You know what ads I'm okay with? Nice calm little ads that stay in their box on the side of the page or the end of the video. Ones that don't start talking without my permission or jump out into a new window. If an ad is civilized and looks legitimately interesting, then I will click on it. The moment it does something without my permission and interrupts what I'm doing, ad block goes on.
+Bud Charles I agree with your points and would like to add that when advertisers stop allowing viruses to transmit themselves via internet advertisements I will stop blocking them
there are other forms of ethical blocking (unlike the one mike mentioned here) that allow some ads, like the ones you've mentioned - ads that don't disrupt your flow of reading on a site. i think that might be an effective way to approach the problem without eliminating it altogether.
+hypothesised I remember when most on-line advertising were nice static banners and reading those sites was fine without adblockers. The problem is that the more intrusive the ad, the higher the click rate and the more money the advertiser makes for confirmed impressions. If an advertiser made more money by sending a robot to your house to repeatedly hammer on your ball-sack, they would. I am yet to work with a marketing exec who isn't an entitled socio-path.
If Ads were only 15 seconds long and didn't insist on loading in HD when I'm on a slow connection or on my phone than it wouldn't be a problem. UNTIL that day I'm blocking ads. Seriously. a 30 second ad on mobile youtube is 16 mbs of data used.
+NRGpony Yes, exactly. I resisted getting AdBlocker until RUclips finally pushed me over the edge because of its invasive and irritating ads. If they didn't treat us like crap maybe we wouldn't rout around the damage.
+NRGpony Also the fact that some places won't load your content if the ad is not loading correctly (which happens a lot when your connection is flaky). I already entirely stopped going to some websites because of ads, not blocking the add anymore, not seing the content. This is a loose loose context
+NRGpony To be fair part of the issue is paying for data is outdated and a stupid practice that makes no logical sense in the modern world, yet companies think they can do it anyway and rip us all off.....
+GrdAlf Yep. A while back i reinstalled windows and didn't download AdBlock until RUclips's Ads weren't loading, preventing me from watching a Video...
advertisers need to stop being so scummy about their advertisements. if they weren't tracking my data, and taking up my time and being a giant hassle I wouldn't block them.
+Spencer Oldham Exactly. Make the ads fit in with sites (just making them a bit more modest would help) and not flashy, noisy things that try to clickbait me with false X signs, etc... then I'll consider letting them through. I don't use AdBlocker, though. I use Noscript, because it's been proven that active moderating of all scripts you allow through works better than firewalls and the like when it comes to protecting your computer on the net. This also happens to eliminate adds and it can be a bit of a hassle to tweak the site to allow them; however, it also means that if 1 ad provider is ethical in how it delivers adds, I'll be able to just allow that 1 through and keep the scum out.
+Unahim Normally, I use ABP with Disconnect. I'm getting more & more into Tor, though, so Disconnect + NS + TBB inclusions is about as secure as you can get without Tails. And I can neither confirm nor deny I use Tails.
Reasons why I block ads. 1. Malware/ fake download buttons. 2. Full volume ads. I don’t use head phones and I never intended to I have a full surround sound setup and if its 2am I don’t want everyone in my house waking up. 3. Pornographic ads 4. Irregularity in ad lengths (youtube) 5. Pop ups and uncloseable windows.
What can be done IS ALREADY DONE. Companies should adapt to the consumer's standards, not otherwise. If they don't, then the system is broken. Adblock is not METICULOUSLY BLOCKING EVERYTHING, They laid out a set of instructions for how to make *non-intrusive, non-tracking* ads that WON'T BE BLOCKED AT ALL. This is setting a possibility bar for the companies relying on these. This bar is pretty high, and that's why it's still almost fully blocking the web, but some sites are already respecting the rules, and their ads go through Adblock untouched.
I don't even mind advertisers tracking me, like do that all you want, I don't care, just let me take in content without forcing your ad on me, in disturbance of the content.
May I add, too, that sometimes Adblock may even INSERT new "ads" in a website? When it comes to PSAs concerning the Internet, or human rights, on special occasions I saw Adblock actually insert new objects on websites instead of just filtering stuff out. You're given the choice to remove them, though..
I don't get one thing. If not watching the ad is immoral because it pays the content to be made, isn't the same when you watch TV and decide to change the channel once the ads are displayed.
+mundotaku Also, I'm not 100% certain about in America, but I have to PAY for my walking dead here. And then there's still ads! (which we fast-forward through anyway.... is that unethical?)
James Hansen We pay for cable too and we get ads in cable, We have open TV but few people uses the free reception. 83% of households has cable, satellite or IPTV at home.
+mundotaku wouldn't the tv channel have already been paid by the company at that stage? so not as unethical since its not depending on clicks or whatever?
