#1 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

I had heard about Adblock before but then Patrick linked to this on his Twitter. What would happen to the internet if they were successful and got an ad in the Superbowl etc and most of the internet signed up? Would Giant Bomb be able to keep going? I know they get some money in subscriptions but I can't imagine it is enough to fund everything they are doing and make a profit for their evil corporate overlords. What about sites like Kotaku? (to be honest I wouldn't shed a tear if they vanished, but lots of the internet is based around these sites which make money from producing click-bait)

My guess is that it wouldn't be the paradise that Ad-Block envision. I think lots of sites would go more into direct sponsorship to keep going which has the potential to be even more gross. For example you would get articles bought to you 'In partnership with 1 amazing food to eat for a slimmer belly' or other crap and I think the difference between content and marketing would become that much harder to distinguish.

This is just my first thoughts, what do you lot think? Would it be great and remove a lot of awful pointless 'Ten celebrity disasters!!!!' sites from the internet or would it make it difficult for the sites that we love to continue?. I looked around the Ad-Block site briefly and I couldn't find any vision for the post adpocalypse. Where do you stand?

EDIT: ok I have looked a bit more closely at their main site and I can see that they don't want to block all ads. They just have a strict criteria of which ads they allow and they require any companies who want to show ads on the internet to apply through them to be put on a whitelist. However while they say they only want to stop bad ads, they have services which block YouTube ads before a video etc. Also not sure on them being the arbiters of what is good or bad on the internet. Still not sure on this whole debate really.

#2 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I'm still a little confused as to how advertising is such a huge business when its own audience goes out of its way to ignore the shit out of it (going into another tab when an ad is playing, changing the channel during commercials, etc.). Is it confusing correlation with causation, or am I naive as fuck, as fuck tends to be?

#3 Posted by Revan_NL (334 posts) -

Good question. All I know is that the amount of ads on the internet is getting out of control. And it seems that Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc are determined to let you watch even more advertisement. All I know is that I don't watch YouTube videos on my iPad anymore because I get sick of all the ads, I prefer to watch them on my PC with Adblock. I have no problem with ads as long as they don't make the site I'm visiting unusable unless I click on that small ass 'x' on the top right of the screen.

#4 Posted by Elwoodan (807 posts) -

it would certainly hurt honest content creators, like youtubers and solo bloggers, who live almost totally on their ad revenue. It would be extremely time consuming and difficult for them to obtain 1-on-1 ad deals and ultimately many of the smaller creators would fade, or be force to significantly cut back on what they make.

the youtuber Totalbiscuit actually had a vlog up the other day where he discussed (among other things) some of the direct movie and game promotions he has done and the notion of 'selling out' or 'being bought' and thus damaging his reputation as a critiquer/reviewer of games, which is something everyone would have to do if the majority of people used adblock.

One of the pro-adblock arguments is that you can whitelist sites you want to support/know don't have obtrusive ads, but honestly the people that see a billboard for the service, and haven't heard of it before, are going to install it once and forget that it even exists.

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

#5 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

#6 Edited by chiablo (920 posts) -

Facebook has become unusable for me due to ads. "So-and-so likes Colgate, OBEY THE TOOTHPASTE!"

#7 Posted by spraynardtatum (2798 posts) -

The world would be a better place.

#8 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1758 posts) -

As one model of monetization stops working, another one will be found. Adblock won't be the end of the internet, just the end of sponsors dealing with it the same way they do TV.

#9 Posted by Belegorm (396 posts) -

Maybe adblock goes too far, but the ads on a lot of popular sites are getting ridiculous. You can't listen to more than 2 songs in pandora before you get an ad; listening to that w/out adblock is a horrible thing

#10 Posted by EXTomar (4639 posts) -

There are several ways to that commercial sites deal with the rise of AdBlock and other features in network that scrub unwanted things out:

- In media ads: Before/after/during a podcast or audio or video they stick a 15 second "This stuff is sponsored by.."

- Subscription/paywall: Giantbomb already has a subscription but other places uses their subscription fee in place of ad revenue.

- Kickstart/subable/fund drive: A new trend and a modification of the subscription thing. Kind of like the PBS/IPR "fund drive" where instead of relying on advertisers they go to the audience and directly ask for donations.

