Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Ad blockers

Ad blockers (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:15 PM
 
I have never intentionally clicked on an ad. Not once.

These sites had better start digging deep to figure out what alternative, sustainable, ethical revenue streams exist that they can implement. Fast.

The reason people don't feel guilty is because the ads have gone from being necessary to being invasive. It's like transitioning from passing your luggage through an x-ray machine to doing a full-body 3D scan that reveals your genitalia to an unseen TSA worker. It's creepy, it's shady, and I'll avoid it every chance I get.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I've been using both, but have been suffering some issues in regards to pages not loading.

I deactivated Ghostery, and the issues ceased. I was wondering if anyone else had any issues.
You should tweak it - you can brutally block everything and make the web useless, or apply a little finesse - but it takes a bit of time to get it right.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
These sites had better start digging deep to figure out what alternative, sustainable, ethical revenue streams exist that they can implement. Fast.
The future is all sponsored content /notcompletelyjoking
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The future is all sponsored content /notcompletelyjoking
I feel like we're going to regret all of this one day.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:28 PM
 
yep.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
I wasn't asking you to have guilt, you can do what you want with your computer. Just be aware that there's consequences, is all.

However, you can't say you're not involved with the problem. Yes, the ad vendors and publishers are too.

In your indignation about no guilt, you missed this part. "If you block our ads, you've got your own reasons."
What consequences? That word implies that there's some fault of mine for something that goes wrong.

Ok, let me put it this way: my computer, that I make my living on, is more important to me than some web site who's screwing with said computer.

If web sites wouldn't put up ads that screw with my computer, then I wouldn't need the ad blocker.

Hence, blame THEM for it, not me.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I feel like we're going to regret all of this one day.
Better hope the future doesn't look like video games journalism.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Just be aware that there's consequences, is all.
Doesn't that also apply to websites whose ad revenue comes from ads that drive their visitors to block them?
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Doesn't that also apply to websites whose ad revenue comes from ads that drive their visitors to block them?
Pretty much this.

You can't blame people for shutting out what's annoying. That's why I don't have guilt. When a web site reaches into my computer and screws with it, all bets are off.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:36 PM
 
Remember when Magnavox sold a TV that equalized volume because commercials were just that obnoxious?
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
What consequences? That word implies that there's some fault of mine for something that goes wrong.

Ok, let me put it this way: my computer, that I make my living on, is more important to me than some web site who's screwing with said computer.

If web sites wouldn't put up ads that screw with my computer, then I wouldn't need the ad blocker.

Hence, blame THEM for it, not me.
"This guy made me do it" never is a viable defense. I think you're reading more into what I'm saying. I'm not laying this all at the hands of the readers, and my responses across two threads here has said that.

Do you block unilaterally because of some ads? Then yes, then there's no question its your fault as well - who gets swept up in your purge? Its less clear if you have a whitelist.

This is all the biggest chicken and the egg situation, ever. Ads hit the internet. People decried the appearance, because of some notion that the internet is free. Blockers appeared, revenue dropped. Ads got more prevalent and more intrusive to hit the people that didn't block, ad infinitum.

I blame them too. I universally hate each and every ad vendor that exists, because no matter what, the policing isn't good enough, or the revenue is unsustainable, or both. Just don't tell me that your action has no effect.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:01 PM
 
But WHY did ad blockers appear?

Popunders and popovers.

Obnoxious uses of ads, not the ads themselves.

That's where it all started. If people would just have normal ads on their site, this wouldn't be an issue.

Again, my action is a direct result of what was thrown at me. I didn't ask for it. You keep pointing the finger and me and neglect to understand that some random web site messing with my property is grounds for me deciding to keep sites from doing that altogether.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:05 PM
 
No, I completely understand you, and understand the rationale.

From this chair, I just think you're wrong on not having some responsibility. From your chair, the viewpoint is different.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:10 PM
 
I don't understand the "random websites stick it to me is justification to stick it to websites who don't" construction.

I'm not saying don't do this, I'm saying call a spade a spade. One of the results of this action is punishing those who don't deserve it.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
No, I completely understand you, and understand the rationale.

From this chair, I just think you're wrong on not having some responsibility. From your chair, the viewpoint is different.
I sit in your chair too. Do you think you're the only person here that runs web sites?