+mundotaku I'm going to take this example a step further. I have free over-the-air television. When commercials play it's a common occurrence for people to get up to go to the bathroom, get a drink/snack, stretch a bit, talk about the show, goof around on a smartphone or handheld game, etc. Basically commercial time has been used as an intermission for the content we are actually viewing. In this scenario no one is hostage to watching ads, and the advertisers are not getting the eyeballs they thought they were going to get. No one has felt obligated to watch the ads, felt that it is immoral, or felt guilty to not watching the ads. They'e always been seen as something obtrusive to the general experience, but avoidable. With paid cable, I find it ridiculous that ads show up in the first place since it used to be that ads were not shown on cable. That was one of the selling points for cable initially. I lived in England for three years back in the 90s. To get TV you'd pay for a TV license, the only thing that shows up that's remotely ad related is short segments that let you know what other shows are on the BBC. Paying for access to content and getting ads is incredibly frustrating. It feels like the money you've paid toward any sort of subscription is wasted in some way. Generally, everyone pays for Internet access. To have ads in addition sort of feels similar to ads on cable, but worse since you are Interacting a bit more with content than you would on TV/Cable. Content creators are separate from whatever your payments toward Internet are used for, but it still feels frustrating to pay to use something and still get ads, particularly the obtrusive ones. I personally don't mind simple ads that are unobtrusive. There are some forums/sites that have unobtrusive ads for things related to the subject that the forum/site is focused on. For example, another youtube channel, Tek Syndicate, has an online forum focused on science and tech. Their ads are tech related, and usually things they either approve of or use themselves. The ads themselves stay unobtrusive and in the sidebar away from content or discussions I want to focus on. I'm absolutely fine with this since the ads are curated by the content creators and are generally things I may be interested in. The fact that everyone get's the same ads and no tracking needs to be involved is a huge plus for me. The challenge is implementing this for larger audiences since there would be a large diversity of interests, and no one ad would interest everyone due to that disparity. If ads could be more low key, did not have the tracking that advertisers felt they needed, and did not have the risk for malware that they do, then blocking them would not be as popular as they are. I browse /r/talesfromtechsupport on reddit. Many users come into IT support with computers infected with malware, sometimes there are repeat visits. Generally this is from people clicking on things they aren't supposed to, like suspicious ads or popups. Adblock also blocks the "ANDROID/WINDOWS/iOS/etc. IS INFECTED WITH A VIRUS. CLICK HERE TO REMOVE IT" phishing ads, so Adblock is also used as protection when browsing online. It's fairly standard practice for IT support to install Adblock on systems that have been cleaned up after being infected with viruses/malware/trojans/etc. The other day my mother got a popup on a site that said "Update Windows Now" which was obviously suspicious since it did not remotely look like an official Windows update popup, and she was using the family computer that ran Ubuntu, not Windows. My mother is smart enough to not click on stuff like that, and actually had me come look at it. But lots of older, trusting people click on stuff like that. So adblocking is used to protect those people. Ads in general are very focused on the psychology of people and exploit that. Catchy jingles, happy/sexy looking people using said product, getting people to feel like they are part of the group and fit in, Pavlovian response, bright colors, and an extensive etc. of everything else get used on people. I do not like it when something is demanding my attention or money, I use the Internet to relax and enjoy myself at the end of the day, do research for school and personal interests/projects, communicate with people, and contribute when I can to the online communities I'm involved with. Obtrusive, demanding ads make my interactions with the Internet very frustrating and generally waste the time technology was supposed to save people to begin with.
This is something I actually feel pretty passionately about. I love Ad Blocker, and I will never stop using it. I understand that advertising in general pays for much of the "free" content I enjoy, but there truly is a problem with the way it is implemented. I have had that thought as far back as I can remember seeing tv commercials, as a kid watching cartoons, I just couldn't WAIT for the advertising to end so that I could get to my show again, and ad blocker was a life saver (albeit much later than I would have liked it). But I think the controversy around Ad Blocker is misleading, and we're looking at it the wrong way. I think the growing phenomenon is a symptom of the very thing everybody out there has been thinking about commercial content for years; it is irritating, in my opinion, and almost NEVER shows me anything I need, or will need, and I almost NEVER buy what they're selling. We waste so much of our precious time watching advertisements for products that we never ever purchase, and it makes me wonder why I should waste my time watching the advertisements. The actual reasons why we don't buy are many, whether we already have one, don't need one, don't want one, can't afford one, or whatever, but they are ultimately irrelevant. Why SHOULD I have to sit through what accumulates to hours weeks and days of my life watching something I'm JUST NOT GOING TO BUY? Now that isn't to say that I've never bought something I saw from advertising, but the few successful commercials that convince me are so few and far between that it's negligible at best. When I want tooth paste, I don't remember what the tooth paste commercials told me; I buy that one that has teeth whitening and is cheapest. When I want insurance, I don't listen to what the people say who are SELLING the insurance! That would be silly, they only say good things about their products. I look up reviews and experiences from people who have it, and listen to their first hand knowledge. When I want a car, I'm almost certainly going to go with the one with the best online reviews and lowest price, when I want food I'm going to go to the one that is easiest to reach with the best overall combination of price and quality (or speed, if I'm in a hurry). So the advertising, for me, is almost invariably a waste of my time. I don't remember what that Applebee's commercial said about their new menu, and It's across town, so I won't be going. What angers me is that people put the blame for their drops in sales on the people who use the program to get what they want: an environment free of time wasting invasion of your mental space. But I think we should be looking at it from the perspective of the people who use it, we should be asking WHY are so many people using it? Is it because we feel alienated by insistent advertising that repeats itself no matter how many times we've heard it? Is it because we're bored with having to hear people talk about all the good things about a product we can't afford? Or that we don't want or even like? Are we tired of the irony of people saying their online content in particular is "free", but then being halted mid stride for a message about the new Honda, even though you already have a car? Why are advertisers putting on this pouty display, and directing anger at US, the people who are tired of them, simply for being tired of them? This is a message they are failing to read. It's a message that their pushy shotgun style of advertising at all times to all audiences is largely just... irritating, and has become more and more invasive as technology allows for it. This is a message to all that content should be paid for, but the public method of supporting content creators should be easier to come by, and we should stop laying guilt on the heads of people who use a totally legal program to have some level of control over whether or not they see unwanted advertising.
+Kraaken Hex This is going to take a while to go through, which I can't do currently. I hopefully will get back to this. But currently what I'm able to say is that I disagree with every single last one of your statements.
+Ross Llewallyn Actually specifically the disclosure isn't to standard. I can't remember if it's official, but certainly people in the business have come out saying it should be disclosed at the beginning and that it should be disclosed in the video, openly on screen and in audio in such a way that the viewer/listener can't avoid it and clearly viewable all the way through. The fact that it's not hidden beneath the YT description fold is nice though.
+Ross Llewallyn I agree. I don't mind if a video is sponsored. Put the ad at the front, middle, or even the end. For those of us in the 20-40 age range, we are used to this style of ad from the television. I find it as a nice "take a breath" before we get back to what the video was talking about. Idea Channel puts a lot of information and ideas forward in its videos. It's nice to have a moment "to breathe," if you will, to think and process some of the information I've just heard.
For me it's pretty simple. Advertisers have just gone too far. I don't mind a few banners or something. But a few assholes adding autoplaying videos, sound and even virusses to ads is just too much. The trust is just completely gone. I do not trust advertisers to be ethical and they have forced our hand to block unwanted content. I've even gotten virusses from google ads once. The internet is not a safe place, blocking is the only option.
its not "unethical" to block ads. No one ever "opted in" to viewing ads in exchange for content. To point this out even further, we didnt have any ads on youtube before they decided to montize it, and GASP people created great content for the sake of creating great content. same thing with no ad in the 90s yet GASP content still existed. The idea that adblockers will kill content is an extremely stupid one funded by the ad industry.
