from the products to cover your website operational costs.
> 
> You can't measure lost sales to piracy, but you can measure how many users view your content with adblock. If 10 users viewed the page, but my ad network reported 6 page views, that means 4 users didn't load the ad. You can argue that maybe this is something else, but its not difficult to track which content a user downloads and which content a user does not download, or which content a user requests, but does not request.
> 
> Point being there should be an upwards statistical correlation if the amount of user views goes up then the amount of ad views should also go up.


OK, unless you make it illegal to NOT RUN a script (bribing law makers, etc.), you simply have to live with the fact that not all of your page deliveries will serve ads. As a business, you have to deal with it.

NoScript and other script blocking add-ons do the same thing as AdBlocking add-ons do. The point is that you can't force all of the people accessing your content to see ads, just like with TV.

Frankly the only issue sites should have is the percent of people using ad-blocking. If the number is fairly fixed, the sites can simply improve their services and get more views.

Websites have all the leverage, if they really feel like they're getting ripped off, put everything behind a paywall... But most won't do this because they know what they provide isn't worth the trouble of people typing in their credit card information. Block all ad-blockers? There are add-ons and Greasemonkey scripts that block adblock blockers.

I think it's a fool's notion that 100% of your page views can be monetized. What the hell is every 100% efficient?

Would you be against people giving a newspaper to someone else when they're done reading it?


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> The same way you should deal with if I access your publicly available website on the internet, you are not entitled to earn ad revenue off me as an involuntary consumer of your ads


Yes I am....you missed the whole point completely. By downloading my http page and all the content on it, you downloaded content from me. You got something for free. We both pay our ISPs money, but the difference is, I created content for you to consume. So as a result you consumed something from me for free. Did you pay *me* anything to watch my video? No, hence its free. I didn't get a single cent of the money you paid your ISP, but I had to pay bandwidth costs for your download.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Yes I am....you missed the whole point completely. By downloading my http page and all the content on it, you downloaded content from me. You got something for free. We both pay our ISPs money, but the difference is, I created content for you to consume. So as a result you consumed something from me for free. Did you pay *me* anything to watch my video? No, hence its free.


It's free because there is no login and password button that only subscribers can access.

Then again, no one is forcing you to keep your website free and public, right?

You are a naive person if you honestly think you are *entitled* to earn ad revenue off someone because they visit your website.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Yes I am....you missed the whole point completely. By downloading my http page and all the content on it, you downloaded content from me. You got something for free. We both pay our ISPs money, but the difference is, I created content for you to consume. So as a result you consumed something from me for free. Did you pay *me* anything to watch my video? No, hence its free. I didn't get a single cent of the money you paid your ISP, but I had to pay bandwidth costs for your download.


If your content is that valuable, pay-wall it then.

Can't risk that? Deal with less than 100% efficient monetization.

If your ad-revenue can't cover server and bandwidth costs, maybe your site isn't worth anything. Then "become the product" and use Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. to get out your content.

News regurgitation sites shouldn't expect much from ad revenue since they don't hire reporters that go out into the real world and write real stories. They leach off other sources of info. So "leech sites, " in my mind should only make enough ad-revenue to cover server and bandwidth costs. The admin should treat it as a hobby.


----------



## epic1337

ohh yeah, theres that site called Wired, i almost forgot about it.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> ohh yeah, theres that site called Wired, i almost forgot about it.


Don't forget to click every single advertisement on overclock.net because they are entitled to revenue from you.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> Don't forget to click every single advertisement on overclock.net because they are entitled to revenue from you.


i don't really care about those things, specially the mild ads.
if its unbearable then its either i leave or i block, pure and simple.

on a side note, WHY the hell do i have to click ads that i'm not interested in?
if they want their ads clicked, get the ones people are interested in, choose relevant ads!


----------



## Spaks

Anddddddddd...

nothing of value was lost.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> i don't really care about those things, specially the mild ads.
> if its unbearable then its either i leave or i block, pure and simple.
> 
> on a side note, WHY the hell do i have to click ads that i'm not interested in?
> if they want their ads clicked, get the ones people are interested in, choose relevant ads!


Sorry for my flawed examples









Some people feel that because their website grows and the cost to maintain it grows, that we as public consumers of a public website that is publicly available for anyone to view, are responsible for playing a part in how they choose to monetize.


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

I'm inclined to forget them.


----------



## umeng2002

Come to think of it, this is probably just a publicity stunt to make people remember Wired exists.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> *Would you be against people giving a newspaper to someone else when they're done reading it?*


Again, wrong analogy. Example below.

The newspaper company printed 1 newspaper, and sold 1 newspaper. Its irrelevant what happens to it after. The cost for creating the newspaper was paid for.
If you go to my site and download 1 page without adblock. I had to use resources to generate that 1 page, but you didn't view an ad, my costs were not paid for.

Your also showcasing how peer 2 peer works vs a client to dedicated server model.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> OK, unless you make it illegal to NOT RUN a script (bribing law makers, etc.), you simply have to live with the fact that not all of your page deliveries will serve ads. As a business, you have to deal with it.
> 
> NoScript and other script blocking add-ons do the same thing as AdBlocking add-ons do. The point is that you can't force all of the people accessing your content to see ads, just like with TV.
> 
> Frankly the only issue sites should have is the percent of people using ad-blocking. If the number is fairly fixed, the sites can simply improve their services and get more views.
> 
> Websites have all the leverage, if they really feel like they're getting ripped off, put everything behind a paywall... But most won't do this because they know what they provide isn't worth the trouble of people typing in their credit card information. Block all ad-blockers? There are add-ons and Greasemonkey scripts that block adblock blockers.
> 
> I think it's a fool's notion that 100% of your page views can be monetized. What the hell is every 100% efficient?


The number is not fairly fixed. Last time I had stats from a clients site it was that 35% of all user traffic would not load ad traffic. That means 35% for that particular niche used some form of adblock. Give or take 5% error for maybe bad page loads.

100% and 65% are no where close to each other.

Keep in mind, this is only going to increase. Its not like people are choosing to willingly stop using ad block after using it.


----------



## mypcisugly

I will stop using ad blockers when web sites are willing to pay for antivirus and spyware removal plus time spent using them and plus the fact the extra time when loading page's till then any and all web sites can kiss my "BEEP"


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. Example below.
> 
> The newspaper company printed 1 newspaper, and sold 1 newspaper. Its irrelevant what happens to it after. The cost for creating the newspaper was paid for.
> If you go to my site and download 1 page without adblock. I had to use resources to generate that 1 page, but you didn't view an ad, my costs were not paid for.
> 
> Your also showcasing how peer 2 peer works vs a client to dedicated server model.
> The number is not fairly fixed. Last time I had stats from a clients site it was that 35% of all user traffic would not load ad traffic. That means 35% for that particular niche used some form of adblock. Give or take 5% error for maybe bad page loads.
> 
> 100% and 65% are no where close to each other.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only going to increase. Its not like people are choosing to willingly stop using ad block after using it.


The major difference between the Newspaper, and the online page, is that I don't need to worry about the Newspaper posing a security issue. So comparing Print material to digital material is already a little difficult.

You then have the issue that advertisements take up data, which for the consumer, is a far more precious resource than the website. A large advertisement, especially one with audio and/or video, that auto-plays, can be a real issue for many people. So while the website complains about their resources being consumed, that same concern applies to the end user as well.

If content producers want things to change, they need to start taking responsibility with their advertisements. They need to ensure they are clean and safe, and also aren't obtrusive and pose a potential to consume data without concern.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. Example below.
> 
> The newspaper company printed 1 newspaper, and sold 1 newspaper. Its irrelevant what happens to it after. The cost for creating the newspaper was paid for.
> If you go to my site and download 1 page without adblock. I had to use resources to generate that 1 page, but you didn't view an ad, my costs were not paid for.
> 
> Your also showcasing how peer 2 peer works vs a client to dedicated server model.
> The number is not fairly fixed. Last time I had stats from a clients site it was that 35% of all user traffic would not load ad traffic. That means 35% for that particular niche used some form of adblock. Give or take 5% error for maybe bad page loads.
> 
> 100% and 65% are no where close to each other.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only going to increase. Its not like people are choosing to willingly stop using ad block after using it.


In Poland, the highest adblocking using country, usage is 33%. US numbers for tech savvy regions like California and New York are at 15%. Something's screwy with your numbers somewhere.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/study-of-ad-blocking-software-suggests-wide-use/


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. Example below.
> 
> The newspaper company printed 1 newspaper, and sold 1 newspaper. Its irrelevant what happens to it after. The cost for creating the newspaper was paid for.
> If you go to my site and download 1 page without adblock. I had to use resources to generate that 1 page, but you didn't view an ad, my costs were not paid for.
> 
> Your also showcasing how peer 2 peer works vs a client to dedicated server model.
> The number is not fairly fixed. Last time I had stats from a clients site it was that 35% of all user traffic would not load ad traffic. That means 35% for that particular niche used some form of adblock. Give or take 5% error for maybe bad page loads.
> 
> 100% and 65% are no where close to each other.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only going to increase. Its not like people are choosing to willingly stop using ad block after using it.


The moment the newspaper steals my identity infects my property making it unusable and destroys my property I then have a right to declare they fix the problem.

What is your domain? I want to make sure to whitelist it since you're so destitute.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Again, wrong analogy. Example below.
> 
> The newspaper company printed 1 newspaper, and sold 1 newspaper. Its irrelevant what happens to it after. The cost for creating the newspaper was paid for.
> If you go to my site and download 1 page without adblock. I had to use resources to generate that 1 page, but you didn't view an ad, my costs were not paid for.
> 
> Your also showcasing how peer 2 peer works vs a client to dedicated server model.
> The number is not fairly fixed. Last time I had stats from a clients site it was that 35% of all user traffic would not load ad traffic. That means 35% for that particular niche used some form of adblock. Give or take 5% error for maybe bad page loads.
> 
> 100% and 65% are no where close to each other.
> 
> Keep in mind, this is only going to increase. Its not like people are choosing to willingly stop using ad block after using it.
> 
> 
> 
> The major difference between the Newspaper, and the online page, is that I don't need to worry about the Newspaper posing a security issue. So comparing Print material to digital material is already a little difficult.
> 
> You then have the issue that advertisements take up data, which for the consumer, is a far more precious resource than the website. A large advertisement, especially one with audio and/or video, that auto-plays, can be a real issue for many people. So while the website complains about their resources being consumed, that same concern applies to the end user as well.
> 
> If content producers want things to change, they need to start taking responsibility with their advertisements. They need to ensure they are clean and safe, and also aren't obtrusive and pose a potential to consume data without concern.
Click to expand...

this is what i dont understand right here

most people * not all * want people to be able to make a living

yet the people who advocate i should be able to do anything i want with my site and the ads on it, for the most part WILL NOT take personal responsibility to acknowledge there is an issue when i can get cryptolocker from their site or that their ads may consume a frighteningly large amount of data, which does not affect me, but in the us IS starting to become a problem ( datacaps )

i just dont see how someone can see the need for unlimited ads, but not admit the other side has a fair point
i dont see how something like acceptableads.com is such a bad thing


----------



## Chakravant

Soon sites will require you to download apps like this before gaining access to their site.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nonad-block/mjdphmpknkepficogfmnfhabmlngggip?hl=en-US


----------



## magnek

nvm


----------



## dieanotherday

lol everytime a site goes this model I have no urge to visit it again.

even if youtube becomes like this i wouldn't care very much tbh.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Yes I am....you missed the whole point completely. By downloading my http page and all the content on it, you downloaded content from me. You got something for free. We both pay our ISPs money, but the difference is, I created content for you to consume. So as a result you consumed something from me for free. Did you pay *me* anything to watch my video? No, hence its free. I didn't get a single cent of the money you paid your ISP, but I had to pay bandwidth costs for your download.


If you hosted a video on your site, which allows others to view it for free, and if you had NO monetization strategy, that's completely your fault.

At least put it up on YouTube and share in the ad revenue. Why? You save on bandwidth costs, and at least are making money with it.

I personally never host videos on my website (that's a rookie move) They go up on my S3 account.

I have plenty of videos on YouTube which are used for getting top 3 rankings on Google, and their sole purpose is to generate leads.

My whole point that I been trying to drive across, is the fact that there are LOTS of ways to make money from your website, *without being solely reliant on ads.* Some of these publications are so out of touch with how to truly make money online.... I'm not going to finish that sentence.

None of what I speak of is theory, it's all from first hand experience.


----------



## DNMock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> That's not what you ORIGINALLY said.
> 
> Your original premise was that because Wikipedia was never updated, the ads don't have a purpose, IE, they don't deserve to make any money. - That's really kind of a horrifying stance.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with the rest but, the stance of, "you don't update wikipedia so you don't deserve anything" when it costs hundreds of thousands yearly...Get where I'm coming from?
> 
> I don't disagree that the system currently in place isn't a good one...It's not...But, claiming you're essentially a Robin Hood because of how bad the ads have gotten is a misnomer. The ads are bad because we pushed them, here.
> 
> Like I said, you can't have this both ways...Unfortunately. This is an either - or industry and either way, we're going to do some serious collateral damage.


lol yeah, it was sarcasm, i thought everyone knew Wikipedia didn't have ads, and that they updated the most often of any website on the net.

And sure there will be casualties, there always are casualties in a free market. Fortunately, it's those who have innovative and new ideas that are superior to the old ones that strive and those casualties are those who do not innovate.

What you are describing is more in line with a Corporatocracy, than a free market. Imagine if Tesla's innovative designs won out over Edisons, or if the Tucker wasn't squashed by the big 3 automakers. (Yes, I know there is a lot more to these stories than big bad corporation destroying the good guy, I'm just referencing these two with Romanticism for the sake of making a point). The free market is the hand that forces innovation and progress.

The internet is still very young, and is going to have growing pains from time to time, and this is one of them. Right now our internet is covered in pimples and has a squeaky voice, let's not stay in this phase and allow the free market to turn the internet into a real man with a thick beard and a deep voice instead of perpetually being a zit infested tween it is today.


----------



## Omega X

Wired should die an obscure and mediocre death. Just like their content.


----------



## Kryton

I haven't read the entire thread here to see if anyone mentioned it BUT note at the end of the opening post it says they may OR may not make it an absolute.

Saw they said it's gonna depend on how viewers take this, can you guess how it's gonna go... So far?

If I were a betting man I know where my $$ would go on that.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Right now I'm just browsing with Javascript disabled and I don't see any ads.

