Study: Ad Blocker Use Jumps 41 Percent 528
Mickeycaskill writes: A report from Adobe and anti-ad blocking startup PageFair says the number of ad block users worldwide has increased by 41 percent in the past 12 months to 198 million monthly active users. The study suggests the growing popularity of ad blocking software is set to cost online publishers $21.8 billion in 2015 and could reach $41.4 billion by 2016. "About 45 million of them are in the United States, with almost 15 percent of people in states like New York and California relying on these services. The figures are even higher in Europe, where 77 million people use versions of the software. In Poland, more than a third of people regularly block online ads."
And they didn't (Score:3, Funny)
even put an ad up!
Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Mute the TV. Fast-forward recorded TV. Screen the calls. Block the ads.
Fuck'em if they cant take a joke.
Re:Fed up (Score:4, Informative)
Ads have gotten ridiculous. Hardly a week goes by where I don't get notified of an attempted malware attack on my comp while browsing, usually from malware on ad sites. And that's with adblock running. And if it's not malware, it's the fake security software and update notices.
In some cases, ads take more than 70% of screen real estate. A quick check shows the /. homepage has 8 ads on it.
Re:Fed up (Score:4, Informative)
Last time I used some mainstream social networking sites without AdBlock in a VM, it took about 10 minutes before the virtual machine was chock full of scareware, its CPU was pegged, and it was scanning the LAN.
AdBlock isn't just for ads, it is a vital tool in security, arguably more important than antivirus software, because it stops the malvertising before it gets on your machine. In fact, if one has AdBlock, a click to play utility, and sandboxes/VMs the Web browser, that takes care of almost all attacks out there, except for Trojans, which can be combatted by running questionable executables in a VM, or just pasting the file's hash into VirusTotal's site and seeing what comes up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host (Score:4, Insightful)
ABP doesn't spam on forums...
Re:Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I don't get many of the attempted malware attacks... But I get of a lot of poorly coded Javascript/HTML5 adds, that just slow everything down. I tend to use a laptop, so when the CPU starts kicking, so does the cooling fan, and then drains my batteries.
I am OK with advertising, I get it, If I am going to use a site for free, Gettings adds is a way to keep revenue for the side. But when the Adds take up more CPU power than it would for a complex Database query and calculation of a million rows, There is a problem with that. So I put on an Ad Blocker, just for proper function of my PC.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i could probably even deal with 70% of non-animated non-clickbait advertisements. the problem is advertisers continue to be more and more intrusive. popup,punch the monkey shit. Also these "interactive" ads are huge malware vectors.
Give me static links, with MAYBE a picture, and 12 words.
That is acceptable.
animate shit, you broke the social contract and your ad is blocked.
Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you think it's ironic you have, on this article alone, plastered at least a half-dozen spam posts that are essentially ads. Do you have anything that would let us block you?
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't respond to APK guy with your actual account. Now he is going to stalk you.
Shouldn't that be a Slashdot achievement by now?
Re: (Score:3)
Mute the TV. Fast-forward recorded TV. Screen the calls. Block the ads. Fuck'em if they cant take a joke.
The only thing that's a joke here is listening to the marketing "experts" bitch about how the impact of blocking ads will somehow cost billions.
I haven't seen that kind of bullshit valuation since buying diamonds from a retail chain.
Re:Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody calculated the cost of malignant ads taking over computers via the latest Flash/Java vulnerability. Perhaps, if they didn't actually their users more than it makes for the advertisers, then perhaps we wouldn't use adblockers nearly as much.
Ad networks are their own worst enemies.
Re:Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Joking aside, I didn't start using an adblocker until ads started opening new windows, opening popunder windows, resize windows, and otherwise mess with the browser itself. Admittedly that was a long time ago, but I learned my lesson once and frankly as long as technology exists that lets me block ads I will block ads because of it.
The marketing industry has no one to blame but itself.
Re: Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ads cost nearly $100 Billion in lost time. Computing time and employee time. Malicious ads add an additional cost of $200 B/year.
(I made those numbers up. But so did the anti-blockers)
Re: (Score:3)
I was on the can using my cell phone. I win at multitasking!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, my time browsing /. has already been paid for by productivity increases. Okay, so I am resting on my laurels a bit, but IMHO it sparked one of the greatest things I've done at work.
