I don't mean to excuse incredibly poor user experience design, and certainly not abusive tactics. But sorry if I have zero empathy for your clicking, loading and scrolling pain. Leave the website! It is amazing how many people are defending a site that claims to "Remove popups, banners, and ads" while: 1 - failing to even work. and: 2 - shows it's an ad on the resulting page!
Ok, so we just fundamentally disagree.
While we likely agree there are egregious abusers of both user experience and privacy, I don't believe I have a fundamental right to define how a website is allowed to present their content and/or monetize it. But I do retain the right, which I frequently practice, to leave a webpage and utilize alternate sources in that moment and in the future.
As an exaggerated albeit relevant comparison; this is like saying you don't want police even though there are lots of criminals, you can always just walk away if things look suspicious. This assumes you have the eye to determine what is suspicious. I was hoping I wouldn't have to worry about crime in the first place.
I display a single banner ad on a website that offers a free business tool, as an example.
I also do the same on a free business tool where I also offer a paid, advanced, ad-free version. If a user sticks around for 30 seconds, which most do (average time on both ad-supported sites is more than six minutes), then the freemium site pops up a message alerting them to the paid option.
No obligations and no restrictions on the free versions.
I don't make significant amounts from ads or subscriptions, but I would have no incentive beyond this to continue to offer these services, which many appear to find valuable and use for commercial purposes.
I frequent many free sites/tools that benefit from my visit, and I benefit from their offering for both business and personal reasons. I understand and agree to the transaction occurring.
Outlandish comparisons like you offer completely miss the mark and dilute the legitimate arguments for the use of ad-blockers, which I do believe exist. But I will offer an equally outlandish counterpoint: You prefer a world where over-policing would occur and round up innocent victims with criminals? "Most crimes are committed by males aged 18-25, if we round them all up, we will drastically reduce crime!" Hyperbole, I know. But probably more applicable than your argument for the use of ad blockers.
As I said before, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Using an adblocker allows for a cleaner, safer internet for the user. No doubt about that. It also, it has to be acknowledged, sweeps the good under the rug with the bad. Period. All-or-nothing enforcement is your proposition. Again, that simply has to be acknowledged. There is no debate there. If you believe that will ultimately lead to a better internet, then that is where we can disagree, as that is entirely subjective.
Marco said said it better than me: https://marco.org/2015/09/18/just-doesnt-feel-good
I'm not saying you're hiding anything it's just easy to see why you have this opinion. My example was not outlandish and is relevant. Vs the argument you made which was a purposefully dishonest analogy.
My hope is not to state that ads are evil as I don't believe that, just to point out that you are a person who serves ads, I also never state any of the opinions or beliefs you say I did, Have a nice day!
Are all ads, and are all sites that serve ads evil?
I know you visit sites that serve ads. And you may even block them, Gasp!
My choices are:
1) Use archive.ph to read the three articles.
2) Never read a NYT article again.
3) Pay for a subscription for the NYT.
I think you need to be approaching this from an exceptionally legalistic perspective to think that anything but Option 1 is reasonable. If I could pay the five cents of value those three articles are worth, I would, but I can't so I won't.
Standing at an empty intersection, I'm not going to start lecturing someone for looking both ways and crossing the street when the traffic light signals "Don't Walk".
I understand that you might feel that journalism is under funded and that this scofflaw, naredowell attitude is further jeopardizing it. The fact that the reasons newspapers are failing is complex and has less to do with consumer behaviour than it does with other factors not least of which are market consolidation and lax antitrust laws. I pay hundreds of dollars a year on newspaper subscriptions and I refuse to believe that I'm the reason any of that is happening.
I get more peeved at the entitlement many feel to use ad blockers and rail against content producers monetizing their sites, when the choice to not consume the content is an option. Ask my why I gave up twitter a few weeks ago :)
13ft does, I just tested it on https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/19/us/politics/hillary-clint...
> Regardless, #2 is an option. And the choice is entirely yours.
I can also choose not to read over the shoulder of someone reading an article on the train or averting my eyes at the headlines displayed at a newsstand. Somehow, I can't find in me the slavish devotion to the media industry margins required to do so.
> I get more peeved at the entitlement many feel to use ad blockers and rail against content producers monetizing their sites, when the choice to not consume the content is an option.
This is such a confusing opinion, and an even more baffling to thrust it unto others.
The best thing to do for ones computer safety is to run an ad blocker, as acknowledged by even the FBI[0]. Profiling by ad companies makes our world more insecure and inequitable. I deeply despite selling client data as a business model, as it seems you might as well.
So, your position is that I should both lodge my complaint against their unfair dealings by not consuming their website, but that it is also unjust for me to evade tracking and block ads because it hurts their bottom-line which is unethical to begin with . This sorta feels like chastising me for walking out of the room while TV ads run and deigning to watch the rest of the programme.
Because I'm not an ascetic monk.
> And then thrusting your opinion that all content should be free onto all sites monetized by ads is further confusing.
I'm not telling you to install an ad blocker. I'm just telling you I am.
I’m not accusing you of anything. It’s just simply what you are doing. It’s the mental gymnastics these threads are always full of justifying the wholesale disavowal of all ad-supported content that is hard to follow.
That’s glib. It is possible to discern websites that are safe, respect privacy and are generally pleasing to visit without an ad blocker. If you deem them unsafe, leave, don’t log entirely off the internet.
This assumes that the "time and energy to consume" is equivalent to the "price". What if it is worth the time to install 12ft or whatever, but not worth the price they want to charge?
Here’s a simple example for me:
I search Google for how to perform an operation in an Excel spreadsheet. I skip past the obvious ads at the top first. I click on a promising result on a user forum, but first have to click through a popup and then have a banner covering a third of the screen and a small inset screen with a video. That’s too much for me. I stop and go back to Google. I pick another option. And I may remember that forum is not worth the click in the future.
We make decisions like this online and offline every day. The fact is there are many valuable sites and services that are ad supported and done so responsibly. Not all, but many. Ad blockers are a blunt tool. Installing one on grandma’s browser is a constructive use, but not just because “ads are bad.”