"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
-
@tezoatlipoca Unobtrusive being the key word.
@mansr ugh.
-
@superblox @tezoatlipoca The ideal was, I think the banner ad. Simple Image. Paid for the content, and there were limits to how much it could annoy you.
Back in the day when print magazines and newspapers where a thing - I dunno I haven't bought one of those in over 15 yrs - they were at least HALF ads and noone cared or commented, even when you were ALSO paying for the thing up front. Didn't want to read the ad, move your eyes!
I don't think anyone has issue with ads being present, just don't pull jank shit like modal capture popups or refusing to load at all unless you have JS active/disable blockers etc.
-
@tezoatlipoca similar to 'your privacy matters to us' so please make 45 clicks to turn off our tracking cookies because we refuse to provide a reject all button.
Reads to me like, we don't want people visiting our site
@Eurospoofer @tezoatlipoca I mean, that's how I read it. If your site won't function without being able to serve up 90 bazillion ads, I'll go elsewhere and your site will serve up 0 ads.
-
@tezoatlipoca "an adblocker is preventing this page from loading."
Oh, it sounds like the page is all ads then. Cool, enjoy that, I'm off to do something else.
@WizardOfDocs buhbyeeee!
-
Back in the day when print magazines and newspapers where a thing - I dunno I haven't bought one of those in over 15 yrs - they were at least HALF ads and noone cared or commented, even when you were ALSO paying for the thing up front. Didn't want to read the ad, move your eyes!
I don't think anyone has issue with ads being present, just don't pull jank shit like modal capture popups or refusing to load at all unless you have JS active/disable blockers etc.
@tezoatlipoca @madengineering @superblox But print ads were neither predatory nor parasitic. If you weren't interested, you could just turn the page.
-
@tezoatlipoca @madengineering @superblox But print ads were neither predatory nor parasitic. If you weren't interested, you could just turn the page.
@xocolatli @madengineering @superblox that's what Im saying, if the ads went back to being mostly passive (I think we'd also be ok with the odd banner add like mid 2000s style) we'd all be ok with that.
Also, the way out of this for ad networks is to provide the ads via cached API call and have the (passive, image only) ads added to the page at render/compile time not serve/proxy/client-agent time like they are now. You can't disable an ad if its just like any other image in the page.
-
@superblox @tezoatlipoca The ideal was, I think the banner ad. Simple Image. Paid for the content, and there were limits to how much it could annoy you.
@madengineering @tezoatlipoca Except advertisers don't pay squat for untargeted ads that are easy to ignore. That's the business reality we're ignoring.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca @alice I can’t get UPS.com to load even if I disable the ad blockers
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca The ad blocker prevents ads from loading. The rest of the page is just them throwing a fit like a toddler.
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca@mas.to "Fine thanks, I didn't really need it anyway..." Usually a fair response in my opinion. I have to disable "No Script" or some such occasionally on my "click link and open things up" browser. Meaning I need to enable the running of scripts for that site. That seems fair. If I "must see ads" I don't need to see the content you are blocking me from seeing.
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca nothing turns me away from a website faster than this, with "become a member to continue reading" as a close second
-
@tezoatlipoca As much as I hate ads, tracking, malvertising and websites trying to blame my adblocker... we are not entitled to free ad-free content.
We complain about paywalls. We complain about ads. And when websites that invest in high-quality journalism go out of business because they can't pay their staff, we complain that everything is AI slop and SEO spam nowadays.
The content industry is so weird.
@superblox @tezoatlipoca Thanks, i was looking for that comment. Occasionally, I do allow ads as I see this as a way to pay for the content I am getting. Really depends what it is.
-
@superblox @tezoatlipoca Thanks, i was looking for that comment. Occasionally, I do allow ads as I see this as a way to pay for the content I am getting. Really depends what it is.
@Issi @tezoatlipoca I try to do it too with safe, high-quality sites I frequent. But some still don't show ads when I do that because I continue blocking tracking.
That's where I'm torn. On one hand, advertisers don't want to waste ad budget on inefficient untargeted advertising, or at least don't pay enough for it to be sustainable. On the other hand, I value my privacy and don't want ad companies to build a profile of me.
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca My ad blocker is never turned off.
Sometimes I might allow JS to run. Only sometimes.
If I can’t read a page under these conditions, then I don’t read the page. The information I was seeking is most likely available elsewhere.
Don’t get me wrong. I subscribe and pay for some sites; it’s only right to support sites you value.
But ads? Never.
Simple as that.
-
@hypostase @retrosponge @tezoatlipoca Bill’s rants about the ad industry are epic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9wStdPkQY
@tonyangelo @hypostase @tezoatlipoca Man was a legend.
-
@Issi @tezoatlipoca I try to do it too with safe, high-quality sites I frequent. But some still don't show ads when I do that because I continue blocking tracking.
That's where I'm torn. On one hand, advertisers don't want to waste ad budget on inefficient untargeted advertising, or at least don't pay enough for it to be sustainable. On the other hand, I value my privacy and don't want ad companies to build a profile of me.
@superblox @tezoatlipoca it's a dilemma!
-
Do any of these CMS and online-ad platform/network #productmanagers realize that if they were to just go back to unobtrusive only-static-image ads embedded in the html of the page itself I would fucking put eyeballs on those? But noooo, we gotta have modal popups and pay-gates and minimize-in-the-corner auto-play videos.
This worked just fine until 2010 then ya went and ballzed it up.
@tezoatlipoca You are right about 2010. Google bought doubleclick in 2007 and launch Android in 2008. That led them to go deeper into advertising on web pages compared to advertising in search. They announced that change in 2009.
Today's internet advertisement is about "pay per click". That requires spying on the users, or one would not know when the ad is clicked. I don't think there is even a possibility to be paid for static ads. 1/2 -
@tezoatlipoca You are right about 2010. Google bought doubleclick in 2007 and launch Android in 2008. That led them to go deeper into advertising on web pages compared to advertising in search. They announced that change in 2009.
Today's internet advertisement is about "pay per click". That requires spying on the users, or one would not know when the ad is clicked. I don't think there is even a possibility to be paid for static ads. 1/2@tezoatlipoca Moreover the majority of Internet traffic happens on smartphones, not computers. A sizable proportion of the users don't know how to block ads on a smartphone and mostly use apps (where ads cannot be blocked) instead of the browser. And that is where the money is.
Basically, what you want is gone. 2010 is not coming back. Your only option is not to browse these sites (that is what I do). And this is what they want because you cost them ressources and don't bring money. 2/2
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca Many of these are still readable in Reader mode in the browser. The New York Times and Washington Post are two of the only sites that have actually successfully blocked Reader mode. Most of the rest of the internet is still blissfully readable as text like it's 1999.
-
"An ad blocker is preventing this page from loading."
No, my #adblocker is preventing your #ADs from loading. The fact that the REST of your page refuses to load if the ads dont load, well that sounds like a YOU problem.
@tezoatlipoca my blocker has good days and bad ones some days I would like to slap it for not doing the job ..
