Or the illegal streaming site known as Google AdSense.
Those links were from the last time this came up a year ago. I couldn’t be bothered to look for new ones. People who think malware only comes from the seedy underbelly of the net are being shocking naive. Which I guess is great news if you’re a malware distributor.
There is another potential outcome, which most of us a little further down the spectrum from DrCube would find acceptable. That the ads become unobtrusive, non-damaging, benign, and present as much of an issue or distraction as ads in print media.
Then very few would require ad-blockers and everyone (OK, most everyone) would be happy.
And even if the ad-based sites cannot make a profit and decide not to change and so disappear…so what? people will still make web sites and post stuff. There will still be news and boobs and discussions and boobs and reviews and boobs and education and boobs. I suspect there will be boobs too but I can’t certain.
The internet is the way it is today because your “solution” is how it all started in the first place…and it didn’t work.
Here is a primer on what it costs to run a website.
It may be an arms race (Thanks, just installed uBlock Origin) but the question is do you think ad blocking developers will win or content providers? Sure some people won’t be bothered to adopt the latest blocking tools and ads will reach those folks. The people who care enough will find ways to block. It’s like how coupons act as a price discriminator, those that are willing to put in the time and effort can save a little, and those that don’t find it worth it pay a higher price.
I don’t think content on the internet is in danger of going away anytime soon - seems to be working splendidly.
There’s one site that I use frequently that tells me to turn off my ad blocker. And I tell it, “yeah, sure, I’ve turned it off.” And it lets me in. Even though I haven’t turned off the blocker.
You said they’ll either succeed in bypassing ad blocking software (aka delivering unwanted spam to my private machine), or cease to exist. I say, good luck to them, let’s see how it works out. In the game of who controls my property, I’m not rooting for them to win. They are the bad guys. But, you are rooting for them. So, it’s like you are the Cubs fan to my Cardinals. Or the Cavs fan to my Warriors. So, “Game on”. May the best man win.
And an soon-to-come edition of their software will be able to tell if you are lying or not.
If you win, what “property” will be left to enjoy? What would be available today if there were no ads?
…and instead of coming up with something new, they said “Well, maybe the ads aren’t noisy/flashy/intrusive enough – that must be the problem” and keep beating the same dead horse and try to find a way to force a 20th century advertising solution down everyone’s throats. Only now with the additional ‘benefit’ of potentially infecting your computer or hijacking it or locking it with ransomware if you blindly let all the ads through.
Do you think the New York Times or BBC or Yahoo! is going to reimburse me for the money and time if I get hit with ransomware from their site (as their sites have previously hosted)? Of course not. So why would I be so stupid as to willingly open a conduit for that to happen? Or why would I feel like the onus is on me to come up with a better advertising solution for them? That’s their job – my job is keeping my computer safe.
The only reason “unobtrusive, non-damaging, benign” ads supposedly didn’t work is because advertisers figured out that being sleazy worked a bit better. Punch the monkey, popups, and ads that jumped around and hid the close box drew more attention and increased the number of accidental clicks. You see this a lot in mobile advertising now, which is harder to block. The ad networks even suggest sleazy tactics to improve clicks such as making the close box as small as possible, waiting to show the ad for a few seconds so people click on it by accident, and making it look like inline content. None of this is good user experience and it’s all underhanded and offensive. It’s also about diminishing returns. The more invasive the ads become, the more people want to block them.
Google search ads are a good example of non-intrusive ads based on what you’re searching for. Besides that though, not everything on the web needs to be monetized, nor should it be. I run a couple of small websites. One is a local history site that I originally hosted on Apple’s iTools and later MobileMe when I was in college. After those services were canceled in favor of iCloud (which still has e-mail and storage but not web hosting) I got a shared hosting plan and domain for about $115/year. This is also my e-mail provider as well. It’s a hobby website and I have no problem paying a little bit out of pocket for it especially since e-mail comes with the package.
