Advertisers abused the hell out of us back in the early days of the Internet and we haven’t forgotten. Multiple Pop-ups, pop-unders and seizure-inducing banner ads.
If they simply stuck with small, basic, non-flashing banners, I could have handled it. But greed knows no limits with advertisers.
Yep, they brought it upon themselves, I still remember as a kid falling for a “you are the visitor number 1 million” and getting a virus; and now we have porn and cults advertising on youtube, nothing changed.
I certainly do lot miss the days when I’d go onto a website covered in ads for cheap, garbage MMOs… And then suddenly hear random music really fucking loudly. Scrambling to figure out where it’s coming from I’d find 4 or 5 smaller windows has opened up behind my main browser window.
Honestly I wouldn’t even mind some basic banner flashing, i.e. not neon fucking strobe and plastered over everything. I can understand them wanting to get a little bit of an eye catch. But not all of the ads can be like that and not with pop-ups and shit.
Many moons ago I worked briefly on an ad prototype that aimed to replace banner ads, particularly those that sit in content with a single bottom overlay that would “smartly” unobstruct the viewing experience of the page. I was able to reduce a full page of horrible ads into a single box at the bottom of the page that could be closed whenever.
The idea fell completely flat for various reasons, but some off the top of my head:
- We have x advertisers that NEED to be on this page - how can we possibly get x on the page with just one box?
- I don’t care if people use ad blockers, let them do their thing and we’ll target those that are happy to see ads
- If people can easily close them, the reflex to close will mean no ad is glanced.
The sad stat that came out was that obtrusive ads, the kind that used popups or automatically opened apps to download were VERY effective. I could prove that my ads were several times more effective than “normal” banner ads and popups, but when you could sell 10x the ads it didn’t matter if they were 10x more effective.
My brief stint in advertising made me feel that for many years people didn’t care about those that blocked ads because there was always more shit to optimise or grow into. That has stagnated, so now the likes of Google are targeting “market share” by getting those that block ads to look at ads again. It won’t work, at all, but it feels like they’ve now optimised themselves into a hole.
It’s ironic, they depend on perpetual growth, which means the more efficient they get at growing, the faster they outgrow their effective markets and then end up in a position where they need to further optimize optimal positions.
Sure, there’s probably smaller optimizations they could make, but they don’t just depend on growth but a certain % of growth.
Cornering markets is the beginning of the end for businesses in our growth obsessed system.
What they’re “forgetting” is that those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad. (Well, they don’t care, they know, but they can still sell the “spot” so to speak because the advertisers themselves are dumb enough not know that it is just shooting themselves in the foot.)
those who block ads are more likely to say “fuck product X I’ll never buy it because of this ad” if forced to see an ad.
This demographic is much, much smaller than you probably assume it is–I mean ‘statistically insignificant’ small.
It very well may be bigger than you think, there’s a reason all the adblock users use adblock, and I know multiple people who do the same thing, and even more that while they may not say “fuck your ad I’ll buy your competitor,” they will only buy the product if they were already going to buy it through their own independent research or word of mouth from trusted friends.
Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone that bought something from a popup or ad in the middle of a news article, maybe the first few “sponsored links” on google when they google the product anyway and were already looking for that amazon link, but that’s about it.
Basically how I browse the internet these days … if I have to click on a bunch of stuff, sign up, register, accept a bunch of notifications, cookies, blah, blah, blah … all because I want to read 200 words on your dumb site … I’m not even going to bother with your site, skip and find a different source that is easier.
I go a step further and block them in DDG. This includes any “article” I have to scroll through to find the answer.
I love cookies!
…not the browser kind. I’m partial to chocolate chip!
Get PopUpOFF and AdNauseam. Don’t just back down without a fight. If I need to read an article to find some information I am going to read it, dumb bullshit be damned, even if I have to break half your site to do so. I’ve even been spiteful enough to hack away at the page with inspect element if it still manages to get past those add-ons.
anytime blocking elements is the correct choice noscript is better
NoScript tends to break more things on the page than is desired, in my experience, I used to use it but eventually I got rid of it because of the hassle of “is this the one I should add an exception for to make it work? No. How about this one?” repeat until you figure it out, and then repeat the whole process for every website you ever use
Using AdNauseam’s built-in uBlock, I can use its element picker if something is particularly stubborn
Don’t get me wrong, I like NoScript as a concept and think it should exist for the subset of users who want that functionality, but it’s not for me.
and then repeat the whole process for every website you ever use
The thing is that you soon reach a point in which most of your frequently visited sites are already properly permissioned. After that, only newly visited domains need any special attention, and that’s assuming you’re there to do anything other than read some text or view an image.