In general, it is a security risk to accept ads from an external source. If you are browsing site.com, ads should come from site.com instead of adpush.com, adrunner.com, adgroup.com because if any one of them gets hacked and compromised then the all visitors are at risk. More and more, using ad blocking software is a necessary security feature than a continence. The key thing I think many sites don't do well is they ultimately control the content where it is okay to do ads but they must take responsibility for those ads as well.

#11 Posted by Veektarius (4749 posts) -

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

The ad company is paying the content creator for access to your time so that they may make use of the entire scope of their advertisement to attempt to convince you to buy their product. Showing an ad before your youtube video is not the same as an endorsement for a product, thus, the ad company is not banking on you making purchases as a direct result of their affiliation with your favored internet celebrity. As such, they cannot expect that they will achieve any sales by simply flashing the name of their product without any supporting messaging before the video.

#14 Posted by Corvak (983 posts) -

We would all have to cut back on our content - but like Giant Bomb's premium content, we'd get an overall better experience from fewer sources.

The problem isn't ads. The problem is when ads go too far. The ad industry, or at least it's less ethical side inundated us with invasive popups, annoying flashing things that make sounds. They went far enough that we (internet users) weren't standing for it anymore, and AdBlock happened.

Add to that the all too common case of ads being hijacked and used to gather personal data from users (without the knowledge of both the advertiser and host site). You can tell this is happening when suddenly you find your web browser warning you about malicious content on a site that you thought was safe.

As a result of this, I find myself forced to adblock everything and whitelist trusted sites, or leave myself open to potential security risks.

In the end - the unscrupulous and greedy minority of advertisers and content providers are spoiling it for everyone.

#15 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@elwoodan said:

it would certainly hurt honest content creators, like youtubers and solo bloggers, who live almost totally on their ad revenue. It would be extremely time consuming and difficult for them to obtain 1-on-1 ad deals and ultimately many of the smaller creators would fade, or be force to significantly cut back on what they make.

the youtuber Totalbiscuit actually had a vlog up the other day where he discussed (among other things) some of the direct movie and game promotions he has done and the notion of 'selling out' or 'being bought' and thus damaging his reputation as a critiquer/reviewer of games, which is something everyone would have to do if the majority of people used adblock.

One of the pro-adblock arguments is that you can whitelist sites you want to support/know don't have obtrusive ads, but honestly the people that see a billboard for the service, and haven't heard of it before, are going to install it once and forget that it even exists.

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

Yep. This is kind of what I was thinking as well. Anyone who isn't selling a thing, a product, and is relying on people coming to them because they like their ideas, reviews whatever is going to suffer, and it will push people into taking partnerships which compromise their integrity. I suppose people say they should be doing it for the love of their art, but I think if you want an internet which is populated by interesting content and ideas you need people that are able to work at it in a professional manner and they can't do this without money.

As you say, their argument is that people can whitelist sites, but I imagine the vast majority of users are not going to do this, and Ad-Block won't have the resources to verify the all the ads on the internet. Patrick and Alex are just talking about this now and they seem to agree with this sentiment. Funny seeing the chat explode when Patrick compared it to piracy.

#16 Edited by Elwoodan (807 posts) -

@video_game_king: with something like google adsense every view of an ad is worth X amount of money to the person who's youtube channel it runs on, and the ad script is smart enough to know when it has been prevented from running by something like adblock, so if on a 10,000 view video only 1,000 ads actually played the creator gets significantly less money.

#18 Posted by Ares42 (2611 posts) -

Internet would become more like TV, subscription-based. It would probably lead to a situation where you bought packages from your ISP with sites and services you had access to etc. Basically it would remove all the minor operators from the field and just leave the big companies. In one way I think I'd actually enjoy the internet much more if it happened (as it would actually promote quality), but at the same time I'm not a huge fan of the fact that it would pretty much be a huge black censor-bar over the internet and would lead the way to full judicial control.

Just like @video_game_king though, I still can't believe that companies actually pay as much as they do for ads on the internet. I'm sure they've done the math and it's profitable (although I wouldn't be surprised if it's also heavily driven by google marketing), but it just seems like money in the wind to me. Then again I watch stuff like Kickstarter or donation campaigns on the internet and apparently people are willing to throw money at anything. It's the magic of the internet, global reach and low overhead can make pretty much anything a succesful business.