Another website is for photo sales. That costs me $50/year plus 10% of sales. I have also had a banner ad on that site as well, but one which I hosted on the same server and which I negotiated for a couple hundred dollars a year with the local businesses whose ad I showed. If it was more than one business, I set up some javascript code to randomly rotate the banner/link as necessary when people changed pages. That’s extra money on top of the photo sales, and it’s not only vetted by me but hosted entirely by me as well. It’s no different than podcasters reading sponsor scripts as opposed to letting an ad network inject who knows what sort of audio into their podcast.
Internet Service Providers used to give all subscribers some website space as part of their service (if they still do, it’s a pittance that’s useless in this day and age). That’s not a bad strategy in my opinion, so long as it’s actually usable, especially since ISPs these days seem more interested in raising prices, throttling bandwidth, and refusing to build out infrastructure, so maybe we should get more for our money.
This all goes back to “your business model isn’t guaranteed to make money now or in the future.” If nobody is willing to pay for blogs or cat videos, then maybe they really aren’t valuable enough to make money off of in the first place. Same with TV, which actually has historical precedent for adblocking, i.e. VCR’s and DVR’s. With a VCR you’re recording the program and then later fast-forwarding through the commercials. With a DVR, much like web adblocking, you’re recording and watching virtually in real time, and still able to skip the commercials (mostly). No matter how much advertisers and network execs don’t like it, you can do it, just like you can mute the TV, turn it off, or go to another room while commercials are playing. They can’t force you to sit there and watch it, A Clockwork Orange style, nor can they force you to open up your computer to play their shit either.
And two days later, the updated version of the consumer’s ad-blocker will circumvent it again. The difference being that the company spent thousands of dollars on the “soon-to-come edition” and the consumer downloaded a free patch made by hobbyists. Who’s going to win that fight?
Everything and then some? Advertising is psychological warfare. When you end warfare, everyone benefits. Except those who profit from it, of course.
This is the broken window fallacy times a million. “If no one spams you and infects you with viruses, how will they ever make a profit??” They won’t, and that’s a good thing. Or rather, they will find a way to make a profit by benefiting people, instead.
We survived just fine before our entire public environment became oriented around psychologically manipulating people into throwing their money away, and we will certainly thrive after that cancer is removed. Until then, I’ll do what I can to prevent the worst of it from affecting me and mine. If you want to wallow in it, you’re certainly free to.
That’s fine. The ones I use have options for those who don’t want to turn off the ad blocker to subscribe or login (like allmusic.com and Forbes.)
I don’t know what the solution is, but somehow these companies do need to find ways of paying the bills. I think giving people the choice of either whitelisting the ads or buying a subscription (or otherwise creating an account) is reasonable.
The people with money at stake and the willingness to do anything to get it. I suppose if you want it for free, you could always sign up for Netzero.
Whoops!
Judging from this thread, the “subscription” option is a no-go.
What does Netzero have to do with ad blockers? You realize that there’s entire communities out there solely for the purpose of defeating that sort of thing, right? How much money do you suppose is at stake in software piracy? Wow, that must be why they came out with that uncrackable software protection, right? You know, the stuff that doesn’t exist because every time they try, a bunch of guys on Reddit kick it back to the curb and distribute their work for free?
Do the “people with money at stake” have infinite money to pay coders while the the hobbyists find new ways to defeat their efforts? Seems like, at some point, you realize that you’re picking the wrong ‘solution’ to throw money at.
Editor of my local paper told me he knows it’s real easy to avoid the pay wall and he is not worried about it at least for now.
NY times has 1 million paid subscribers of their site but most papers are not the NY times.
I would be fine with that! Even if malware weren’t an issue, it still takes forever for some ads to load. Sometimes it just takes one with a slow server to hang the whole page. Gah!!
Honestly, I thought computer killing viruses (at least the kind you get while casually browsing the net) were a thing of the past. I haven’t had one in nearly a decade, and the only thing I use for protection is whatever Windows offers for free.
You guys know when you get a big flashy pop up screen that says: “Oh noes! We found a virus on your computer. Hit “Scan Now” and we will totally take care of it for you!” that you shouldn’t hit “scan now”?