It’s legitimately embarrassing how many people can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t the “fuck you” they think it is.
They aren’t shocked or upset, they’re not panicking because you left, because it’s all the same to them either way. You either access the site while blocking the ads and they get no income from your views, or you go away and they don’t get income from your views. Exactly nothing has changed for them except now they don’t have you pulling bandwidth.
The point is not to get YOU to turn your ad blocker off, the point is it will get SOME people to turn it off who aren’t you. If you’re not willing to turn it off, then what you do matters very little because they appreciate there’s no way they’re getting income from you ever.
It’s got the same energy as “You expect me to pay admission to enter this theme park? Well now I’m not going in, don’t you feel stupid?”
Well first it’s not “fuck you”, its “goodbye”. And second it’s not about “you”, it’s about “me” not visiting your site if I need to turn off adblock. End of the story, our path will not cross again. Ciao, aurevoir, hasta not luego.
I think the comment is about the last panel being a shocked pikachu type face.
The companies are not shocked that you no longer visit their page, that’s their intention. “Generate revenue for us or leave”
P.S. genuine lol at hasta not luego, shouldn’t it also be “aurevoir pas” or “aurevoir never” since that also essentially means see you again.
Lol, I’m french canadian and you’re actually not wrong. Aurevoir litteraly means “see you again” but we dont really use it that way. “Adieu” would have been a better choice. It kind of mean “to God”, meaning you dont intent to see someone ever again, or until you die at least.
Why would they replace the Spanish portion with another flavor of French?
That’s not what I was saying, I meant instead of the French they did say
You should have used a period then, or at least a semicolon, in between the unrelated phrases.
You can’t seem to grasp that we’re not just single people. We’re a force that also influences the non-tech people around us.
When I use, repair or configure the computer of a friend or family member, it’ll definitely get an adblocker.
Sneaky uBlock Origin installations where like 40% of the “work” in my computer repair years.
I completely get your point, and to an extent I agree, but I do think there’s still an argument to be made.
For instance, if a theme park was charging an ungodly amount for admission, or maybe, say, charged you on a per-ride basis after you paid admission, slowly adding more and more charges to every activity until half your time was spent just handing over the money to do things, if everyone were to stop going in, the theme park would close down, because they did something that turned users away.
Websites have continually added more and more ads, to the point that reading a news article feels like reading 50% ads, and 50% content. If they never see any pushback, then they’ll just keep heaping on more and more ads until it’s physically impossible to cram any more in.
I feel like this is less of a dunk on the site by not using it in that moment, and more a justifiable way to show that you won’t tolerate the rapidly enshittified landscape of digital advertising, and so these sites will never even have a chance of getting your business in the future.
If something like this happens enough, advertisers might start finding alternative ways to fund their content, (i.e. donation model, subscription, limited free articles then paywall) or ad networks might actually engage with user demands and make their systems less intrusive, or more private. (which can be seen to some degree with, for instance, Mozilla’s acquisition of Anonym)
Even citing Google’s own research, 63% of users use ad blockers because of too many ads, and 48% use it because of annoying ads. The majority of these sites that instantly hit you with a block are often using highly intrusive ads that keep popping up, getting in the way, and taking up way too much space. The exact thing we know makes users not want to come back. It’s their fault users don’t want to see their deliberately maliciously placed ads.
A lot of users (myself most definitely included) use ad blockers primarily for privacy reasons. Ad networks bundle massive amounts of surveillance technology with their ads, which isn’t just intrusive, but it also slows down every single site you go to, across the entire internet. Refusing that practice increases the chance that sites more broadly could shift to more privacy-focused advertising methods.
Google recommends to “Treat your visitors with respect,” but these sites that just instantly slap up an ad blocker removal request before you’ve even seen the content don’t actually respect you, they just hope you’re willing to sacrifice your privacy, and overwhelm yourself with ads, to see content you don’t even know anything about yet. Why should I watch your ads and give up my privacy if you haven’t given me good reason to even care about your content yet?
This is why sites with soft paywalls, those that say you have “x number of free articles remaining,” or those that say “you’ve read x articles this month, would you consider supporting us?” get a higher rate of users disabling adblockers or paying than those that just slap these popups in your face the moment you open the site.
Ignore the last panel and it makes way more sense. When the site demands I see their ads, I leave that site and look for that same content elsewhere. There’s never a time when I think “HA! Gotteem!” I just don’t engage with the site, and don’t care about it or who else does.