Back in the early 2000's I was reading /. and saw two unrelated articles, that caused me to try to combine them. I had already known about both, but the proximity of both to each other sparked a thought.
That spark, allow us to be able to image WinXP machines, fully patched, with the correct drivers for all of our variou
Re:Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't start blocking ads until lazy ad networks started allowing malware into their system. If you can't be responsible enough to not try to destroy my system, you shouldn't be on my system at all.
Re:Fed up (Score:4, Interesting)
Or since someone last tried to tell the future from chicken guts. Economy is the religion of our culture and economists are its high priests, always preaching the word of their patron companies. It's why Cold War took on aspects of a holy war, and why people get so ridiculously attached to particular economic ideas.
The guys who wrote the report aren't trying to bullshit anyone, they're simply using their religion's version of Hell semi-casually to express displeasure, with the assumption that the reader understands it's hyperbole.
Re:Fed up (Score:5, Insightful)
Advertisers are becoming increasingly harmful. They must find a balance between capturing the user interest and the degradation of the user experience. If they became too annoying, the user shut them up, with ad-block or simply the mute button.
Personally I don't use ad-block as I completely disable javascript, that automagically blocks 99% of ads (and other stupid messages) and let instant loading of web pages.
Re:Mute the TV (Score:3)
This is the reason I proudly browse with Ad Block Edge.
Content paid for by ads is not produced in my interest, but in the interest of the purchasers of the ads. In most cases it would be better if whatever is paid for by ads were not produced at all. That would make the voices of those speaking to share their thoughts, relatively louder in the marketplace of ideas, compared with the voices of those speaking to attract eyeballs in a way that won't reflect badly on a brand.
To an extent, content in the s
Re:And they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is good enough for consumers it will be known and used!
Many web sites complains about ad blocking today, but they have to be aware that they caused the need for adblockers themselves. Too many ads like "Your PC have a problem" hopping like it has Parkinson on the screen is stressful and false. Static ads are actually less of a problem.
Ads with sound and pop-ups covering the whole darn screen are a sure call for adblocker to be installed.
Re:And they didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
If something is good enough for consumers it will be known and used!
Many web sites complains about ad blocking today, but they have to be aware that they caused the need for adblockers themselves. Too many ads like "Your PC have a problem" hopping like it has Parkinson on the screen is stressful and false. Static ads are actually less of a problem.
Ads with sound and pop-ups covering the whole darn screen are a sure call for adblocker to be installed.
This is certainly correct. I would also add that sites load so much faster when using an ad blocker.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For an eye-opening experience, try a mozilla browser with noscript and request policy extensions, and no other ad-blocker. Start with default-deny rules and see how many third-party scripts and third-part site requests are being made from sites you visit.
Noscript lets you enable scripts from specific origin sites, but request policy controls which third-party requests are allowed from each site. Together, you can see just how much absurd ad and user-tracking crap is being fetched from each site. With pat
Re: (Score:3)
And dear baby jeebus what the hell is up with the new trend of popups within the window? Did they learn nothing from the late 90s? Nobody fucking wants your popup ads.
Re:And they didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. Advertising agencies only have themselves to blame for the fact that most people hate ads. It started with intrusive and annoying TV ads. They deem it necessary to raise the volume by 50% when the ads come up? They deem it necessary to drive a nail into your head by inserting an add when you least expect it in the middle of a scene? And they deem it necessary to fill ads with lies and ridiculous false promises of beauty, health and popularity?
Well fuck them. Now I fucking hate ads and it's all their fault because they annoyed the living shit out of me with their fucking bullshit ads and the increasingly aggravating way they presented them to me. Advertising agencies have trained me to abhor ads.
And the practice has continued on the Internet. Noisy, invasive, insecure and fucking annoying ads almost everywhere. I will do all I can to stop them from fucking with my head.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Advertising agencies only have themselves to blame for the fact that most people hate ads. It started with intrusive and annoying TV ads. They deem it necessary to raise the volume by 50% when the ads come up? They deem it necessary to drive a nail into your head by inserting an add when you least expect it in the middle of a scene? And they deem it necessary to fill ads with lies and ridiculous false promises of beauty, health and popularity?