I find other ways to make money. I adapt.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't understand the "random websites stick it to me is justification to stick it to websites who don't" construction.

I'm not saying don't do this, I'm saying call a spade a spade. One of the results of this action is punishing those who don't deserve it.
Again, there are other ways to make money on the web.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
macdude22
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
I didn't say we were, and I didn't say we weren't running a Patreon. I also didn't say that our death was imminent.

Patreon and the ilk aren't rocket surgery, but there's a right way, and a wrong way to go about it. It can be flipping a switch and saying "LOL give us money," but it shouldn't be. Also, you guys would contribute to a Patreon, but would our drive-by traffic do so?
Frankly, unless you only browse one or two sites day to day patreon style funding quickly becomes untenable. I can't be managing accounts at 40 different sites donating a buck at every one. I'm pretty pro google contributor, I can contribute real cash to sites I frequent, I'm rewarded with quick loads and a staticish image thanking me for my contribution. In fact in the last week macnn has made .08 off me. At last you all can retire!

Now obviously this doesn't cover all the ad networks (though google sure seems to have bought a lot of them) but it's a good portion of the ad's you see day to day. The bigger issue with this is that it does nothing for the tracking. I can go to imore.com get MUCH quicker loads, see my i've contributed static image, and look at a tracking tool and they've gleaned just as much info off me as if I laid eyes on the ad. To me thats the big problem. I can't block all this stuff and have contributor work. But if I am contributing my cash directly to a site then any argued social contract involving that tracking is null and void IMO. I'm not sure where the happy medium is but we are in an interesting transitional state, who knows what the industry will look like in 10 years.
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man."
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:41 PM
 
starman, I don't run your sites, and you don't run mine, nor did I say that I'm the only person who's ever run a website, so I'm not sure where you got that. Yours isn't MacNN, and could be Amazon for all I know, and your situation with your sites is different as I'm sure you know.

I get to think that you're wrong, and you get to think that I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure we aren't going to see eye-to-eye.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
Again, there are other ways to make money on the web.
Do these other methods mean MacNN's (reasonable) model deserves punishment?
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 04:16 PM
 
At first I was going to respond with some good advice but in the end, it just seems to me that people are still stuck on web ads like it's 2007.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
The guy producing the (awesome) British History podcast ( a Yank, amusingly enough) quit being a successful (but unfulfilled) lawyer to produce his show. He's got a freemium model going that makes enough to support him. I don't think he's making as much as he used to, but he claims to be much, much happier.
So does the host of my favorite history podcast, Dan Carlin. I'll make sure to check it out, though. I think for 1-3 person teams a freemium model is a viable alternative. For larger sites, not so much.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 07:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do these other methods mean MacNN's (reasonable) model deserves punishment?
The point is that a sizable share of the internet population no longer thinks of the implementation of this model as reasonable. Just like people would stop watching a TV show at broadcast if for 60 minutes of television they had to endure 40 minutes of ads. Even reputable advertisers (e. g. premium car manufacturers) use popover ads these days, so it isn't just a few shady companies doing that.

So yes, I think because this model is no longer reasonable and sustainable, it deserves punishment.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 09:08 PM
 
But you're not describing MacNN. MacNN does not subject you to 2/3 adds.

You're arguing because others are unreasonable it is acceptable to punish MacNN, no?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But you're not describing MacNN. MacNN does not subject you to 2/3 adds.
I just checked: I disabled ad blocking and reloaded Apple, Macintosh, iPod and iPhone news | MacNN, and Ghostery found 12 trackers (initially 5, but after a while 7 others were loaded). With ad blockers running, it took a little over 8 seconds to transfer 2.9 MB. Without ad blockers I have >30 seconds of network and rendering activity, and twice the amount of data is transferred. If you have a look, you will notice that sever 1x1 pixel gifs are being loaded, for instance. Compared to other prominent sites, that's a comparatively small number — but still even MacNN's levels are nowhere near acceptable for me. Of course these numbers may vary depending on what ads the ad lottery fairy selected for you, but I think my point is clear.

I rarely use my iPhone to access MacNN, so I don't know how they fare when it comes to annoying ads.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're arguing because others are unreasonable it is acceptable to punish MacNN, no?
No, I am saying that even the better sites contain an unacceptable amount of tracking and advertising. Personally, I'm more concerned about the privacy aspect on the desktop, while on my iPhone there are substantially more popover ads (in addition to all the privacy issues).

