Support NeoGAF

[Liseda]

I don't get his breaking bad-thing, people are already paying for cable right?
I don't see why I should be forced to watch ads if I'm already paying. (see: xbox live)

 

[Stumpokapow]

While these are good explanations for why ad revenue is dropping, it doesn't negate the fact that people are still consuming the site content while intentionally refusing to give them revenue for the content. It's essentially the same argument made for piracy due to DRM: "DRM is too intrusive, if you get rid of it there'd be no piracy!" which as most people admit is hardly the case. The vast majority of pirates want free shit, plain and simple, regardless of any levels of "intrusiveness" a piece of software may have, and the same could be said for adblockers. The argument seems to be that piracy and adblockers are immoral except, of course, when you can somehow justify it; this is hardly a convincing argument, especially when it concerns such superfluous things as media/entertainment products. The moral choice for the consumer is still based upon whether or not to consume the content of a sight, and if they do, to abide by the site's methods for ad revenue. If you don't like the ads, the moral choice is to not go to the site. The huge website splash pages were arguably invented to bring in extra funds that the website needs, and that tiny ads just aren't paying enough unless you have tons of them on every page, which nobody wants either.

So, then, pop-up blockers were wrong, and every single browser company is complicit in widespread piracy that led directly to the bankruptcy of a major company that at one point was among the most-trafficked sites on the net? And you've turned off the pop-up blocker in your browser voluntarily, because you couldn't possibly stomach participating in such a gross endeavor?

 

[EmiPrime]

While these are good explanations for why ad revenue is dropping, it doesn't negate the fact that people are still consuming the site content while intentionally refusing to give them revenue for the content. It's essentially the same argument made for piracy due to DRM: "DRM is too intrusive, if you get rid of it there'd be no piracy!" which as most people admit is hardly the case. The vast majority of pirates want free shit, plain and simple, regardless of any levels of "intrusiveness" a piece of software may have, and the same could be said for adblockers. The argument seems to be that piracy and adblockers are immoral except, of course, when you can somehow justify it; this is hardly a convincing argument, especially when it concerns such superfluous things as media/entertainment products. The moral choice for the consumer is still based upon whether or not to consume the content of a sight, and if they do, to abide by the site's methods for ad revenue. If you don't like the ads, the moral choice is to not go to the site. The huge website splash pages were arguably invented to bring in extra funds that the website needs, and that tiny ads just aren't paying enough unless you have tons of them on every page, which nobody wants either.



This whole "let's fight the man while consuming the man's content" mindset is ridiculous.

You've failed to address the computer security and privacy concerns related to ads. They're not just annoying, they're a liability.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

You've failed to address the computer security and privacy concerns related to ads. They're not just annoying, they're a liability.

They always do...

 

[VariantX]

Ads are out control these days. Once a site begins to insert ads that take over your screen and blast music and video at me, that site goes on the shit list and it gets dropped from my browsing rotation. It's a habit i developed back when I had a single core laptop and bullshit ads like that grinded my laptop's performance to a halt.

 

[pelican]

Find Pachter's rant slightly embarrassing. I can understand why he doesn't agree in Ad Blocking sites, but his approach to answering the troll question was pretty immature.

Still, I like Pachter so I will let him off;p

 

[Tmac]

Are you serious? Do you think the British public want to be forced to pay more?

BBC do make money from ads too, by the way.

BBC and NHK have a licence fee that every household have a pay a anual fee.

For example, if you live in UK and owns a TV set, you have to pay £145.50 / year. Thats about 240 USD!

 

[GoaThief]

BBC and NHK have a licence fee that every household have a pay a anual fee.

For example, if you live in UK and owns a TV set, you have to pay £145.50 / year. Thats about 240 USD!

I know, that's my point!

 

[pelican]

For example, if you live in UK and owns a TV set, you have to pay £145.50 / year. Thats about 240 USD!

Incorrect. You only need the license if you watch broadcast television, so if you only use the TV for watching Blurays, DVDs, playing games, internet streaming, etc then you actually don't need one.

 

[Principate]

BBC and NHK have a licence fee that every household have a pay a anual fee.