Just an FYI but they dont increase volume for ads, that would be actually illegal and easy to prove. TV stations have been required to transmit advertisements and content at the same volume for years (decades in my country). However what they do is change the audio compression to make them sound louder, ads use a smaller dynamic range than the content so quieter sounds are not recorded, this makes it sound louder. You get the same thing with music these days (this means we've lost fidelity, but you dont nee
Good! (Score:5, Informative)
In this day and age of malware being delivered even by supposedly reputable third-party providers, using an ad blocker is just plain responsible browsing. I'm sorry that web site owners are out some revenue for it, but if you want to make money off of me, you're going to figure out some way to do it other than leaving myself open to attack from malicious users.
There are a handful of web sites that I actually support financially specifically for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to point out the difficulty that webmasters face. They have two choice:
1. Go with a major, reputable ad service like Google and be easily and effortlessly blocked.
2. Go with a less reputable ad service and maybe get past some of the blockers, but at the risk of them serving malware.
Option 1 is the best because at least some people will have not unticked the "allow some responsible advertising", although of course it depends if the developer thinks Google is responsi
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
One allows "responsible" advertising until it annoys you. Then it goes. The point being that adverts should be helpful not annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
Option 3: Put in a little bit of effort, find relevant sponsors, and display their static logo or advertising text tastefully.
I know of several small websites that do this. Adblockers don't block it, users generally won't want to, and the whole thing comes across as much more professional than a roll of "Top Ten Celebrity Nosejobs Gone Wrong!" on every page.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know that this disadvantages the little guys, but the truly annoying ads are usually not served by them.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't reputable, they've served malware. [malwarebytes.org] They're right in line with option 2. [sucuri.net] And that's the reason why there's been such a surge in blocking all ads, because there generally is no clean source. The online ad industry has a serious problem, and they don't seem to want to fix it. If they did, they wouldn't be having such a problem with people blocking ads.
Re: (Score:3)
Google Ads is disappearing because Google realized their ads are blocked, so they're pushing their other ad networks like DoubleClick and such. And those ad networks have been serving up malware for ages.
Go to any reputable site and the ad will be hosted by Google. Either directly, or through one of
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to point out the difficulty that webmasters face. They have two choice:
What? Option 3, sell ads themselves. Option 4, no ads, monetize the site some other way. False Dichotomy is a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Malware being #1, but another reason I use it is tracking. I have ghostery and i regularly see 10 or more tracking objects on a page. I don't see "better targeted ads" as a benefit.
If im buying something, I do a specific search for it on Google/DuckDuckGo/SomeOtherSearch or Amazon/NewEgg/SomeOtherPurchaseSite. Then I'm done. If I'm browsing, I don't need to see the random items I've searched for in the past week. Either I bought them already or I decided not to buy. I've never seen an ad combat that problem, turn a "targeted ad since I know what you looked for last week" into a sale. They think that more data, more intrusion, less privacy is the answer, but it's not.
So privacy being #2 reason, bandwidth and quality of browsing is #3 for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I NEVER disable ad blocking, no matter what the website is. As near as I can tell, there is no such thing as "responsible" ads. They all track you.
Re: (Score:3)
as long as the ads are not too terrible.
because you can see the malware with your magic sixth sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Same idea as a hosts file, but corporate manages the desktops and IE rules the roost. We can no longer install FF and AdBlock.
Re: (Score:3)
We can no longer install FF and AdBlock
The people making these kinds of lame decisions need to be removed from their positions over IT. They don't have any ability to even begin to understand the problem, and shouldn't be in charge of any solutions.
Re: (Score:3)
I've noticed a great influx of "professional managers" who know zip about actual IT, so they hire consultants rather than listening to their own people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
probably that *one* little host IP that is left unblocked .....
At least that's what I think of when I read that nonsense of a post advocating APK, it just reads like a scam email.
Re: (Score:3)
After seeing this spammed all over this page, I know what adblock software I'll *never* use
One-sided analysis (Score:2)
"cost online publishers" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"cost online publishers" (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more - Ad Blockers don't "cost" publishers anything. They just deny publishers the use of broken business process technology. While accountants might like to treat this as a "cost", it's really nonsense.
However the continued use of "cost" in this way does reveal publishers to be whingy blood suckers whose protestations are of no merit.
Re:"cost online publishers" - TANSTAAFL (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm of two minds on this subject. I have never installed adblock and its ilk, because I know that "free" content comes at a cost. So as much as possible I sit through commercials from network TV's streamed shows, I allow sidebar ads to populate some screen real estate on websites, etc.