Just to be clear: I am aware that the people at MacNN are probably working very hard to keep the amount of ads as minimal as they can make it, but they are forced like any website to “play the game” in order to pay their bills. Unlike other websites I don't think they have any ill-will or contempt towards their readership, quite the contrary. Finding a business model where the interests of publishers, ad/tracking companies and readership all point in different directions is extremely hard.

And you are right that “innocent” web pages are being punished, too, sites like daringfireball.com or other sites which use The Deck ads, for instance. They get railroaded. But that's because in the current climate a nuanced approach is next to impossible.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 10:50 PM
 
Yeah... going to out myself here.

I don't ever go to the main site. When I say "MacNN" I mean the forums.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2015, 11:07 PM
 
This is an editorial from the perspective of someone from advertising (hat tip to John Gruber). I haven't read it yet, but I feel it is pertinent to this discussion here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 04:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think that's the crucial question here, but it's a two-parter: The first is whether or not I am entitled to access the content while running an ad blocker. The answer is simple: No. You can't expect to have free beer whenever you want it. But publishers can and have blocked visitors who run ad blockers from accessing their content. As long as they don't, they permit this to go on. And the reason is obvious: even people who block ads may link to the article and attract other visitors who are not running and ad blocker.

Secondly, there is a limit to what a publisher can get when I choose to visit a site once. I don't think giving up privacy after having left the site is reasonable and should be illegal.

But the situation here is that I am not being told in advance that you're going to poke me in the eye with a stick. Even if I adopt your viewpoint, the terms of the agreement are not clear, and they can be changed unilaterally. What is more, publishers can enforce this agreement by not showing content unless your ad blocker is disabled. That's the crucial point to me. To go back to your story, that's like you asking me to let you poke me in the eye with a stick, me replying “No.”, and then you giving me access anyway — you can't complain in my view. (Or to use your analogy: using an ad blocker isn't against the rules after all.)
What you're arguing here is if the seller doesn't take means to insure you meet the price then you have no obligation to.

That doesn't compute for me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Let me add something else to the discussion here: Let us have a look at the situation of music downloads between 1998 and 2003~2005: There are no good legal options to buy music (especially internationally). Is it morally defensible that I (and probably you, too) was downloading music illegally, even if “just” because it was more convenient and cheaper? (In my case, I was also doing this to pressure the industry to embrace online music sales, I've spent a four-digit amount in legal downloads since then.) Arguably, it was the popularity of illegal ways to download music that forced the music industry to change, and it took years. And without that outside pressure, I don't think we would have an iTunes Music Store today. Would the music industry be in better or worse shape?
Let me toss this out on the table.

There are times theft is morally defensible. Pre-iTMS/Airport Express, I'd say it was for music. Afterwards, no.

Unless, as I said upthread, they pull "Album Only" shit on you.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Album Only" shit
I'm sorry, but that is IMNSHO such bullshit.

I can decide to sell you whatever the **** I want. Buy it or leave it.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever argued that if you just LOOOOVE the opening lines of Chapter 4, the author is somehow obligated to let you buy just page 43. That's ridiculous.

If you want just those lines, then by all means, just go ahead and quote them for your own personal purposes, but don't make it out like I'm some kind of asshole for not making provisions to sell you just part of my work.

It's really time for people to stop trotting that out.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm sorry, but that is IMNSHO such bullshit.

I can decide to sell you whatever the **** I want. Buy it or leave it.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever argued that if you just LOOOOVE the opening lines of Chapter 4, the author is somehow obligated to let you buy just page 43. That's ridiculous.

If you want just those lines, then by all means, just go ahead and quote them for your own personal purposes, but don't make it out like I'm some kind of asshole for not making provisions to sell you just part of my work.

It's really time for people to stop trotting that out.
An entire album which is album only is what you're talking about.

What I'm talking about is the person who says you can buy pages 45 or 48, but not 43.

That's ****ing with me, it's an implicit admission their pages 45 and 48 suck, and my response to the person is "go **** yourself. I'm stealing it. Come at me bro."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 06:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What you're arguing here is if the seller doesn't take means to insure you meet the price then you have no obligation to.