For example, if you live in UK and owns a TV set, you have to pay £145.50 / year. Thats about 240 USD!

That serves a very specific point. It's to prevent businesses from manipulating the news and various educational programmes through their power over funding through advertising.

 

[iMax]

The BBC as a whole gets a lot of money from ads, directly and indirectly.

No they don't. BBC Worldwide do but that's something else entirely.

 

[dalin80]

Incorrect. You only need the license if you watch broadcast television, so if you use the TV for watching Blurays, DVDs, playing games, internet streaming, etc then you actually don't need one.

This, as I only use my TV for gaming I simply phoned the TV license agency and informed them I didn't require a licence.

 

[iMax]

I wonder if I can talk to a programmer about making a paid "PachBlock" Chrome extension. We'd make bomb.

Someone make a Kickstarter.

 

[iMax]

Are you serious? Do you think the British public want to be forced to pay more?

BBC do make money from ads too, by the way.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Pay more? Pay more than they are already? And how are they 'forced' exactly?

Incorrect. You only need the license if you watch broadcast television, so if you only use the TV for watching Blurays, DVDs, playing games, internet streaming, etc then you actually don't need one.

Yup. Even iPlayer doesn't require a TV license. In fact, you can legally watch broadcast television without a license, so long as the device you're watching on is powered by batteries. Seriously.

 

[Costia]

There's no possible way to accept the fact that popup blockers are a normal, integrated, on-by-default, accepted, and liked part of web browsers while simultaneously not understanding what drives people to use Adblock.

Web advertising existed since the mid-90s. Pop-ups began to be a form of advertising. People put up with them. Circa 2000-2002, half the websites on the internet had pop-ups of the X-10 spy cam ("Spy on your babysitter!"). You don't believe me? "In 2001, X10 was receiving more hits than Amazon and eBay, due to its use of pop-under advertising." This is literally the reason why popup blockers exist, this one product. Pop-ups drove people nuts. Some browsers integrated pop-up blockers. Advertisers tried pop-unders and other methods to maintain the same level of intrusiveness while annoying the user a little less. Now all browsers have pop-up blockers. There's nothing magical about pop-ups that differentiate them from full-page ads that need to be closed to get to content; the fact that they're in another window is not a great moral transgression. They're just a particularly annoying form of ad. Browsers were right to integrate popup blockers. It's telling that we've moved to a post-popup society and no one is complaining. No one in this thread is talking about the tyranny of Mozilla, depriving legitimate business owners of the revenue they deserve by stealing from them in protest of the inevitable. Instead, people accept that popups were annoying and that they at some point got too annoying, and so we responded appropriately.

Circa the mid 2000s, advertising began using persistent forms of tracking to target ads across multiple sites and multiple sessions. In response to the privacy concerns associated with this, several browsers developed a standard called Do-Not-Track, which sends a command to servers asking them not to track. Some advertisers respect this, by far the majority do not. People are saying they're willing to see ads, but not be tracked. Advertisers don't care.

Ads now routinely use flash and javascript, often use sound, frequently steal focus, often take a mouseover as an invitation to expand over the site as a whole, are quite often longer than the content people are trying to see, are the #1 vector for malware, when they don't have malware frequently have NSFW or frankly disgusting content, promote sham medicine, fraudulently sell get-rich quick schemes. And this is in a world where most browsing is now done in bandwidth-limited contexts, in comparison to the bandwidth-unlimited contexts of the early 2000s. The kind of stuff you see on a typical site is much worse than the X-10 spy cam ever was. X-10, by the way, is bankrupt.

Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker out there, voluntarily allows non-intrusive ads by default and offers a set of standards for non-intrusive ads. Advertisers ignore it and are non-compliant, because they make more money maximizing annoyance and the "cost" of people using adblockers isn't felt by advertisers, but rather by content sites. It's the perfect zero-responsibility situation for advertisers. Consumers put up with garbage, content producers take the revenue hit if consumers won't put up with garbage, advertisers get to lower CPM and CPI year after year, and no one holds them accountable for their practices.

Reap the wind, sow the whirlwind.

