I'm a website owner and I disagree. I want my viewers to have a good experience on my site and bombarding them with spammy ads is not how you do that. There's really no excuse for internet ads to exist, if you can't afford to pay for your own website or blog or YouTube video, then by all means you can accept donations from your fans to keep the site up. But punishing the end-user, just to make a quick buck, is never acceptable, in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't look too much into the topic because I don't really care about it at all, but they way I understood it it's about AdBlock getting paid for which site they put on the whitelist.
Comment has been collapsed.
And that's the reason nobody should use AdBlock Plus
Comment has been collapsed.
And why exactly should I care about who pays the developers of AdBlock?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because in the end it will be bad for you. Adblock Plus is basically creating a new ad network ontop of the existing ones and since they want to be payed for their "work", the amount of ads will increase to compensate the additional costs, which is the exact opposite of what you want to achieve with an ad blocker
Comment has been collapsed.
Still don't really get it to be honest. First of all, I never see any ads. And even if there were some, you could just block them manually the first time you see them and they are gone forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
This doesn't change the fact that websites and ad networks have to pay Adblock Plus to be whitelisted and this additional cost will be payed by you (e.g. by watching more ads). Yes, you can manually work around this but it's better to not support such parasitical companies in the first place. It's not like Adblock Plus is the only ad blocker out there
Comment has been collapsed.
So I shouldn't use an adblocker because it will result in even more ads which I won't see anyways because I'm using said adblocker?
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically yes. But keep in mind that there are other ad blockers that don't have these problems and don't require work arounds to block everything
Comment has been collapsed.
There is 3rd-party subscriptions.
http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions
Comment has been collapsed.
It is good for not viewing ads.
However, if there is a site/service that you enjoy and support, it is typically in good taste to disable your ad blocking programs while visiting their site. This allows you to support them not only figuratively, but literally (by contributing to their ad revenue).
Comment has been collapsed.
but does it matter if I do not care about the number of ads on my screen? I have only been annoyed by ads when my computer is infected with adware, never because of the natural number of ads the website owners put on their website.
Comment has been collapsed.
AdBlock will remove all these ads in your screen, one, two, ten. You can disable it for specific websites though.
Comment has been collapsed.
it blocks ads that are dangerous(some sites don't screen for malware stuff and a misclick is easy enough) invasive(tracking) or obnoxious, it has a whitelist function for websites you wish ad revenue for and you can easily turn it off or on whenever you wish with a single click.
(most emphasis on obnoxious. popups, "you've won a free ipod nano" those things that expand and scroll out across your screen should you mistakenly mouseover the sidebar and require an x be clicked to close, a 3 minute ad for a 2 minute youtube video ect. if they site cares so little for its visitors its being that bad with ads why should I reward them by letting it work? (if a site is reasonable I don't generally begrudge them ad clicks and they can get the whitelist if not then the black)) (well that and fb connect share this crap, I add that to my block list even though they aren't ads)
as for the recently posted youtuber's rant....do you change channels when commercials come on? fast forward with a dvr? go make yourself a sandwich? most everyone does and I bet him as well, adblock is no different
Comment has been collapsed.
I just watched the commercials, I guess I have a high level of tolerance or I am just fine with ads on youtube.
I used to hate ads about me winning stuffs years ago but now I just laugh at them for trying to fool me.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, if ads don't bother you then just don't bother with AdBlock.
Ads support the websites and content you are watching and you don't need to click them for the sites to get paid. A majority of the web is ad-supported so we need people to continue viewing ads. If everyone used AdBlock then websites would either have to set up paywalls, subscriptions or just close up.
Comment has been collapsed.
reply to "Edit (again): A piece of my mind, could be wrong but I love to hear your point on this: ads take from users nothing except space on the website + tolerance so there is zero monetary value a user have to pay from seeing an app but the website owner(s) would get some. It is not bad of a deal if you ask me but is it still too much for internet users?"
its not about space on the webpage that it takes up or costing me anything, its about the terrible ads listed above. there are decent ads and not so decent ones. adblocker lets me stop the bad ones and let through the good.
you say they make money from ads and it costs me nothing, well I say I don't wish to reward these types of ads. be more reasonable and I wouldn't need to refuse you my view count/revenue. If the site wants to be obnixous and use video ads popping up with no mute button and no way to stop them and the big banner ads that drop down and cover half the screen with a tiny x in the corner to minimize them that rarely ever actually works...well fuck em.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, depending if you're user or page-owner. For page-owners, it's evil impersonate (or maybe imsoftwarate) - no ads=no money. For users it's both: you don't see ads (which is good), but if everyone would use it, then 99% of pages will die due to lack of financing (which will make you sad).