They have bigger problems than adblockers if they can't even put anything up without Java.


----------



## 2010rig

So I installed a new ROM today, and hadn't gotten around to enabling Adaway yet. On the 2nd site I visited I noticed something strange.....

124 companies were ready to start serving me targeted ads on my browser, oh goody.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> So I installed a new ROM today, and hadn't gotten around to enabling Agawam yet. On the 2nd site I visited I noticed something strange.....
> 
> 124 companies were ready to start serving me targeted ads on my browser, oh goody.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> [


my isp allows me 10mb of web space that i've neglected . . i want in on the goldmine.

daddy wants a rolls royce.


----------



## benbenkr

Cool, I've only been to Wired like twice in my entire life. Why twice? Because I thought they wrote good articles....


----------



## MSim

Wired can shutdown for all i care, no way i would ever pay $4 a month to read a website. I will not disable my adblock plugin or my noscript plugin that helps me keep my system free of malware. The Ad industry only has themselves to blame for people using Adblock type plugins. They bombard us daily with Ads/Commercials to no end. Popular talks shows like Rush Limbaugh show have over 29mins of commercials per hour on terrestrial radio.


----------



## Mrzev

For those crazy enough to read through all of these comments.... I am glad that someone is doing this. There users are doing nothing illegal by using adblock, but its kinda like going to an ice cream shop, trying a few flavors and leaving having no intention of buying anything. Not illegal, but ...yeah... rude. At the same time... if you got food poisoning from that place... it would feel 10x worse if you had PAYED for the food that made you sick.

I am intestested in seeing how this pans out. adblock is getting worse and worse and companies need to do something. At the same time... sites that only have 1 paragraph of text with a next page leading to 10 pages where 80% of the page is ads... not cool either. Then there is the security aspect, which seems like there should be repercussions if your site has some malware on it. Either way... it feels like this is a step towards an understanding. This is not some problem that can or should be held in a courtroom, but an unwritten agreement with society. There needs to be an accepted norm.


----------



## SpeedyVT

People still go to Wired.com? Seriously, it hardly talks about tech anymore. It's turned into a gossip and political agenda site long ago. I've no need for them. You can get their magazines from PCH for less than a weekly subscription.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> my isp allows me 10mb of web space that i've neglected . . i want in on the goldmine.
> 
> daddy wants a rolls royce.


Sorry bro can't help you out, I'm the only special one that will have 124 companies monitoring my internet usage and providing ME with targeted ads.

How awesome is that? It's all about ME (My Enjoyment)


----------



## rbarrett96

I am against a lot of things companies do with advertising, but it's not like they are making you pay the $4 a month. You wither pay or stop blocking the ads. They are giving you a choice.


----------



## Pheatton

Wired...people still read it and think of its a publication that knows stuffs about the interwebs?


----------



## KingGreasy

I'm not going to hate on them for trying this. It won't give them any kind of large revenue stream but maybe it can fund keeping on a couple of writers. A lot of newspapers and magazines at least have inertia from the years when they were the standard that they can live off a slowly winnowing down sub base. They can also lean on their history for prestige interviews and articles. Yet websites like Wired and a bunch of other tech blogs have nothing to keep them unique. It's all press release regurgitation that hundreds of websites are doing. There is no group of people conditioned to pay for a ad-less website and they don't offer anything other websites have. Famous technology figures don't think about a website like Wired when they want to make some big announcement. They'll go to one of the few big national print publications left or they'll hold a press conference where Wired would be one of the dozens of other news agencies to report immediately. Then there's another thousand blogs out there that will take the Wired article or the press release and write an article on it.

Big tech news blog/sites will continue to winnow down like it has been happening with the gaming websites and blogs. Eventually one will emerge as the big brand IGN and then you'll get websites like Polygon and Kotaku which have to mix a bunch of click bait and low effort articles to fund their occasional high quality features.


----------



## aludka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> does this remind people of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> * this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


You make a very valid point. Legitimate owners of digital media have to jump through hoop to use the media they paid for. And god forbid you want to consume it on a different device. Pirates on the other hand don't have to. It's ridiculous.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *8-Ball*
> 
> Ads are really something these days. Sometimes they take up an entire page. You can't proceed until you click on it. Or you have to fill out a survey. It's ridiculous.


Agreed. I want to support sites that need the ad revenue, but when site use full page adds, click to continue, or those (insert bad word here) ads with audio/video that start playing and you can't figure out where in the ever loving hell on the page its coming from and it starts playing right over whatever else you might be listening, that's when I've had enough.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aludka*
> 
> You make a very valid point. Legitimate owners of digital media have to jump through hoop to use the media they paid for. And god forbid you want to consume it on a different device. Pirates on the other hand don't have to. It's ridiculous.


The right way is often the hard way. People who work legitimate jobs have to work a lot harder to get their money than someone who just steals someones money. Ridiculous isn't the right R word... Reality maybe???


----------



## Mygaffer

I wouldn't mind turning off adblocking for a site, like OCN, but I also use NoScript for the security and I've found unless you allow everything most sites, like Forbes, will still act as if you are blocking their ads. If I have to allow all of these sites to run whatever plugins they want than no deal.


----------



## Omega X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrzev*
> 
> For those crazy enough to read through all of these comments.... I am glad that someone is doing this. There users are doing nothing illegal by using adblock, but its kinda like going to an ice cream shop, trying a few flavors and leaving having no intention of buying anything. Not illegal, but ...yeah... rude. At the same time... if you got food poisoning from that place... it would feel 10x worse if you had PAYED for the food that made you sick.
> 
> I am intestested in seeing how this pans out. adblock is getting worse and worse and companies need to do something. At the same time... sites that only have 1 paragraph of text with a next page leading to 10 pages where 80% of the page is ads... not cool either. Then there is the security aspect, which seems like there should be repercussions if your site has some malware on it. Either way... it feels like this is a step towards an understanding. This is not some problem that can or should be held in a courtroom, but an unwritten agreement with society. There needs to be an accepted norm.


Its not rude when the Ice Cream shop intentionally puts its samples out for everyone to try. Its even less rude once you find out the ice cream had roaches on it. Can't enjoy the flavor once you notice the vermin.

Adblock is not getting worse. Ad companies are getting worse. On top of that, they are not heeding the words of people who consume the media. People look for solutions when they are presented with a problem. This time the problem is unruly ads that inject malware and disrupt the user and track them across the web claiming to personalize the experience. On top of that, website owners are not curating the ad networks that they use. Its just fill in all of the blank spaces with graffiti, and tell the user "tough luck". Well now the user can do what it has to since they can't be bothered.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Omega X*
> 
> Its not rude when the Ice Cream shop intentionally puts its samples out for everyone to try. Its even less rude once you find out the ice cream had roaches on it. Can't enjoy the flavor once you notice the vermin.
> 
> Adblock is not getting worse. Ad companies are getting worse. On top of that, they are not heeding the words of people who consume the media. People look for solutions when they are presented with a problem. This time the problem is unruly ads that inject malware and disrupt the user and track them across the web claiming to personalize the experience. On top of that, website owners are not curating the ad networks that they use. Its just fill in all of the blank spaces with graffiti, and tell the user "tough luck". Well now the user can do what it has to since they can't be bothered.


I find it particularly interesting that you don't see the irony here.

Ad companies are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.
They're struggling for revenue because Ablock is getting //BETTER// at blocking adds.
Thus, there's no reason to heed the words of consumers because if they don't make enough money to survive, they'll have no consumers.
Thus, this is their solution.

See the cycle yet?

One begets the other. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Tippy

I don't mind disabling adblock for sites that have relatively non-intrusive ads, please no annoying/distracting ads is all I ask for. Otherwise it stays on.


----------



## bigjdubb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> *I wouldn't mind turning off adblocking for a site, like OCN*, but I also use NoScript for the security and I've found unless you allow everything most sites, like Forbes, will still act as if you are blocking their ads. If I have to allow all of these sites to run whatever plugins they want than no deal.


I do, but I wouldn't have a problem making a yearly donation.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I find it particularly interesting that you don't see the irony here.
> 
> *Ad companies are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.*
> They're struggling for revenue because Ablock is getting //BETTER// at blocking adds.
> Thus, there's no reason to heed the words of consumers because if they don't make enough money to survive, they'll have no consumers.
> Thus, this is their solution.
> 
> See the cycle yet?
> 
> One begets the other. Can't have it both ways.


The online advertising market is not struggling. It has been consistently growing and is set to overtake television advertising in a few years.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigjdubb*
> 
> The online advertising market is not struggling. It has been consistently growing and is set to overtake television advertising in a few years.


That doesn't say the on line advertising market is struggling, does it?

They THEY'RE is referring to the websites that get the revenue FROM the online advertising markets ARE struggling. Thus, the cycle continues.


----------



## Dienz

Can someone please edumacate me:

How the hell can companies tell when you're blocking an ad? Is there a way to circumvent that 'block signature' and keep on blocking ads willy-nilly without them knowing?


----------



## Pip Boy

I would pay $1 -$2 a year to use a website I really like.

If the website is small but popular then that could net a web owner something like 50k -60k a year if its much larger then much more $$ . Which for a bunch of html and code periodically updated that's a good equivalent salary for sitting on their ass most of the day. I would allow them ONE ad as a supplement but no more or I would un-sub. For those pre-laid out sites with recycled content and non original but photo shopped images with vague new stories with no content I can't see how they should be able to sit there and rake money in when everyone else has to bust their ass working 40 - 70hrs a week in the real world.

you get the feeling a lot of websites are staring to expect too much, its not a new medium or a particularly fast advancing one. If you took a Forum instead of a news site and removed content created by the users .. then all your left with is probably an occasional article or two and the costs of hosting the site with the structure and forms already in place static for many years, moderation is often carried out by ardent fans of the site. A lot of sites are sort of created and sustained by the user content.

It might not be popular but it seems the entire digital revolution is being predicated on the idea of "harvesting" data and reselling it back. Be it smart phones, devices or ads on internet sites. The consumer wants a product not a stream of nothing .. last time i checked my products didn't actually get any better with all this new marketing information









_If sites want to make money off ad revenue selling customer data AND customer sales for subscription they can pay sales TAX just like a normal company has too._


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> That doesn't say the on line advertising market is struggling, does it?
> 
> They THEY'RE is referring to the websites that get the revenue FROM the online advertising markets ARE struggling. Thus, the cycle continues.


I got off work today and Just spent an hour doing my diligence. You were not in the other 3 ad blocking threads. I apologize.


----------



## adamkatt

So this is just another site I can add to my Adblock list of "Do not visit" lol

As a website owner myself, Ads are old. If you have loyal viewers a simple donation button will be way more then any ad can get you.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> Ad companies are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.


Evidence, please. I don't see ad agencies going out of business, their stocks going down, or their boards declaring losses.


----------



## Omega X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I find it particularly interesting that you don't see the irony here.
> 
> Ad companies are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.
> They're struggling for revenue because Ablock is getting //BETTER// at blocking adds.
> Thus, there's no reason to heed the words of consumers because if they don't make enough money to survive, they'll have no consumers.
> Thus, this is their solution.
> 
> See the cycle yet?
> 
> One begets the other. Can't have it both ways.


What's interesting is that the cycle started with the abuse of ads from those very same people who are now complaining that people are blocking their ads.

The cycle is easy to see:

1. Users get tired of abusive ads.

2. Users install adblocking.

3. Users contribute to adblocking crowdsourced project.

Rinse and repeat.

There is no solution if you're blocking adblock. There's a filter for that.

The solution is finding better ways to increase the value of your content even if that means creating better content and not rely on injecting malware into the page. Plenty of publications have went that route and they're still around.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> Evidence, please. I don't see ad agencies going out of business, their stocks going down, or their boards declaring losses.


The THEY'RE in that context is in reference to the publisher.

I thought that was quite clear.


----------



## hatlesschimp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> I'm pretty sure I do pay a monthly fee for the ability to browse the internet. I'm also pretty sure no ad company pays me to use "my" internet that I paid good money for. Maybe corporations should pay me for the privilege of advertising to me.


companies should pay you to watch TV. Lol


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hatlesschimp*
> 
> companies should pay you to watch TV. Lol


They don't have to pay me, but if they want me to watch their ads, they better provide me something. I'm no fat cat. I can't support a pack of leeches.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> The THEY'RE in that context is in reference to the publisher.
> 
> I thought that was quite clear.


Ad agencies are getting worse because software publishers are struggling for revenue? I'm not sure how that works.

One, the ad agency can advertise anything, they don't need the software industry. They aren't going to go out on a limb like that for a fraction of their demand base.

Two, software publishers are doing just fine. EA, ActiBlizzard, NCSoft, all of them are making healthy profit. One or two of the big names have had some slight dips in profit, but in the vast majority of such cases that has taken their margins from ludicrous to merely fat.

Edit: While I only mention game publishers, business software is in an even better position financially.


----------



## davepk

If i'm going to be cajoled into paying for a subscription its not going to be the one they (AD foisting ass hats) hoped for.

I would gladly pay for a subscription to a plugin/service that lets me view any site i care to visit AD free.

Thankfully i get that, for the most part, for free currently.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> I wouldn't mind turning off adblocking for a site, like OCN, but I also use NoScript for the security and I've found unless you allow everything most sites, like Forbes, will still act as if you are blocking their ads. If I have to allow all of these sites to run whatever plugins they want than no deal.


Actually, last time I browsed OCN with Javascript enabled (about a year ago) it was one of the worst sites I've come across. Full video ads with audio.
I actually can't visit this site with some mobile devices because it takes up something like 10 Megabytes per page.


----------



## brownbob06

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Actually, last time I browsed OCN with Javascript enabled (about a year ago) it was one of the worst sites I've come across. Full video ads with audio.
> I actually can't visit this site with some mobile devices because it takes up something like 10 Megabytes per page.


Really? When I visit on mobile I only get a banner ad, a footer ad, and an ad on the sidebar. Nothing intrusive. At least not on mobile. It is a bit of a pain in the behind to accidentally click on the big wallpaper ad on desktop, but nothing intrusive, just close the window and move on with my life.

HOWEVER, OC has adapted somewhat to other revenue streams like Artisans, and allowing vendors to sell here (all of which I believe pay for the privilege).

I'll say again, ads aren't a viable revenue source. It's not up to the consumers to come up with alternate revenue streams. That's the company's obligation.

