Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

Man I like Pachter. I hate the entitlement people feel who use Adblock and especially who pirate games. Great you pirate games, but don't then come up with convoluted bs story about why its the industries fault and you'll actually maybe buy it later if you like it. Just admit you are cheap.

These issues are not related; stop conflating them.

 

[BeforeU]

I dont mind still ads, but flashy pop ups and moving ads really annoys me. And on youtube, I dont mind first ad, you can actually skip it after 5 sec but if the video is longer, you get damn ads in between and those are annoying as hell.

 

[DXLelouch153]

no one can make me watch anything Patcher you silly fool

 

[atpbx]

Is the person you guys are talking about an actual thing?

I've seen a couple of his videos on this site and he gets talked about fairly often, he just seems to be some big mouthed gobshite who talks complete bollocks.

Why is anything he says given the time of day?

 

[TheD]

Man I like Pachter. I hate the entitlement people feel who use Adblock and especially who pirate games. Great you pirate games, but don't then come up with convoluted bs story about why its the industries fault and you'll actually maybe buy it later if you like it. Just admit you are cheap.

I do have a right not to get fucked by ads serving malware, I do have the right not to have random ads open tabs or windows without authorization to do so and I do have a right to control what content is being shown and what code is running in my browser, on my system!

 

[Yagharek]

I do have a right not to get fucked by ads serving malware, I do have the right not to have random ads open tabs or windows without authorization to do so and I do have a right to control what content is being shown and what code is running in my browser, on my system!

Entitlement!

 

[PetriP-TNT]

If you don't use AdBlock or NoScript or similar in the year of the doge 2014 you are absolutely nuts. Blacklisting "just the malicious sites" doesn't work, it's already too late when you ran into one. Not to mention most ad networks run pretty much anything and go "whoops sorry about that malware thingy our bad the ad is gone now" later on.

 

[the_batman]

i just want to say i don't consider videos on the internet to be free entertainment since i'm paying out the ass every month for internet access.

 

[TheD]

If you don't use AdBlock or NoScript or similar in the year of the doge 2014 you are absolutely nuts. Blacklisting "just the malicious sites" doesn't work, it's already too late when you ran into one. Not to mention most ad networks run pretty much anything and go "whoops sorry about that malware thingy our bad the ad is gone now" later on.

Yeah, once you have gone to a site with a malicious ad it is already too late!

It is also true that the ad networks clearly don't take enough care to stop crap (i.e the ads on bing that link to malware when you search for skype).
If anything, it is the ad networks that are self entitled.

 

[iMax]

The BBC gets money from BBC Worldwide, so it part of their income.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2013/executive/finances/licence_fee.html

about 30% of their income does not come from the licence fee.

as you can also see, the license fee alone could not cover their cost.

Yes, it's part of their income but the point is that British people aren't 'paying for the BBC through ads'. Foreigners are.

 

[Megasoum]

According to Patrick Klepek AdBlock users should die in a fire.... So Patrick and Pachter should team-up during E3 to host an anti-Adblock panel!

 

[socomfanaticest2001]

wow this patcher guy is annoying, i never watch his videos, the gaming industry makes his job too easy, arrogance is all i see in his face when he answers those fan questions.

 

[Htown]

According to Patrick Klepek AdBlock users should die in a fire.... So Patrick and Pachter should team-up during E3 to host an anti-Adblock panel!

Klepek should take 15 minutes and watch this clip from a video from his own site.

 

[Jagsrock]

Ad-Block is for porn.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Ad-Block is for porn.

More like interweb is sex and adblock is for preventing STD's from strangers

 

[Snoshado]

My AdBlock whitelist just got updated lol. That dude really did get shit on.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

wow this patcher guy is annoying, i never watch his videos, the gaming industry makes his job too easy, arrogance is all i see in his face when he answers those fan questions.

True, he did on more than one occasion mention his many degrees...

 

[eastx]

i just want to say i don't consider videos on the internet to be free entertainment since i'm paying out the ass every month for internet access.

Your ISP fees don't go to content creators, journalists, etc. Lots of us rely on the internet for our livelihood. If everyone blocked all the ads out, we'd lose our jobs and original/professional web content would dry up.