In the end, it's as evil as changing TV program/radio station when ads appear. Well, maybe it could be called a bit more evil, as it's more automated.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's a good thing, it let users decide if they want ads, which is their right to choose. I also think any web site owner who thinks they should be able to make an income from just hosting a website is being unreasonable. People need real value content before they are willing to pay, and most website just don't have the kind of content that genuinely warrants up front payment. TL;DR If you want to profit from a website, don't expect to get it from ads, add a donate button, add a hosting costs tracker, give your members something they will feel they want to pay for, and don't spam them with ads and feel hard done by when they decide they don't want ads.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have never donated to any websites. I have done that to youtube channels or specific organizations but never specifically to a website that I like. Besides, I do not think I am able to make this argument but others can: ads take from users nothing except space on the page + tolerance so there is zero monetary value a user have to pay from seeing an app but the website owner(s) would get some. It is not bad of a deal if you ask me but then again, I do not have sufficient knowledge to make or solidify that argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
This depends HIGHLY on the website. As mentioned above, if you find a website valuable, you should whitelist it. Some folks do make their living from the content created on their webpage. The folks that you find value in, you should support, IMO. Otherwise, you're basically just taking from them without compensation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who is taking from who? Are you really "taking" their content? Or are they taking your time? If I have something to share on the internet, my primary concern is dissemination, not monitization. I put it there to get it "out there", I need you to invest your time in reading it. This seems like a fair trade. Somehow this trade has been turned around and instead of us giving our valuable time, we are paying both in time and money to view content who's author is intent on publishing it. Is it really up the viewer to fit the bill for both publishing an authors content, viewing it, the creation of it, the incentive to create it?
Comment has been collapsed.
You're taking their content if you do so repeatedly with no intent of compensating them in any way.
If you're consuming content by "window shopping" and don't care for it, then I agree with you. But when you find something valuable, whether in entertainment or as a professional, then there's no reason not to watch ads to compensate the content creator. That's more than a fair exchange, just like any other kind of media.
Why do you think your time in reading/consuming content is more valuable than theirs in creating it? If a content creator is a professional/good at what they do, they are providing a service/product. Do you work for free?
Again, keep in mind, this is with an understanding that there are plenty of non-pro, terrible content producers out there. But there also plenty who do amazing things with words, images, and programming that deserve to be paid to entertain and inform.
For the most part, I think we agree. That is, I agree that people need to create real content before they earn compensation. But after that, I disagree. A donate button isn't going to make them a living in most instances. Human nature will abuse the shit out of them. And I don't agree with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
" Or are they taking your time?" with this line you can take a piss. The idea the you are not held down and forced means that you are just being introverted with the world. So if you really think that people are forced to go to movies by law and watch the fucking thing. . . then sorry for the next line: If you comprehend the the entertainment industry relies on satisfying it's customers. . . then really you can take this comment as a big up yours.
Honestly if you are failed to be entertained then you will not get support anywhere. if you fail to dazzle an audience then you will not get money from both adverts nor cash flow from your targeted audience. This being said no one is stealing your time they are working hard to meet the demands of their targeted audience. if you are not entertained by the work that they put out both parties will not benefit from that particular event and thus both will not prosper. Thus any arrogant SOB who says that thus said movie took their time away is speaking from a very selfish mindset and might I add introverted POV. One can say that one found that they wasted their time, meaning that the time spent was not worth the gain- overlooking that pure fact that they left with the fact that that form of entertainment wasn't their thing. Or one can say that the director has created something that wasted their time. . . meaning that there was suck a poor job that the time spent to watch is was horrid. . . that's OK. BUT the act to take means that someone actually took something of yours against your will (willingly or unwillingly don't matter). No matter which way you choose you did conduct the act of seeking and obtaining thus form of creation and thus actively engaged so no one TOOK anything from you but in some way you didn't get the gratification you sought out. . . doesn't matter if it is your taste or your failings. . . but the fact that you really need to comprehend no one took anything from you is the most important. Thought if you do or not is up to you. . . .it only depicts the level of arrogance that you really posses. . . call me an ass or loath this comment . . . it don't change much it is the truth.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a good thing if you dont like ads. I personally use it everywhere except here and steamtrades. Even if I like the website I'm browsing, it is always on.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't use adblock in my everyday surfing (i tend not to mind about a few ad photos or small occasional popups), but i'll definitely use it for pages that are eiter unsafe or obnoxious (with dozens of full-screen ads and especially ads with sound when i'm not about to see a video).
That's why I use 2 different browsers :P
Comment has been collapsed.
The way I see it, Adblock is for those that don't like the "commercials" of the internet. I hate commercials, that's why I use other means of watching movies and shows. I understand that advertisements need to be played to sponsor and support websites, as well as networks that have our favorite shows. Some will use it, some won't. That's all there is to say imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Adblock is a great thing and it makes my online experience a lot better than it would be without it. It is an essential add-on for my browser in terms of speed, neatness and performance.
However, it hurts content producers and I understand their issues with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't live without it. Sorry for website owners but I pay for my precious limited bandwidth which I rather use to load your site content quickly than wasting it to load some flash ads that I never cared.
Not to mention some ads are too distracting and ruining whole aesthetics of the website. I'm happy to see they are gone.
I put SG into exception though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good for you! I whitelist sites that have non intrusive ads (like sg) because I want them to not lose money on me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to listen to long playlists on Youtube, usually chill stuff.