Frankly, I think Wired is trying to do just that. Yes it's unpopular, and may fail miserably, but at least they're trying I suppose. Them saying that they're going to see how it works says to me that they're open to change and other ideas, which is the way it should be.


----------



## amd-dude

Huh, didn't even know that they still existed. Good luck with that one, unless you all are going to be bringing some serious exclusives/interviews.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> I personally think Ad blocks software went a bit too far on blocking.
> 
> If all the ad blocking only block ads that contains
> 
> Video/audio
> Animated flash/html5
> 
> only allow static image. No popups etc. I want an internet like this.


we had that.

then advertisers found it wasn't as good as bugging the hell out of users.

so that's why adblock exists today.

because users had enough of that crap.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> Ad agencies are getting worse because software publishers are struggling for revenue? I'm not sure how that works.
> 
> One, the ad agency can advertise anything, they don't need the software industry. They aren't going to go out on a limb like that for a fraction of their demand base.
> 
> Two, software publishers are doing just fine. EA, ActiBlizzard, NCSoft, all of them are making healthy profit. One or two of the big names have had some slight dips in profit, but in the vast majority of such cases that has taken their margins from ludicrous to merely fat.
> 
> Edit: While I only mention game publishers, business software is in an even better position financially.


No.

Wrong.

News publishers. New York Times. CNN. IGN. etc. PUBLISHERS.

You know the websites you visit that actually have the ads on them provided by the agencies?

Where have you been the last 5/6 pages?


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> No.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> News publishers. New York Times. CNN. IGN. etc. PUBLISHERS.
> 
> You know the websites you visit that actually have the ads on them provided by the agencies?
> 
> Where have you been the last 5/6 pages?


I just went through the last 6 pages. Outside of a forced analogy to newspapers that your reply can't really be applied to, nobody has really been talking about news publishers. Are you sure you didn't cross your threads somewhere?


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> I just went through the last 6 pages. Outside of a forced analogy to newspapers that your reply can't really be applied to, nobody has really been talking about news publishers. Are you sure you didn't cross your threads somewhere?


What's the thread about? A NEWS PUBLISHER REQUIRING A SUBSCRIPTION.

What else could the context of the thread POSSIBLY be about?

Abortion publishers? No. Ad agencies? No.

Hrmmmmm, game websites? DING DING DING.

What are they? P U B L I S H E R S.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> What's the thread about? A NEWS PUBLISHER REQUIRING A SUBSCRIPTION.
> 
> What else could the context of the thread POSSIBLY be about?
> 
> Abortion publishers? No. Ad agencies? No.
> 
> Hrmmmmm, game websites? DING DING DING.
> 
> What are they? P U B L I S H E R S.


Wired isn't a news publisher. It just rehashes what other people have already reported. It is a parrot site. This is about a web site, not some huge publishing house. Every site like Wired could disappear in an instant, and ad agencies as well as the internet would barely notice.

News publishers. Seriously?


----------



## brownbob06

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I find it particularly interesting that you don't see the irony here.
> 
> *Ad companies* are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.
> They're struggling for revenue because Ablock is getting //BETTER// at blocking adds.
> Thus, there's no reason to heed the words of consumers because if they don't make enough money to survive, they'll have no consumers.
> Thus, this is their solution.
> 
> See the cycle yet?
> 
> One begets the other. Can't have it both ways.


Stop trying to argue that you said publishers or that you were referring to news outlets. You very clearly said ad companies. Not News Outlets, not publishers, Not authors, not hosts, but Ad companies.

The only reasonable conclusion to your statement is that you're talking about ad agencies. "Ad companies" are not publishers, news outlets, or content creators.

In print publications the news outlet may be responsible for finding people to pay them to allow them to advertise in their publications. But in digital publications an ad agency puts ads on a company's site and the company makes money from those ads (whether it be through ppc or whatever). They are two completely different models. The only thing similar is that they are advertising businesses outside of their own, the way they do that and get paid for it are two different things.

The fact of the matter is that software doesn't become popular unless it solves a real problem. The problem, in this case, was invasive advertising. Thanks to that, content creators now have the privelege (sarcasm intended) of finding different ways to monetize their sites. They can't do that by saying "look at our ads or don't visit the site at all."


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brownbob06*
> 
> Stop trying to argue that you said publishers or that you were referring to news outlets. You very clearly said ad companies. Not News Outlets, not publishers, Not authors, not hosts, but Ad companies.
> 
> The only reasonable conclusion to your statement is that you're talking about ad agencies. "Ad companies" are not publishers, news outlets, or content creators.
> 
> In print publications the news outlet may be responsible for finding people to pay them to allow them to advertise in their publications. But in digital publications an ad agency puts ads on a company's site and the company makes money from those ads (whether it be through ppc or whatever). They are two completely different models. The only thing similar is that they are advertising businesses outside of their own, the way they do that and get paid for it are two different things.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that software doesn't become popular unless it solves a real problem. The problem, in this case, was invasive advertising. Thanks to that, content creators now have the privelege (sarcasm intended) of finding different ways to monetize their sites. They can't do that by saying "look at our ads or don't visit the site at all."


In it's context, that post is directly quoting a post about the news source.

The ads are present on the news source.

From now on, I'll ELY5 because apparently that's necessary due to context.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> Wired isn't a news publisher. It just rehashes what other people have already reported. It is a parrot site. This is about a web site, not some huge publishing house. Every site like Wired could disappear in an instant, and ad agencies as well as the internet would barely notice.
> 
> News publishers. Seriously?


CNN parrots. NYT parrots. Welcome to the industry.

News is news. Parroted or not.


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> I am against a lot of things companies do with advertising, but it's not like they are making you pay the $4 a month. You wither pay or stop blocking the ads. They are giving you a choice.


They do not have the power to give that choice







there are many ways to go about it, and giving ultimatums to people they don't have control over is not the best.

I won't pay and you literally can't stop me from blocking ads, unless you want to make your website private, then you can do whatever you please.

Asking viewers to turn off ad blocker is different than saying "either pay or unblock"


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> I won't pay and you literally can't stop me from blocking ads, *unless you want to make your website private, then you can do whatever you please.*


This is essentially what they're doing anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see all membership-only websites in the next few years.


----------



## Ithanul

I really never seen this anti ad blocker pop ups. I tend to keep java and flash disabled then have no script pretty much nuke everything else. So no flashy annoying ads for me.








I don't trust crap on web pages especially ads. I tend to keep the browser on lock down.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> CNN parrots. NYT parrots. Welcome to the industry.
> 
> News is news. Parroted or not.


Parrots aren't publishers, even in the news industry.


----------



## Fyrwulf

The only time I go on Wired is when somebody here links it. I'd rather go to MaximumPC or another real tech magazine that is gracious enough to post some of its content for free. And really, things like AdBlocker were created because people were sick of the epilepsy-inducing banner ads and popups. So what did these advertising people do? They made their advertisements even more obnoxious and insidious. My operating theory is that if it looked like real professionals designed the ads instead of a group of technically literate grade schoolers, not to mention web designers showing some restraint in their placement, people wouldn't be bothered by ads.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *alphabet*
> 
> I won't pay and you literally can't stop me from blocking ads, *unless you want to make your website private, then you can do whatever you please.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is essentially what they're doing anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see all membership-only websites in the next few years.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with your analysis, but if they did then I forsee moar of said sites shutting down as most are not needed and not worth paying for, most of the whiners are small sites with what imo is unrealistic schemes about how they should be funded


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I find it particularly interesting that you don't see the irony here.
> 
> Ad companies are getting worse because they're struggling for revenue.
> They're struggling for revenue because Ablock is getting //BETTER// at blocking adds.
> Thus, there's no reason to heed the words of consumers because if they don't make enough money to survive, they'll have no consumers.
> Thus, this is their solution.
> 
> See the cycle yet?
> 
> One begets the other. Can't have it both ways.


Is Google an ad company?


http://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/


----------



## brownbob06

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> In it's context, that post is directly quoting a post about the news source.
> 
> The ads are present on the news source.
> 
> From now on, I'll ELY5 because apparently that's necessary due to context.
> CNN parrots. NYT parrots. Welcome to the industry.
> 
> News is news. Parroted or not.


"
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> In the words of Masked... WRONG
> 
> 
> http://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/


Apparently you haven't read his responses where he says that in the context of the thread "ad companies" meant "publishers," not actual ad companies.... Then continued to berate others because he explicitly stated "ad companies" and people called him out on it.

I think it's clear, and I'm going to agree with Masked on this one because it's a fun position to take. Anytime a company is struggling, they should demand things of their customers and customers should bow to those demands. It's not the company's fault that they're failing, it's the consumer's, and we're all going to wish we had done what they asked.


----------



## 2010rig

You're right, the companies best interests, are not as important as ours. I'm going to disable Adaway on my phone,and remove ABP from Chrome.

The Internet is better with ads, especially if they deliver Malware too. Bonus!

My life would never be the same without sites like Wired.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> Not that I agree with your analysis, but if they did then I forsee moar of said sites shutting down *as most are not needed and not worth paying for, most of the whiners are small sites* with what imo is unrealistic schemes about how they should be funded


Exactly. When was the last time you heard sites such as Techpowerup, TechReport, PCPer and the like complain about too many people blocking their ads? Yup thought so.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> You're right, the companies best interests, are not as important as ours. I'm going to disable Adaway on my phone,and remove ABP from Chrome.
> 
> The Internet is better with ads, especially if they deliver Malware too. Bonus!
> 
> My life would never be the same without sites like Wired.


is this the time when someone mentions how perfect your avatar is?


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> Not that I agree with your analysis, but if they did then I forsee moar of said sites shutting down as most are not needed and not worth paying for, most of the whiners are small sites with what imo is unrealistic schemes about how they should be funded


That's generally how a free market system works though. The ones that survive will be the ones that have unique content that the majority of consumers have shown they are willing to pay for. We just need to look back at an old gaming news hub like DailyRadar to see what will happen. DR couldn't survive on the slashed CPMs at the time, so they were forced to close shop. The websites of today that can't survive on ads alone will have to switch to a subscription only model (or at least one with the majority of content locked down). If they don't put out quality content worth paying for, they will be forced to close down as well.

A few industries (such as College Football recruiting/scouting websites) have already gone to this model with great success. In the CFB Recruiting website scene, only 247, ESPN, Scout, and Rivals remain.

(Edited because OCN submitted my post before I was finished)


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> is this the time when someone mentions how perfect your avatar is?


Lol









I've tried replacing it, but just can't find something better. It serves its purpose time and time again


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brownbob06*
> 
> "
> Apparently you haven't read his responses where he says that in the context of the thread "ad companies" meant "publishers," not actual ad companies.... Then continued to berate others because he explicitly stated "ad companies" and people called him out on it.
> 
> I think it's clear, and I'm going to agree with Masked on this one because it's a fun position to take. Anytime a company is struggling, they should demand things of their customers and customers should bow to those demands. It's not the company's fault that they're failing, it's the consumer's, and we're all going to wish we had done what they asked.


No, that's not what I said.

I said the they're is in reference to the news outlets. IE the publishers.

This thread revolves around a news outlet and it's loss of revenue due to adblocker.

In it's context, in response to what I was actually commenting on it reads like this:

Ad companies are getting worse because [the news outlets] are struggling for revenue.

I posted this twice, actually before you commented. Post #'s 193 and 200.

What I find sad, is you'll attempt to insult and berate me, without reading the previous information in the thread and/or remotely attempt to understand it's context...

Sig.


----------



## WorldExclusive

This can't survive so long as Google Search is free.
We'll find our info elsewhere.


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> I said the they're is in reference to the news outlets. IE the publishers.


Publishing is the act of producing and disseminating information. Please provide evidence that Wired.com originally produces 50.1+% of their content or stop using the term publisher so speciously.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> Publishing is the act of producing and disseminating information. Please provide evidence that Wired.com originally produces 50.1+% of their content or stop using the term publisher so speciously.


...You don't have to produce the majority content to be a publisher. Sorry.

You've never had to.

Simply licensing the original and giving credit allows to you publicly publish that material.

Just like my posts are PUBLISHED because I'm offering them forth as content with your PUBLISHED content put in place by fair use.

Just to cleanse the ignorance:
Quote:


> publisher
> [puhb-li-sher]
> 
> noun
> 1.
> a person or company whose business is the publishing of books, *periodicals*, engravings, computer software, etc.
> 2.
> the business head of a newspaper organization or publishing house, commonly the owner or the representative of the owner.
> 
> publish
> [puhb-lish]
> 
> Synonyms
> Examples
> Word Origin
> 
> verb (used with object)
> 1.
> to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
> 2.
> to issue publicly the work of:
> Random House publishes Faulkner.
> 3.
> *to submit (content) online, as to a message board or blog: I published a comment on her blog post with examples from my own life.
> They publish a new webcomic once a month.*
> 4.
> to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
> 5.
> *to make publicly or generally known.*


This is one argument, you're not going to win considering fair use, licensing and distribution.

Legally speaking, Wired doesn't have to own the original content, all that's required is they give proper credit. They therefor are a publisher.

Anything else?


----------



## Chakravant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> ...You don't have to produce the majority content to be a publisher. Sorry.
> 
> You've never had to.
> 
> Simply licensing the original and giving credit allows to you publicly publish that material.
> 
> Just like my posts are PUBLISHED because I'm offering them forth as content with your PUBLISHED content put in place by fair use.
> 
> Just to cleanse the ignorance:
> This is one argument, you're not going to win considering fair use, licensing and distribution.
> 
> Legally speaking, Wired doesn't have to own the original content, all that's required is they give proper credit. They therefor are a publisher.
> 
> Anything else?


Publishing is defined by the OALD (alas, I no longer have direct access to an OED) as the profession or business of preparing and printing books, magazines, CD-ROMs, etc. and selling or making them available to the public. Notice the purely material nature of these properties. We will go further and provide the OALD definition of publisher.

A person or company that prepares and issues books, journals, music, or other works for sale

Note here not only the physicality (outside of playing fast and loose with "music" and trying to point out digital sales) of these properties but the for sale directive.

Wired.com prepares nothing. They take what has already been prepared. They do not sell any material thing. They issue mostly other people's works. They're not the AP. They're not Reuters. They're not even TMZ.com. They're not publishers.


----------



## MattyMatt

Good luck with that Wired. How long before ad blockers have scripts to block your anti ad block? A day?