I did a small test. I removed neogaf from ABP's whitelist. It blocked the ads. Apparently the ads on neogaf do not adhere to the standard suggested by ABP (which you seem to agree with). Specifically it seems that the ads ignore the "do not track" request ans some of them are animated.
Should I interpret this as permission to use ABP on neogaf?

 

[system11]

I typically block everything, usually as a side effect of having noscript because popup windows are hateful. I hate adverts, I hate their animated gifs and flash spam slowing my browser down.

However, if there was a service that would keep track of watched monetised content, that I could sign up to and which would charge me 5 pence for each bit of content I watch (certainly more than my adview would reap), I'd be happy to use it.

I'd happily pay to remove the annoyance of advertising. I run a medium sized community forum, it's funded from my pocket, because I care about what I'm doing. There's a small donate button for those who feel generous.

 

[TechOne]

Enter the Konami code with return as start…

Holy tits it worked!

 

[Aquamarine]

I did a small test. I removed neogaf from ABP's whitelist. It blocked the ads. Apparently the ads on neogaf do not adhere to the standard suggested by ABP (which you seem to agree with). Specifically it seems that the ads ignore the "do not track" request ans some of them are animated.
Should I interpret this as permission to use ABP on neogaf?

You have to apply for the built-in whitelist. That is, Adblock Plus has to manually approve you...you aren't automatically included just because your ads are non-intrusive.

 

[EmiPrime]

Should I interpret this as permission to use ABP on neogaf?

I think that's up to you, just don't brag and rub the site owner's nose in it if you do decide to use it. There is no rule against Adblock on GAF that I can see.

 

[Speevy]

I am really confused by this thread. Typically, when people post a thread about ABP in the OT forum, the mod response is heavily on the "Better not use it here, or else" variety.

In this thread, it's the opposite. I realize Pachter acted like a jerk, but this is contrary to everything I've seen.

 

[Harlock]

Cant wait for adblock win the war and money means nothing. For sure we going to enter...

 

[Aquamarine]

I am really confused by this thread. Typically, when people post a thread about ABP in the OT forum, the mod response is heavily on the "Better not use it here, or else" variety.

In this thread, it's the opposite. I realize Pachter acted like a jerk, but this is contrary to everything I've seen.

It's abundantly clear in this thread that people are whitelisting NeoGAF.

You can have a discussion about the merits of Adblock without any relevance to NeoGAF, just like you can have a discussion about emulation without any relevance to piracy.

 

[GoaThief]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Pay more? Pay more than they are already? And how are they 'forced' exactly?

If you watch TV, you have to pay. Even if you never watch the BBC.

Even iPlayer doesn't require a TV license. In fact, you can legally watch broadcast television without a license, so long as the device you're watching on is powered by batteries. Seriously.

iplayer definitely requires a licence to watch, I've clicked/tapped that disclaimer which states you must own one to view twice over the course of this weekend.

I have extreme doubts about your battery claim too, as one of those disclaimers was on Android iplayer.

BBC also makes money from ads.

You used them as an example of another way of running TV production without ads but is inaccurate for one, not to mention wholly unrealistic as a method for independent companies to follow suit.

 

[Costia]

You have to apply for the built-in whitelist. That is, Adblock Plus has to manually approve you...you aren't automatically included just because your ads are non-intrusive.

According to ABPs standard Neogaf's ads are intrusive. They wouldn't get approved even if they asked.

I think that's up to you, just don't brag and rub the site owner's nose in it if you do decide to use it. There is no rule against Adblock on GAF that I can see.

That wasn't really the point of my question. I am trying to understand what is the site's admins and owners stance on the subject.
The ads here don't bother me so I will keep gaf (and several other websites) whitelisted.

 

[fvng]

Man the guy that wrote that question to Pachter needs to be on the receiving end of a fist. Christ man.

Why consume content from websites you have no intention of supporting? Guy clearly enjoys GT but doesn't want to support them? This fucking guy

 

[Stumpokapow]

I am really confused by this thread. Typically, when people post a thread about ABP in the OT forum, the mod response is heavily on the "Better not use it here, or else" variety.