One day I noticed, "wtf is this song? this song is not on my playlist?" so I alt+tabbed my game and checked it.
It was a 5 min long noisy song, a FULL SONG AD. Got it?
That was the day I got adblock and from that day my internet browsing experience improved greatly. Everything is so neat. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Five minute song ad is nothing to thirty minutes TV Show they tried to make me watch.
Comment has been collapsed.
Adblock is not a bad thing at all
I don't really care about a few seconds of ad before youtube videos, and it's a good way of keeping them free for the final user, but on the other hand, I have to protect my pc against threats.
Since I'm not the only one who use my pc, it's important to block ads that may lead to scam sites or malwares, and since these ads are present even on big sites nowadays, like youtube and facebook, adblock is a must-have to complete my internet security :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I use Ad Block on my home browser but I turned it off on youtube to support the channels I like. I even will not skip ads under 2-1.5 min given the choice if it's a channel I want to support and the ad length makes sense for the video length. I don't think Ad Block is a bad thing because there are a lot of terrible ads out there but if you do use it, use it responsibly.
Comment has been collapsed.
It isn't a bad thing. I don't like who adblock hurts or how they extort sites to pay to bypass their freeware version of it. That being said it harms the people who put up sites like this or people on Youtube. Adblock does do more damage then good.
Comment has been collapsed.
I started using it 4-5 years ago, when AdSense (I think) started adding for Italian users a Parmesan cheese Ad with a popping bottle of wine. If you had a page with several banners or a few tabs open, it was incredibly annoying.
There is a way to whitelist sites, and there is a greasemonkey script to whitelist specific Youtube users, so you can finetune your experience.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Starting with Adblock Plus 2.0 you can allow some of the advertising not considered annoying to be viewed. By doing this you support websites that rely on advertising but choose to do it in a non-intrusive way. And you give these websites an advantage over their competition, one which encourages other websites to use non-intrusive advertising as well. In the long term the web will become a better place for everyone, not just Adblock Plus users. Without this feature there is a risk that increasing Adblock Plus usage will make small websites unsustainable." -from adblock's site
Payment details are here "We are being paid by some larger properties that serve non-intrusive advertisements that want to participate in the Acceptable Ads initiative."
Yes people have to pay to get white-listed. . .
Comment has been collapsed.
It is good for us, but it is bad for the company. I use adblock(so criminal, much problem) but I let appears ads in places that I know I can trust(ads can also give you virus) and don't put ads above something that I was reading(I hate when I try to read some news or documentary and appears an ads blocking my view).
Comment has been collapsed.
From my experience, and reading people's opinions, I'd have to sum it up with "With great power comes with great responsibility." Adblock is amazing in that it stops ads but you shouldn't use it on Youtube or other sites where ads are the way people make money. I know that last part was bad engrish, but I hope you get the point :P
Comment has been collapsed.
What's the fundamental difference between ads on YouTube and ads, say, on the New York Times site?
Comment has been collapsed.
New York Times sells magazines, along with other things, so they get more revenue from that. When I said Youtube I didn't mean the owners of Youtube. I was talking about the users who make videos and monetize them.
Comment has been collapsed.
sales are always below cost of production Advertising pays for the cost of production of a magazine. I work in the industry. in no way or form does any newspaper or magazines make money form sales. This is why the media sector has been under fire for the past 70 years. . . Every publication does not attack the people who pay for their advertisements. Even T.V. Networks fall into this line of fire. Every T.V. show gets money from viewers, because like Youtube every viewer makes the network get paid per ad. This show is brought to you by ___.
Comment has been collapsed.
I learned something new today :) thanks for your insight on how things work.
Comment has been collapsed.
55 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Chris76de
22 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by Luckz
85 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by ZPE
1,043 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by sensualshakti
1,963 Comments - Last post 39 minutes ago by Gamy7
36 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by Gamy7
16 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by m0r1arty
523 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Gumos
147 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by brian14
2,230 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by SebasR
142 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by MarvashMagalli
177 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by MarvashMagalli
6 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by moomphas
465 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by DarkMercy
It was mentioned in the "PSA YouTube is saying a big FU to gamers" thread but the whole thread was so chaotic that I had a really hard time following people's opinion.
Personally I have never used adblock before not because I hate it but more like I never care to get it or look up where can I get the app. Now I have seen so many arguments about adblock being the paladin of the internet protecting users from harmful entities called ads, I'm getting really curious about adblock now. So...is adblock bad or good? A little more details about what it does and how it does would be helpful too.
I know this thread might appear redundant since the issue was also discussed in the other thread so I am willing to remove this one if the majority are not comfortable with my thread.
Edit: also, is 30s of ad before a youtube video that bad? I sometimes enjoy those ads too. I do not defend advertisements in general but it ain't that atrocious.
Edit (again): A piece of my mind, could be wrong but I love to hear your point on this: ads take from users nothing except space on the website + tolerance so there is zero monetary value a user have to pay from seeing an app but the website owner(s) would get some. It is not bad of a deal if you ask me but is it still too much for internet users?
Comment has been collapsed.