 

[the_batman]

Your ISP fees don't go to content creators, journalists, etc. Lots of us rely on the internet for our livelihood. If everyone blocked all the ads out, we'd lose our jobs and original/professional web content would dry up.

maybe internet content creators and their companies should make a deal with the isps to get some credit. people pay the isps to access the internet and be able to watch videos, articles, etc and it makes sense for the creators to bank in on the isps fees. it's like how television providers make deals with the companies who own various channels. it may not be ideal for an open internet but if that's what you have to do..

 

[iMax]

maybe internet content creators and their companies should make a deal with the isps to get some credit. people pay the isps to access the internet and be able to watch videos, articles, etc and it makes sense for the creators to bank in on the isps fees. it's like how television providers make deals with the companies who own various channels. it may not be ideal for an open internet but if that's what you have to do..

I bet the FCC would love you.

 

[Persona7]

Yeah, once you have gone to a site with a malicious ad it is already too late!

It is also true that the ad networks clearly don't take enough care to stop crap (i.e the ads on bing that link to malware when you search for skype).
If anything, it is the ad networks that are self entitled.

ugh, the malware links when you search for google chrome on google itself are fucking annoying. Most people just click the very first link and it is a ad usually loaded with malware.


I don't see why google can't control this.

 

[the_batman]

I bet the FCC would love you.

lol, i'm all for net neutrality though. i think right now Netflix agreed to pay ISPs in order to get priority bandwidth for their content, i don't think the ISPs are paying Netflix anything. correct me if i'm wrong, of course.

 

[Elija2]

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.

Great post.

What do you think about the people who use Adblock Plus but still block non-intrusive ads? I remember when that feature was announced there was a pretty big backlash. People even forked ABP and made their own versions where the only difference is the removal of that feature (Adblock Edge). There are people who are just going to block every ad no matter how non-intrusive they are (it would actually be interesting to see a statistic of the percentage of ABP users who allow non-intrusive ads). I don't exactly blame content providers for not wanting to take a revenue cut by only allowing non-intrusive ads if people are still going to block them.

 

[boogie2988]

Hi there. I got mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought I would come in here and talk about this.

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

 

[Jb]

I don't really have a problem with traditional image-based ads, but when sites like Comedy Central are starting to have 2 to 3 30sec ads before every clip it's getting annoying.

 

[outunderthestars]

Hi there. I got mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought I would come in here and talk about this.

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

Well said.

 

[yurinka]

Omg, he's really angry. I see Pachter as the next Angry Birds character.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

Hi there. I got mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought I would come in here and talk about this.

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

I had never thought about that "Robin Hood" point of view, I'll say that it's interesting to view it that way.

 

[Renekton]

ugh, the malware links when you search for google chrome on google itself are fucking annoying. Most people just click the very first link and it is a ad usually loaded with malware.


I don't see why google can't control this.

They do try.

Sometimes Google will redirect you to a red-colored Malware warning page. This could happen if the page you were going to is otherwise normal but the doubleclick/tribalfusion/etc banner happened to have dodgy stuff.

 

[Pyramid head]

Man I like Pachter. I hate the entitlement people feel who use Adblock and especially who pirate games. Great you pirate games, but don't then come up with convoluted bs story about why its the industries fault and you'll actually maybe buy it later if you like it. Just admit you are cheap.

I once got hit by malware through a shitty pop-up ad which led to me losing years worth of work. That isn't happening again. I am entirely entitled to do what it takes to protect myself from getting fucked over in the same way again.

What does this have to do with game piracy?

 

[Vodh]

Hi there. I got mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought I would come in here and talk about this.

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

Yeah, if Robin Hood was stealing one copper coin a month that'd be true. You're not discovering some insane secret, robbing big bad corporations of their marketing money. They're robbing you of your time and paying the content creator what, a 1/10th of the minimum wage for your time?

I absolutely agree that it all adds up and that it's how you make money. But trying to make it sound like watching the ad itself is a treat is ridiculous.

 

[TheD]

ugh, the malware links when you search for google chrome on google itself are fucking annoying. Most people just click the very first link and it is a ad usually loaded with malware.


I don't see why google can't control this.

Google very well can, but they (just like other ad networks) would sell their users up shit creek for a few cents.

Hi there. I got mentioned a few times in this thread so I thought I would come in here and talk about this.