In this thread, it's the opposite. I realize Pachter acted like a jerk, but this is contrary to everything I've seen.

There is no inconsistency, you're just not engaging your brain.

Should I interpret this as permission to use ABP on neogaf?

*rolleyes* I think it's really rude to reply to my post, which was obviously an honest expression of why I feel AdBlocking continues to exist, with an attempt at a "gotcha". Especially given that my post explicitly points out that sites who run ads are not responsible for the escalation in advertising, advertisers are, and that this situation is set up to benefit advertisers no matter what by shifting the negative impacts of the choice to adblock or not onto the user or content producer. So no, you haven't "caught me" in a trap here.

I am not an owner or employee of NeoGAF. I am a poster on the site. That I have volunteer moderation capabilities is not an endorsement of me and does not mean that everything I say is me speaking in some official capacity. My game of the year last year was Beyond: Two Souls, and that's not because it won the NeoGAF LLC Owner Award For Definitive Objective Game of The Year. I think relationship threads are dumb. That doesn't mean they're forbidden. My "permission"--you're an adult and I'm not your parent so I have no idea why you would seek my permission for an activity that I can't tell whether or not you're doing--is not relevant here, even if you chose to seek it.

You know absolutely well what the site's owner thinks of using ABP on NeoGAF: which is that in order to run the site, he needs revenue from advertising, and by blocking it, you deprive him of revenue while still causing him to incur costs. And that he does his best to minimize the annoyance factor of advertising for members, and does his best to respond to members raising issues with problem ads. You also know GAF's policy on AdBlocking, which is to say if you're going to be a dickhead and flaunt the fact that you're denying the site revenue in a public fashion, you're going to end up banned for it. It's not great illumination that despite these things, you can choose to use AdBlock or not. I am sure that many people browsing NeoGAF use adblock. I am sure that many people browing NeoGAF pirate games like crazy.

A discussion of why people choose to make these choices, or a sober analysis of the role that service issues contribute to problems like adblocking or piracy is not an endorsement. As I implied in my previous post, I view AdBlock's existence as an entirely reasonable service that arose as a response to the increasing pervasiveness of advertising, and I contextualize it along with prior such responses to overly invasive advertising, such as pop-up blockers--which are universally accepted as useful and not a great moral evil. How people choose to use Adblockers, if they choose to do so, is up to them. I think individuals should exercise their own discretion as to how to square the problem of consuming so much content online for free with their imperative to lower the nuisance level of advertising that is foist upon them, and I hope that the solution that individuals choose, and thus by extension that we collectively decide on as a society of people, is one that results ina better internet along with fair and stable funding models for content providers or producers.

I'd also add that ABP's whitelist is one particular interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable set of parameters for ads. I do not endorse it in particular; for some people it may be too permissive and for others not permissive enough. I used it as an example in my original post to note that advertisers have had an extremely lukewarm response to any attempts to mitigate the problems of invasive advertising.

 

[EmiPrime]

A discussion of why people choose to make these choices, or a sober analysis of the role that service issues contribute to problems like adblocking or piracy is not an endorsement. As I implied in my previous post, I view AdBlock's existence as an entirely reasonable service that arose as a response to the increasing pervasiveness of advertising, and I contextualize it along with prior such responses to overly invasive advertising, such as pop-up blockers--which are universally accepted as useful and not a great moral evil. How people choose to use Adblockers, if they choose to do so, is up to them. I think individuals should exercise their own discretion as to how to square the problem of consuming so much content online for free with their imperative to lower the nuisance level of advertising that is foist upon them, and I hope that the solution that individuals choose, and thus by extension that we collectively decide on as a society of people, is one that results ina better internet along with fair and stable funding models for content providers or producers..

Well said.

 

[Costia]

It wasn't an attempt for a "gotcha".
I am relatively new here and don't post/read that much. So no, I don't know what evilore thinks about it.
I wanted you post what you just did, which is how it is viewed specifically with regards to gaf and not as a general theoretical question.

 

[iMax]

If you watch TV, you have to pay. Even if you never watch the BBC.

