Bombin' the A.M. With Scoops and the Wolf! 08/26/2013

I think there's more to the ad discussion than you guys realize. I do use adblock, but it ends up only being to block obtrusive elements on sites, block anything with video/audio, and to block anything that will open a new window. In all honestly I think people greatly blow the crapiness of ads out of proportion and claim them to be significantly worse than they are (in most cases) in order to justify their use of a blocker. A static banner ad on the side of the page is not intrusive and it gives dues to the content creator whose site I'm using.

My real issue comes in the form of ad tracking, rather than the ads themselves. Advertisers today try to pull so much information on consumers, profile them, track their usage across the web, etc, and that's what I have a problem with. I'd really prefer if ads worked more like they do in a newspaper in all senses, where advertisers just pay for a spot on the page, the ads are all completely static, and those advertisers don't receive any more information their consumers personally. As I would like the internet to largely stay as free and open as it is now, I allow most trackers since impression-based ads don't work without them, and having to do that sucks. I've got both tracking and ads blocked by default, but on the first use of any site I'll disable the appropriate things and refresh the page. Everything needs to default to blocked as I refuse unblock stupid social media buttons from Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter, etc, that track users across all sites, and usually ads that are especially intrusive are easy to spot. At least advertisers only track me on the pages they've got ads on, whereas those social media buttons are on almost all pages. While content creators generally have good intentions with those buttons, they're pretty much as crappy as it gets, and it makes it really easy for those massive companies to track their users anywhere they go on the web.

Personally, my hope is that ads will move to be inline, and that seems like the most likely way for ads to move if adblockers gain significantly more popularity. It solves the tracking problem for consumers and I generally don't think they're that intrusive. For as much as I would love for things to move away from the current ad structure and into inline, the thing that would directly influence advertisers to switch away gets content creators caught in the crossfire. There's not really any easy solution here, and while I empathize with content creators, allow ads, and generally disagree with people who block ads as I think its kind of self indulgent, it doesn't surprise me so many people block ads. You guys also probably get it a lot worse than most sites because you've got a bunch of nerds using your site, who are more likely to be aware of both ads and adblockers.

Patrick I love you, but how do you not know how to say Bolshevik?

I like the name for this content...it is totally in the vein of dumb early morning radio show names so I say keep it up

Alex trying hard to ruin this new awesome feature already, haha.

No masks, and no dumb sound effects please :P

If you don't want people accessing your content for free, don't make it available for free. That's all there is to it. If you can't make enough money from your revenue model to support your content, it's not the fault of ad block. It's the fault of either your revenue model or the content itself.

I realize Patrick and Alex are very close to this issue because they work in an industry that is primarily ad supported, but it's simply a flawed business model, and the onus is not on the consumer to support a flawed model but on the content creator to come up with or use a superior model.

There's a reason there's a gold medal under my user icon, and this is not the only website with a subscription model that I pay for.

Don't listen to him, Alex. Keep doing stupid shit!

Come on @alex, buy some real headphones!

Adblock=piracy is a very very stupid argument that Patrick needs to stop using.

My view on adblock mirrors what Jeff put on his tumblr on the matter: 'it’s not your job to help some dying business model limp on so that advertisers and the people that sell ads don’t have to learn new skills and find new ways to evolve their product.'

All that being said, I turn off adblock for the sites I really enjoy, unless I find the ads intrusive.

That was the best argument about adBlock I think I've ever heard. Typically it's just been people trying to be cheeky but coming off as asses. Thanks guys. :)

Gotta say Alex RE: PS3 hackability. It's just a hard drive dude. Rockstar's job to encrypt it all. Don't think this really says much of anything about the PS4 or even about the PS3. If Rockstar distributed the preload the same way on PC/steam the exact same thing would happen.

As for AdBlock: Whitelist only and I'm never going to be convinced to change. Malware is spread almost exclusively through rogue ad banners, and while I trust the ad team at CBSi and other sites to curate properly, I do not trust the general internet one god damn bit. Your attempt at moralizing and blaming the community is pitiful. This is fully on the advertisers. AdBlock is a central component of ANY decent security for your PC. Even the big dogs like FOX, Yahoo, and Google have in the past spread malware via ads.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/yahoo-fox-and-google-inadvertently-spread-malware-through-ads/

http://blogs.computerworld.com/mobile-security/22691/cybercrooks-find-ad-networks-and-malware-profitable-combo

http://threatpost.com/phony-adobe-plug-in-malware-bypassess-craigslist-spam-controls

I could go on with hundreds, thousands of posts reiterating the same fact: if you browse the web regularly without adblock you're basically putting a loaded gun to your system. There is nothing greedy, self-indulgent, or even morally questionable about protecting your system from infections.

Oh man, right? Like he'd never heard the word before. I also love you, Patrick, but that was rough.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

awooooo