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chakravant*
> 
> Wired.com prepares nothing. They take what has already been prepared. They do not sell any material thing. They issue mostly other people's works. They're not the AP. They're not Reuters. They're not even TMZ.com. They're not publishers.


So, firstly that definition is dated - It actually changed when you know, the internet happened.

Secondly, do they put forth the content in a setting by which there is traffic and give the original creator, credit?

Than they are, by law, publishing that content and are therefor, regardless of Oxford's dated definition, publishers.

Sorry.


----------



## Zatarra09

The quality of the average internet article is often so low that I find googling the topic and reading different sources more valuable than wading through several pages of incorrectly stated information. Wired articles are not a gold standard of information, they have no monopoly on the product (like your local cable company!) and there are too many sources of information.
Perhaps they aren't as low quality as yahoo 'news', but they aren't NASA whitepapers either.

Whenever I encounter a paywall at such websites, I simply never go back.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Masked*
> 
> Legally speaking, Wired doesn't have to own the original content, all that's required is they give proper credit. They therefor are a publisher.
> 
> Anything else?


That's awesome, so their lame threat of "view our content without an ad blocker" really holds NO substance.

People will just go straight to the source, or to anyone else who "published" that article.


----------



## Mrzev

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Omega X*
> 
> Its not rude when the Ice Cream shop intentionally puts its samples out for everyone to try. Its even less rude once you find out the ice cream had roaches on it. Can't enjoy the flavor once you notice the vermin.
> 
> Adblock is not getting worse. Ad companies are getting worse. On top of that, they are not heeding the words of people who consume the media. People look for solutions when they are presented with a problem. This time the problem is unruly ads that inject malware and disrupt the user and track them across the web claiming to personalize the experience. On top of that, website owners are not curating the ad networks that they use. Its just fill in all of the blank spaces with graffiti, and tell the user "tough luck". Well now the user can do what it has to since they can't be bothered.


But your analogy applies that because 1 ice cream shop has rodents, they all do. And in your analogy, you stop going to get ice cream because they have rodents. If you stopped because of 1, yeah that hurts everyone, but you grabbing free samples costs them money, and ice cream shop #2 did nothing wrong.

The # of users using Adblock is increasing. That itself means that adblock is getting worse. The more they are in the news, the more it grows. You no longer have 1-2 options for adblock, there is an assortment of them. There are now even adblocks that are starting to whitelist pre-screened ads so that people can actually use adblock as a seacurity feature and not as means to avoid advertisements. That is growth. These would not exist if there was not a demand for this.

Why do people use adblocker? If people want free content with no strings attached, sites need to operate based on donations and beg like Wikipedia has to do every year (not a stab a wikipedia, i love them). The only other monetary source from ads and donations is subscription which is what wired is doing. You could say Sponsors, but being payed by the companies of the stuff your reviewing is a very slippery slope with trust to the readers.... look at youtube.


----------



## Masked

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrzev*
> 
> Why do people use adblocker? If people want free content with no strings attached, sites need to operate based on donations and beg like Wikipedia has to do every year (not a stab a wikipedia, i love them). The only other monetary source from ads and donations is subscription which is what wired is doing. You could say Sponsors, but being payed by the companies of the stuff your reviewing is a very slippery slope with trust to the readers.... look at youtube.


Couldn't have said it better, myself.


----------



## 2010rig

There are other ways to make money from a website, other than just being solely reliant on ads.







Displaying ads along with your content just takes minimalist effort. Stop being lazy and get creative.


----------



## KYKYLLIKA

Plaintext-only ads are the only reasonable way out.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrzev*
> 
> Why do people use adblocker?


Simple.

We use it because malicious code via "advertisements" is an extremely huge problem. Advertisers, and the websites that use them, made no attempt to secure their advertisement methods. Nor did they make any attempt to make the ads non-intrusive.

Ad blocking software was created as a response to the problems the advertisement industry created themselves. It is completely wrong for a website/advertiser to expect a person to risk physical and/or financial loss by visiting their website.


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PostalTwinkie*
> 
> Simple.
> 
> We use it because malicious code via "advertisements" is an extremely huge problem. Advertisers, and the websites that use them, made no attempt to secure their advertisement methods. Nor did they make any attempt to make the ads non-intrusive.
> 
> Ad blocking software was created as a response to the problems the advertisement industry created themselves. It is completely wrong for a website/advertiser to expect a person to risk physical and/or financial loss by visiting their website.


I'd wager most adblock users use it because they just flat out don't want to see any ads--not specifically because those ads are malicious.


----------



## bigjdubb

I use it because those ads might be malicious, if I wasn't worried about the ads I wouldn't care. I am not going to intentionally click on them but without ad blockers it can happen by accident and the ad blocker keeps that from happening (most of the time at least). If the websites want me to turn it off then they need to start doing a better job providing safe unobtrusive ads.


----------



## Danzle

I'm reading tech new for a while now, but never have i heard of "wired".







I wonder how long they will survive or how long till they realise that one can't block the people that really want the goodies without ads.


----------



## BoredErica

I am willing to whitelist a site for news if the site produces the best news articles. I have a pretty negative opinion of most news sites though.

Speaking of ads, while I'm on UESP (yeah, not a news site), I keep adblock off because... I kindda like seeing the clothing ads from JCP, lol. So yeah, if every site changes their ads to cute clothing ads, I'd keep adblock off.


----------



## Diffident

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MattyMatt*
> 
> Good luck with that Wired. How long before ad blockers have scripts to block your anti ad block? A day?


Here is an Anti-Adblock killer extension on GitHub. It works in Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and is compatible with Adblock, Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin.


----------



## Ninjastryk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diffident*
> 
> Here is an Anti-Adblock killer extension on GitHub. It works in Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and is compatible with Adblock, Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin.


Thanks!


----------



## Bloodbath

I wouldnt use an adblocker if the ads werent so invasive and annoying, by allowing ad agencies to use these strategies they have made their own bed as far as Im concerned.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diffident*
> 
> Here is an Anti-Adblock killer extension on GitHub. It works in Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari and is compatible with Adblock, Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin.












that was easy


----------



## opi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JKuhn*
> 
> Exactly. I'm all for supporting the makers, but this (and also the DRM on modern games) is a matter of "let's punish the people who buy our stuff". I refuse to buy a game that I can't play (that also goes for being able to play off-line).
> 
> Local movies often aren't that bad though.


Local movies are worse. Around here they average 20 mins (no exxageration) of trailers and other crap. Whenever we went to the movies if it would start at 3:00 I would get in at 3:15. Actually it's rather nice if you know the trailer times. No lines at the food stands.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> I'd wager most adblock users use it because they just flat out don't want to see any ads--not specifically because those ads are malicious.


This is the truth. I would bet a large percentage of all my money without worry, that the huge majority use it so they won't have to view it.

However, an adblocker is required if you ever partake in the viewing of nekked peoples. In regards to ads, those sites are the definition of a cesspool. And adblock is your level A grade Hazmat suit.


----------



## Rickles

ads... I all these years I've been calling them aids.


----------



## Mega Man




----------



## JKuhn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opi*
> 
> Local movies are worse. Around here they average 20 mins (no exxageration) of trailers and other crap. Whenever we went to the movies if it would start at 3:00 I would get in at 3:15. Actually it's rather nice if you know the trailer times. No lines at the food stands.
> This is the truth. I would bet a large percentage of all my money without worry, that the huge majority use it so they won't have to view it.
> 
> However, an adblocker is required if you ever partake in the viewing of nekked peoples. In regards to ads, those sites are the definition of a cesspool. And adblock is your level A grade Hazmat suit.


I don't know how long the trailers are locally if you go to the movies, I just know that our DVDs are normally not that bad.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

I'm
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> Obviously they are: most of these sites are going to switch to a subscription service and offer zero free content. For example, Vessel has shown its worth as a premium content alternative to Youtube.


Vessel has ads.

https://support.vessel.com/hc/en-us/articles/203517465-Why-Paying-Subscribers-See-Ads


----------



## Silent Scone

Can I just say, I've never read Wired. This is one less reason to do so.


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I'm
> Vessel has ads.
> 
> https://support.vessel.com/hc/en-us/articles/203517465-Why-Paying-Subscribers-See-Ads


Must be for the lower Tier producers since the majority of them have zero additional ads. Yes, I the top 70% of those producers on that site are my clients. The fact still remains that there is a lessening of ads or a subscription service in existence for the website.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> Must be for the lower Tier producers since the majority of them have zero additional ads. Yes, I the top 70% of those producers on that site are my clients. The fact still remains that there is a lessening of ads or a subscription service in existence for the website.


I don't know, would LinusTechTips be a "lower tier producer"?


----------



## Mega Man

yes they are !~


----------



## Bryst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> does this remind people of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> * this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


I remember when DVDs first came about one of the biggest things that people seemed to use to push getting them was the fact that you didnt have to watch any trailers, you could just skip right to the menu and start watching. Then somewhere along the line that disappeared and you started seeing unskippable tracks.


----------



## Mega Man

i remember both as well. i was so mad the first unskippable one i found, i also remember easter eggs and taking the time to search for them lol ...


----------



## Johnatan8

Shameless ! Will they guarantee non malicious adds? What do they expect from us? To make ourselves vulnerable just because their "precious content".


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I don't know, would LinusTechTips be a "lower tier producer"?


On Vessel, yes, since not as many people signed up for the subscription service using his referral code.

EDIT: Kind of crazy how they were paying a $50 CPM plus 40% sub fee cut.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> On Vessel, yes, since not as many people signed up for the subscription service using his referral code.
> 
> EDIT: Kind of crazy how they were paying a $50 CPM plus 40% sub fee cut.


Linus is pretty much the only reason I use the site.


----------



## edgy436

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> Linus is pretty much the only reason I use the site.


He puts out some nice videos for the need-it-simplified crowd, but you yourself only using Vessel for LTT vids doesn't make what I said invalid.

Anyway, I think we're getting a little off-topic. The facts are that these tech websites (or any website in general) needs to find a new revenue stream if the majority of their users are using adblock. Moving to a paywalled service is one method of securing new revenue.


----------



## Danzle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edgy436*
> 
> He puts out some nice videos for the need-it-simplified crowd, but you yourself only using Vessel for LTT vids doesn't make what I said invalid.
> 
> Anyway, I think we're getting a little off-topic. The facts are that these tech websites (or any website in general) needs to find a new revenue stream if the majority of their users are using adblock. Moving to a paywalled service is one method of securing new revenue.


The LTT forum has that nice donation system. May not be sufficient enough to pay for everything but it is a start without killing the site.


----------



## Mega Man

and if a site like LTT can make it, then most can, on a donation system


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> and if a site like LTT can make it, then most can, on a donation system


Not necessarily, I think that has little to do with the site itself and more to do with what Linus has done with the channel. Say what you will about the mans technical knowledge, but in my estimations his channel is a great deal better than the majority. His marketing tact on a consumer to consumer basis works a lot better than most others, who tend to focus on the finer details, whilst not really knowing what they are talking about. More consumers can relate to the former.


----------



## clerick

I'm an animator who makes a living due to ads on youtube with ads, and as far as i know the ads on youtube are far tamer and won't give you malware like a lot of sites (including wired). That being said i don't like ads either and if my patreon keeps going well i hope one day to run my site/youtube without any ads.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I have ad blocker installed, but almost always have it disabled. I only use it when some ad is misbehaving on certain sites, and I will enable ad blocking only for that site. It's the fair and considerate thing to do.


you are so noble


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> and if a site like LTT can make it, then most can, on a donation system


Hell Wikipedia has 0 ads and manages just fine on donations.

As you mentioned before, the sites whining about adblocking killing their revenue stream are mostly small sites that are unrealistic about their funding expectations. I'm gonna go a step further and say the whining sties are mostly worthless clickbait/repost sites that provide very little added value anyway, thus no big loss if they cease operations.


----------



## BoredErica

The traffic LTT has is huge. Most people can't do that.


----------



## Diffident

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *./Cy4n1d3\.*
> 
> I don't know, would LinusTechTips be a "lower tier producer"?


Does anyone take Linus seriously? I watched in disbelief as he fried 3 motherboards and a CPU trying to build a pfsense router.


----------



## Mega Man

Did you see the freenas he built...


----------



## alphabet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diffident*
> 
> Does anyone take Linus seriously? I watched in disbelief as he fried 3 motherboards and a CPU trying to build a pfsense router.


It's easy to herd sheep


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> does this remind people of this ?
> 
> 
> 
> * this is just an example i do not in any way support pirating !!!!!


Semi-Pro tip?

When you launch a movie via disk, when it starts, hit stop, stop, and then play. 99% of the time it will skip right to the menu, and skip all the warnings. Don't eject, don't pause, hit Stop, and then when it stops, do it again.


----------



## Mega Man

Hmm I'll remember that thanks, atm I just rip a movie to my Nas the moment I buy it


----------



## MDalton10

Rofl, the industry abused ads and now they want to cry.


----------



## ./Cy4n1d3\.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diffident*
> 
> Does anyone take Linus seriously? I watched in disbelief as he fried 3 motherboards and a CPU trying to build a pfsense router.


When you are making as much content as he is, and with little hardware news, he has to fill it in with various segments. I really enjoy it. It's tech related, and his sense of humor really tickles my gobble.


----------



## Mega Man

tech related, ? he is only the biggest corsair fanboi ever...... and i have never seen such poor advice, he has destroyed good psu companies putting out false info, and i see all sorts of false info put out by him, and again his freenas build...... *shudders **


----------



## codejunki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> tech related, ? he is only the biggest corsair fanboi ever...... and i have never seen such poor advice, he has destroyed good psu companies putting out false info, and i see all sorts of false info put out by him, and again his freenas build...... *shudders **


Well if you only get information from one place doesn't matter what type of news their are going to be inconsistencies.


----------



## SightUp

What is Wired?


----------



## MicroCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SightUp*
> 
> What is Wired?


A print-based tech-gossip/hip-trend magazine from the nineties. Had to block the ads manually with your hand.


----------



## xBlitzerx

Just read the tech news you want from Twitter. I'm not going to pay $5/mo for every site I frequent. That's crazy talk.


----------



## SightUp

This potentially has larger implications... If this is the first site to do it, and it doesn't die, we might be screwed. If other sites see that this option is viable for this site, the other sites will follow and we will need to soon pay to be on Overclock.net. Slippery slope. Let's hope this is the end for Wired.


----------



## Peter Nixeus

Some people, mostly those that do not have unlimited internet plans, use ad blockers to prevent pop-up ads/videos from using their bandwidth.


