6 ms·

By poisoning the advertiser/publisher relationship they are also poisoning the publisher/user relationship. Like it or not publishers have to pay the bills and

by layble 11y ago

By poisoning the advertiser/publisher relationship they are also poisoning the publisher/user relationship. Like it or not publishers have to pay the bills and these types of efforts are either going to result in paywalls (which users of this plugin will no doubt try to circumvent) or by the content going away all together. I think a much better option for those opposed to advertising is to just not visit those publishers. Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service.

jacquesm 11y ago
> Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service. How so? Theft of service requires a couple of other bits to flip in my view, after all, you're not actually required to view the ads on webpages when they're there, you're not required to click and you're not required to buy any products. It's no more theft of service than zapping to another channel when there are ads on the TV or switching off the radio when advertising starts.
- DougN7 11y ago
  Excepts adds are often sold on a cost-per-click basis so you are causing a transaction with the advertiser for which they got nothing (no visit to their website to at least consider their wares for a few seconds).
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    But that's not what the GGP said, he said that "anything other that not visiting those sites is theft of services", that is definitely not limited to false clicking ads, but it also includes simple ad blocking.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Except why whould I care? The rules of transaction between the advertiser and the website owner are their business, in which I have no say except being its victim (er, resource), so why should I cater to their needs? I get appeals to decency, but it definitely does not warrant calling it "theft of service" or "fraud".
highace 11y ago
I'd be totally cool with a paywall instead of slow and distracting ads. Here's an idea - why don't a bunch of publishers (or a third party) get together and build a subscription service for a reasonable monthly fee that automatically gets me through their paywall when I visit their sites. In theory it would be open for any publisher to join, and they get to split my monthly fee based on pageviews.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  It would be 10 or 100 such subscriptions to various "networks" of sites, and in the end these micropayment-networks would live more from selling the visitors' behaviour patterns than from the fees themselves (just like ad networks are in the bulk information collection business). The solution imho is a good micropayment system where I can choose to view a page for $.01 or view it for free with ads.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I personally wouldn't mind. They could track me all day long (except why would they - they aren't doing ads any more) as long as the Internet gets free of the shit that's eating everyone's bandwidth, battery power, CPU cycles and sanity.
    - sparkzilla 11y ago
      If your sanity is so easily upset by advertising, I suggest you get off the internet, and avoid TV, radio and print altogether.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I avoid TV, radio and print already. But why should I get off the Internet when I can just use an ad blocker?
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        Being on the internet or not is no longer optional. In lots of places governments now require that you communicate with them via their website, it's the way people stay in touch with each other (and you'll be left out if you don't) and it is the way companies do business, hire people and communicate between each other. Advertising is not an essential part of the internet, but everything else is. Remember: the internet was doing just fine before advertising rolled along.

by layble 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

> Anything other than that strikes me as theft of service. How so? Theft of service requires a couple of other bits to flip in my view, after all, you're not actually required to view the ads on webpages when they're there, you're not required to click and you're not required to buy any products. It's no more theft of service than zapping to another channel when there are ads on the TV or switching off the radio when advertising starts.

DougN7 11y ago
Excepts adds are often sold on a cost-per-click basis so you are causing a transaction with the advertiser for which they got nothing (no visit to their website to at least consider their wares for a few seconds).
- jacquesm 11y ago
  But that's not what the GGP said, he said that "anything other that not visiting those sites is theft of services", that is definitely not limited to false clicking ads, but it also includes simple ad blocking.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Except why whould I care? The rules of transaction between the advertiser and the website owner are their business, in which I have no say except being its victim (er, resource), so why should I cater to their needs? I get appeals to decency, but it definitely does not warrant calling it "theft of service" or "fraud".

highace 11y ago

I'd be totally cool with a paywall instead of slow and distracting ads. Here's an idea - why don't a bunch of publishers (or a third party) get together and build a subscription service for a reasonable monthly fee that automatically gets me through their paywall when I visit their sites. In theory it would be open for any publisher to join, and they get to split my monthly fee based on pageviews.

alkonaut 11y ago
It would be 10 or 100 such subscriptions to various "networks" of sites, and in the end these micropayment-networks would live more from selling the visitors' behaviour patterns than from the fees themselves (just like ad networks are in the bulk information collection business). The solution imho is a good micropayment system where I can choose to view a page for $.01 or view it for free with ads.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I personally wouldn't mind. They could track me all day long (except why would they - they aren't doing ads any more) as long as the Internet gets free of the shit that's eating everyone's bandwidth, battery power, CPU cycles and sanity.
  - sparkzilla 11y ago
    If your sanity is so easily upset by advertising, I suggest you get off the internet, and avoid TV, radio and print altogether.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I avoid TV, radio and print already. But why should I get off the Internet when I can just use an ad blocker?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Being on the internet or not is no longer optional. In lots of places governments now require that you communicate with them via their website, it's the way people stay in touch with each other (and you'll be left out if you don't) and it is the way companies do business, hire people and communicate between each other. Advertising is not an essential part of the internet, but everything else is. Remember: the internet was doing just fine before advertising rolled along.