@Weltal said:
I remove Ad-Block on a case by case basis; if the site is one which I love, like Giant Bomb, I'll pay for the ability to remove ads and support it. Even if I love a site though I'm not going to turn Ad-Blocker off if they have awful advertisement polices (Pop-ups, audio advertisements and the like), that's something they need to correct and not the visitors responsibility.
This. There are sites out there that are specifically designed to fuck shit up for you. You can usually subscribe to and support trustworthy sites or sites you actually frequent, but for just browsing the web? There is absolutely no shame in using adblock.
I was making websites back when we had banner exchanges and spinning gifs. Since then, advertisements evolved into an absolute mess in some case. Some sites today still use unacceptable practices and techniques surrounding that stuff, and the best way to show your distaste for it is to actively do something about it, like NOT turn of adblock and give them more money. Even if all you do is visit the site and hit the back button because you know that site is going to be a terrible experience, it can still count as "ads served". Heck, even back then, users didn't want ads thrown in their face and found clever ways to block all images that were certain sizes and such.
I'm just waiting for suits to find a way to illegalize plugins like adblock though, on the grounds of "you're stealing content!".
I think it's just good practice to a) make the ads non-intrusive, b) make ads relevant c) let the user choose themselves if they want to see them or not and d) make sure the design of the website doesn't break if the user is using an ad remover. That's my philosophy behind it at least.
Log in to comment