Yes and no. Similar with apps, you can say “well if you’re not paying/seeing adds then we lose nothing by you not visiting”, but, depending on their growth stage, it’s very hard to grow and get investors without a sizable audience.
Say you’re a startup. If you have 10k people and you ignore ad blockers and people who don’t play subscriptions. Then you start preventing people with ad blockers and no subscriptions from your platform and it drops to 1k… You lose investment pulling power.
The effect is amplified, or much worse, if you actually require user generated content as well
This is Lemmy, though. We’re not the normal crowd, not even the normal tech crowd. We’re the “Hacker News in '07 that laughed at Dropbox because you could just use curlftpfs and source control” crowd. As a general rule, if it’s not about Linux or Star Trek lore this place knows nothing.
You’d be surprised, there’s plenty of people with niche interests here, it’s just that if I made an AR builder’s comm, or a reloading comm, or a vape juice mixing comm, there’ll be 5 whole users if I’m lucky because lemmy is still small.
Have you tried rawdoggin the WWW anytime in the last decade? Unusable.
It really is dead, isn’t it?
Nah only the commercial sites. The blogsphere, scientific and nerd websites, fediverse, etc are all very much alive and thriving
Imagine if Newspapers were originally run like web site news
If you wanted to read A paper, you would have had to buy a year’s subscription
Panel #4: Me: “Your content is perfectly accessible without loading any turing-complete assets from your web server, thanks”
The ads when I disable the ad blocker
Pi-Hole will block it anyway
You got any blacklists that catch YouTube and twitch ads? Afaik those are provided from their own cdn now, so dns won’t work unless I’m mistaken
yt-dlp -o “%(title)s.%(ext)s” --sponsorblock-remove sponsor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=somevideo
I’m not talking about sponsor reads.
Not seen an ad on newpipe
I prefer Revanced on mobile and youtube.com with plugins on PC, but I’m talking about for other devices on my network that won’t easily take an alternative app.
Ublock Orgin for desktop and YouTube ReVanced for mobile. They both still have no issues whatsoever with blocking ads on YT, even under the new system. Just use those and don’t worry about it. I’ve been doing this for years.
Already use both of those, but Revanced keeps breaking lately and I have other devices that don’t have other apps or extensions
Someday soon my “adblocker” might be a personal AI that reads the spam-ridden website on a virtual display in memory, identifies the actual content while pretending to look at whatever ads the site demands, and then passes the information I’m actually looking for along to me. Good luck captchaing that.
An AI feature actually useful for consumers? Corporate overloards say no thx, let’s instead fill the net with more AI-generated SEO bullshit
Adblockers aren’t made by “corporate overlords.” This wouldn’t be either.
But right up the alley of local LLMs which are coming along gangbusters. For your consideration perplexica search engine.
І ԁоո’t раrtісulаrly thіոk thаt summаrіzеrs аrе а gооԁ gоаl, sіոсе аі summаrіеs саո оftеո bе wrоոg, mіsіոtеrрrеt іոfоrmаtіоո, оr оmіt іmроrtаոt іոfоrmаtіո thеy fаіl tо іԁеոtіfy аs іmроrtаոt.
I think if that starts to become common people should start using tools like this as well as the use of pre-baked PDF or image rendered text to thwart it on their content.
This is a really interesting little project, but there’s no background info available. Making this be a plugin for that ‘other’ site that most of us left would be great. I still surf there once in a while but no longer comment due to their policy changes.
I’m not talking about a summarizer, I’m talking about a classifier. It just needs to identify which parts of the page are advertising and which are not.
The point of such a tool is that it would read the web page in exactly the same way that a human would, so using trickery like pre-rendered images of text or funky unicode wouldn’t really change anything. If a human can read it then so can the AI.
That could be useful, if ads get to the point where removing their elements manually is no longer possible. I don’t think that’ll happen for a while though, as long as were still using HTML and Javascript which downloads and runs pages locally inside of our browsers.
Love when sites think you’re a captive audience. Bye sucka!!!
The companies that keep these are ones that people in certain professions (like journalism and politics) have to use, so their corporate paymasters just pony up the subscription costs.
I will try to unblock ads on a new site one time. I want to see the whole article on one page, No click-through gallery of 27 different takes. There can be ads in the borders and margins. And maybe if I’m feeling generous one in the middle of the content. I don’t want to see an unrelated pop-up video I don’t want to see every paragraph separated by another ad.
If they can’t play nice I block the ads, If I can’t, by default, see the content without the ads, I’ll find the article on another service. Everyone’s literally just copying the same content back and forth with different wording.