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

I will only view ads when I am sure:
1. that they are safe and not some illegal attack against me!
2. they don't open webpages (be it in a new window, new tab or even the same tab I have open) without my consent (which is what a hole ton of ads on fucking gametrailers do!)
3. they don't play a video (yet alone a video with audio) outside of video content's pre and post roll ad slot.

This is not too hard to ask, it is just that ad networks are run by complete amoral fuckwits that would not dare lose the money they make off dodgy ads unless forced to by threats of fines and hard time!

 

[boogie2988]

Google very well can, but they (just like other ad networks) would sell their users up shit creek for a few cents.




I will only view ads when I am sure:
1. that they are safe and not some illegal attack against me!
2. they don't open webpages (be it in a new window, new tab or even the same tab I have open) without my consent (which is what a hole ton of ads on fucking gametrailers do!)
3. they don't play a video (yet alone a video with audio) outside of video content's pre and post roll ad slot.

This is not too hard to ask, it is just that ad networks are run by complete amoral fuckwits that would not dare lose the money they make off dodgy ads unless forced to by threats of fines and hard time!

well, by your criteria you are watching the ads on twitch, youtube, and neogaf... so you're allright by me <3

 

[balgajo]

Those people are responsible for our current world situation. Them and the people that change to another channel during the commercials.
Damn you shit people, you need to pay for your crimes.

 

[boogie2988]

Yeah, if Robin Hood was stealing one copper coin a month that'd be true. You're not discovering some insane secret, robbing big bad corporations of their marketing money. They're robbing you of your time and paying the content creator what, a 1/10th of the minimum wage for your time?

I absolutely agree that it all adds up and that it's how you make money. But trying to make it sound like watching the ad itself is a treat is ridiculous.

I never implied that watching the ad itself is a treat.

However helping scoop money from a big corporation into a small persons hands should be. But then again, maybe I'm just weird. But that's why I roll with adblock turned off on 98% of the sites I view. I think its super awesome to participate in that deal and if I have to set through an ad for a video game I already plan to play, I'm OK with it.

 

[sixpackrules]

i´m the supossed "expert" in computers for a lot a friends and family who are not in any shape of form savy in the use of internet, and you can´t literally believe the amount of malware, trackers and shit that can get in a computer when you go out there without any kind of protection, and before anyone stars telling me that there certain sites you shouldn´t visit, and pretty sure that my 74, at the time, mother in law nor his 76 sister, did anything else that visit newspapers and the official sites on some reality shows here in spain, but after spending hours of my life cleaning shit from various computers, telling anyone to not use adblock or noscript is borderline criminal.

The reason why this shit happens is because a lot of people don´t know what their doing when it comes to the internet, there´s millions of targets out there for this kind of situations, i understand creators and content providers and of course i white list the people i support but going out there with any kind of protection?, never, you can have all the care in the world and still have problems from time to time.

And i understand is a shitty situation for the users and the content providers but it is what it is and you have to live with that

 

[Yagharek]

I never implied that watching the ad itself is a treat.

However helping scoop money from a big corporation into a small persons hands should be. But then again, maybe I'm just weird. But that's why I roll with adblock turned off on 98% of the sites I view. I think its super awesome to participate in that deal and if I have to set through an ad for a video game I already plan to play, I'm OK with it.

I can respect this, but at the same time I have adblock because by extension of almost all business being done online, that's where risks to things like bank accounts and other financial services need to be controlled for. Given that advertising is a top source for malware, I dont think it is unreasonable for people to be rocking adblockers on the vast majority of their web browsing.

If you're unblocking 98% of sites you visit, you are a very brave man.

 

[boogie2988]

I ca respect this, but at the same time I have adblock because by extension of almost all business being done online, that's where risks to things like bank accounts and other financial services need to be controlled for. Given that advertising is a top source for malware, I dont think it is unreasonable for people to be rocking adblockers on the vast majority of their web browsing.

If you're unblocking 98% of sites you visit, you are a very brave man.

I'm not brave, I just surf:
neogaf
twitter
reddit
twitch
youtube
google
(though i still block ads on facebook after some issues)

98% of the time. these sites are pretty goddamned safe to whitelist and you should try doing the same

 

[Earthpainting]

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.