#19 Posted by Demoskinos (14733 posts) -

I wonder how many people on their high-horses about this stuff has ever bought a used game. Because if you have then you're a fucking hypocrite. Its the same thing.

#20 Posted by e30bmw (356 posts) -

Do people use Adblock? I've used Adblock Plus since I stopped using IE and always thought the other apps that blocked ads seemed like crappy knockoffs. And I do whitelist sites that I want to support that don't have crappy ads.

Another complaint about how ads are done on the internet, the variety is really crappy. I recently watched seasons 5 of Parks and Rec on Hulu and there were like 5 or 6 ads per episode. That itself isn't an issue, its just super annoying when they only have 10 ads to switch between so I end up seeing the same ads over and over in a short period of time.

#21 Posted by Veektarius (4749 posts) -

@belegorm said:

Maybe adblock goes too far, but the ads on a lot of popular sites are getting ridiculous. You can't listen to more than 2 songs in pandora before you get an ad; listening to that w/out adblock is a horrible thing

Pandora just wants to annoy you into paying for Pandora One because ad revenue isn't good enough for them. Half of their ads are for their own service. Their strategy worked for me.

#22 Edited by HerpDerp (133 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

(In terms of youtube) It doesn't, they only get money if people click on the ads they're being shown, and even after that, they only get a few cents per click. So, by the end of the year, the average youtuber will have maybe gotten a whole 7 dollars out of the ordeal. Unless you happen to have multiple millions of views on all your videos, which at that point, why would the small percentage of people who use adblock even matter? As much as people freak out about how adblock ruins their youtube profits, it virtually has no effect.

#23 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

They might as well get a real job and not expect me to care about them making money off youtube or writing blogs. I don't think game commentators and bloggers "need the money" to keep doing something almost anyone can do. Give me an example of youtubers or writers who need the ad money.

Internet entertainment is free for a reason, the nerve on you to call it piracy to not have to watch long ads to enjoy the free entertainment is amazing.

#24 Posted by Milkman (16619 posts) -

@herpderp said:

@video_game_king said:

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

It doesn't, they only get money if people click on the ads they're being shown, and even after that they only get a few cents. So, by the end of the year, the average youtuber will have maybe gotten a whole 7 dollars out of the ordeal. Unless you happen to have multiple millions of views on all your videos, which at that point, why would the small percentage of people who use adblock even matter? As much as people freak out about how adblock ruins their youtube profits, is virtually has no effect.

Not true. The vast majority of internet advertising is based on impressions, not clicks. This means that just seeing the ad is what gives the content provider money. Ad Block blocks those impressions.

#25 Posted by DetectiveSpecial (466 posts) -

I'll throw my hat in here..................

The business model of the internet would shift to more closely resemble that of cable television - and that might not be a bad thing. As it stands now, companies that provide the access to content on the internet do nothing but sit back and make profits from it, with very little expenditure. The infrastructure (in the US) has not been upgraded in some time, and companies like AT&T and Time Warner make money acting as a middleman to content created by other people. If the system of advertising for profitable websites crashes, ISP's would have to ensure that there was content for subscribers to access, otherwise there is no point in subscribing. Just like Comcast and DirectTV pay for their televised content, ISP's may have to do the same. Granted, most ISP's do have some content (such as AT&T and Yahoo.com) but not to the extent that television providers have to contract.

Oh, and the government will have to subsidize it as well (like broadcast television) and fund upgrades to the infrastructure. In the US, the internet is all about private business making a profit - which is why most of the country has sub-par connection standards and availability.

I swear I'm not a socialist - although the above post really makes me sound like one. Actually, I might be a bit of a socialist. Oh well.

#26 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@milkman said:

Not true. The vast majority of internet advertising is based on impressions, not clicks.

The hell does that even mean? That advertisers make money based on my opinion of the ad? What?

#27 Posted by DarkShaper (1323 posts) -

If Adblock got way more popular over night I would assume that you would start seeing way more content behind a pay wall like giant bomb premium videos.

#28 Posted by HerpDerp (133 posts) -
@milkman said:

@herpderp said:

@video_game_king said:

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

It doesn't, they only get money if people click on the ads they're being shown, and even after that they only get a few cents. So, by the end of the year, the average youtuber will have maybe gotten a whole 7 dollars out of the ordeal. Unless you happen to have multiple millions of views on all your videos, which at that point, why would the small percentage of people who use adblock even matter? As much as people freak out about how adblock ruins their youtube profits, is virtually has no effect.