----------



## bonedancr

Just is not going to work. The idea of paying for rebroadcasted news with someone else's content skinned and shared in today's age and technology is just dumb. Innovate or die which is exactly what will happen to Wired.


----------



## Zero4549

Simply put, if people aren't willing to pay the price you ask for your product, _you_ must find a way to either reduce the cost or increase the value.

If your viewers aren't willing to view your intrusive and malicious ads, that's your problem. You must find a solution or you will suffer. No amount of throwing tantrums and trying to offload your responsibility onto your customers is going to help.

I'm glad Wired is finally done throwing tantrums and is now doing something about it instead of just complaining. WHAT they are doing is most likely a poor choice, considering they still offer very little value and still demand too high a cost, but that's their problem, and they will either learn from it or die off. I'm perfectly OK with either option.


----------



## xenomorph113

I only started using adblocking software about a year ago, it was 4am and the ads on a browser window i left open had cycled to new adds, then BOOM, crazy loud (must have been well over 150%-200% volume) "male enhancment" ad came on and woke me up, it wasnt a pr0n site or anything like that, come to think of it... i think it may have even been an ad on wired.com...... the next morning i installed an adblocker and have never looked back

i pay for my netflix, i donate to wikipedia every year and whitelist sites that i frequent (such as OCN), as i feel their content/service should be compensated, however auto-play ads can be a very dangerous thing, i cant even think of how many times ive had to "clean" friends and family computers from getting "drive-by" malware from something as simple as trying to google search a recipe or checking the news

im all for plain, non-audio/non-video ads (especially if you dont have an unlimited data internet service), but once they start slowing, highjacking or interrupting normal browsing, or worse infecting computers with malware thats where i draw the line


----------



## randomizer

I'm interested to see what they plan to do. Forbes makes an attempt at keeping ad blocking viewers off their site and it works some of the time. I don't see any indications of an ultimatum yet, and it's now "next week."


----------



## XAslanX

Had a free subscription to their physical magazine. It was pretty mediocre quality that when it arrived, it went straight into my recycling bin, so no loss to me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Peter Nixeus*
> 
> Some people, mostly those that do not have unlimited internet plans, use ad blockers to prevent pop-up ads/videos from using their bandwidth.


Exactly, when you have 5 people using a 300GB limited connection, you do all you can to keep bandwidth down, that includes ad blockers on all computers. Not to mention the security risk ads can impose, it's always nice to have that extra bit of protection to keep garbage out.


----------



## Faded

the thing is... those other sites that are the "alternatives" will reach the same conclusion... they will have all of these viewers, but can't make any money off of them because they all block the ads, which the sites use to stay in business...


----------



## Schoat333

Pissing off your readers is a good way to fade into irrelevance.

They are simply going at this from the wrong angle. If sites would do better controlling how ads get displayed, and how annoying they can be, people may stop using ad blockers so much.


----------



## Johnatan8

And how about that they pay us to watch their crappy malware/exploit/bandwidth consuming/extremely loud ads ?








There's no way that normal user will tolerate nervy ads.


----------



## RiverOfIce

Did they backtrack on this. Visiting wired gets the full website?

I also use noscript and ghostry.

Forbes still trys to shaft you.

Here is work around.

http://technewsreporter.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-bypass-websites-that-block-ad.html


----------



## axizor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RiverOfIce*
> 
> Did they backtrack on this. Visiting wired gets the full website?
> 
> I also use noscript and ghostry.
> 
> Forbes still trys to shaft you.
> 
> Here is work around.
> 
> http://technewsreporter.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-to-bypass-websites-that-block-ad.html


I use the Tampermonkey extension from that guide w/ Anti-Adblock + uBlock Origin on Chrome which I found works perfect on my main desktop. I find that uBlock Origin or Adblock Plus w/ Fanboy Ultimate List is generally all you really need. I prefer uBlock Origin since it is lighter on resources and has far more advanced options than ABP does.

Why use Ghostery? It was bought out by an advertising company who went on to make the code closed source. I prefer Disconnect, but with uBlock Origin, you don't even need it.


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XAslanX*
> 
> Exactly, when you have 5 people using a 300GB limited connection, you do all you can to keep bandwidth down, that includes ad blockers on all computers. Not to mention the security risk ads can impose, it's always nice to have that extra bit of protection to keep garbage out.


300GB, must be very nice. I mostly block ads because of the potential of viruses, but also because I am stuck on a the all so lovely 20GB cap I have.

Otherwise, I never bother going to Wired's website. They don't have anything worth a dang to read that not all ready regurgitated from other sites.


----------



## Omega X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faded*
> 
> the thing is... those other sites that are the "alternatives" will reach the same conclusion... they will have all of these viewers, but can't make any money off of them because they all block the ads, which the sites use to stay in business...


Reminds me of the current Oil Industry that many had to close down because oil got cheaper. That's where these "news" sites are headed when they all use the same terrible business model.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mrip541*
> 
> Im more than willing to support sites i believe in. I pay for a couple subscription sites even though i already get access for free through my job. All you entitled freeloaders are the reason we cant have nice things.


You don't seem to understand do let me clarify things.

The problem isnt ads, its the method of presentation. When you have several pop ups or full page ads that you have to go through or ones that start screaming at you full volume you get annoyed. This type of advertising ruins the browsing experience and even blocks you from accessing the content at times.

I use an ad blocker because of previously stated security, bandwidth, and experience concerns.

Tldr ; we dont want to be pummeled with ads, we dont mind them if theyre discrete, unintrusive, and tasteful.


----------



## Rayleyne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> You don't seem to understand do let me clarify things.
> 
> The problem isnt ads, its the method of presentation. When you have several pop ups or full page ads that you have to go through or ones that start screaming at you full volume you get annoyed. This type of advertising ruins the browsing experience and even blocks you from accessing the content at times.
> 
> I use an ad blocker because of previously stated security, bandwidth, and experience concerns.
> 
> Tldr ; we dont want to be pummeled with ads, we dont mind them if theyre discrete, unintrusive, and tasteful.


Speak for yourself, I don't tolerate any ads at all.


----------



## axizor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> Speak for yourself, I don't tolerate any ads at all.


I'm with this guy. There's no such thing as a "discrete, unintrusive, and tasteful" advertisement, lol. Not even if it was an or statement.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> Speak for yourself, I don't tolerate any ads at all.


That's perfectly fine aswell, but i dont believe that's the rule when it comes to ad block users and several in this thread have echoed my view. Ads really aren't a problem unless they make themselves a problem, which they often do.


----------



## axizor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> That's perfectly fine aswell, but i dont believe that's the rule when it comes to ad block users and several in this thread have echoed my view. Ads really aren't a problem unless they make themselves a problem, which they often do.


And when you think like this, you are going to be playing an un-winnable game managing whitelists, exceptions, and what you define to be an "acceptable ad." The adhosting server showing what one would consider "acceptable" can just as easily show an "unacceptable" one the next time. It's a never ending fight.


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axizor*
> 
> And when you think like this, you are going to be playing an un-winnable game managing whitelists, exceptions, and what you define to be an "acceptable ad." The adhosting server showing what one would consider "acceptable" can just as easily show an "unacceptable" one the next time. It's a never ending fight.


Never said i whitelist anything though, or anything about whitelists or unblocking certain sites. I said that advertising isnt a problem unless it makes itself one. Problem right now is that 90-95% of the time ads are a problem (full page, survey, etc.). I choose to simply block all ads for now till the idea of what's considered acceptable in advertising changes.


----------



## axizor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> I choose to simply block all ads for now till the idea of what's considered acceptable in advertising changes.


I like that idea but fear it may be too optimistic. I've only seen it getting worse.


----------



## Rayleyne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Never said i whitelist anything though, or anything about whitelists or unblocking certain sites. I said that advertising isnt a problem unless it makes itself one. Problem right now is that 90-95% of the time ads are a problem (full page, survey, etc.). I choose to simply block all ads for now till the idea of what's considered acceptable in advertising changes.


Funnily enough what i consider acceptable for advertising won't ever happen and people have said it's barbaric and unfair


----------



## guitarmageddon88

I block all with a non-discriminating hammer of fury and justice. NOTHING gets through....

unless its on a new porn site and I am not familiar with the proper scripts to get the videos to play


----------



## Echoa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *axizor*
> 
> I like that idea but fear it may be too optimistic. I've only seen it getting worse.


Very well may be sadly, but that just means I'll continue to ad block lol


----------



## Rayleyne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Echoa*
> 
> Very well may be sadly, but that just means I'll continue to ad block lol


Whats amusing is everyones saying that our adblockers are a huge problem but ad revenue is increasing by billions/year


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diffident*
> 
> Does anyone take Linus seriously? I watched in disbelief as he fried 3 motherboards and a CPU trying to build a pfsense router.


anyone notice at the end it wasn't even connected to the internet?

the WAN address was blank


----------



## dark14

If wired and forbes die because of their ads and my ad blocker I wouldnt feel very bad at all







.


----------



## sKorcheDeArtH

Haven't cared for WIRED since around 1999. They've become "hip" and really don't report underground news like they used to.


----------



## hokk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sKorcheDeArtH*
> 
> Haven't cared for WIRED since around 1999. They've become "hip" and really don't report underground news like they used to.


Yup haven't visited their site in 5 years or more at least

no need to block when you don't visit the site


----------



## joeyman08

Lol who even goes to that site anyways? The website designer needs to be fired page looks like a comic book.


----------



## chir

If companies used less intrusive ads (jarring colors, autoplaying video or sound), and the ad companies had some screening for ad/malware, I might consider disabling Adblock for that particular well-mannered site. But since hardly nobody does such, I'm not going to disable it. Go to a few reputable sites without Adblock and then run MBAM, you're already riddled with all kinds of nasties. Nope, nope, nope.


----------



## Derp

I visit the Tweaktown forums mainly for the Gigabyte support section for beta bios versions but they have recently started blocking adblock users as well.



rip.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I visit the Tweaktown forums mainly for the Gigabyte support section for beta bios verisons but they have recently started blocking adblock users as well.
> 
> 
> 
> rip.


Works fine for me using Ublock Origin.


----------



## Johnatan8

Disrete add is discutable







... For example you're browsing your favourite site and you won't be bothered with small ads about local shopping mall but how about small add about playboy or CKM magazine in the moment you wife/mum/little brother sees that...


----------



## axizor

TT Forums work fine for me too using ABP with just Fanboy+Easylist-Merged Ultimate list enabled. (I'd use Uo on my Macbook if it had a Safari extension)


----------



## EQvet80

R.I.P Wired..


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I visit the Tweaktown forums mainly for the Gigabyte support section for beta bios versions but they have recently started blocking adblock users as well.
> 
> 
> 
> rip.


Easily bypassed with NoScript. Don't even need an anti-adblock killer, just plain NoScript does the trick.


----------



## Twist86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Hmm that's good to know.


Yep and that's the main reason I block ads.....they can charge all they want or force me out but I wont be changing anytime soon. Soon you will pay $100+ for cable and $100+ for subscriptions for websites every month....no thank you.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Easily bypassed with NoScript. Don't even need an anti-adblock killer, just plain NoScript does the trick.


I'm using Firefox with ABP and Noscript without anything allowed but the page still shows up a few seconds after loading any Tweaktown page. I don't see this on any other website.


----------



## aweir

This level of desperation is despicable.

I just disabled Adblock so I could visit Forbes and see for myself.


----------



## JadedPrimate

I actually think the whole business model of free with ads has been terrible for the media industry, and I would actually welcome a publication based on a subscription model IF, and that is a big if, the quality of the publication is considerably better than the average news outlet filled with clickbait and non-news.


----------



## Bryst

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> This level of desperation is despicable.
> 
> I just disabled Adblock so I could visit Forbes and see for myself.


I was searching for something on google, cant remember what it was. Forbes was the top result so I clicked on it got sent to there little please disable your adblock page. I was just like "lol nope, ill get my info somewhere else" and closed the tab.

I honestly dont care for ANY site that does this. If overclock itself started doing it I would just leave. I have every right you block anything that has to either enter my PC or use my bandwidth. They have every right to block my connection to their site.

If you want to have a side banner ad fine, but these are the sites where its nothing but clickbate and popup ads with that one ad with sound that you cant find and disable. Its really just pure greed. They took every ad they could and now people are fed up with it.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I'm using Firefox with ABP and Noscript without anything allowed but the page still shows up a few seconds after loading any Tweaktown page. I don't see this on any other website.


Huh maybe they updated their script or something, was working two weeks back when they first started this BS.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> This level of desperation is despicable.
> 
> I just disabled Adblock so I could visit Forbes and see for myself.


More like "85% is AIDS"


----------



## t00sl0w

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JadedPrimate*
> 
> I actually think the whole business model of free with ads has been terrible for the media industry, and I would actually welcome a publication based on a subscription model IF, and that is a big if, the quality of the publication is considerably better than the average news outlet filled with clickbait and non-news.


they would 100% slowly creep ads back into the production flow because they just cant stop suckling on that ad revenue.


----------



## cheesewood

I work for the #7-8th largest web advertiser in the world, you would be amazed by the data we receive and process about people. We get information ranging from Bank account balances, credit scores, etc from various sites you log into, pay to use or offer services to you. We can target your spending based on how much money you have or what your credit limits are.

We spend a lot of time continually coming up with ways around new ad blockers and methods of suppression. Its an evil business but we gotta make money too. Currently we developed the only video ads that can get around the new iPhone requiring you to click them to play. Its pretty neat the code and development behind, but I hate ads as much as everyone else.

Unless you are using a VPN or are off the web, advertisers are getting information about you. Incognito is a joke and really prevents nothing in the terms of ads or data collection.

I think wired is doing something stupid, they should continue to provide article in hopes people will read them.


----------



## Alvarado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> I work for the #7-8th largest web advertiser in the world, you would be amazed by the data we receive and process about people. We get information ranging from Bank account balances, credit scores, etc from various sites you log into, pay to use or offer services to you. We can target your spending based on how much money you have or what your credit limits are.
> 
> We spend a lot of time continually coming up with ways around new ad blockers and methods of suppression. Its an evil business but we gotta make money too. Currently *we developed the only video ads that can get around the new iPhone requiring you to click them to play. Its pretty neat the code and development behind*, but I hate ads as much as everyone else.
> 
> Unless you are using a VPN or are off the web, advertisers are getting information about you. Incognito is a joke and really prevents nothing in the terms of ads or data collection.
> 
> I think wired is doing something stupid, they should continue to provide article in hopes people will read them.