But I have my limits.
I suppose in the end that makes me no better than folks who aggressively block every single advertisement in any form -- "We already established what kind of woman you are; now we're just negotiating on the price". But it helps me sleep better at night knowing I'm at least willing to try to give them some of my attention in return for free content.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the question you need to ask yourself is when you're on your death-bed will you think, "boy, I sure do feel guilty for viewing all those corporate websites and blocking the ads and thus, their potential revenue", or "boy, I sure do wish I had all that time back I spent watching ads, being distracted by ads, closing pop-ups."
For me, the only valuable resource in the entire universe is my time. And I will fight very hard to protect it.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree completely. I'm OK with seeing a few ads if they support the free content I want to access. If that's the business model we're going with, then so be it. Slashdot itself broke my own camel's back, though, with the amount of crap I saw even after I clicked "Ads Disabled" (because of the amount of crap I was seeing). My decision was reinforced after the most recent monthly session of Dad Cleans Up The Kids' Gaming PC from all the junkware they'd installed (my youngest is 7; sometimes he doesn't make t
Re:"cost online publishers" - TANSTAAFL (Score:4, Insightful)
it helps me sleep better at night knowing I'm at least willing to try to give them some of my attention in return for free content.
I feel better blocking all ads and knowing that I've contributed to pressuring websites to find an alternative model to stay afloat.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not how it works. Not getting revenue from someone who wouldn't have clicked on your link if it were full of adware (for them) is not a "cost." The actual cost is in bandwidth, etc. and is much less than beelions of dollars.
Some advertisers per impression. While I don't know all of the ins-and-outs of how ad blockers work, it seems to me if they are blocking the ads from the source & they aren't getting served, then the publisher is indeed losing revenue. Otherwise why would a publisher care? I know some sites I have visited display a black "Support our site. Please turn off your ad blocker", so there must be some sort of incentive for them to show them. There are probably other metrics too like clicks per impression, and
Re: (Score:2)
Some advertisers per impression.
If they're getting paid per impression it would be very easy for them to serve ads that can't be easily blocked and are unobtrusive-- serve them from their own servers as part of the content and have an audit trail so advertisers can verify. Much like newspapers do. Nobody, as far as I know, chooses to do that. They'd rather just plug in a bit of code to let advertisers stick in their content, no matter how irritating.
Hmm, maybe, just maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
it's because ads are pollution of the mind, advertizing agencies (not just on the internet) commoditize people's brain runtime without asking their permission, and people generally FUCKING HATE IT.
Gee, what a surprise...
Re: (Score:2)
Not always. Sometimes I'm looking for a solution and the adds that come up in my search are relevant. If they relate to what I need, I have no problem with that. It's when they get in the way or block legitimate results that I get pissed off. Heck if someone has a better way to measure, say slurry density than radio-isotope based sensors, I'm all ears. I'll even watch your video. Do I care about penis enlargements or the latest hollywood obscenity? Not so much.
Heh... "Cost" (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean "deny". This is like saying a fence "cost" a wolf some chickens. I understand paying for content by watching ads... but the popups, the tracking, and the auto-play videos are getting out of hand.
Re: (Score:3)
In our current blame-others society (the article exemplifies this), the fence is starving that wolf. Some would even say that fence is killing the wolf.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'll just get this out of the way... [xkcd.com]
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The industry loses money because they don't understand their mistakes.
I don't mind seeing ads in their little corner, not flashing, clearly labeled as such. Hell, I even welcome targeted ads!
But when an auto-loading, auto-playing full page Flash add with sound suddenly pops over my screen and scares me to death while I'm trying to read an article... well then fuck you, I'm gonna block the shit out of it and everything that comes from that website until the end of time.
Many games I found and play were initially found by me through ads. So ads do help. They're just, for most part, intruding and badly designed.
The ad industry doesn't understand that AdBlock is an effect, caused by their shitty race to make ads "more visible". I guess they're a victim of their own "success".
I've seen websites that don't let me view any content on them if I have AdBlock, I blacklisted them entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
IF you want to get ads in front of me, just cache static ads and deliver with the rest of the page content without making the content unreadable.
Re: (Score:3)
1. If they ever started doing that, they were willing to be permanently labeled as bad and keep that label until the end of time.