Not true. The vast majority of internet advertising is based on impressions, not clicks. This means that just seeing the ad is what gives the content provider money. Ad Block blocks those impressions.

I was specifically talking in terms of youtube, most internet ads are more like constantly changing billboards draped on the left or right side of a webpage.

#29 Posted by Milkman (16619 posts) -
#30 Posted by spraynardtatum (2798 posts) -

I just want advertisers to go away and leave me be.

I think Bill Hicks says it best here.

#31 Posted by Winsord (1201 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

I've never really bought this argument. How does my watching an ad directly result in money for them? If I wanted to support them, wouldn't I buy the products being advertised?

The Youtube content creator generates revenue for pre-roll advertisements watched in their entirety, as the advertiser has to pay for each ad consumed, not only for ads that result in product purchases. So, when that ad doesn't play because a user has adblock, that content creator doesn't make as much (or any) money from the person viewing their content. Banner ads generally generate revenue on page views, a little more from ad clicks, and a substantial amount more from direct product purchases. Where that stuff gets really weird is when consumers have the options to skip the ad. I don't know if this is the case anymore, nor do I know if it applies to all lengths of pre-roll ads, but it used to be that on Youtube, if the user clicked "Skip this ad" during the pre-roll, the content creator wouldn't make any money from it at all.

As for the hypothetical "what if pretty much everyone used adblock?", I'd imagine we'd see a big shift to inline advertising. Similar to the beginning of some podcasts, you'd get a lot more of "this [content] is sponsored by [company/product]" at the start and/or end of content. The difficulty with that would be making the connections between content creators and advertisers. I know a common way for banner ads on most sites to be done is the website will make a deal to get ads through major advertising companies, where that middle-man collect ads from advertisers and then distributes them out to websites based on relevant page content. The issue is: adapting that dynamic model to fit the much more direct and static inline advertising method on a web-wide scale seems incredibly difficult. With Youtube, they could assign ads to partners based on the types of channels that reach their demographic (e.g. advertise the next World of Warcraft expansion on "gaming" focused partner channels), but then they would need to verify that that person did in fact do their in-video advertisement, and there would be a big reliance on partners to actually do a good job in delivering those ads.

There would be some really big hurdles switching to inline ads. First there's the issue of having to verify that content-creators are actually holding up their end of the bargain, and making sure they're actually doing a sufficient job at delivering those ads; how many people working at an advertising agency would then be devoted to just verifying content creators are doing their adverts? There's also the issue of how it be very difficult to add inline advertising to all pre-existing articles on a website in place of banners, and that it would basically be impossible for video/audio content as you'd have to re-edit the content, render it, and re-upload it.

Personally I'm a fan of blocking intrusive advertisements, but not all ads. If there's a banner on the side of a website or a 15-30 second pre-roll before a 2 minute+ video, it's no big deal to me, but pop-ups, auto-playing video ads, banners with a lot of flash and audio elements, etc, all get blocked. My usual method of dealing with ads is to have adblock block everything by default, white-list any site I'm going to visit more than once, and then block and intrusive elements if a site has them.

#32 Edited by Zero_ (1973 posts) -

I don't like this. Sure, I'm a hypocrite: I use Adblock, but I also disable it on sites I support (Reddit, Giantbomb etc.) I see the value of ads, and don't want EVERYONE to be using it, otherwise advertising companies will come up with more nefarious ways to annoy us. It's the sad reality of making money on the internet.

#33 Posted by spraynardtatum (2798 posts) -

I wonder how many people on their high-horses about this stuff has ever bought a used game. Because if you have then you're a fucking hypocrite. Its the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

#34 Posted by EXTomar (4639 posts) -

No one should feel guilty for using AdBlock Plus or NoScript and commercial sites shouldn't feel guilty about relying on advertising or merch to keep their systems up.

#35 Edited by bigjeffrey (4910 posts) -

Stop throwing you shitty marketing ads at me, I like Coca Cola, Taco Bell and Doritos just show me that

#36 Posted by Sanity (1896 posts) -

I dont use AdBlock and never will, i hate ads like the rest of the world but they are the oil that keeps the internet going. Without ads it just be a bunch of shitty geocities pages, web development costs money.