If I can’t see the content, and I can’t find it on another service, I’ll generally use bypass paywalls clean. If I can’t see it through that I don’t see it.
I’m not giving in for this b******* ads all over the place scenario. You can’t even read a recipe page nowadays without an ad blocker.
You can say “bullshit” here, lemmy isn’t so concerned with making everything child friendly to appease advertisers like tiktok or youtube.
Yeah I have open requests for speech to text to give me an easy way to turn on/off censoring. Unfortunately, until somebody does that it’s better to censor in places that I don’t need to censor then to not censor in places that need it.
It really depends on:
- How intrusive the ads are
- If there is other invasive tracking
- How “corporate” the website is (SEO garbage AI spam vs genuine indie blogger)
- The quality of the article
But for some reason, 75% of the time I decide to willingly turn off my ad blocker, there’s nothing to block.
Isn’t this just the system working as intended? You gain benefit from the content of a website and the people who make the content get compensated via ad revenue. If you choose to not provide them with ad revenue, you don’t get the benefit of the content. It’s basically the same as walking into a store and choosing not to buy a product on the shelf. You’re not “getting yours” by not buying something, you’re getting nothing and paying nothing, zero benefit for zero cost.
and the people who make the content get compensated via ad revenue
We’re assuming that the only possible goal is money. The people who make the content can also get compensated by enjoying the propagation of their ideas, just as one example.
If they’re putting ads on their site then it’s clear they want to make money. You’re imposing your views onto other people when they’ve clearly indicated they don’t think they way you want them to.
The web, “as intended,” worked for several years with utterly no ad content. And when ads did start coming along, they were largely innocuous; little things in side bars, not obnoxious full-page videos that are rarely dismissible.
Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that the web was designed for commerce or as a way to distribute anything other than information is a lying fucker.
I knew about ad blockers before I started using one. Small sidebar or header ads weren’t really enough to convince me I needed one.
Now the Internet has so many popups, ads, aggressive video players, requests to accept cookies, all because some people figured out how to make websites more profitable by making them worse. It’s sad, really. The Internet of old was great.
Is your point that technology should never be used for anything other than what it was originally designed for? If that’s the case then please stop using TCP/IP for anything other than advancing US military weapons research.
My point was that the comment I was replying to implied that the web was created so that people could monetize content. That was not the reason why the web was created.
If I create a whingdoodle that provides people with free electricity, and you find a way to murder cities with it, then you can’t claim it’s “functioning as intended.” I didn’t intend for it to do that; you found a way to pervert it. Now, Billy found a way to prevent you from murdering him with your weaponized wingdoodle, and you argue that he shouldn’t, because the wingdoodle is “functioning as intended.” I’m calling bullshit on that. That was my point.
There’s http response code 402 (payment required) which comes before even 404 (page not found). Indicates to me that people were thinking about using the web for commerce even before they thought about people putting in a wrong URL.
When he said “the system”, he probably meant the system of ad funded services, not the system of the World Wide Web, the HTML markup language, the URL system, and HTTP as envisioned by Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee (born 8 June 1955),[1].
Oh. So advertising is working as it was designed? I won’t argue with that, except that I block all that so it doesn’t, really. I suppose it still affects people who neither care to block it, or don’t know how.
Advertising is a pox on capitalism, which has enough problems without the parasites.
And I hope you never used dial-up internet! That is NOT what phone lines are for.
I did in the past. But now my internet connection involves co-ax cable. So please send all replies in an analog video form, since that’s what that cable was designed for.
Don’t know if that’s true. People invested in it as a bubble - knowing that someday the companies running sites within them would be worth trillions. And they were right (though not about which ones would be worth that)
I remember seeing a lot of dinky banner ads back in the day.
I don’t know how people who block ads are so delusional to think that these websites would be sad to see them go, any more than shops would be sad to see shoplifters take their business elsewhere.
I get why some people might block ads but don’t kid yourselves, you’re blocking the only revenue stream for most sites and it doesn’t cost you anything. I’m not taking about tracking of course, sites that track you can get fucked.
This is exactly why I choose to persevere with ad-blocking addons and make their website work the way I want it to without dumb bullshit getting in my way. :D
If you want people to use your website, make your website usable with unobtrusive ads or I’ll make it usable for me, and you won’t see a dime of ad revenue. Unfortunately, most sites seem to just double down (which doesn’t work because it just makes ad-blocking even more necessary and popular). Sucks for them.