Dude you really shouldn't have gone mentioning things like that, people around here will burn you alive if they could.

Edit: That bit is just evil.


----------



## cheesewood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alvarado*
> 
> Dude you really shouldn't have gone mentioning things like that, people around here will burn you alive if they could.
> 
> Edit: That bit is just evil.


I bath in self hate trust me. I hate the own evil I create.


----------



## JKuhn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> I bath in self hate trust me. I hate the own evil I create.


Quick question. If you hate the stuff you create, why don't you look for another job? You don't have to enjoy your work _that_ much, but I feel if you outright hate the principles behind it then you should look for somehting else. Surely your expertise can be useful elsewhere?

To give an (extreme) example, you'll never find me working for a company that knowingly leaches off of terminally ill and desperate people.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> I bath in self hate trust me. I hate the own evil I create.


I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.


----------



## Alvarado

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JKuhn*
> 
> Quick question. If you hate the stuff you create, why don't you look for another job? You don't have to enjoy your work _that_ much, but I feel if you outright hate the principles behind it then you should look for somehting else. Surely your expertise can be useful elsewhere?
> 
> To give an (extreme) example, you'll never find me working for a company that knowingly leaches off of terminally ill and desperate people.


Some people out there aren't looking at a job that is fun. Some are just looking at what pays the most and go with it without a care in the world.

Edit: The job could also give someone a certain lifestyle and are willing to put up with it to maintain said lifestyle.


----------



## cheesewood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JKuhn*
> 
> Quick question. If you hate the stuff you create, why don't you look for another job? You don't have to enjoy your work _that_ much, but I feel if you outright hate the principles behind it then you should look for somehting else. Surely your expertise can be useful elsewhere?
> 
> To give an (extreme) example, you'll never find me working for a company that knowingly leaches off of terminally ill and desperate people.


Surprisingly there are a lot of unique and highly skilled technologies that go into web advertising. Like handling 5-10 million web requests a second and billions of them a month, takes a pretty robust setup. We also must take requests, shop them around, bid on them all within 100ms, another pretty hefty feat. Let alone, storing, reporting and analyzing all that data and those requests for our customers who advertise through us in real tie. Will i do believe I could do lots of things as a developer, and I have let me tell you. This is simply been the easiest, least stressful and highest paying. We make a pretty sizable profits off it. As far as a fun job, I work maybe 30 hrs a week, most of which are remote with padded bonuses and sizable time off.

I don't like advertising just as much as the next person but I love coding, developing and things of that nature. This job has provided me with those and the ability to have a nice house in Newport Beach and so on.

We don't latch off the terminally ill either, if people don't like advertising they are welcome to contact the sites admins and ask them to stop. We are just fulfilling a web sites needs or desires.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.


I dont hate myself at all, i do a job that provides a service. We don't all have to agree with that service or take part in it.

I do stand by hating ads and advertising but I do love software and the industries around it.


----------



## Mega Man

No problem with that at all


----------



## Nightbird

Websites need to host their own ads and put them in a reasonable spot. Ads that hog bandwidth, flash (both the visual effect and the software), play loud sounds, and try to install malware on your computer, are they serious about people caring?


----------



## mcrbradbury

I absolutely despise ads, but I understand their purpose. Just advertise in a clean, non intrusive manner and most (if not nearly all) will be happy. This is the total wrong way to approach the issue and just creates a divide in the very market they are trying to capture. Their loss?


----------



## Omega X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcrbradbury*
> 
> I absolutely despise ads, but I understand their purpose. Just advertise in a clean, non intrusive manner and most (if not nearly all) will be happy. This is the total wrong way to approach the issue and just creates a divide in the very market they are trying to capture. Their loss?


Advertisers don't see it as a loss. They see it as an opportunity to create something more invasive and harder to ignore.

"Can't reach your market? Use Mind Reader 2000(tm). With Mind Reader 2000(tm) we can see exactly what's on their mind through our 'X-Ray' mobile platform which scans and records all interaction methods including, incoming calls, messages, cam shots, e-mail, voice input, facial expressions, retinas, thumbprints, Wi-Fi & GPS location tracking, super cookies, Session storage, packet injection, scheduled screenshots, relationships and MORE! Never lose contact with that customer ever again! Combined with our mandatory fullscreen overlays with full audio that can't be dismissed or muted directly, the customer WILL know your product better than you do."

I wish that was a joke but some company has already developed something similar. Only that Google and Apple guards thumbprint data and radio scanning so no WiFi locators without permission.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcrbradbury*
> 
> Just advertise in a clean, non intrusive manner and most (if not nearly all) will be happy.


Advertisers don't want non-intrusive ads. If an ad hasn't captured your attention then it hasn't served any purpose. That is why they pay the big bucks for ads that block the main content. Consequently, that is why websites display them.


----------



## BigTree

From Tweaktown today:

Quote:


> Your ad blocker is interfering with the operation of this site


Please define interfering dear TT.
Why not say the truth? "No money - No honey"

At least you get around with a proxy.


----------



## randomizer

TT seems to try to load ads in a rather unorthodox manner, which defeated uBlock Origin the first time I loaded it. I blocked www.tweaktown.com/zyx* (which is where it loads the ads from) and then got redirected to that message a few seconds after loading the page.


----------



## aweir

So, if I stand outside a store and shove ads into peoples faces as they walk by, I get arrested for soliciting, right?
But when I block advertisers from doing the same thing to me on the internet (when the ad is downloaded into my internet cache onto my hard drive which I own) I'm an evil evil person with no moral compass who needs a slap on the wrist.

Good job, America.


----------



## Zonified

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> TT seems to try to load ads in a rather unorthodox manner, which defeated uBlock Origin the first time I loaded it. I blocked www.tweaktown.com/zyx* (which is where it loads the ads from) and then got redirected to that message a few seconds after loading the page.


I had the same with noscript and uBlock Origin.

What I did in Firefox is at " aboutreferences#advanced " , I've enabled "Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page" , now an integrated bar with allow or not will pop up each time a site tries to auto redirect somewhere.
At " about:config " I've also made accessibility.blockautorefresh to true. I can do F5 or click the reload menu button myself if I ever need it.

Sometimes for sites like mega I need an open browser without much protection. I'm using another browser with a script that deletes all its preferences, cache,macromedia cookies files/folders after the browser closes.


----------



## hkuspc40

F*** Wired

http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/03/adblocking-and-whitelists-legal-rules-german-court/


----------



## Kriant

If the ads where similar to newspaper ads - as in passive ads maybe with a picture - i am ok with that, but popups, flesh and audo ads are not acceptable


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> So, if I stand outside a store and shove ads into peoples faces as they walk by, I get arrested for soliciting, right?
> But when I block advertisers from doing the same thing to me on the internet (when the ad is downloaded into my internet cache onto my hard drive which I own) I'm an evil evil person with no moral compass who needs a slap on the wrist.
> 
> Good job, America.


This makes zero sense.

America has DEFENDED the right to ad blockers ( ruled leashed legal in Court)


----------



## magnek

Maybe his point was the fact that such lawsuits exist in the first place is nothing short of ridiculous. Yeah I get it was a pointless frivolous lawsuit, but somehow it made it to trial instead of getting thrown out as it should've been.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zonified*
> 
> I had the same with noscript and uBlock Origin.
> 
> What I did in Firefox is at " aboutreferences#advanced " , I've enabled "Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page" , now an integrated bar with allow or not will pop up each time a site tries to auto redirect somewhere.
> At " about:config " I've also made accessibility.blockautorefresh to true. I can do F5 or click the reload menu button myself if I ever need it.


I enabled these options and it still redirects me without warning.


----------



## Omega X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hkuspc40*
> 
> F*** Wired
> 
> http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/03/adblocking-and-whitelists-legal-rules-german-court/


Sued and won for the fifth time. I guess the first four wasn't enough of a confirmation.


----------



## Mopar63

So I am curious, what is the correct answer?

If we all use ad blockers and cut the cash flow for a site they have to go down as they have no money to spay staff, hosting and such which cuts out viable, professional sites.

How do they make the money they need to stay active?

If we say they use a different less obtrusive ad, remember people where complaining about ads even in the early days.

Do we accept the idea of a subscription model, we pay a set fee to access the site?

People are spending a lot of time complaining but not offering a real workable solution.


----------



## Mega Man

no, most of us said unobtrusive ads are just fine, ESP when the site hosting them PROPERLY vets them,

if they cant and they infect me with a virus,, it is the sites issue not mine, that he allowed that content on

or

evolve or die,

there is other ways to make monies.


----------



## Bucake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> People are spending a lot of time complaining but not offering a real workable solution.


"Allow some non-intrusive advertising"


----------



## Schmuckley

I went to Wired maybe twice...before I joined OCN.
Good luck to them..I doubt that policy will go over well.


----------



## RooTxBeeR

So a mere 5th of the people who view their site use ad blocking. That seems like a tiny number, so you are going to force everyone then. Even the 4/5th that don't, to pay. Great logic, very strong.


----------



## f1LL

I didn't read through the whole thread and probably someone else mentioned it already, but if you want to visit a site that blocks ad-blocking but don't want to see ads you can simply add a list of advertisers' URLs to your hosts file to block them. Obviously that would require manual updating from time to time. Many instructions and lists on the internet.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> So I am curious, what is the correct answer?
> 
> If we all use ad blockers and cut the cash flow for a site they have to go down as they have no money to spay staff, hosting and such which cuts out viable, professional sites.
> 
> How do they make the money they need to stay active?
> 
> If we say they use a different less obtrusive ad, remember people where complaining about ads even in the early days.
> 
> Do we accept the idea of a subscription model, we pay a set fee to access the site?
> 
> People are spending a lot of time complaining but not offering a real workable solution.


I'd just like to point out that nearly all the sites that have complained thus far have been (mostly) worthless clickbait sites that add little to nothing of value. Maybe if they actually started providing _something of value_, we might consider turning off our adblockers. Until then, they can go DIAF for all I care.

Basically this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> evolve or die


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> So I am curious, what is the correct answer?
> 
> If we all use ad blockers and cut the cash flow for a site they have to go down as they have no money to spay staff, hosting and such which cuts out viable, professional sites.
> 
> How do they make the money they need to stay active?
> 
> If we say they use a different less obtrusive ad, remember people where complaining about ads even in the early days.
> 
> Do we accept the idea of a subscription model, we pay a set fee to access the site?
> 
> People are spending a lot of time complaining but not offering a real workable solution.


I still don't get how looking/clicking an ad= making money. First you have to click on the ad, then you have to actually BUY THE PRODUCT for the ad to be successful.


----------



## Mopar63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bucake*
> 
> "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"


Awesome define non-intrusive. You see here we start hitting a sticking point. The old banner ad system was not intrusive and yet people screamed about ads and used blockers.

We are a bunch of spoiled brats when it comes to the internet. We think for some reason, naively that these sites offering services for free do not have to pay for them, they do. You want email with no ads and limited spying, it is easy, go buy a basic web hosting package for $50 including a domain. You can have all the email addresses you want and no worried. The response you get from people is, why do that when I can get it for free. Then they complain because their is ads.

The quote from Megaman, "evolve or die" could be rephrased and applied to internet users, "grow up or get off the internet".

In my opinion paid for sites make the most sense. They do not need ad revenue to keep working and if they fail to provide good content they go under and vanish.


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

It's not our job to figure out how these businesses can make money.

But with advertising they have poison the well. If they hadn't gone nuclear with the advertising the vast majority of people would have never bother installing adblockers and whatnot. They wouldn't have gained anywhere near the usage they have today if not for the abusive advertising in the first place. But now that they have nobody who has started using adblockers is going to stop, even if the websites go back to normal ads.

So sucks to be them. But again, that's their problem and not ours. It's not up to us to do their thinking for them and to innovate a new way to earn revenue.


----------



## r0llinlacs

Just went there and clicked about 10 stories with adblock enabled.

Take that, wired.


----------



## Zonified

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> I enabled these options and it still redirects me without warning.


I've just tried it with Cyberfox just now, seems to work. Maybe clear your site profiles history or creating a new profile with only uBlock installed and the "Warn me with..." to enabled. See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles#w_starting-the-profile-manager.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bucake*
> 
> "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome define non-intrusive. You see here we start hitting a sticking point. The old banner ad system was not intrusive and yet people screamed about ads and used blockers.
> 
> We are a bunch of spoiled brats when it comes to the internet. We think for some reason, naively that these sites offering services for free do not have to pay for them, they do. You want email with no ads and limited spying, it is easy, go buy a basic web hosting package for $50 including a domain. You can have all the email addresses you want and no worried. The response you get from people is, why do that when I can get it for free. Then they complain because their is ads.
> 
> The quote from Megaman, "evolve or die" could be rephrased and applied to internet users, "grow up or get off the internet".
> 
> In my opinion paid for sites make the most sense. They do not need ad revenue to keep working and if they fail to provide good content they go under and vanish.
Click to expand...

First it isn't my job to support a buissness. It isn't my job to vet their ads and make sure they are safe for my pc..

Second
https://acceptableads.org/
Done, and been done.

Third, they can evolve, they choose not to.

Look at wiki, they don't have ads.

Maybe make a store with some logoed stuff, Idk but evolve or die, like the rest of buissness is SUPPOSED to work in a free market capitalist society


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> Awesome define non-intrusive. You see here we start hitting a sticking point. The old banner ad system was not intrusive and yet people screamed about ads and used blockers.
> 
> We are a bunch of spoiled brats when it comes to the internet. We think for some reason, naively that these sites offering services for free do not have to pay for them, they do. You want email with no ads and limited spying, it is easy, go buy a basic web hosting package for $50 including a domain. You can have all the email addresses you want and no worried. The response you get from people is, why do that when I can get it for free. Then they complain because their is ads.
> 
> The quote from Megaman, "evolve or die" could be rephrased and applied to internet users, "grow up or get off the internet".
> 
> In my opinion paid for sites make the most sense. They do not need ad revenue to keep working and if they fail to provide good content they go under and vanish.


I think aweir's analogy is pretty spot on:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> *So, if I stand outside a store and shove ads into peoples faces as they walk by, I get arrested for soliciting, right?*
> But when I block advertisers from doing the same thing to me on the internet (when the ad is downloaded into my internet cache onto my hard drive which I own) I'm an evil evil person with no moral compass who needs a slap on the wrist.
> 
> Good job, America.