#37 Posted by Chaser324 (6395 posts) -

Out of respect for web developers and content producers, I don't use AdBlock. That being said, I also avoid using any websites that have obnoxious and intrusive screen filling adverts.

Moderator
#38 Edited by Elwoodan (807 posts) -

@elwoodan said:

The ad campaign also legitimizes something which, in my opinion, is no different from piracy; if a youtuber/writer you like needs you to watch a 15-30 ad so that they can continue to create content you enjoy, and you knowingly block that ad, you might as well be taking the food from their mouths.

They might as well get a real job and not expect me to care about them making money off youtube or writing blogs. I don't think game commentators and bloggers "need the money" to keep doing something almost anyone can do. Give me an example of youtubers or writers who need the ad money.

Internet entertainment is free for a reason, the nerve on you to call it piracy to not have to watch long ads to enjoy the free entertainment is amazing.

The Bombers? how do you think the guys who run this site make their money? There are many people who make a living off quicklook/early impressions style videos, or write reviews of games. If that money dried up, they would, for the most part, be unable to continue. Also, while it is something almost anyone CAN do, very few actually do it successfully. If your watching a video review or quicklook I would assume its because you value the opinion of the person making the video, and without support they wouldn't be able to continue to give you their opinion.

Internet entertainment isn't free, the person who produces it must by the equipment and material to make the videos, then dedicate man-hours to creating actual content. The budget is smaller, but its the same as a TV show or movie. entertainment, regardless of the way it is presented, has a cost.

finally, piracy is a strong word, so I regret using it. Its just a shitty thing to do.

#39 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

To the people that on this thread that think adblock is great @spraynardtatum @jouseldelka and want to remove all ads. I ask one question would you be happy for this to happen if it meant that lots of the sites you visit disappeared? How for example does a site like Rock Paper Shotgun (which I enjoy) make money without ads. Would you accept your favourite sites vanishing?

You can't expect every site on the internet have subs because no-one would be able to afford them all. I think we forget that most of the physical media we consume (TV, Newspapers, Magazines) has always has always had advertising and people have accepted it to a certain extent. It is only the internet which has come to condition us to expecting free content with no strings. I think you have to accept that with no ads comes much reduced content - are you prepared to accept this?

Also @demoskinos I think you are overstating for effect. Buying a used game (or anything) is not the same as buying adblock. Used game sales can't exist without someone buying the game first, so it isn't denying the producer revenue in the same way as adblock. Everyone in the world could use adblock, you can't have everyone buying used. Also adblock users are getting a better service than non-adblock users, for buying used games it is the other way around.

Using adblock is in effect a way of getting your content free. Buying used is not. As long as you pay for something which has been legally purchased it doesn't matter who the money goes to.

#40 Edited by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

We live in a world where everything is designed to annoy the living fuck out of you until you pay to make it go away. That's how F2P games are designed, and thats how websites work with ads and limiting how you can view their content. I think it's a disgusting way of doing things and I refuse to support it. If they want to stop doing that stuff I will gladly uninstall adblock. If they want to stop having annoying eye blasters that cover the entire screen, hide the close button forcing you to spend several minutes hunting around the screen to find it, and stuff that forces you to click "are you sure you want to close this ad" prompts like 3-4 times then I will stop using adblock. Until then I will keep it on and people like Alex resorting to petty schoolyard insults does nothing to deter me. It's not my job for them to find acceptable ways to make money.

The way they have done it obviously doesn't work because no one wants to do it, so start trying to come up with alternate ways.

#41 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

I use AdBlock, have for years and will continue to. I disable it for a few small sites but still use it on here.

No I didn't kill your cat. So don't bother jumping down my throat.

@leebmx said:

As long as you pay for something which has been legally purchased it doesn't matter who the money goes to.

Yes it does. People dislike piracy for two reasons:

1) The jammy bastards are getting stuff for free while they have to pay.

2) No money goes to the creators.

Used games share that in common with point two, and yes an initial sale has to take place for that game to enter the used game circuit but it matters not. Either way every repeated sale is no longer resulting in money for the people that created that content. In the case of piracy for all you know a lot of games are initially purchased (as well as stolen, like potential used games) and then released to the Internet. None of us can possibly know if all pirated copies are first purchased or not, of course it's less likely than the case of used games, but it is still possible that somebody bought a pirated copy and then cracked or ripped it after.