Explain.

iplayer definitely requires a licence to watch, I've clicked/tapped that disclaimer which states you must own one to view twice over the course of this weekend.

Nope.

I have extreme doubts about your battery claim too, as one of those disclaimers was on Android iplayer.

Nope.

BBC also makes money from ads.

You're thinking of BBC Worldwide. We're talking about BBC.

You used them as an example of another way of running TV production without ads but is inaccurate for one, not to mention wholly unrealistic as a method for independent companies to follow suit.

It's completely accurate; check the links above. And of course it may be unrealistic for independent companies but sites like IGN, for example, operate in a similar way by using an optional subscription model.

 

[jimi_dini]

Current ad on neogaf.

Which BTW is using a service called "whoisguard", so it is a good bet that it is malware or a scam.

Such a shame. I'm just searching for a way to fix error 1602.

 

[Nemmy]

The guy that asked the question was an incredible asshole about it, though I'm not sure if five minutes of namecalling were a good answer to that.
And it's kind of a shame that the question was phrased this way, because it touched on quite an interesting matter of the role of game media. I get why Pachter disregards user reviews (metacritic, my God), but personally, I don't look up what critics wrote when considering a game purchase, I look the game up on Gaf instead. If I follow a youtuber and decide I share their taste in games, their review is worth way more than "professional" criticism to me easily. So honestly, I don't give a damn about gaming sites, and yet somehow I don't think it makes me a scumbag idiot bastard.

And the part I hate about all AdBlock discussions is putting all AdBlock users under the same "asshole who won't pay for the content they use" category. I run it with nonintrusive ads on, and manually enable sites that I know have content I enjoy, including youtube channels I frequently watch.
The fact that I choose to avoid seeing giant Flash ads taking up most of my screen and playing annoying sounds that force me to frantically switch tabs to find the culprit does not necessarily mean I just want everything free, have no respect for content providers, et cetera.

Fun thing Pachter forgot to mention in his Internet Ad-free Apocalypse scenario is how Google has gigantic revenue from ads while keeping them completely unobtrusive. I don't click sponsored search results, I can see them marked clearly, I'm not gonna turn them off because why would I? It's a win-win case for me, and proof that there's no need for a war between website owners and AdBlock users.

 

[Entryhazard]

... The whole gaf gold thing is a joke

Or they want make you believe that

 

[genjiZERO]

I use ad block by default and then turn if off if I think it's worthwhile supporting the site. Yes, it's turned off for here.

 

[Zok310]

Went off is an understatement. Adblock was created because ads can be overused even misused to an extreme on certain sites. Hell, if a pinterest ad pops up on my iphone and i press it by mistake, good fucking luck getting back to what you were trying to view to begin with.

Thank god for adblock, not to mention most adblock have features where you can allow certain sites to get through.

Pac, open that window behind you and jump. Pretty sure viacom makes enough money to pay their staff.

 

[Tukker]

Oh this sounds interesting, these ads always piss me off. Thanks for notifying about it!

 

[GoaThief]

Explain.

I'm not sure what it is you're struggling with here. If you watch TV in the UK, you need to pay a license which goes to the BBC. Even if you do not consume their media in any way.

Nope.

So you get partial use of iplayer, limited broadcast playbacks and not live TV (we're talking about this, remember) - which the disclaimer I dismissed related to.

Anyone in the UK watching or recording television as it's being broadcast or simulcast on any device - including mobiles, laptops and PCs - must, by law, be covered by a valid TV licence.

.

Nope.

You didn't read it correctly or don't understand all of the requirements. I'll highlight the key part for you

Or all of these are true;


Your out-of-term address is covered by a
TV Licence
AND you only use TV receiving equipment that is powered solely by its own internal batteries
AND you have not connected it to an aerial or plugged it into the mains.

That patently means that your claim that anyone watching on a device that uses batteries doesn't need a license completely false

You're thinking of BBC Worldwide. We're talking about BBC.

BBC worldwide IS the BBC, they're not separate entities you know.

It's completely accurate; check the links above.

No, what you initially claimed is definitely inaccurate and now you're wriggling.