Websites shouldn't get a free pass for shoving ads in our faces just because "it's business". Plus there are sites with 0 ads (like Wikipedia) that have managed just fine for the last 15+ years or so.

Clearly for sties that *provide something of substantial value* people ARE willing to support them. And for sites that don't provide anything of value, well like I said, they should just die and free up some bandwidth for more useful sites.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I think aweir's analogy is pretty spot on:
> Websites shouldn't get a free pass for shoving ads in our faces just because "it's business". Plus there are sites with 0 ads (like Wikipedia) that have managed just fine for the last 15+ years or so.
> 
> Clearly for sties that *provide something of substantial value* people ARE willing to support them. And for sites that don't provide anything of value, well like I said, they should just die and free up some bandwidth for more useful sites.


Aweir's analogy is the a poor understanding of how the internet works and should not be used as a point for anything. This is the correct analogy. When you go to a website it is equivalent of walking into a store. When you walk into stores you can walk out without buying anything but like most stores you will see ads for sales and things encouraging you to buy. The road to the store is the internet. The store itself is the website. *You* are paying for the connection/path with the capability to walk to and into the store. The quality of the path can be a multi lane highway or a path that is 5 seconds from you which is determined by your ISP/connection speed. It could also be 10000 miles away and require you to walk through glass.

For the example of soliciting. Its illegal to solicit because the example he provided is equal to me exploiting into your computer and installing a program that runs ads without you initiating anything. That is why you get arrested.

0 Ads on Wikipedia? What do you call the giant banner that comes down when they need funding every year? Its still advertising. Its just a different type of advertising.

If the solution is to now pay or donate money for websites to stay up, then that becomes a subscription based model, which is what wired is trying/tried to do.


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Aweir's analogy is the a poor understanding of how the internet works and should not be used as a point for anything. This is the correct analogy. When you go to a website it is equivalent of walking into a store. When you walk into stores you can walk out without buying anything but like most stores you will see ads for sales and things encouraging you to buy. The road to the store is the internet. The store itself is the website. *You* are paying for the connection/path with the capability to walk to and into the store. The quality of the path can be a multi lane highway or a path that is 5 seconds from you which is determined by your ISP/connection speed. It could also be 10000 miles away and require you to walk through glass.
> 
> For the example of soliciting. Its illegal to solicit because the example he provided is equal to me exploiting into your computer and installing a program that runs ads without you initiating anything. That is why you get arrested.


Yes more often than not when I walk into a store I get approached by the salespeople, but a polite "I'm good" and they leave me alone. This is akin to ad-blocking I suppose, so poor analogy or not, ad-blocking is perfectly legal. Also, the sales staff don't kick me out for just walking around but not buying anything, unlike websites that force you to turn off ad-blockers.
Quote:


> 0 Ads on Wikipedia? What do you call the giant banner that comes down when they need funding every year? Its still advertising. Its just a different type of advertising.
> 
> If the solution is to now pay or donate money for websites to stay up, then that becomes a subscription based model, which is what wired is trying/tried to do.


Let's please not get into semantics. It's pretty clear I was referring to third party ads, and yes, Wikipedia has exactly ZERO of those 365 days of the year. (366 days for leap years







)

It's not a subscription based model if the subscription isn't enforced. Wikipedia relies on *100% voluntary* donations and they've been up for 15 years. Once again if a website provides *quality content* that people find useful/beneficial, they'll be inclined to financially support the site on their own volition. I've donated $50 to Wikipedia every year since 2010, and will continue to do so even if they stopped their annual fundraising campaign. I would not even consider giving $0.01 to Wired, and in fact hope they just die off if they insist on pushing this "pay or go away model" because they don't provide anything of value, and is simply taking up bandwidth that could be better used.


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> This makes zero sense.
> 
> America has DEFENDED the right to ad blockers ( ruled leashed legal in Court)


What I meant was from the perspective of the advertisers, users that block ads are worthless scum trying to game the system.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Aweir's analogy is the a poor understanding of how the internet works and should not be used as a point for anything. This is the correct analogy. When you go to a website it is equivalent of walking into a store. When you walk into stores you can walk out without buying anything but like most stores you will see ads for sales and things encouraging you to buy. The road to the store is the internet. The store itself is the website. *You* are paying for the connection/path with the capability to walk to and into the store. The quality of the path can be a multi lane highway or a path that is 5 seconds from you which is determined by your ISP/connection speed. It could also be 10000 miles away and require you to walk through glass.
> 
> For the example of soliciting. Its illegal to solicit because the example he provided is equal to me exploiting into your computer and installing a program that runs ads without you initiating anything. That is why you get arrested.
> 
> 0 Ads on Wikipedia? What do you call the giant banner that comes down when they need funding every year? Its still advertising. Its just a different type of advertising.
> 
> If the solution is to now pay or donate money for websites to stay up, then that becomes a subscription based model, which is what wired is trying/tried to do.


Your analogy is good, but imagine a store owner not letting you inside because you were wearing specially designed glasses that blocked out the store's ads from your vision, but other shoppers were allowed inside because they could see the advertisements.


----------



## armartins

You know what really grinds my gears? Auto play video adds.... looking at you beloved ocn


----------



## magnek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> What I meant was from the perspective of the advertisers, users that block ads are worthless scum trying to game the system.


Even if that was somehow the case in their distorted reality, well they should know it takes one to know one.


----------



## semitope

blocking ads on sites is probably worse than piracy. probably. Because you definitely would be contributing to their sustained efforts if you didn't block it and rob them of compensation. Its theft more than piracy is.

Usually if a decent site complains about the adblocker I turn it off for that site. eg. overclock.net


----------



## magnek

So if I walk into a shop, politely tell the sales staff to stay away, then proceed to walk around for half an hour, and finally walk out without buying anything, I'm suddenly a thief?









Eh you know what, if blocking ads makes me a thief and worthless scum, I'll gladly be both if it means my computer won't be compromised.


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So if I walk into a shop, politely tell the sales staff to stay away, then proceed to walk around for half an hour, and finally walk out without buying anything, I'm suddenly a thief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh you know what, if blocking ads makes me a thief and worthless scum, I'll gladly be both if it means my computer won't be compromised.


That is a terrible analogy.

Looking at the products a store has isn't the product the store is selling. (ie: the sight of it) It's the product itself that's important and you need to pay for it before leaving the store with it.

The product a website offers is information via articles and video. That information is largely paid for by advertising dollars.

Don't get me wrong, I use adblock as well; but let's not start comparing apples and hand grenades.


----------



## semitope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So if I walk into a shop, politely tell the sales staff to stay away, then proceed to walk around for half an hour, and finally walk out without buying anything, I'm suddenly a thief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh you know what, if blocking ads makes me a thief and worthless scum, I'll gladly be both if it means my computer won't be compromised.


looking at items in a store is not the same as consuming content while depriving the creators of compensation. I said its more theft than piracy because its a direct loss of revenue while you can't prove pirates would buy. By being on the site you would of course contribute to revenue, but by blocking the ads you take that away. Its a more direct and definite loss.


----------



## magnek

Well I tried, you guys feel free to come up with a better analogy.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> That is a terrible analogy.
> 
> Looking at the products a store has isn't the product the store is selling. (ie: the sight of it) It's the product itself that's important and you need to pay for it before leaving the store with it.
> 
> The product a website offers is information via articles and video. That information is largely paid for by advertising dollars.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I use adblock as well; but let's not start comparing apples and hand grenades.


What if looking at the product.. not buying it just looking at it gave you cancer. Would you still be inclined?

The problem with these obtrusive ads is many of them carry diseases (viruses and malware) because the companies are so lazy they don't even vet their ads. No, I'll block until they can prove they are safe.


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darkpriest667*
> 
> What if looking at the product.. not buying it just looking at it gave you cancer. Would you still be inclined?
> 
> The problem with these obtrusive ads is many of them carry diseases (viruses and malware) because the companies are so lazy they don't even vet their ads. No, I'll block until they can prove they are safe.


Is it a store that sells plutonium??


----------



## magnek

I think if we really wanted to make the analogy complete, it would be akin to visiting a shop (that may or may not be sketchy) in a very sketchy part of town, where there's a high risk of your car either getting stolen or broken into. If said shop is reputable, then thankfully bad things happen to your car only. If said shop is sketchy however, you'll also lose your wallet, and all your important ID will be seized until a ransom is paid, or they're lost forever. Just to add to the excitement, there's a certain probability all that would still happen anyway even if you visited a reputable shop around the best parts of town.

And all this is with you just setting foot in the store without doing anything else.

Think I covered all the bases?


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> Your analogy is good, but imagine a store owner not letting you inside because you were wearing specially designed glasses that blocked out the store's ads from your vision, but other shoppers were allowed inside because they could see the advertisements.


They are within their rights to refuse me entry for such a reason. I have no problem with that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> That is a terrible analogy.


Most analogies are terrible. Perhaps we can bend it a little to fit better. You walk into the store, steal the item, use it, then return it in mint condition... somehow.


----------



## t00sl0w

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> I still don't get how looking/clicking an ad= making money. First you have to click on the ad, then you have to actually BUY THE PRODUCT for the ad to be successful.


IMO its yet another financial bubble waiting to burst.
all speculation with zero substance behind it.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> Your analogy is good, but imagine a store owner not letting you inside because you were wearing specially designed glasses that blocked out the store's ads from your vision, but other shoppers were allowed inside because they could see the advertisements.
> 
> 
> 
> They are within their rights to refuse me entry for such a reason. I have no problem with that.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> That is a terrible analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most analogies are terrible. Perhaps we can bend it a little to fit better. You walk into the store, steal the item, use it, then return it in mint condition... somehow.
Click to expand...

The major problem here is you seen to assume it is theft.

I NEVER agreed to any tos stating I will take in their ads, sorry the internet costs money for me to access, it ALSO costs them money to access the net, now by your logic, they need to pay me for my time to view their stuff, I am expensive I can cost 100 to 150 an hour depending on the company I work for, so there by they owe me?

No they don't, I choose to get on the internet. As did they. If they want to lock down their site, do it. Pron sites do all the time. User name and password only. If not, then realize if it on the net, it is open and free and accept that, if you can't then get off the Web,

Evolve or die


----------



## RooTxBeeR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> Aweir's analogy is the a poor understanding of how the internet works and should not be used as a point for anything. This is the correct analogy. When you go to a website it is equivalent of walking into a store. When you walk into stores you can walk out without buying anything but like most stores you will see ads for sales and things encouraging you to buy. The road to the store is the internet. The store itself is the website. *You* are paying for the connection/path with the capability to walk to and into the store. The quality of the path can be a multi lane highway or a path that is 5 seconds from you which is determined by your ISP/connection speed. It could also be 10000 miles away and require you to walk through glass.
> 
> For the example of soliciting. Its illegal to solicit because the example he provided is equal to me exploiting into your computer and installing a program that runs ads without you initiating anything. That is why you get arrested.
> 
> 0 Ads on Wikipedia? What do you call the giant banner that comes down when they need funding every year? Its still advertising. Its just a different type of advertising.
> 
> If the solution is to now pay or donate money for websites to stay up, then that becomes a subscription based model, which is what wired is trying/tried to do.


The part about wiki, evolve or die. They evolved, so they are not dead.


----------



## Limes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So if I walk into a shop, politely tell the sales staff to stay away, then proceed to walk around for half an hour, and finally walk out without buying anything, I'm suddenly a thief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh you know what, if blocking ads makes me a thief and worthless scum, I'll gladly be both if it means my computer won't be compromised.


This is the part everyone fails to realize. You are NOT walking into a shop and not buying anything. There isn't a good equivalent of this, but the best example I can provide is if you had a store with 5 employees on hand, 5 employees on call, and 100-200 people just walked into the store. You have to ask those 5 people to come in because you anticipate people wanting to checkout and you want to have a smooth experience. Instead, all 100-200 people just browse and leave. You as an employer have to pay for those 5 extra people's shifts and also probably the time spent on cleaning up the mess they left behind. The whole store example only works if you are running an ecommerce site. How about if you are providing a free knowledgebase, equivalent to a library? You need to pay for the location, you need to pay for the staff, the electricity, all of that and you are not raking in any money, yet more and more people show up to visit your library. At some point it becomes a question of closing your doors, asking for donations, or running a subscription based model. There really are not many options there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> What I meant was from the perspective of the advertisers, users that block ads are worthless scum trying to game the system.
> Your analogy is good, but imagine a store owner not letting you inside because you were wearing specially designed glasses that blocked out the store's ads from your vision, but other shoppers were allowed inside because they could see the advertisements.


I don't have to imagine. That already does happen. Do you see homeless people randomly sitting around in stores and shops? Have you seen people being escorted out or asked to leave? The store has the ability to refuse customers, the same way a site has the ability to refuse web traffic for people who have adblock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> Yes more often than not when I walk into a store I get approached by the salespeople, but a polite "I'm good" and they leave me alone. This is akin to ad-blocking I suppose, so poor analogy or not, ad-blocking is perfectly legal. Also, the sales staff don't kick me out for just walking around but not buying anything, unlike websites that force you to turn off ad-blockers.
> Let's please not get into semantics. It's pretty clear I was referring to third party ads, and yes, Wikipedia has exactly ZERO of those 365 days of the year. (366 days for leap years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> It's not a subscription based model if the subscription isn't enforced. Wikipedia relies on *100% voluntary* donations and they've been up for 15 years. Once again if a website provides *quality content* that people find useful/beneficial, they'll be inclined to financially support the site on their own volition. I've donated $50 to Wikipedia every year since 2010, and will continue to do so even if they stopped their annual fundraising campaign. I would not even consider giving $0.01 to Wired, and in fact hope they just die off if they insist on pushing this "pay or go away model" because they don't provide anything of value, and is simply taking up bandwidth that could be better used.


They would if you go into that store several times a day for days on end and don't buy anything. I never said it was illegal or legal to block ads. I don't really care one way or the other, my problem is how people in this thread are discussing it without having a basic understanding of the costs involved to operate a site or how the internet works. Ads are ads, adblocking doesn't just block third party ads. If I go on Amazon, their ads to their Amazon products get blocked too.