Quality post all-around, but this part stood out to me. I didn't even realise it until you mentioned it but I haven't seen too many intrusive ads in several years. It just dawned on me that adverts are localised and tailored to your country of origin. Browsing habits not withstanding, this is probably the cause for the apparent differences in the on-line advertisement experience. Most of the ones I see are either from local brands, really large international brands who have a semblance of how to do it in a way without irritating folks, or just general Google ones. If it works on a smaller scale, it should in theory be doable as well on a larger one.

I was looking for any possible reasons for why this could be the case. What I assume is the most likely the culprit, is that fact that I'm from a small European country where English isn't even considered to be its second language. This is the same reason why I am stumble on virtual "borders" from time to time, where I am forbidden to make use of on-line services, or am blocked off from content. Since I am not part of one of the major markets, they know I'll have no way of making use of their services or products. Stumbling on these roadblocks is very annoying, but I never stood still and thought about the fact that they may have been shielding me from intrusive adverts.

In order to fix the on-line advertisement issue on a larger scale, I think we really do need an Adblock-esque company. Someone that that can curates the standards of on-line advertisements. Then browsers can implement some kind of blanket-ban of adverts, and only allow white-list pre-approved ads. This way adverts could more easily be categorised and rated. The reason why I'm opting for white-listing instead of blacklisting is because this makes the advertisers do the heavy lifting, and makes it easier for them to conform. It'd also make it easier to create some kinds of standards for banners in mobile browsers as well while we're at it.

 

[TheD]

well, by your criteria you are watching the ads on twitch, youtube, and neogaf... so you're allright by me <3

Youtube has been caught feeding malware ads not long ago.
Twitch's in video ads are ok, if they are not the type that ignore the volume control and try to get you to sign up to some dodgy ad network to skip them (not joking), but the sidebar ads are your normal dodgy crap you can get from any site (and they screw up chat).
In regards to neogaf, well

 

[boogie2988]

Youtube has been caught feeding malware ads not long ago.
Twitch's in video ads are ok, if they are not the type that ignore the volume control and try to get you to sign up to some dodgy ad network to skip them (not joking), but the sidebar ads are your normal dodgy crap you can get from any site (and they screw up chat).
In regards to neogaf, well

I've never seen an ad like that in neogaf but I trust your evidence to the contrary. sad state of affairs.

Still, you're not likely to click on that are you? I rarely click ANY ads, even if its something I'm interested in. Certainly when faced with an ad like that you know better right? Even if you don't you do have the right tools on your PC to help fight that kinda crap I'd hope.

Never heard of youtube pushing malware by simply watching an advertisement. I had no clue that kind of thing is possible and while I want to believe you I find it suspect. But if you say its possible I guess it might be.

 

[Yagharek]

I've never seen an ad like that in neogaf but I trust your evidence to the contrary. sad state of affairs.

Still, you're not likely to click on that are you? I rarely click ANY ads, even if its something I'm interested in. Certainly when faced with an ad like that you know better right? Even if you don't you do have the right tools on your PC to help fight that kinda crap I'd hope.

Never heard of youtube pushing malware by simply watching an advertisement. I had no clue that kind of thing is possible and while I want to believe you I find it suspect. But if you say its possible I guess it might be.

There's quite a lot of dodgy gaf ads especially on the mobile version; they tend to redirect to the app store then when you go back the offending ad is no longer there.

 

[SHADES]

"You Bastard!" Awesome!

Personally, I watch a few upcoming DayZ channels with say 15-30k subs and I have no problem sitting though a few ads if it means I still get the content I enjoy, I'd miss those channels if they were no linger able to make content or make content on par with what they currently make.

 

[Recall]

So wait, if I use AdBlock it must mean I pirate my video games?

This thread and Pachter continue to be hilarious. You guys make up the craziest shit.

 

[iMax]

lol, i'm all for net neutrality though. i think right now Netflix agreed to pay ISPs in order to get priority bandwidth for their content, i don't think the ISPs are paying Netflix anything. correct me if i'm wrong, of course.

No, not right now, but it's the kinda thing they'd drool for.

The idea of ISPs subsidising content providers is indirectly a result of the Netflix deal that was struck recently. Shockingly, Comcast and Verizon can now advertise that their packages provide a 'better' Netflix experience. The ISPs, therefore get more customers, more money and Netflix gets more viewers and more subscription revenue.