And of course it may be unrealistic for independent companies

Right, so you admit it. Shouldn't say otherwise in the first place then.

 

[iMax]

... The whole gaf gold thing is a joke

 

[-KRS-]

Just saw this on Slashdot.

Malvertising Up By Over 200%

"Online Trust Alliance (OTA) Executive Director and President Craig Spiezle testified before the U.S. Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, outlining the risks of malicious advertising, and possible solutions to stem the rising tide. According to OTA research, malvertising increased by over 200% in 2013 to over 209,000 incidents, generating over 12.4 billion malicious ad impressions. The threats are significant, warns the Seattle-based non-profit—with the majority of malicious ads infecting users' computers via 'drive by downloads,' which occur when a user innocently visits a web site, with no interaction or clicking required."

This is the reason I use adblock and noscript on most sites. It's just not worth the security risk to not use it.

 

[iMax]

So you get partial use of iplayer, limited broadcast playbacks and not live TV (we're talking about this, remember) - which the disclaimer I dismissed related to.

Nope.

You didn't read it correctly or don't understand all of the requirements. I'll highlight the key part for you

You actually forgot to highlight the key part here. I can legally watch live TV just by unplugging my laptop and video-on-demand whenever I want.

That patently means that your claim that anyone watching on a device that uses batteries doesn't need a license completely false

Um, read the part you forgot to highlight, brah.

Apologies, turns out that's for students only. Only affects live broadcasts though.

BBC worldwide IS the BBC, they're not separate entities you know.

It's the commercial arm of the BBC and as Wikipedia beautifully puts it...

exploits BBC brands, sells BBC and other British programming for broadcast abroad with the aim of supplementing the income received by the BBC through the licence fee.

Key word there is 'supplementing'. People in the UK don't have to pay a penny if they don't want to.

Right, so you admit it. Shouldn't say otherwise in the first place then.

Fair point. Apologies for attempting to engage in a discussion on a discussion board.

 

[N30RYU]

Pachter made me not wanted to go again to gametrailers

If the banners and adds weren't so intrusive in the first place ABP wouldn't exist.

 

[The Lamonster]

HATE the jazz music constantly playing in the background of Pach Attack.

 

[Costia]

...
Fair point. Apologies for attempting to engage in a discussion on a discussion board.

Disclaimer: I am not from the UK .
It basically says that if you watch live TV on any device you need a license.
The second part is about watching live TV on mobile devices when your license is registered to a different address from where you currently are (out of term address). Without that part if you had a license and went to a friend's house - he would have to pay for a license as well (that would be registered for his address) if you wanted to watch TV on your phone in his house.

My country has something similar but the terms are different (IPTV is still not included in the law).

Edit: looks like you edited your post. so nm.

 

[SneakyStephan]

There's some amazingly flawed arguments in this thread.

DVR'ing something, choosing to skip ads via Tivo (or an equivalent service), or choosing simply not to look at an advertising billboard/train advertisement is nowhere near the same as using an adblocker service.

With all of the above, the content provider is paid regardless of whether you choose to view the ad. The advertiser pays a fee to place that ad in that show/location knowing that a very high percentage of people won't even see it. The value for them lies in the smaller percentage of people who will see it, purely in terms of increasing awareness for the product.

Unless my understanding of internet advertising is well off, if you choose to block ads on a site, that ad is never served. The advertiser doesn't serve the ad, you never even know it's there, and the content provider doesn't get paid.

If you choose to adblock sites, you're choosing to not pay the creator of the content whilst at the same time choosing to consume the content that the creator provides. If you're continuing to do that, that's when you should question whether adblock is right to use.

The only question here should be whether the content is of value to you. From reading this thread, there's generally three answers to that question:

- The content is of value to you - if so, visit the site and support them, either by watching the ads served, or by donating/subscribing if those options are available to you.

- The content isn't of value to you - if so, stop visiting the site. If the content isn't worth your time, don't give it your time. If you read the content, but use adblock, you're actively saying that you feel the content has value to you, but that you don't particularly care if the creators of that content don't get paid for it. If it has no value to you, don't view it. If you can get better content elsewhere, either paid for or for free, go and consume that content instead.