2. If an ad-serving company (or website-owning company) are 100% sure that their ads stay out of the way, they could approach AdBlock developers and work together to create a whitelist.
IMO webmasters made a huge mistake by offloading ad-serving to 3rd parties, because 3rd parties usually don't give a fuck, website visitors go apeshit angry at intruding ads and ultimately it's the
Boo hoo ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And now all of these companies will try to claim we're "stealing" revenue from them by not viewing ads.
Sorry, but we're under no obligation to watch your damned ads. We don't owe you the ability to display stuff on our screens, nor do we owe you the revenue associated with this.
Boo fucking hoo, the mean old internets are stopping allowing you to make money for embedding crap in our web pages and providing a vector for malware.
That's simply tragic.
But you can bet the lobbyists are hard at work telling the politicians this is a vital part of the economy and if people are allowed to block ads world will end.
Bloody parasites.
not making money is cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't losing. It isn't costing them. The public chooses not to participate. The web companies can make pages not load at all if the ads are gone but they don't cause they know the public will leave them like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Re:not making money is cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't losing. It isn't costing them. The public chooses not to participate. The web companies can make pages not load at all if the ads are gone but they don't cause they know the public will leave them like rats leaving a sinking ship.
They don't seem to realize that they need us more than we need them. The Internet was great for making information available even before it was "monetized".
Re:not making money is cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a world where we're just consumers, expected to do as corporations expect, and in which they feel that revenue was their natural right ... we're just a natural resource which has suddenly decided it doesn't want to play.
Once the corporatization of the internet happened, this became more about shareholder value.
And in the modern context, shareholder is more important than pretty much anything. Because people like to believe shareholder value drives the economy, instead of being driven by it.
Who cares if there are no jobs as long as they're paying dividends or stock prices keep climbing? The value to the stock market is more important than those pesky humans.
Re: (Score:3)
If you ask me, it was better at making information available before it was commercialized. It wasn't cluttered with all this crap back then. I used to read article after article of fascinating stuff, just by following the hyperlinks, (hyperlinks!). Can't find that stuff anymore. Now, Facebook is most of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in an age where governments feel inclined to protect the revenues of corporations than protecting their citizens ... these companies will do the same kind of crap the *AAs did, and convince politicians that their revenue models need to be entrenched in law, and will attempt to equate ad blocking with theft.
Corporations have a sense of entitlement, and anything which dips into their revenue they demand be outlawed.
Mark my words, they'll try to have the technology blocked, and claim the EULA compels us
Re: (Score:2)
It is their right to do this, just as it is my right to block ads.
If the site refuses to load, that makes it quite easy to decide to never return to it.
Re: (Score:2)
You went to get your cheese somewhere else?
GOOD!!!! (Score:2)
Autoplaying video ads (Score:5, Informative)
It was the autoplaying video-adverts that flipped me over (about 6 months ago). I tolerated them when they first appeared, but once they defaulted to having the sound switched on, it was clear that the situation had gone beyond reasonable bounds.
The advertising industry should do whatever it can to make life unpleasant for those companies that rolled out those noisy monsters. I was prepared to tolerate ads up to that point, so that particular development has cost the industry a good few ad-views (and I doubt I'm alone in having found the game of "which browser tab is making the noise" to be my breaking point).
Non-intrusive ads (Score:3)
I wish they would focus on shifting ads away from the current "be as annoying and in your face as possible" trend, and over to more non-intrusive forms of ads. I'm sure the reason ads have become so obnoxious is that it leads to more clicks, but that so many now choose to block them might be a good indication it's time to reevaluate.
My adblocker accepts non-intrusive ads by default. Get your ads on that whitelist and the problem is solved. Personally, I don't care about a static image or text box. I do care about blinking pop-overs with audio. Whenever I get a "we see you are running an ad-blocker, would you mind telling us why?" questionnaire from a website, I tell them the same thing.
This is going to screw those who don't use them (Score:2)
Just as downloading music screwed those of us that didn't.
I add adblockers to everyone's PC I touch. (Score:2)
At work we block ad's company wide. Allowing online Adverts is a giant security flaw.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
They asked us to punch the monkey... and we did. (Score:4, Interesting)
They turned cable into never-ending commercials, people responded by record-and-skip and cable-cutting. They turned media sites into never-ending commercials, people responded by blacklisting and blocking advertising. I think the advertising industry shows clear pattern of shitting the bed, as such this is of their own making.