I've always had adblock disabled on content I want to support, so things like youtube still get ad revenue from me, while other places that are ze worst or I don't want to support I have it enabled. At the time in which I judge that the content is worth my support, the adblocker gets disabled. I am fully aware that is a rocky judgement but man the current way ads are handled on the internet sucks.
+AdellRedwinters This is very much what I do as well. +Valtteri Valonen to say "don't view", the trouble is that I'd like to "have a taste" to know I want to support it.
+AdellRedwinters i used to be like that, but then there was a youtube glitch where adds wouldn't load and the video wouldn't load untill the add was finished. so i had to get addblocker to use youtube. it's since been fixed but i've now become so used to addblocker that i can't be bothered to revert.
+AdellRedwinters I'm like you, I feel a sense of responsibility to watch the ads for videos I want more of. Idea Channel definitely falls within that category. I go through cycles where I don't mind the ads and disable it for all of RUclips, then get fed up and switch to blocking ads. Personally, I wish there were a way to sub-categorize youtube channels in the domain name so that Adblock software could filter the ads through on certain channels I'm subscribed to and for which I have given my consent to be shown ads. That would be my personalized solution.
I've been using ad block for like 8-10 years. I wont stop. There are other ways of supporting RUclipsrs. Like buying their merch such as t-shirts and through other donation sites. I do also enjoy my browsing WITHOUT "singles in your area", "asian beauties" and horse porn. Not everyone on the internet is a 40 year old virgin you know. Oh, those "this is not a joke" is a classic as well. If 90% of ads weren't scams and annoying maybe I wouldn't be so negative. But as it looks like now I'm not turning ad block off. Not even on RUclips.
Even ignoring adblockers and the like, aren't Internet ads supposed to be ludicrously ineffective though? The number of clicks they get is absolutely minuscule, and the amount it actually pays content creators is equally minute. I highly doubt it's ever really significantly influenced anyone to buy anything either. Everyone hates Internet ads. No one pays attention to them. They do nothing but breed resentment. They are a blight on the world and their failure it more than deserved. That's why adblockers are so popular. They finally give the audience the ability to get rid of that which has been nothing other than a negative in any of its incarnations. They finally give the audience a voice and agency. Which brings me on to another point. There's a lot of discussion about how "ethical" adblockers are, and whether people should use them or not. The blame always seems to fall on the audience. As if we should feel guilty for hating obnoxious advertising. It's the marketers who did this to themselves. They're the ones who created this trash. They're the ones that make adblockers so appealing in the first place. It's their fault their industry is failing, as it should, because it's horrible and no one wants it.
+Scrustle Advertising has always been largerly about exposure. Advertising on TV has no engagement (TV is passive), but they are a multi-billion dollar industry, because exposure is the valuable asset being sold.
+XerxesTexasToast billions of views +scrustle It is unethical. despite how pitiful it is, walking into a store and stealing a video that costs 1cent is unethical. Walking into a timeshare pitch for the 'free trip' they give and not listening to the pitch, or going to the meetings held to 'sell' the time share, is unethical. I agree ads are not effective, but it's still theft and still unethical, as you never did your part and did what you could to not fullfill your agreement, aka viewing the ads selected for said content.
+Scrustle If that were the case (that ads don't actually make the companies more money) then they wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars for adspace. Clearly they benefit from it otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Goldroman22 Your example is flawed. 1. If the conditions for entering a store is listening to the an ad or some guy spouting an ad, at choosen people. then pushing him aside/removing that guy is literally breaking the conditions for being in that store, aka you've literally forcefully entered property you weren't given permission to be in. 2. Choosing to zone out/ignore without removing the ad, is a valid way, as none of the conditions say you have to pay attention. 3. when you deny a place/person money, by breaking the coniditions for being somewhere or getting to watch XYZ content, you've effectively stolen and entered without permission. Yes, ads are measured to make money on what's spent, and are being something of a gamble for them. Though when you literally introduce an element to cheat the system without any effort on your part on each one (aka ignoring them, or letting them spout on and finish without clicking or acknowledging it) is fundamentally breaking the entire setup, and if enough do it, it becomes enough of a threat consider alternate actions. (such as even more intrusive ads, malware, subscription models, lawsuits to those whom produced the sw that cause the problems, etc) That is theft, but in your example, that's breaking the law, breaking &entering, and physical assault.
I had turned off my AdBlock for a time because I was beginning to feel guilty about not supporting channels and websites that I liked. I shortly had no choice but to turn it back on because repeatedly I would get the same unskippable ad for a horror film. I am a big baby when it comes to these things. When a horror movie ad comes on on tv, I have to leave the room or change the channel temporary. Otherwise, it's likely that I will be unable to stop thinking about said ad and have nightmares. There are a few websites that I have Adblock turned off on because silent ads that are off to the side of the website don't bother me. It's the ones that make sound that you can't shut up that I have to block.
Ads are not inherently reprehensible to the viewer (any viral ad will prove this), but rather the misdirection and sometimes malicious and exploitative nature associated with advertising is. People aren't against the idea of the advertisement itself, but rather the idea of being asked for something without any demonstration or goodwill towards the consumer. This also somewhat explains why branding is important; how people view a company will also shape how they view their advertisements as well. Pragmatically, the company will also need money somehow to keep it running in the meantime, while waiting for people to perceive a company as "good" or "likeable," and if a company's revenue is an advertising model well, just about anyone's money will do just fine.
I use adblocker for one simple reason, it fixes the majority of the internet. I don't like it when a youtube video doesn't feel like loading or it breaks so I have to refresh the page and watch the ad all over again before maybe the video will play. So many times an ad will buffer instantly and a video will not. For someone who has bandwidth caps and slow internet speeds, I do whatever I can to minimize it. I don't like when a website is broken because it prioritizes the ads to the content. I don't like it when I sit back to watch something on youtube from my TV that I have to get up to click the X on the ad. And that's part of the problem, ads want you to participate too much. If there was just a short video ad before or after a video, no longer than a TV commercial, then I would be fine. But RUclips either puts an ad during the video that you have to X out or just ignore while it just contaminates the video with its presence or you have to get up to click "Skip ad" because youtube decided you needed a 45 minute commercial. Screw. That. I want to support content creators, but I have no money. I know that means ads are for me but ads try really hard to make me hate them. It's not the content of the ads always, I don't even care that it knows where I browse. I just want it to stop getting in the way of my content and to stop demanding interaction. Play a 30 second - 1 minute ad before any content that is ad supported. Have some non-flashy/gawdy banners around the content as I read/watch it and we are good to go. Otherwise I won't care. Now if you excuse me I have a 45 minute ad for converse to finish watching before I watch your last weeks comment response video.