- The content is of value to you but you find the ads too intrusive - in this case, you should stop visiting the site. If you continue to visit, regardless of whether you watch the ads or not, you're continuing to support a business practice you disagree with. If those things offend you or inconvenience you so much, you shouldn't really visit the site. If enough people do it, either the site will die, or the ads will die. One way or another, the practice stops. Same deal as microtransactions/ads in games/DRM practices - if people vote with their metaphorical wallets (or browsers/eyeballs in this case), it'll stop.

Furthermore, engage with sites whose content you like but whose ads you don't. Email them. Tweet them. Don't just sit back and use adblock - the only solution that'll arise is more intrusive ads and poorer content. Tell them you what you don't like, and tell them what you as a consumer would be prepared to accept. It's a two way street.

TL;DR - if you genuinely use the content of a site, find a way of supporting them. If you don't, stop visiting the site. If you're somewhere inbetween, do something about it using the avenues available to you. It's really not that hard.

My time is of value to me

how obtrusive ads are and how long I have to watch some dishwasher ad before I can get to watching the ad I was trying to watch (some trailer for some game or w/e) is equivalent to the cost of the content.
I'm not paying 2 minutes of my life to watch some c tier 'journalist' embarrass himself when I'm clicking a link to them from a funny gaf thread.

It's too expensive for what the 'content' (if you can call it that) is worth.
Most of these sites barely ever get a click from me to begin with (I go out of my way to avoid giving them traffic)
If I do go there to watch some ad trailer or ad disguised as a review to catch a few minutes of gameplay footage (which I haven't had to in ages since nowadays let's players provide that service) I don't need more ads stacked on top of the ads.

For things that are actual content I don't use ad blocker, but actual content is like one percent of the internet.

With so little worthwhile content, and so many shitty obtrusive ads and so much malware it makes more sense to have adblock exist in its current state: Block everything and have a whitelist option, rather than it be a blacklist to block sites with.

While I'm wading through the mountains of shit that is the internet, trying to browse for a few worthwhile bits of content, I have no obligation to pay all the shit peddlers I pass by in my search.
Especially not with my precious time.

What I'm saying is thank god for adblock.

and as for this quote:

Furthermore, engage with sites whose content you like but whose ads you don't. Email them. Tweet them. Don't just sit back and use adblock - the only solution that'll arise is more intrusive ads and poorer content. Tell them you what you don't like, and tell them what you as a consumer would be prepared to accept. It's a two way street.

NO.

That is not my responsiblity, I am there for content not to help them better their site in my free time.
We don't get paid for that. That is not how how things work.

 

[Dennis]

Yup.

And stuff like this.

So.....if I eat Subway I will get super fat?

 

[meanspartan]

How does an ad block user find out if a website uses intrusive or non-intrusive ads? Most people keep their adblock on at all times. Also, some bigger or video-based ads are needed to support high-end or expensive content. Neogaf receives a lot of traffic, but small banner ads can generate enough revenue. A site like Twitch or Hulu, or even IGN
, not so much.

When I frequent websites, I am in the habit of whitelisting them. Adblock is mostly for random websites where I don't wanna deal with bullshit.

But I will block them if they are annoying, like IGN's. NeoGaf and most others are fine because they do ads right- up at the top where they can't be missed but also don't bother me at all.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Just saw this on Slashdot.

Malvertising Up By Over 200%


This is the reason I use adblock and noscript on most sites. It's just not worth the security risk to not use it.

Same. Getting infected with serious virus infections multiple times because of infected ads was what caused me to start using AdBlock and NoScript on most sites. And it's worked -- no infections since.

I'd mostly stop using AdBlock if ads weren't full of viruses...

 

[Aces&Eights]

Security issues aside, my biggest gripe is I never have ads even remotely relevant me. TBH, I don't mind being tracked if it ever worked properly. I have a pretty large footprint on the internet as I shop online all the time and read a fuckton of news ranging from video games to Wikis on ancient Rome.

I constantly get ads for cars I will never be able to afford, food I would never put into my body and medications that I have no need for.

