NoWay, 15 Sep 2016Money certainly talks, who doesn't like money?In capitalist world you either love money or you die...
I think the ads in websites are getting out of control. Maybe each country's government should contribute funds to pay for internet hosting instead of relying solely on ads revenue.
The sites don't LOSE revenue. They just don't earn that much.
And ADS on web are not free. I pay a internet provider for my internet (be it mobile or otherwise). Why should I pay again for the bandwidth that these ads are inevitably eat. I have a limited traffic mobile internet connection that I pay for every month. If these ads are "eating" all of my allotted monthly traffic, I therefore paid for the ads. So these ads are not free. We are actually paying to see the.
Ads are acceptable if they are not slowing down or making the experience worse. For instance, GSMArena is acceptable, but there are so many sites that I couldn't visit without an adblock.
Acceptable ad? This is an acceptable ad:
1: It shall not track me
2: It shall not use Shockwave Flash (so vulnerable and heavy)
3: It shall be invisible OR promote healthy habits (by non-profit organism or government) OR it shall inform people (ex: national recall for X food or so on)
Otherwise, it will not be an acceptable ad. I will disable these so-called Acceptable ads, because they are not.
I only enable ads to websites I support, like GSMArena
Punisher, 14 Sep 2016I agree with u on some things and I would pay ad block services monthly or yearly but people f... moreI almost entirely agree with you.
Ads on sites that tries to sell something (like your Netflix example) is a pest, imho. At the very least they should offer an alternative ad-free version. And if they do not I would personally look for alternatives OR use something like adblocker with a pretty good conscience .
But to the last part. Well I wish it was so, And I would be inclined to claim so my self. But if ads did not work at all, they would stop paying for them. I'm afraid that we all get at the least slightly affected by ads. Though of course some are more susceptible than others.
Are they going to rename it to"sort of adblock" or "nearly adblock" or "sod it we want mo-money adblock", I would pay for FULL adblock no exceptions.
Eske Rahn, 14 Sep 2016Sorry if you don't get the economy behind the 'free' internet.
Any site (take gsmarena as a... moreI agree with u on some things and I would pay ad block services monthly or yearly but people forget how www was 5 years ago, 15 years ago, 20 years ago.
I don't care about "sites need to make money on ads"
When I visit Netflix I'm subscribing to Netflix. That means I'm paying to watch content from Netflix which are movies and I don't need to see any ads on hot dogs, Forman grill and other stupid things. Because if I do I end that subscription and search for one which provides what their business is about. Providing movies. For news there are couple of things which some news are already doing. Internet content and real paper news from same company are different. U can't read all of the content of real paper news on internet. If u want to then u need to subscribe to plus version. What someone thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant here. What matters is that u already pay internet access to whole internet access. Same things goes for services . There are sites who requires u to register to access. From that point u can choose what u want. Either free stuff with very shallow information with ads or full access like premium depending what u want from internet etc. same thing goes for Spotify and many other apps, sites etc. I don't care about how sites wants to make a living "selling product aka ads" that's their business to provide income for them selfs. Otherwise u go to competitive sites with same content. In long run those sites which are overcrowded with ads will lose. And I don't think gsmarena is dumb to do that. I never buy a product from any ads I see from web. There is no hidden messages that can affect me. Relaxed music or tricks. I know exactly what I want and when I want. Why I visit specific sites is to get information about specific things, events etc. Same thing goes for what are my urges. If I want to drink wine there is no ad in the world who will make me drink beer at that moment when I want to drink wine. Those who develop ads are very smart people but at the same time very dumb
personally i dont have any problems with having ads..they support those sites we browse regularly..but there are 2 things....
i hate some ads that just load above the content with no close button or anything to access the data underneath..
secondly on a slow connection the site may not load up but the ads come online...the best example is youtube..
Anonymous, 14 Sep 2016wow, you've been heavilly brainwashed. You can't "steal" something without taking it away from... moreSorry if you don't get the economy behind the 'free' internet.
Any site (take gsmarena as an example) have costs. And if they are not pushing a product, they will need to rely on the income from Ads. If these are not shown, no one will pay for the ads. It is as simple as that. So blocking ads is stealing the income from sites like this one.
So my suggestion was that similar to any ad-agent, you could have a 'no-ads-agent', that did NOT show ads to the paying end-user, but instead registered a micro-payment to the site. (of course not paying them one by one, but accumulated)
Of course there are small sites (like my own tiny one) that relies solely on free work for the fun of it, without any incomes from it what so ever, But of course this will only work with negligible sites with low traffic.
ToonToon, 14 Sep 2016Yes, I dont hate adds. They are good. Only i hate is pop up. So i uninstalled addblock and ins... moreI'm sorry but u are wrong. In fact very wrong.
What is different between pop up ads and imbedded ads are that imbedded ads take a lot more time to render the page. I can provide u with one specific news site with embedded ads and u will see that it will take ages to load even with Adblock active. So no! No ads are that good that u don't hate them. This site I'm talking about is severely damaged but those same ads and people think that embedded ads are ok which are not! I need to have couple of adblockers just to access that site through laptop. Mobile versions works better on that site
I searched for alternatives right now and found "uBlock": https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
It's open-source, it's faster, consumes less memory and has additional features compared to AdBlock Plus(https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Inline-script-tag-filtering#concrete-examples-of-usefulness), supports AdBlock Plus filters + it is against "Acceptable Ads Manifesto" from AdBlock Plus.
You don't have to go to Github. If you search for "uBlock Origin" in Firefox(PC/Android) or Chrome, you should find it.
sepehr A., 14 Sep 2016this is great, think a bit, you can still disable it if you want, but you can also enable it t... moreThis exactly is what I think. Allowing for not-bothering adds would benefit the website, the ad-posters, AdBlock Plus and myself. I use ABP because I hate invasive Ads. If they can offer a quality control for ads, I can live with that.
Porn sites need to make money too! (And GSM Arena BTW)