Note to Advertisers - Stop Breaking the Internet! (Score:2)
This finding is a big, blinking, sound-enabled, GIF-filled page full of caution signs webpage for advertisers that their operational model is NOT WANTED.
They don't seem to be seeing it.
Maybe they have a common sense blocker?
Most ads are pure shit (Score:2)
Unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
What did they expect? (Score:2)
Advertising is necessary, to be sure - up to a point. As a business, you have to attract customers, no doubt, and to do that, you have to advertise. But there a huge difference between putting a small, factual advert in a few, strategic places, and spurting out a deluge of mindless shite over everybody. That sort of advertising is simply immoral in so many ways - and I use the word 'immoral' very deliberately, because I think it is also a moral issue.
The enormous amounts of adverts tend to drown out any coh
Re: (Score:2)
Damn (Score:4, Interesting)
Not happy about this. Now that "normals" have slouched onto the blocker band wagon the ad pushers will develop more aggressive techniques plus deny content to blocker users (more than they do already.) Blockers only worked because they weren't popular; there are a LOT more ad-mongers than there are blocker makers.
Re: (Score:3)
download all the ads and NOT display them
All that does is un-shit the page appearance. You're still exposed to vulnerabilities due to a larger attack surface while communicating with ad servers, you still incur the bandwidth use, memory use and extra latency, and your tracking profile is much higher.
It's not just about hating on marketing; it's also about resources, speed, security and profile.
I only used it because.... (Score:2)
I only use it for 2 reasons. One is because the ads have become so intrusive and annoying. No longer is it good enough to put a banner ad on the page. But now it has to take over my entire browser window and run 100 scripts that slow my browsing experience down (especially since I use older computers) but they also can't seen to get control of the malware issue. Again, if they wouldn't allow all of the scripts then malware wouldn't even be an issue.
Advertisers blew it (Score:2)
They could have woken up and realized that part of the reason Google's services did so well was that they presented a certain amount of advertising in a non-disruptive way.
Instead, they decided that blinking, audio, video, flash, javascript, animations, interstitials, anything that could be made as annoying as a six year old who wants attention was the right model.
Then they didn't mind their content and made it too easy for malware to get injected into their highly automated processes to boot.
And now they c
False narrative (Score:5, Insightful)
An ad blocker "costs" an advertiser NOTHING. The whole narrative is wrong.
Is ad revenue reduced? Yes. But that is not a cost. It's a reduction in income or a reduction in gross receipts. A "cost" is when your expenses increase, not when your revenue decreases.
Start referring to it as web spam or ad spam (Score:4, Interesting)
All advertisements are malicious (Score:5, Insightful)
No, trust us, this is a good ad.
Those ads that hack your monitor, by taking up all the space? No, we promise this one won't do that. Oh no, we won't sign our name to it, or a sign a document saying so. But trust us, this ad won't hack your monitor. It uses up only some of the space, not all of it.
Those ads that hack your browser, by popping up or popping under? No, we promise this one won't do that. Oh no, we won't promise or be accountable, but this one doesn't ignore browser settings like that.
Those ads that hack your inputs, by spoofing a close icon, or tying events to it? Or by looking like a system message? No, we promise this one won't do that. Of course, it could, at any moment, if our jobs depend on it or we are paid off, but we promise it's a good ad.
No, this is a good advertisement.
It's designed to hack just YOU. You should allow this to happen. You believe that only gullible or weakminded humans are affected by advertisements. We believe otherwise, and we spend millions of dollars on this topic, but you're probably right. It probably won't hack you. It's just designed that way, crafted by decades of doctorates, trial and errorred in a multibillion dollar industry. That model of a homunculus in your head is probably correct. You aren't even gonna be affected by this advertisement. After all, if you could be affected by the advertisment, then it would mean you are a human. And humans clearly aren't affected by those, just as long as they are strong willed and intelligent. No, no study has ever shown that correlation, but trust us.
This advertisement will just hack you. It will create a sense of fear, and offer to calm you. It will create a sense of dissatisfaction, and attempt to satisfy it. Were you hungry? Did you have a need to eat? Here's a picture of some food. And people enjoying food. I'm sure that has no affect on you. Here's a picture of a willing mate, a happy family, some offspring. Certainly you aren't some emotional wet robot that is subject to this.