I also want to say that I hate ads that try to disguise itself as content. Talking about the top of google searches and reddit. And others have already mentioned the malware side of it. My family all use adblock because it protects them which means less work for me to clean their computers.
Let's not forget how for a while RUclips was allowing Flash ads on the side that would play audio. So in the middle of trying to watch a video and listen to what the RUclipsr was saying, all of a sudden it's just a mess of audio very difficult to decipher. The obvious solution is then to: 1) Pause the RUclips video 2) Scroll down to the offending ad 3) Pause or mute said ad 4) Scroll back up to the RUclips video 5) Try to locate the approximate video position at which the ad started interrupting 6) Unpause the video. And with how frequently RUclips has made updates to how it buffers/plays video, sometimes this will cause a complete rebuffer, depending on the current system RUclips has implemented. So I went with a simpler solution: 1) Download AdBlock 2) Install AdBlock. Advertisers who don't want to get silenced need to learn to make themselves less in need of silencing. If we gather to a certain place to enjoy a certain thing (video content in this case), any advertiser wishing to garner favorable opinion from its would-be patrons should take care not to disrupt the actual thing that brought us there in the first place. One great example of RUclips advertising done right is CinemaSins. Companies approach CinemaSins to buy advertising. The team then writes an ad for the product/service using their own style of comedy (the same style as feature within the actual content) and places it after their videos preceded by a warning that an ad is coming up. It's honest, straightforward, and directly appeals to the target audience: fans of CinemaSins' unique sense of humor. I rarely close a video early, as I actually enjoy seeing the ads. And of course, this method gets through any and all ad-blocking software because it's just part of the actual uploaded video file. I call that a win/win/win.
+Ularg I think RUclips isn't even the main Problem. Yes, RUclips Ads can be too long and a little annoying (I remember there was a whole Let's Play Episode out as an ad and it was skipable after 1:30 Minutes, thank god 5 seconds is standard now...), but RUclips is one of the few places i have deactivated AdBlock. The Main Problem is that on some websites (especially NSFW ones) you have to close SO MANY ads before you can even try to concentrate on the content. Once it was so bad that i couldn't even perform ONE click because that would always open up a new pop-up window. How am I supposed to use that website then? If the people hosting websites would implement Ads that are not as annoying, i would be happy do delete my AdBlock.
Interestingly enough, Patreon says one of the most popular rewards on their platform is "Adblock forgiveness." The idea being that if you're supporting the creator directly, then it's okay to use Adblock since you're likely providing them with more revenue than they would earn if you only supported them via ads.
yes, adblock forgiveness is a GREAT idea /s if a yt creator does it, google wont get its share of the ad revenue, and if everyone would do it, youtube would die without funding also what about all the other creators with no patreon etc?
+THE BATLORD I don't block ads myself, but I do support things on Patreon and disable all plugins unless I specifically let them run. That kills most of the worst ads while still supporting content.
+THE BATLORD Patreon is awesome, but it doesn't support the distributors (i.e., RUclips) which also deserve a fair share of support. The system is not so simple.
Yes, only recently. Still, if RUclips was subscription only it wouldn't be as popular. Serving ads is unfortunately a very real necessity of the model.
Print ads are static and supremely easy to ignore. Don't want to see an ad in the magazine, just don't look at that part of the page. They are the least intrusive. Radio ads are more intrusive, but because of the brief nature of radio content (songs onky last about 2 min each and are repeated multiple tines a day on multiple stations) it's really easy to just chang the channel and find new content. TV ads are structured intimately with the narrative pace of the show. Commercial breaks are used masterfully by the show runners to build tention, and the commercials themselves are simply of higher quality than most of those found online. Online ads are cheap, very intrusive, downright obstructive to viewing the content I'm seaking, distracting to an annoying degree, and if I'm using mobile data (of witch I pay to have about 15 gigs a month), cost me money to view. It costs money to view online ads. Online ads is a blend of the worst parts of other media's ads.
It's truly a terrifying demonstration of how completely capitalism has pervaded our ideology that it's considered to be a reasonable position that one has a moral obligation to watch advertising.
So it is unreasonable to pay for the effort of the various creators that provide content and platforms? It like using public utility and refusing to pay tax, and if every body refused to do so then the Internet will be a rather empty place.
+Greedy Milk Patreon, merchandise, paid sponsors. Maybe when RUclips was still getting off the ground adblocking really was a significant block of creators income, but any semi-popular youtuber that knows how to network today will have a means of getting money from people who enjoy their content outside of youtube views. I recall something like 70-80% of one youtuber's patreon were people who used adblock that still wanted to give support to the creator, their contribution almost always was more than what the creator would've got from the views if they didn't have adblock as well.
I think it's worth bringing up that not all ads are created equal. It's been noted in every gender advertising study ever that ads are actively harmful to women and girl's self-esteem and adblocker tends towards blocking are the ads that promote harmful images (as opposed to, as a completely random example, a Dropbox ad). This can really skew the ratio between desire for quality content and the desire to avoid ads. Harder to enjoy watching a clip of anything after being reminded I don't have flawless skin or that this yogurt/cereal/anything can help me "shed those extra pounds."
+chibipandora Or ads with half-naked women that are basically prostitutes or some kind of spamware. On one website they had ads for Smite. Let's just say that it wasn't male characters they used to promote the game.
+Stol Theds I don't think that would work for very long. What company would pay for ad-space that doesn't get viewed? Eventually you'd end up with a similar problem.
+Stol Theds same here, even if it meant staring at a blank screen for the duration of the ad, just as long as I don't have to watch the ad itself, some of them are downright repugnant
+Hellfire918 It doesn't matter, companies will look at results, the hosts of the add servers will tell their clients, look 90% of the people saw your add!!! And then the company who issued the add will see it 's actually not working, sales aren't going high and they've just lost money for internet advertising so in time they'll just stop doing it altogether.