That doesn't compute for me.
I don't see the connection between my post and your response. So let me take another crack at it: There is a difference between things that are publicly available (open house with a sign on it “Please come in!”) and things that are not (where you have to intrude to take something). If you make something publicly available, the onus is on you to decide whether or not you want to introduce and enforce restrictions (e. g. IP-based geo blocking or ad blocking detection). You set the conditions of the deal, and part of that may be that you decide to (or not to) introduce ad blocker detection (which can be implemented with practically zero effort).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are times theft is morally defensible. Pre-iTMS/Airport Express, I'd say it was for music. Afterwards, no.
The reason I take issue with the word stealing is that to me it is a word that only applies to physical goods, but not to ephemeral things (like data or ideas). Insisting to use words such as “theft” or “stealing” just makes a discussion more difficult. Plus, it implies that what you are doing is illegal. To my knowledge, ad blockers are perfectly legal in all the jurisdictions I am aware of. (Whether you judge each act to be morally justifiable is another issue to me entirely.)

Stealing a car, illegally downloading music and accessing a website with an ad blocker are very different: the first two are illegal, and the damage in the first case is several orders of magnitude larger. The last is perfectly legal. In the first two cases, access is not public, in the latter it is. In the first two cases, it is a one-sided affair — the copyright holder does not benefit from you not downloading a song, and you do not have any negative repercussions either. With ad-financed web publications, things are much more complicated, and resorting to words like “stealing” portrays the situation in the wrong way — only one side suffers, and only one side benefits.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 08:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is an editorial from the perspective of someone from advertising (hat tip to John Gruber). I haven't read it yet, but I feel it is pertinent to this discussion here.
This one was interesting, and mostly I think it makes sense. A few points though:

* He doesn't even consider doing less tracking of user activity. He wants to have one script tracking all the data and then sharing it to all advertisers, to make it more efficient, but he won't even entertain the notion that they should stop tracking users.
* He goes a bit overboard regarding the adblocking companies that sell space on their whitelists, but that is hardly a solution anyway - then those companies only become one more toll.
* He doesn't speak of retiring technologies, like Flash, only about methods. Ads kept using Flash for years too long.

Other than that, he's sketching out a retreat similar to what ended the popups. The problem is that those users who block ads today aren't going to come uninstall those adblockers now just because ads become a little less annoying - and why should they? Adtech companies have shown over and over again that they aren't to be trusted. No, I don't see a good way out of this.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 10:21 AM
 
Here are my 5 Euro cents (or Yen) on the piece (I'm not going to repeat the points you have mentioned, I agree with them):

(1) He assumes publishers will be able to show ads to consumers again. Now that the well has been poisoned, ad blockers will remain a fixture for a large share of users. It's not as if popup blockers disappeared and then ad companies started showing “tasteful popups” again.

(2) He seems to overestimate the quality of ads. In reality, most ads are really shitty and annoying. Even established companies use popovers and other nefarious techniques. More specifically, he writes:
Originally Posted by Randall Rothenberg
TV advertising, most would agree, is immensely more entertaining than it was in decades past, and often directly relevant to the shows and vertical networks on which it runs.
Maybe this is too subtle a point for me, but last time I checked, it was as cruddy as ever. (There have always been diamonds in the rough, but these are far and few in between.) What is even more important is that less and less people are watching TV ads, and the new generation that grew up on Netflix and Youtube will no longer be used to constant interruptions by ads.

When you suggest change, you need to assume IMHO that most of the ads are crappy, and work from there.

(3) He doesn't mention trackers at all, alluding to “insights” about the user. That smells like marketing bullshit rather than a contribution to a useful discourse. Trackers are the elephant in the room, and if the best you have are voluntary limitations and vague allusions to “best practices” (what are those, exactly?), then you are leaving out an important topic.

(4) His suggestions are either based on voluntary restraint (we all saw how that worked out) or rely on unrealistic scenarios: You want “publishers to take control of their advertisement and turn down advertisement that doesn't meet their standards.” Really?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm sorry, but that is IMNSHO such bullshit.