I'll just put all this ball of mind poison right here. It won't pop up, pop under, be boring, be annoying, ring bells, have a fake close key, stutter, install a toolbar, or anything else.
No, this is a good ad.
It just hacks *you*.
Especially if you don't think that's possible. Please don't think that's possible, or you might question this whole thing.
Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say I have a website about cats. lets say it gets 1m views a day
I put a banner ad up at the top that gives people seizures that should pay 1k/mo for 1m views
The addition of advertising to my website causes my daily view count to drop to about 800k
So now it only pays 800/mo. this still pays for server maintenance and bandwidth.
But I want a new Dice bobble head doll so I add a bunch of pop under,pop up,redirects and sponsored content.
This makes the view count drop down to 500k but now 97% of users use adblock so I only make $15/mo on the 15k users that don't know how or are unable to use adblock.
So to compensate I add even more offensive advertising (and some malware redirects for good measure) to my website that pays better.
But the stats don't change much and I make much less than when I started out.
Now 490K People use adblock that didn't use adblock before.
Thus I have irreparably damaged my user base as even if I go back to just the one banner ad I will never be able to get as much as I did with that single banner ad when I started out.
Plus those adblock users now block ads everywhere not just my site which increases the percentage of adblock users on other websites even those without obtrusive advertising which in turn causes their ad revenue to go down.
Oh woe is me those thieving ablock users should have just put up with cryptowall, malware, popups, pop unders, redirects,sponsored cats, nasty and annoying advertising.
Its all the adblocking users fault its certainly not anything that I have done.
Privoxy = network-wide ad-blocking (Score:3)
I'm surprised I didn't see Privoxy mentioned in the comments. It may not be as effective or updated as regularly as many browser plugins, but it's the only way to block ads across your entire network, on ANY device. This is one of the reasons I never encounter ads in iOS apps/games with iAds. I've been using it since the days of Internet Junkbuster, before ad-blocking plugins even existed. Aside from blocking ads, Privoxy has some other privacy enhancing features as well.
Re:No, not costing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
“It is tragic that ad block users are inadvertently inflicting multi-billion dollar losses on the very websites they most enjoy,” said PageFair boss Sean Blanchfield.
Failure to generate revenue apparently is a loss.
Everyone on earth is losing trillions every second.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
said PageFair boss.... this is the problem.
I remember the old days, WebHostingTalk forum in fact, that had ads, only they were embedded into the page. The site operators themselves had a pdf of the site demographics, users, visits and suchlike and would offer advertisers a number of banners or images they could send to the site in exchange for a set amount of cash. That worked - it was difficult to block those ads without blocking other parts of the site (though it was still possible, I don't think anyone d
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, even by their crazy definition there has to be some opportunity to make money before it can be "lost". In other words the millions of people who bought lottery tickets last week lost tens of millions. The lottery should stop making them lose money and select their numbers next week, if they want people to carry on playing their game.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad business models are not my problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no objection of watching ads.
Really? Because I do. I particularly object to pop-up ads, interstitial ads, large banner ads, and ANY ad that tries to track my behavior or browsing activity. Ads waste my time, intrude on my privacy and sometimes are malware vectors. I never have any interest in whatever crap they are trying to sell me so pretty much all the ads are nothing more than a waste of my time. My attention is valuable to me and I don't give it out for free. I don't buy shirts with large brands on them because I'm not being paid to promote them. If an ad company wants to pay me directly for my opinion on a product we can talk but it's going to be a direct negotiation most of the time.
I'm willing to pay for content which I think I have a reasonable chance of finding valuable or enjoyable. I occasionally purchase/rent/go-see movies. I subscribe to some journals. I subscribe to a few websites I find valuable. But if a company wants to use ads as their primary revenue source then chances are good I'm going to block or otherwise circumvent their attempt to hijack my time and attention.
After all, it's the bread and butter to support a lot of sites.
Their shitty business model is not my problem. If your business depends on pushing obnoxious ads and tracking my activity then you deserve to be blocked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We decided, a long time ago, that the web would be supported by advertising.
Who is this "we"? I wasn't given a vote, and I certainly don't agree. Ad blocking is a reasonable defense against the ongoing attacks from ad companies.