Capitalism just needs to adapt, simple as that. I'm sure the almighty free market can think of some way to circumvent adblock without being too obvious. Product placement comes to mind, and would blend in nicely with so many RUclips channels that are effectively "talking head with cluttered background."
+I Am Enormous how about instead, we adapt to the nihilism of capitalism-- by not doing capitalism anymore. We're at a cultural cul de sac. I feel like there is no way forward from here. The only way out is through a new system that doesn't rely on the insane logic of market forces.
+I Am Enormous One alternative used in this very video. "Sponsoring", an ad in the video itself. This comment was brought to you by Dropbox. The problem might be the middle man. Content creators sell ad space to some adcompany, they then fill the space with random, malicious(virus/malware) or user directed(tracking) ads. These content creators should sell the space to a company selling a relevant and topical product, get sponsored by those companies. A garage rock band could have ads for music and audio gear on therir site, next to ads of their own merchandise and stuff. A youtuber doing woodworking videos could be sponsored by microjig. :P
I love my adblocker and feel no "moral" pings about using it. To me, adblockers are just >> fast forward 2.0. Problem solved. If it is hurting the advertisers so badly to "give" away this "free" content then they need to stop whining and just straight up charge for the content...then they can see how far that will get them. What advertisers are truly upset about is that they are no longer in control of the game. They expect to be able to tell us exactly what to buy and when to buy it and wants us all to be obedient sheep while they rake in our cash. The real issue is that they shocked to have lost the privilege of predicting and controlling our behavior. They no longer have access. We can all make our own purchasing decisions without them, thanks. :-) Advertisements are a vestigial organ left over from television and print. Ads do not work on the internet because here they are seen for what they are: disruptive manipulations attempting to regulate human behavior to advantage ONLY the advertisers and their clients. To me, this is all a false concern. I am happy to be free of invasive advertising. Good riddance.
Indeed. Interesting how we are told ad nauseam that the unprecedented amount of data collection, the negligence (at best) or 'selling out' (at worst) of privacy/security and the aloof profiling like lab rats - is all to generate metrics with which they can provide us with a "better experience" while in turn make more money for themselves. But when in response to their "better experience" we vote with our ad blockers, they don't see it as data, metrics or consumer behavior that ought to be factored into their strategies.
Do you think we, the youtube viewers will have to pay to use youtube in the next 10 years? Also, if we choose not use youtube, we don't have any other platform which has quality and is also free
how about instead of tracking the viewer you just let them build their own add profile. they can tell you if they have pets or children and if they like cars or fast-food or fashion. maybe even let them give feedback on the adds.
I'd be willing to go for this to some degree, if it could get rid of birth control ads, opt out of specific ads that use annoying attempts at comedy, and have it stop trying to program my brain to like certain cars when I'm nowhere near actually buying my own car.
***** Exactly. I don't mind watching adds all together but some of them are so stupid and ineffective that it makes me mad. It's not good for my blood pressure to watch them.
I like how some youtubers include sponsorship messages inside their videos, its unblockable and just feels more integrated since it is promoted by the actual youtuber and not an adman with a smexy voice
+Sudo Tgm some youtubers really need to get better at disclosing the sponsorship though I saw two videos the other day from different youtubers who were sponsored by the same company (an iPhone game) and they couldn't have been more different one had "Ad" in the corner of the thumbnail, mentioned the video was sponsored in the title, had "paid promotion" in the corner of the video, mentioned the video was sponsored in the video itself and at the top of the description where you're less likely to miss it once again pointed out the sponsorship - it was impossible to not know it was sponsored the other one simply had one line at the bottom of the description saying it was sponsored and that was it, they even read it out this bullshit blatant advertising spiel halfway through the video (like, "oh and I've been playing this game it's really great etc") with the perfect opportunity to mention the video was sponsored and didn't take it on the point of it being promoted by the youtuber not an adman, I can remember an episode of the Startup podcast a while ago where the hosts of ReplyAll were having a moral dilemma over the wording of some of their ads because they read the ads themselves and they decided to not do any ads from then on with any sort of personal endorsement since they felt uncomfortable with anything that strayed into product endorsement territory
+Karl Franks I'm fairly sure the second one is breaking the law unless it's a really old video. Or the law in their country might be different but I honestly have no idea how it works with RUclips being in the US and everything. But the rules on stuff like that I'm fairly sure say it has to be mentioned in the video preferably with audio and video and not just at the end it has to be at the start or around the beginning.
Cally well I just went back and checked, turns out they had technically put that it was a paid promotion in the video...with an annotation...meaning anyone watching it on TV, mobile, or just has annotations disabled can't actually see that...
The reason I Switch to ad-blocker is because of the ads that started talking to me. Don't do that. Second reason is because certain websites load slow as all get out for some reason without it. Lastly, and also one the BEST reasons I started using ad-block was due to ads popping up before youtube videos. It never used to be this bad, mostly because I could hit the neat little skip button to just skip the ads the second they started, but then they started delaying the skip button. Then some of them don't HAVE skip buttons. And the worst case offender is when an ad-stops a a video mid way to advertise something I could care less about. If and when these things stop happening I'll turn off ad block.
+Zeik War I hate listening to a physics lecture or an analysis of "what is reality?" interrupted by a toothpaste advertisement. Oh, and music, NEVER INTERRUPT A MUSIC PIECE WITH AN AD, EVER!!!!! Ugh.....
I don't feel guilty for using AdBlock at all. I feel bad for the content creators and all but there is no way I'm turning it off as long as the internet ads don't change to become even slightly bearable.
There is a very easy solution, but the onus is on the user. Most Ad Blockers let you select sites not to block. If you want to support a site, unblock it. The problem there is that most people are unaware of this option, or just indifferent. The solution to both is education.
I know I am a little late. But I use AdBlock because advertisement never worked for me to begin with. In Television and radio adds. Because my realistic pessimistic outlook of the world, allows me to see advertisement as a dishonest franchise, that uses emotional manipulation and trickery to get people to buy your products. Be annoying as you like, I know your product doesn't work or won't do what I think it should do. I also know you're simply trying to pander to my consumerist mindset. However, considering I have no money and am financially instable, I only buy what I need. And have always been the type of consumer who is worried about budget and have only ever focused on what I need.