I can decide to sell you whatever the **** I want. Buy it or leave it.
Most people don't really care what you, or anyone else, thinks is BS. Selling by the single is standard now, and not doing so only leaves the artist open to being ripped off. You want your dollar for the song or not? They're going to get the music, legitimately or not.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
(3) He doesn't mention trackers at all, alluding to “insights” about the user. That smells like marketing bullshit rather than a contribution to a useful discourse. Trackers are the elephant in the room, and if the best you have are voluntary limitations and vague allusions to “best practices” (what are those, exactly?), then you are leaving out an important topic.
They're purposely avoiding the issue of tracking and info gathering, which is their primary source of income, not the individual (annoying) ads. You're the product in the current model, never forget that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Most people don't really care what you, or anyone else, thinks is BS. Selling by the single is standard now, and not doing so only leaves the artist open to being ripped off. You want your dollar for the song or not? They're going to get the music, legitimately or not.
And I have to admit, even if you offer a fair "album only" for all the tracks because you as an artist consider the album to be a whole piece, I'm still probably going to steal it, I just have less justification.

That said, chances are the only way I heard about it in the first place was hearing an individual song on Pandora, so the musician clearly has some willingness to bust up their work.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:35 PM
 
@OreoCookie

You bring up many legit points which are worthy of being addressed. Have real life today, but shall respond soon.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:37 PM
 
I don't see how stealing music (it IS stealing), and blocking ads are the same thing. They're not.

Music you take. Willingly. If you don't pay for it, you're stealing it.

Ads are being pushed AT you. ONTO your computer. There's a huge difference.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
I don't see how stealing music (it IS stealing), and blocking ads are the same thing. They're not.

Music you take. Willingly. If you don't pay for it, you're stealing it.

Ads are being pushed AT you. ONTO your computer. There's a huge difference.
Ads may be pushed, but the end result is the same. Content is being consumed that didn't get paid for.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:45 PM
 
Content you take, willingly.
     
Phileas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You're the product in the current model, never forget that.
The importance of that statement cannot possibly be overstated.

If you're using a free service, YOU are the product.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 03:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phileas View Post
The importance of that statement cannot possibly be overstated.

If you're using a free service, YOU are the product.
THIS. Never forget it.

Web sites are well aware of ad blockers and the current business model. That article which was posted yesterday said that ads are annoying and not beneficial to the consumer. It seems like no matter how much people beat their chest over it, the model isn't working anymore.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 03:06 PM
 
BTW: If you want to see a gallery of ads here...

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...server-errors/

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
THIS. Never forget it.

Web sites are well aware of ad blockers and the current business model. That article which was posted yesterday said that ads are annoying and not beneficial to the consumer. It seems like no matter how much people beat their chest over it, the model isn't working anymore.
I believe they're supposed to be of benefit to the provider and advertiser.
     
starman  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Union County, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I believe they're supposed to be of benefit to the provider and advertiser.
And that's fine. And I wouldn't have a problem with them if they didn't reach into my machine and screw with it.

Another aspect of that article was that people install ad blockers because the experience of going to these sites was abysmal. What I can't understand is how people are arguing for messing with people's computers.

Home - Twitter - Sig Wall-Retired - Flickr
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
And that's fine. And I wouldn't have a problem with them if they didn't reach into my machine and screw with it.

Another aspect of that article was that people install ad blockers because the experience of going to these sites was abysmal. What I can't understand is how people are arguing for messing with people's computers.
You hit the nail on the head of why I take the time I do to curate my ad choices as best as I can, given the really crappy management tools I'm provided to do so.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by starman View Post
What I can't understand is how people are arguing for messing with people's computers.
Take the example I gave to Oreo.

Someone sets their price at poking you in the eye with a stick.

I'm not arguing for poking you in the eye with a stick, I'm arguing for the seller's right to set that price. They're not the same thing. I'm decidedly against the eye-stick interface model
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 06:11 PM
 
"We took a look at the eye-stick interface model and asked ourselves, 'how can we make it better?'

Introducing the iStick. It's unashamedly retina."
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
You hit the nail on the head of why I take the time I do to curate my ad choices as best as I can, given the really crappy management tools I'm provided to do so.
Just for your information, last night I wanted to continue reading a MacNN article on my phone, and all I got was this:

(Since I have an iPhone 5 (32 bit), it does not run any ad blockers.)

Isn't this the absolute worst for everyone? Someone who does not run any ad blockers on a device cannot access a site that the publisher wants people to see because of too many connections (to ad networks)?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mindwaves
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Irvine, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2015, 08:22 PM
 
Top iOS ad blocker Crystal lets advertisers pay to bypass restrictions

Maybe time to download a different ad blocker now.
{{{ mindwaves }}}
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,