I'm a 40 year old man, divorced, one kid age 17, make 36k a year and am a big time homebody. I buy thing like video games, air diffusers, geek gadgets, porn, heavy metal CDs and certain designer clothes, all purchased online. What ads do I get? Feminine products, Lexus high end cars, trips to Vegas tickets, and country music video sales. Jesus Christ, we have sent probes to the moons of Jupiter but they can't figure out how to give me ads for things I actually have a history of purchasing?

 

[Principate]

Security issues aside, my biggest gripe is I never have ads even remotely relevant me. TBH, I don't mind being tracked if it ever worked properly. I have a pretty large footprint on the internet as I shop online all the time and read a fuckton of news ranging from video games to Wikis on ancient Rome.

I constantly get ads for cars I will never be able to afford, food I would never put into my body and medications that I have no need for.

I'm a 40 year old man, divorced, one kid age 17, make 36k a year and am a big time homebody. I buy thing like video games, air diffusers, geek gadgets, porn, heavy metal CDs and certain designer clothes, all purchased online. What ads do I get? Feminine products, Lexus high end cars, trips to Vegas tickets, and country music video sales. Jesus Christ, we have sent probes to the moons of Jupiter but they can't figure out how to give me ads for things I actually have a history of purchasing?

They don't give a shit about what you like. They're telling what you will like or else!

 

[Aces&Eights]

They don't give a shit about what you like. They're telling what you will like or else!

I get your sarcasm but it is just ridiculous. The whole point to ads is to SELL your product. Show me a product I am actually interested in and guess what? I just might buy it! What a concept!

 

[M3d10n]

I did a small test. I removed neogaf from ABP's whitelist. It blocked the ads. Apparently the ads on neogaf do not adhere to the standard suggested by ABP (which you seem to agree with). Specifically it seems that the ads ignore the "do not track" request ans some of them are animated.
Should I interpret this as permission to use ABP on neogaf?

The ads on neogaf most certainly don't adhere to ABP's "acceptable ads" standard. There's an animated HTML5 ad on top of the page right now as I type and once I got another HTML5 ad that made nearly froze Firefox due to using an obscene amount of blur effects Unfortunately, my browser got so slow I had to close the tab and couldn't report the ad.

Security issues aside, my biggest gripe is I never have ads even remotely relevant me. TBH, I don't mind being tracked if it ever worked properly. I have a pretty large footprint on the internet as I shop online all the time and read a fuckton of news ranging from video games to Wikis on ancient Rome.

I constantly get ads for cars I will never be able to afford, food I would never put into my body and medications that I have no need for.

I'm a 40 year old man, divorced, one kid age 17, make 36k a year and am a big time homebody. I buy thing like video games, air diffusers, geek gadgets, porn, heavy metal CDs and certain designer clothes, all purchased online. What ads do I get? Feminine products, Lexus high end cars, trips to Vegas tickets, and country music video sales. Jesus Christ, we have sent probes to the moons of Jupiter but they can't figure out how to give me ads for things I actually have a history of purchasing?

Same here. I decided to stop using ABP and anti-tracking measures a few years ago and the result is pathetic. I still get mostly ads that have zero relevance for me. The closest they get to relevancy is showing ads for products on online shopping websites I just happened to visit.... which is stupid because I just browsed/purchased said product(s) on that exact same website.

I've also started using Youtube while logged in, after years of keeping anonymous and the ads are also utterly irrelevant and give me zero reason to watch them to the end. I can't fathom why they think people will watch 30+ second TV-style ads to completion on youtube, where the way users interact with content is entirely different from traditional TV. I selected the content I want to watch, often while being unsure if it's really the video I'm looking for, shoving an ad that might be as long as whatever I'm trying to watch is certainly not the best way to get my attention (AFAIK youtube ads need to be watched to the end to count an impression). The style of the ads are also often unsuitable for internet-style consumption.

I believe advertisers would get much better results using highly-focused 5 second Youtube ads instead of long TV-style ads. That's long enough to display a brand/message and short enough that most users wouldn't bother reaching for the "skip ad" button.