Why? Because when I want to watch a video, I want to watch it NOW. I don't need to be shown "your product". I have everything I want in my life and if there comes a time when I think of something I do want, I'll Google it.
I've never used adblockers but some of my friends do and I try to convince them to stop, and sometimes they bring up something like "yeah but some websites over exaggerate" and they're right so I wanted to find an ad blocker that only works in a blacklist way meaning that it only hides ads on websites the user has asked for and that all the other websites have ads by default which I couldn't find. If there is a developer reading this, contact me ^^
+LazyMasterGamer Ad Block Plus does the opposite of this; white-listing sites that you wouldn't mind having ads on and removing them from the rest, but to do it the way your asking is extremely tedious for the user. I'm sure there are more places that I don't want ads than places I do, so having a white-list is far easier.
+LazyMasterGamer as far as i know Adblock Plus is eminently customizable, and you could turn of anything but your personally black-listed sites with just a click or two.....?o
+Shake N Dake AdBlock Plus primarily works with blacklists... You subscribe to lists that other people update, but those lists are blacklists (when you install it, you usually automatically subscribe to "EasyList"). You can also choose to not subscribe to any list and maintain your own blacklist (what you wanna do, +LazyMasterGamer). However, it is possible to deactivate rules or make a whitelist rule that overwrites part of one or several already present blacklist rule(s) (so you're not *completely* wrong, +Shake N Dake).
I think it feels "blockable" because those internet ads go through our screen after going through our network and our processors. So private property and so on. "A man's home is his castle". Though I don't necessarily agree with this previous statement, I do think it has value in this discussion.
+Peregrine Hawthorn and? I've donated to PBS. But PBS is also supposed to get funding from the Government, which is basically nonexistent now. And I pay taxes. And besides that, capitalism creates so much overproduction, yet we have no way to use any of that surplus because of capitalism's internal contradictions-- surplus means shortage. Surplus, arrived at through exploitation of the people who would have bought it, means that nobody can buy the thing they made. So they throw it in the ocean or whatever, to artificially create scarcity, to bring the price up, so that those who can afford the buy the thing pay more. The system we live under is insane and illogical. Why not put our surpluses towards making sure everybody has their basic needs met, guaranteed. Then if people want to work to create art and culture, they can do that. And if they are good, they will get known for being good. And they won't have to in the meantime worry about losing their apartment or about not being able to buy food.
@PBS Idea Channel: I'll summarize some of my feelings, as well as several I agreed with in the comments below: 1.) A lot of website ads are very shady clickbaits that can possibly install viruses and malware onto your computer. It's mostly because of these ads that I installed adblock software in the first place. Some websites will personally screen their advertisements to make sure they are safe, and notify you that turning off adblock is okay. In these cases, I will happily turn it off. While ads are annoying, I'm willing to tolerate them if asked nicely. 2.) While tracking your cookies and invading your private data without asking permission is a big no-no, I do believe that customizable advertising is the way of the future. Something similar to Hulu's ad rating system, for example. If you're going to waste my time, at least do it with something I'm actually interested in. 3.) Video advertisements for RUclips and the like would be tolerable if they didn't run HD and take up so much time and bandwidth. Seriously, do you know how frustrating it is to wait ten minutes through a buffering ad, just so you can watch your two-minute video? (And don't get me STARTED on those random non-skippable, super long ads!) 4.) I can understand why adblock software can be especially appealing for mobile users, because the lack of screen space causes the advertising to be even more invasive and distracting than usual. (Plus, the touchscreen interface makes them 10x harder to close) Advertisers might have it easier if they adjusted their ads to appeal to this market. 5.) Personally, I've always hated traditional media advertising in general. It hardly ever convinces me to actually buy a product, and just feels like an attack by the company. What really appeals to me is the "RUclipsr-style" advertising- where instead of some spokesperson in a select piece of media, someone you've gotten to know/trust personally suggests you try something. And I don't mean just hiring someone to be in a commercial, I mean having an organic experience. It's like the difference between a friend/colleague telling you to try something and a door-to-door salesman. While both are much better than a poster, the former is much more effective. That's all I have to say. Interested to hear your thoughts. :)
Think about the chain that gets money to the "content". If you watch an ad but do not purchase the product, you have not paid for content, you have only leeched the content and the advertiser's money as well as wasting your time. Therefore, if you are not planning on purchasing the advertised products, or do not have the disposable income to purchase those products, it is actually more ethical to not watch the advertising. All this being said, I do think that advertising itself is not ethical. Its aim is to brainwash a person into buying something they do not need. Not only is this unethical in and of itself, needless consumption by the wealthy (which includes nearly all of the western world, when considered on a global scale) is the leading cause of global warming and pollution. I think that the sentiment that people are not willing to pay for the content that they enjoy is flawed as well. Content providers need to become better at marketing their work beyond advertising. Advertising is grossly inefficient, wasting thousands of human hours (producing the advertisements, and humans stuck watching the advertisements) for small amounts of money, and taking a crazy roundabout way to get the money to the content providers. Content would be cheaper and waste less human time, therefore improving the quality of life of everyone if advertising were banned. If you do not use adblock, you are increasing worldsuck for nothing.
I made friends with some ads. they show me when there's a sale in a nearby store, or in an internet store I recently visited. They show me new internet shops I didn't know existed, which is nice.
I didn't pick up an ad-blocker until a few months ago, mostly because I know that the ads on the videos I watch go to paying some of my favorite content creators, but I had a prolonged issue of sidebar ad that would continuously scroll the page down from the videos I was watching and that was my line.
You know, usually in meat space, ad disengagement just drives better ads. Why are Geico ads so great? Because you'd flip the channel if they weren't. You would flip it without fear you were punishing the shows you like or that you were somehow morally reprehensible for doing it. And yet despite this, most people stay and willingly sell their eyeballs for a few seconds, presumably because those ads are just entertaining and informative enough to merit that. Why are internet ads so terrible? Because if we opt out of them, somehow we, the users, are the bad guys, punishing only ourselves and the online places we love. Yet if we don't opt out, we're still punishing ourselves and the very devices on which our content consumption relies. It's this disgusting catch-22, predicated on our lack of privacy rights online. There is no other media platform on which any country in the world allows forced ad viewership, individually tracked ad-viewing, or content provider punishment for insufficient ad views. It shouldn't be this way online either. Bad ads aren't my moral responsibility to watch, they're the website and their ad provider's responsibility to fix.