If you want people to use your website,
Why do you assume that’s the end goal? Pretty sure their goal is to get paid. The website is a means to deliver content to people. If we’re talking about news sites, then I think they’d prefer people buy a newspaper. But since they have to have a website they need to figure out a way to make some money or they’re going to get laid off.
Sucks for them.
Well if we’re all having this attitude, then why should anyone care about your preferences for no ads? You’ve taken the low ground and anyone can now say “Sucks for you” if you don’t like seeing ads.
Why do you assume that’s the end goal? Pretty sure their goal is to get paid.
… and they get paid by…
people using their website. More specifically viewing ads while using their website. The kicker is (and I thought I explained this), the more obtrusive they make their ads, the more people use an ad blocker, and the less people will see their ads. I thought I covered that well enough, but apparently not for you.
But since they have to have a website they need to figure out a way to make some money or they’re going to get laid off.
If they can’t figure out how to make money without their website being obnoxious and nigh-unusable, then indeed perhaps it’s time they found a new line of work, methinks.
Well if we’re all having this attitude, then why should anyone care about your preferences for no ads?
Did I ever claim that anyone cared about my preferences? It’s pretty obvious from the fact I said “most sites seem to double down”, that I acknowledge most websites already don’t give a shit and would rather squeeze as much as possible from the few people not running ad blockers than make the web a better and more usable place for everyone. They very clearly do not care about that, which is very amusing to me, as it means ad-blocking software will continue to improve and outpace shit web developers, as it’s so popular and needed. Which sucks for them, that they’re shooting themselves in the foot.
Ya followin’ me, sport?
I often wonder how news websites are supposed to survive. People (myself included) want unbiased news websites without paywalls and ads.
How are they supposed to pay their staff?
The honest answer are general fees like they are used for public broadcasters. It’s not a perfect system either and it requires significant effort to keep things neutral, but overall it seems to have the best results if you compare the quality of the outcome.
Who gets to collect revenue from the fees though? Where do you draw the line, are you cutting off independent journalism?
I’m not saying it’s an easy line to draw because you obviously don’t want to create incentives for bad journalism, but don’t want to make it too high of a bar to get into in the first place. I think you’d need to take things like the number of readers, the factuality of headings and content, the originality and the investigative value into account and be able to at least temporarily cut of bad outlets that spread fake/hate/… while at the same time ensuring that inconvenient truths make it out.
It’s not an easy task, but I feel there is more room to get somewhere useful than with the current model of billionaire-owned media that outdo each other with rage-bait and inaccurate/misleading/falsly balanced/biased reporting…
News sites are in need of a paradigm shift.
I think we might get to a system where summaries of news are free, but indepth articles and videos are paid.
Oh and I believe that news sites should scrap subscription only models, I should be able to pay 1-2EUR for a single article that I want to read, with no risk of the payment being a subscription.
Obviously subscriptions models should still be an alternative if the users want it.
It’s nigh impossible to get many users to read past the headline. A summary is what 98% of people would actually want (and a good news story really is just a summary anyway) so the pay-through-rate would be so close to zero that I can’t see this model working.
That is a fair point, which just makes me wonder what else new services can offer that people will pay for…
I’d happily pay a nominal fee for news that was unbiased reporting of facts rather than opinion, and didn’t bombard me with ads or sell my data. It just doesn’t exist so I use aggregators to get a general vibe across sources.
That’s easy to say, but when it comes to finding my credit card to type in my info for yet another news website, I can guarantee that I just don’t give enough fucks about any individual news story.
I have mine saved in my password manager, but I’d rather they use a different payment processor (where it’s also saved) anyway. I try to avoid giving card info directly to smaller sites.
If a news website that I could trust met my criteria, it wouldn’t be ‘just another’ news site, it’d be my source of truth. So like I said, I would happily pay for that. And I’d pay a lot more than an average subscription.
So, a subscription with extra steps? Or is the problem that you just can’t find any trustworthy sites?
Yes. I’ve never found a news site that meets my criteria
The news sites that we have today are an inversion of what they should be. As a journalist, you wield tremendous power that is entrusted to you. Being able to set the narrative for millions of others is a privilege and, in fact, something that journalists should be paying to enjoy (e.g. footing the bill for web hosting).
I don’t agree with this take that people should pay to work. Journalist have family to feed as well.
Subscription models. Some sites even combine some free articles with it, so that anyone can look into their works, but not necessarily everything. If it fits you, you get a subscription. Sort of the same way people would pay for their daily newspaper.
It can be argued that “news” should be free, and there are some news site that are basically picking up AP/AFP/whatever and repost these, but actual journalism do requires work.
That’s what they do, then users cry about paywalls
It’s lose/lose