I'm not saying it bothers me either, but it is a double standard that people happily buy used and then shit on those that just pirate games instead. Yeah you're so great for paying money to a shitty company like CeX instead of just pirating it; either way you are not aiding or furthering the cause of the content you are consuming.

#43 Posted by Abendlaender (2782 posts) -

As much as I hate them, ads are sadly important even if they annoy you. They can be vital for websites, and probably still are for GB despite the premium users. I do use Adblock but I only use it to block sites with extremly annoying ads. Anything that makes a sound or obstructs something: You are on the Black List. Anything else: Sure, I can deal with that.

If everybody would use Adblock then either a lot, and I mean a lot, of sites would cease to exist or there would be another, probably even more intrusive, method of showing ads.

#44 Posted by Vampir (134 posts) -

The ideal case for adblock use is for sites that use questionable/objectionable advertising practices, but if a site does have such practices, the best thing is to just not go to those sites at all. No plugin required.

#45 Posted by Brendan (7734 posts) -

As long as they don't get in my way too much, I don't mind ads. Its a good system that doesn't require me to pay for everything directly, which I can't.

In regards to the cable TV comparisons: not only do you have to pay for channels, those channels are still filled with more ads than any internet video you see.

#46 Posted by EXTomar (4639 posts) -

Hmm, why do people predict DOOOOOM! for the scenario where "everyone uses AdBlock"? There are other ways to bring in money where annoying me is not an impressive way to get me to participate let alone give money.

And that is basically my point: I don't have a problem giving a site I like money but the site needs to offer me a mechanism to do it in a pleasant way. If not I have no qualms about taking things into my own hands to make it so whether they want that or not.

#47 Edited by Chaser324 (6395 posts) -

@jouseldelka said:

They might as well get a real job and not expect me to care about them making money off youtube or writing blogs. I don't think game commentators and bloggers "need the money" to keep doing something almost anyone can do. Give me an example of youtubers or writers who need the ad money.

Internet entertainment is free for a reason, the nerve on you to call it piracy to not have to watch long ads to enjoy the free entertainment is amazing.

You do of course realize that the internet isn't a charity, correct? Servers cost money. Web development costs money. Content creation costs money. Google, Twitter, YouTube, Giant Bomb, NeoGAF, Kotaku, and damn near every other website out there relies on ad dollars to operate. While it might not cost you any money to consume it, it does cost money to produce and sustain. I'm not saying it's a great business model, but it's the one the world operates on right now.

Without that ad money, a lot of websites probably cease to exist. A select few others that can attract a large enough user base probably shift to different revenue models such as putting all or most of their functionality and content behind a paywall, at which point I'm sure you'd probably no longer be able to make the incorrect assumption that internet content is all free.

Moderator
#48 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

Content creators on Youtube would shut down/lose their income.
Some of them could go back to their law-stuff, others back to retail (not enough to support a family, yet alone a real life)

So if they lose their jobs and you guys are ok with that then I hope the same thing happens to you and especially now where getting a decent job(meaning one where you're not flipping burgers) is not as easy as your parents wants you to believe.

#49 Posted by alanm26v5 (443 posts) -

Okay, I want to be able to turn off my ad blocker. I've felt guilty about it for a long time, but I'm worried about Internet security and malicious ads. What do I need to install on my computer? Right now I use Chrome on Windows 7 and Microsoft Security Essentials.

#50 Posted by Ares42 (2611 posts) -

@elwoodan: I think you have some misconceptions about how this whole thing works. The money people earn through advertising is already money someone spent. It would never go away, it would just be channeled differently. What would happen to sites like GB if they couldn't make money through advertising is that they suddenly have to compete with real business. The money GB makes is people spending money on all kinds of things and without that funnel GB has to be more important to all it's users than all those products they purchased.

You talk about how only a few people can do this stuff succesfully, but the fact that they have to earn a living through advertising is a testiment that they are actually not succesful. The only reason the site is able to run a viable business is by having a ton of other businesses that have an interest in their userbase to support them. The content they create is not attractive enough to actually support itself.

I'm not saying advertising is the devil and should be abolished or anything, but thinking that it helps us bring out the best and brightest is far from the truth. All it is is a brilliant business-plan that fuels economic growth without a balanced share of value created.