My reasoning for using ad block plus is that many websites are so full of ads that some websites become unreadable or even wouldn't load within 30 seconds on my home wifi. I respect content creators and what they do and it is because I enjoy the content that I want to view it without ads for my amazon shopping list blocking my screen.
I run adblock to get rid of inappropriate ads, but I allow sites like RUclips through so I can support content creators. People work hard to make videos, I don't want to block their source of income.
I use ad blocker for 1 important reason: Ads are malicious in nature so i will not subject myself willingly to them. Now what does that statement really mean? First, lets define how Ads are malicious. Simply put: To take my time for a vast multitude of products i have zero interest in. Second, i dont want my PC loaded with trackers. And, lets not forget accidentally clicking on of these things and having malware, spyware, phishing attacks, trackers, data usage, ect. opened up to my PC. Not all ads are harmless. That pepsi ad might really steal all your personal information. Third, "I will not subject myself willingly to them" this is simple. Straight forward. There is ad blocker, so i will use it. Ad blocker is free. I will use it. Ads cost my time. Simple equation: Content + Ads = Time. If i watched 5, 30 second ads a day every day for a year that's going to be a lot of my time wasted to not even watch content. I pay for my internet bill, i shouldnt have to pay for every video i watch. Like you said earlier, "I work enough" This cant be any more true. When i am driving down the road i can ignore an ad on a billboard. When i am watching a TV show, i can leave the room during an ad to do something else or just sit through it, But on the internet i am in control and ads are intrusive. I have to wait to skip? Not when i have the power to say no. I can't filter all things from this world. But i am given an option to filter it so that is what i will do. If you want to pay for my time. Then pay me for my time. Up front. I'll watch as many ads as you want if you pay me. Pay someone else for my time? What do i get from this? The ability to view the content? So you're going to blackmail me by holding my content hostage. I don't apologize for your loss of revenue. This is the markets way of telling you to innovate. This is the consumer speaking their mind. This is my little way of saying "Come up with a system that doesn't invade my privacy or pay me for my time in a way where i am earning it not sitting through it." If i got paid to not use ad blocker and watch ads, hell yeah i'd stop using ad blocker. But there wont be a compromise. So i wont compromise either.
The reason I started using ad blocking software is because at the time, the vast majority of ads were fake, dripping with malware, and would intentionally pop up just as I was about to click anything. These ads would show up everywhere, from messageboards to news articles.
The main reason I use an ad blocker is because I hate having my videos on youtube or the article I'm reading interrupted. When I'm binding on videos I dont want to be stopped and forced to watch a 30 second ad or have to click on the skip ad button just to find out I've either already watched that video or don't care to after I started. Same with any article I'm reading. When I'm half way through a paragraph on my phone and ads start loading making me lose my place or a large screen filling popup takes me away from it I'll feel less like finishing it and not going back again. I'll support the people I follow in other ways. Such as buying T-shirts from them or supporting them on patreon.
+Diggnuts You should see his ridiculous discussion on feminism. This idea channel is only fun to watch when it picks up retarded discussions like "is Super Mario actually scizophrenic?" Basically - whenever some random internet-person has seeded the idea.
It is very curious, I downloaded Adblock years ago, I realised/ was told/scolded that the content I watch depends on the ads I'm blocking, and I started disabling adblock in places where I felt like "My 0.001 cent is well earned." Lately, as I transit more frequently around the same places in the internet, I realise my adblocker is usually disabled. I guess ads didn't bother me as much as they used to once I discovered that they are not there to annoy me - albeit they do. And, as is probably very well known, things like Patreon are nowadays what appears to be the modern solution. 'If you don't like ads in your face but you love what I do, no worries! Just pay me how much you think I'm worth. And hey, you get extra stuff too!' So far, it seems to be working very well for lots of people. o.O
The reason I use an ad blocker is simple. There is either more ad then content, the ads block the content, or the ads are just awful and flashy. Make descrete little ads that don't take up more room than the content, and doesn't block it, and I'll consider going back (yes, I really would--I've turned it off for certain websites to give them ad money).
I have adblock enabled on youtube, but if I could specifically exclude, say, channels that im subscribed to i would. Wouldn't that make sense? I don't want to give someone money for all the other, shitty content i view and couldn't care less about. Personally I believe the advertising industry to be a sinkhole of money and production that provides no service (unless if you consider manipulation a service). I'm sorry for content creators, but at the same time I think content would be better if it was directly funded by the people viewing it, either through something like patreon or real subscriptions.
+MrJethroha also the in built adds like you do at the end of your videos are a whole lot more appealing than almost anything an advertising agency could show me.
This has been on my mind a lot. Particularly with RUclips. I want to support the people I really enjoy, and want to skip ads on other channels that seem more mainstream. What I would like is an ad-block service that tailors to your preferences. So for example if I put that I want to support animal rescue groups, than everytime I visit pet finder or something like that, I watch ads. It's the same things that advertisers do now, they track what you like, so track what I would feel good about watching an ad for! Tell me, "by watching this 3 min ad you are giving $1 to the ASPCA." That is what would make ad block obsolete.... in my opinion.
AdBlocker user since 2004, I turn it off when ads become less intrusive and decently personalized during my entire browsing experience . Advertising promotes consumerism and with such a powerful tool as the internet, people can look and find what they are looking for at the time when they need it . Anytime I see promoted ads and listing, I skip those . Advertisers finally learn how to advertise in a stylish, humble and custom tailored way(and not by guessing what you may like, but what you tell them to show you) .
I don't use adblock because I'm not tech savvy and I don't know how. And I'm perfectly fine with that fact. What's another 5 seconds and a click before watching yet another cat video?
+MostLikelyMortal If you use the google chrome web browser, you are just one google search and two clicks away from no more ads on the internet. Being tech savvy is not a requirement. (google search for the word "adblock", click on the first result, click the add to chrome button).