It doesn't matter which direction it goes in. Some things need to be separate.

 

[lensoftruth]

Omg, he's really angry. I see Pachter as the next Angry Birds character.

Of course he is, part of his income if via advertising.

 

[TheD]

I've never seen an ad like that in neogaf but I trust your evidence to the contrary. sad state of affairs.

Still, you're not likely to click on that are you? I rarely click ANY ads, even if its something I'm interested in. Certainly when faced with an ad like that you know better right? Even if you don't you do have the right tools on your PC to help fight that kinda crap I'd hope.

Never heard of youtube pushing malware by simply watching an advertisement. I had no clue that kind of thing is possible and while I want to believe you I find it suspect. But if you say its possible I guess it might be.

You do not have to click on an ad for it to do something (see my earlier posts in this thread about ads on gametrailers opening a new tab just by the mouse moving over them and having ads automatically load up their page in the same tab GT was open in).

It is completely possible for a website or ad server to feed you malware (without you agreeing to download anything), via what is called a drive by download
Info:
https://blogs.mcafee.com/consumer/drive-by-download
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download
http://www.comodo.com/resources/home/newsletters/nov-10/ask-geekbuddy.php


With regards to my neogaf example,
If an ad network lets in an ad for what is clearly a scam (from a site that is going so far it even hides it's whois info), that ad network also allowing (or at least being negligent enough not check) an ad with a driveby malware download is not unlikely.

 

[Costia]

So wait, if I use AdBlock it must mean I pirate my video games?

This thread and Pachter continue to be hilarious. You guys make up the craziest shit.

How did you come to this conclusion .
You need to read more carefully.
The suggestion is that by blocking ads you are pirating the content of the site you are visiting since you are consuming it's content without paying for it by loading the ads.

 

[p3tran]

I just saw the pachter video

omg, talking about a real joke!!!!!

let me drop my 2c's here:

- I started blocking ads, only AFTER they went over the top, so fuck them

- mr pachter, my ad blocker DOES NOT wait for 30 seconds in a black screen, it has not pause when it skips your "precious" ad content, so yeah, I'm not even wasting the 30 seconds you think i am

when I see a site that kind of respects me with the way it flushes ads in my face, and if i like the content, I give them the ad views to be paid. if not, then no. simpe as that

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

If you use adblock and not viewing ads when you consume content then you are directly denying income for those who are creating the content you are about to consume.

Indirectly. And really, it's more arguable than you make it out to be. Ultimately ad rates are based on statistics, and people who run ad block are not as good consumers as people who don't, generally. They won't engage with the ads at the same rate, so while ad views may go up, the price per ad view will be driven down sooner or later.

It takes time, effort, equipment, and money to product it. It costs you nothing either way.

Well, it surely costs time. And it does cost your user money. Because if more people don't buy a product during/after an ad campaign than do before an ad campaign then nobody would pay you to run ads.

But here's the thing. When you sit through an ad you are participating in one of the best deals in the century.

Lol. No.

You get free content.
The person creating it gets paid.
It costs money for a MULTIBILLION dollar company to produce, and show that ad. That money goes into the hands of the person who created the content you consumed.

You literally get to be robin hood. You literally get to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

It would be "figuratively". And right, the MULTIBILLION dollar company is the loser in advertising. You've solved it.

If you're choosing not to do that, I agree with pach; you are a pretty rude person.

I'm rather polite in my day to day interactions, at least with real folk. Cashiers love me. I say thank you, wish 'em a good day, but don't sit around and launch into a story while slowing down the line behind me or whatever other work they might need to attend to. I'm pretty fantastic.

Now that said, I still enjoy you watching my content either way. I'm making X amount of dollars and lets say 60% of my users use adblock so I could be making 60% more income. That would be certainly great.

I'm very happy though to be making X. I really hope it doesnt lessen, and I really won't be butthurt if it doesnt increase.

But if you choose to not be Robin Hood in exchange for sitting through a 30 second advertisement then you're a bit self centered for sure.

Just saying.

If you choose to try to guilt trip people for the shortcomings of a revenue model you chose, then you're a bit self-centered yourself. Just sayin'.