It is, if they hit the amount they need/want in 1 day, they can turn it off after. If they don't, they continue to keep it up until the costs are covered. You should also keep in mind that Wikipedia is one large entity. You go to Wikipedia for information about anything. If I run a blog site and one of my posts/pages is the top result on google that generates me several thousands of visitors a day for that one page. Its highly unlikely they will donate to my blog because I only have that one page that may be relevant or useful, yet that one page traffic scaled brings up my costs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RooTxBeeR*
> 
> The part about wiki, evolve or die. They evolved, so they are not dead.


How did they evolve? By asking people to donate money? That is not evolution its like one of the few ways you can cover the expenses. It falls under the three options of:
1. Put ads on your site
2. Sell goods/products/services, include costs into your markup across the store.
3. Subscription basis/donation
Before you say evolve or die actually say how one would evolve, the sentence is pointless on its own and has no merit in any discussion.

I am also speaking as someone who is capable of managing their computer security and don't want to pay money per every single site I have to access in order get new information.


----------



## magnek

If we're going to continue to use the broken shop analogies, at least make it more accurate and describing all the associated risks:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> I think if we really wanted to make the analogy complete, it would be akin to visiting a shop (that may or may not be sketchy) in a very sketchy part of town, where there's a high risk of your car either getting stolen or broken into. If said shop is reputable, then thankfully bad things happen to your car only. If said shop is sketchy however, you'll also lose your wallet, and all your important ID will be seized until a ransom is paid, or they're lost forever. Just to add to the excitement, there's a certain probability all that would still happen anyway even if you visited a reputable shop around the best parts of town.
> 
> And all this is with you just setting foot in the store without doing anything else.
> 
> Think I covered all the bases?


Since you brought up the example of a library, now I have to ask, _how_ do they stay open? Tax dollars for public libraries, membership dues for private libraries I guess. If it's tax dollars, well I pay for accessing the internet too, so there. If it's membership dues, well that's a paywall, and plenty of sites use that already.

As for how to evolve, just look for 2010rig's posts in this thread. He explicitly mentions non-ad based methods of generating revenue.


----------



## Darkpriest667

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Limes*
> 
> This is the part everyone fails to realize. You are NOT walking into a shop and not buying anything. There isn't a good equivalent of this, but the best example I can provide is if you had a store with 5 employees on hand, 5 employees on call, and 100-200 people just walked into the store. You have to ask those 5 people to come in because you anticipate people wanting to checkout and you want to have a smooth experience. Instead, all 100-200 people just browse and leave. You as an employer have to pay for those 5 extra people's shifts and also probably the time spent on cleaning up the mess they left behind. The whole store example only works if you are running an ecommerce site. How about if you are providing a free knowledgebase, equivalent to a library? You need to pay for the location, you need to pay for the staff, the electricity, all of that and you are not raking in any money, yet more and more people show up to visit your library. At some point it becomes a question of closing your doors, asking for donations, or running a subscription based model. There really are not many options there.
> I don't have to imagine. That already does happen. Do you see homeless people randomly sitting around in stores and shops? Have you seen people being escorted out or asked to leave? The store has the ability to refuse customers, the same way a site has the ability to refuse web traffic for people who have adblock.
> They would if you go into that store several times a day for days on end and don't buy anything. I never said it was illegal or legal to block ads. I don't really care one way or the other, my problem is how people in this thread are discussing it without having a basic understanding of the costs involved to operate a site or how the internet works. Ads are ads, adblocking doesn't just block third party ads. If I go on Amazon, their ads to their Amazon products get blocked too.
> 
> It is, if they hit the amount they need/want in 1 day, they can turn it off after. If they don't, they continue to keep it up until the costs are covered. You should also keep in mind that Wikipedia is one large entity. You go to Wikipedia for information about anything. If I run a blog site and one of my posts/pages is the top result on google that generates me several thousands of visitors a day for that one page. Its highly unlikely they will donate to my blog because I only have that one page that may be relevant or useful, yet that one page traffic scaled brings up my costs.
> How did they evolve? By asking people to donate money? That is not evolution its like one of the few ways you can cover the expenses. It falls under the three options of:
> 1. Put ads on your site
> 2. Sell goods/products/services, include costs into your markup across the store.
> 3. Subscription basis/donation
> Before you say evolve or die actually say how one would evolve, the sentence is pointless on its own and has no merit in any discussion.
> 
> I am also speaking as someone who is capable of managing their computer security and don't want to pay money per every single site I have to access in order get new information.


The wiki donation is tax deductible they are a not for profit. They aren't advertising they are asking for donations. The consumer drives the market. If these companies want our dollars they need to work harder for them. These companies DO need to evolve or die. That's how the free market works. Innovation through competition. They also have a responsibility to guarantee our safety and security when we are on their domains. If they can't do that then they have no reasonable expectation of us to view their ads. If television ads in the 90s and 80s caused TVs to stop working there would have been riots in the streets.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> The major problem here is you seen to assume it is theft.


In the context of the analogy, yes, because without getting really science fiction it's hard to draw an analogy to a store that sells physical items without including theft. Analogies are fundamentally flawed. It is impossible to come up with an analogy that perfectly reflects the original scenario without being identical to the original scenario, and thus redundant.

Now if we wanted to take the analogy a bit further: You take a taxi to the store, walk inside, clone a number of items, and walk out without paying for the items. The taxi takes you home and you pay the taxi driver.


----------



## Mega Man

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mega Man*
> 
> The major problem here is you seen to assume it is theft.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the analogy, yes, because without getting really science fiction it's hard to draw an analogy to a store that sells physical items without including theft. Analogies are fundamentally flawed. It is impossible to come up with an analogy that perfectly reflects the original scenario without being identical to the original scenario, and thus redundant.
> 
> Now if we wanted to take the analogy a bit further: You take a taxi to the store, walk inside, clone a number of items, and walk out without paying for the items. The taxi takes you home and you pay the taxi driver.
Click to expand...

oh no,

in walking and/or going to the store, the store ( not a felon ) mugs you, takes all your CC info, can and does take all your photos and other documents, locks them up ( crypto locker ) says pay up or you dont get it back and even if you pay you may or may not get it. on top of that gives you gonorrhea and herpes and may of given you aids as well, but we wont know for 6 months

yea ill keep on my internet condoms ....

https://acceptableads.org/#

look, i would even add
6) the site PERSONALLY guarantees NO viruses will come from said ads and are PERSONALLY vetted ! meaning you can SUE the site/business/person for damages and this even protects youtubers as you could only go after google ie youtube


----------



## Kriant

I would say that a store is a poor analogy, as it would mostly apply to online shops like amazon, newegg etc, but then, those businesses don't spam ads in your face any more than their retail counterparts with giant posters and billboards.

However, how about this analogy instead: A newspaper or a magazine. As any newspapers or magazines, majority of information websites would rely mostly on income generated from advertisements. Liquor and Tobaco ads for example where a huuuge income generator (and prly still is) for newspapers a few decades ago. Now, when I open an issue of pcgamer magazine, or times or any of the local newspapers, I expect to see a certain amount of space dedicated purely for commercials. You can't really get physical paper media without those commercials anyway, and without them, the profit generated purely from sales of the papers would not be able to cover all the wages of any given publication agency. I understand that I would be exposed to those advertisements in the least obtrusive way - they will be on the same page, they might be colorful, and I even might read them over because humans can not not read something when you see it and able to understand the written language (proven by a plethora of peer reviewed articles). So there, in a context of magazines - I am getting passively exposed to the ads, just by virtue of those ads being present on the same page as the article I am reading.

Anyway, back to webite analogy - I don't mind when there are passive ads on the websites, whether they are simple column of text dedicated to ads and labeled as such (actually, I prefer those) or a static banner. Now, when I read a magazine or a newspaper that are printed via physical medium, the ads are static on them, they don't distract me via sounds, they don't all of a sudden appear in the middle of the article and just by virtue of me touching the paper all of a sudden shove me another newspaper/magazine/or entirely something else (cutting my pouch to get my wallet, in case of phishing ads). And unfortunately that's what a lot of website ads do. I understand that they need to generate income, I understand that a lot of their ads are paid by numbers (click based ads or viewed based ads), but the same websites need to take responsibility of making sure that their ads are unobtrusive, ads that start streaming videos, or music or making distracting sounds, ads that pop up and drag you to another website, that is often times malicious, disingenuous forwarding link buttons that mask themselves as a next page button, and, naturally, ads that open a channel and expose your PC to malicious software - those ads needs to go, and it is for that reason I am using adblock.


----------



## STEvil

Reading a magazine off a rack would be a better analogy.

But a magazine (thankfully) cant have a full-page ad spring up over the content as you're reading and cant play video or audio OR toss malware at you (unless you're a tinfoil hat person and reading for more tinfoil cooking recipes).

Seriously, I could care less if a website has unobtrusive ads. JPG's, GIF's, something that cannot carry malware and cannot play audio and cannot pop up over the content i'm reading. Thats all. I could really do with fewer ads too but with all the bling lots of websites saturate their servers with they have to pay for the non-text bandwidth somehow..


----------



## Mega Man

shh, now they will say you are the enemy and evil !


----------



## revro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> I work for the #7-8th largest web advertiser in the world, you would be amazed by the data we receive and process about people. We get information ranging from *Bank account balances*, credit scores, etc from various sites you log into, pay to use or offer services to you. We can target your spending based on how much money you have or what your credit limits are.
> 
> We spend a lot of time continually coming up with ways around new ad blockers and methods of suppression. Its an evil business but we gotta make money too. Currently we developed the only video ads that can get around the new iPhone requiring you to click them to play. Its pretty neat the code and development behind, but I hate ads as much as everyone else.
> 
> Unless you are using a VPN or are off the web, advertisers are getting information about you. Incognito is a joke and really prevents nothing in the terms of ads or data collection.
> 
> I think wired is doing something stupid, they should continue to provide article in hopes people will read them.


how do you get bank account balance information, unless the bank sold it to you or you have hacked the person?


----------



## jagdtigger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> I work for the #7-8th largest web advertiser in the world, you would be amazed by the data we receive and process about people. We get information ranging from *Bank account balances, credit scores, etc* from various sites you log into, pay to use or offer services to you. We can target your spending based on how much money you have or what your credit limits are.
> 
> We spend a lot of time continually coming up with ways around new ad blockers and methods of suppression. Its an evil business but we gotta make money too. Currently we developed the only video ads that can get around the new iPhone requiring you to click them to play. Its pretty neat the code and development behind, but I hate ads as much as everyone else.
> 
> Unless you are using a VPN or are off the web, advertisers are getting information about you. Incognito is a joke and really prevents nothing in the terms of ads or data collection.
> 
> I think wired is doing something stupid, they should continue to provide article in hopes people will read them.


That shouldn't be possible. Only the bank knows that and only gives out them to government agencies if they have court order. In our country its against the BTK( Büntető törvénykönyv, or penal code in english if google translate didnt screwed it up). Your employer and the website(s) would get a hefty fine if someone files a lawsuit in court







.

Back to topic. I will disable adblock if all intrusive(flash ads, gifs, etc) and malicius ads will be banned from the internet.


----------



## Mattb2e

I don't truly understand the premise behind this ultimatum. If 20% of your readership is using an AdBlock app for whatever reason, and you tell them that either they disable it, or find their news somewhere else, chances are that those 20% are going to seek the same information from a different outlet. They are essentially losing business either way, and are hoping that some folks will buy into their subscription model, which in my opinion will not work out well for Wired. This seems like a brute force tactic in adopting a paid subscription model. There will be some that disable Adblocking, and some that pay for an ad-free experience, but the number of people in this bucket so to speak are going to be very miniscule in comparison to that 20% figure.

Rather than issuing an ultimatum, and coming across as a business that does not value its readership, it would be a better to adopt a subscription model that is offered as an option to those who might be interested, rather than forced.

In the end, if they choose to ignore the feedback from their readership, the folks that will not disable adblocking will just go somewhere else, and at that point your going to lose a customer either way. A customer that may not have been lost if the option was given rather than forced.


----------



## cheesewood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jagdtigger*
> 
> That shouldn't be possible. Only the bank knows that and only gives out them to government agencies if they have court order. In our country its against the BTK( Büntető törvénykönyv, or penal code in english if google translate didnt screwed it up). Your employer and the website(s) would get a hefty fine if someone files a lawsuit in court
> 
> Back to topic. I will disable adblock if all intrusive(flash ads, gifs, etc) and malicius ads will be banned from the internet.


To be honest, most US credit bureaus and banks have signed on to provide that information for advertising purposes. Look through the terms and conditions and you'd be surprised what you are subject to. We do nothing illegal and are one of the more ethical ad companies, if you can believe that exists haha.


----------



## jagdtigger

Sucks for all living the USA. Im living in Hungary and our laws regarding this is way more stricter fortunately...


----------



## revro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cheesewood*
> 
> To be honest, most US credit bureaus and banks have signed on to provide that information for advertising purposes. Look through the terms and conditions and you'd be surprised what you are subject to. We do nothing illegal and are one of the more ethical ad companies, if you can believe that exists haha.


and how does this work? you mean banks are handing out "ou this client with this email has this bank ballance, lets bind it with this cookie so we 3rd parties can spy on him"

are you for real?


----------



## cheesewood

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *revro*
> 
> and how does this work? you mean banks are handing out "ou this client with this email has this bank ballance, lets bind it with this cookie so we 3rd parties can spy on him"
> 
> are you for real?


Something like that, we generally do not use it as most of advertising does not target those user qualities. They can get more than just balances, ages, demographics, etc. its quite amazing to look at the algorithms that are design for it and how much data we process. We deal with roughly 10 million requests a second, and strip most of that info since by the point you reach us we are just delivering the ads that have been predetermined by various 'tags' and bidding.


----------



## f1LL

@cheesewood: Since you probably know this, what is the actual effect of tracker blockers like Ghostery, Disconnect etc and maybe also adblockers too? Do they really help prevent the creation of a defined profile?


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *magnek*
> 
> So if I walk into a shop, politely tell the sales staff to stay away, then proceed to walk around for half an hour, and finally walk out without buying anything, I'm suddenly a thief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh you know what, if blocking ads makes me a thief and worthless scum, I'll gladly be both if it means my computer won't be compromised.


Yes, they should be able to block your way at any moment and give you a rundown of the latest sales. And there should also be a "Free porn" isle, and when you try to go down it, someone sneaks up behind you and tries to sell you a penis enlargement kit. Oh, and no prices on anything either. There should be a sign near the sale items that says "you need to put this item in your cart and take it to the register to see the price--sorry." And before you leave the store, you should have to take a survey first.


----------