+MostLikelyMortal and the vast majority of internet users will do just the same. ad-blockers will always be a minority as so many will always remain ignorant of them. any amount of estimated revenue lost to blockers is meaningless without comparing it to the ridiculous amount making it through just fine, and RUclips is just not going broke any time soon.....!D
is it ethical that some youtubers make shitty 10 minutes video 2 or 3 times a day, videos without any real work or skills behind them, watched mostly by teenagers and they make huge amount of money, like 10000+ $ a month? is it ethical?
Sure, why wouldn't it be? Those "shitty RUclipsrs" caught a lucky break; I think we would all love to get lucky like that. If someone finds a way to make a living without sacrificing half their free-time, more power to them.
I think you definitely need to do a follow-up to this video that goes into SEO Optimization. When you talked about advertisers and synchronicity the only thing I could think of is how every RUclips channel had a back to the future video on Oct 25, and how every RUclips Channel had some kind of reaction or commentary on the new star wars trailer.
I adblock everything possible and support people I like by buying their merchandise (if I like it) or donations/tipping/becoming their patron. I do this because I believe advertising is incredibly damaging to society. It undermines our mental health and self-image, invades privacy, and is a waste of productivity.
Man, the Dropbox ad at the end, totally impervious to ad blockers, adds a whole extra dimension to this question. I wonder if it felt weirder than normal doing it this week.
I am an adblock user and I frequently think about this dilemma of 'free' but ad supported content. For me it some point a breach of trust happened. Let me explain. When I go to a newspaper website to read an article and I turn of my adblock I get bombarded with ads. And I don't mean the ad in the sidebar or that squeezes in somewhere between two paragraphs. I mean ads that frame the content of the page, blinking, showing me half a video, and in the worst case play some kind of audio. For god's sake I am on a newspaper website trying to read an article but I can't focus because directly adjacent is a blinking, video like, GPU-melting Flash ad playing. This has been exacerbated by pop over ads that make it impossible to access the content, opening new websites when clicked on. I have the same issue with buying a magazine, where I pay money and still get the feeling that I get 30% of pages content and 70% ads or native ads articles. The same goes for state owned TV. I pay my national TV license fee and I am okay with it because they produce meaningful content that I consume through various channels. But as I pay those fees how is it that I still get to see the sponsor of the weather news or some pharma commercial before a show? What are those fees for then? Adblock for sure is not an ethical solution because it's like with many laws, regulations, and all kinds of broadband solutions to single infringement problems: they affect everybody, when they are in fact meant for a few.
A thing that just struck me is this, watching YT or generally consuming many Ad-supported media isn't actually free, even with AdBlock in place. I pay a monthly contract for my internet at home, I own two PCs which I have already paid for as well. A phone, which didn't come for free either, and for which I'm paying yet another monthly contract. Living in Germany I also pay a MANDATORY fee for the household I'm living in, just for the possibility I might use/consume publicly owned stations. I also voluntarily support the media/artists I actually enjoy. I buy games, movies, music and I donate to people I actually want to support directly. Why does there have to be a middleman with advertising? Before broadcast media, things were also working. That's what publishers are for!
The problem for me, is that the free choice to not read ads in the newspaper or to change the channel while watching tv, is done during my leisure time when I can decide if I have the time or will to consume the ad. Ads on the internet are presented both during leisure and work-related activities and I feel captive. They are also often "sneaky" about their presentation, blocking information etc that I need, and often not being up-front about the nature and duration of the ad. The ads that seem the least offensive to me are in side banners so I can choose to read or not depending on their content, how much time is available and my mood.
I've got a bunch of thoughts on this one, but I don't know exactly where I come down on it, so points to consider. Reasons why some kind of ad blocking is good 1. Ads and viruses: there are and continue to be ways to use 3rd party ad space, cookies, and pop-ups for malicious purposes. Blocking ads may make the user have a safer experience. 2. Technical issues: if my Internet stutters or cuts out, or my machine has to restart or I simply misclick somehow, why do I have to rewatch all the ads that I already watched? If the ads were a one and done deal, it might be different, but having some kind of ad-blocking option to avoid repeated, excessive ads because my page got refreshed seems fair and quite useful.' Alternatives to ads? 1. Tax on everyone to pay for infrastructure and content creation. 2. Tax on some people (say a hardware and equipment tax) to pay for content creation. 3. Better payment processing and interfaces so that a user can, at a very granular level, decide if they want to pay for content or watch ads for content. 4. ? (that's all I got)
I block all ads on every page until I feel the content is worth my eye-vertising time (oh, geez). In that way, I get to choose what my eyes pay for. Congratulations, Idea Channel is one of the few channels on youtube that I don't filter with ad block. So, thank you Dropbox for supporting Idea Channel.
Spot on! I though you would elaborate more on the synchronization, but that ok. That is the main problem. I think marketing have to update their text book, because that doesn't seem to work anymore.
There are also (non-free) options like Google Contributor, where you essentially pay some amount to the content provider and ad distributor to remove some of the ads. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's taking steps in the right direction; it lets you browse generally, supporting the sites you visit just as much as if you ran the ads. Ideally you'd have a system that replaces all of the ads served by a given ad distributor. The problem is ads (and presumably these ad-replacement services) are served using an auction model- you won't know how much you are paying until after you are served the content. There is also an argument that ad block doesn't actually result in any net revenue loss; people who use ad block are probably not going to buy the product the company was advertising anyway. I'm not sure if anyone has done a study that successfully confirms this, though. Either way, I would say it is still inherently unethical since you are viewing content for free that was not actually provided free of charge.
There was a suggestion I saw once on how to move away from the ad-supported model of the internet, where instead of paying for their content by viewing ads, they contribute a bit of computing power to help mine bitcoins. Of course this assumes bitcoin becomes a widespread form of payment but it's one of the best suggestions I've seen yet to replace ads.
While I understand many of the concerns on both sides of the adblocking debate, there's a major reason why I will not even consider removing my adblocking software: I have sensory processing disorder. I avoid visual, auditory, and video ads whenever possible because they tend to slice through my focus and disorient me with their intrusive, nearly always unwelcome sensory input. The flashing images, loud and/or repetitive noises, and other common attributes of ads often end up distressing and overwhelming me to the point where I can no longer enjoy whatever I was doing (and sometimes need to take a complete break from everything). For this reason, I have no intention of disabling my adblockers any time soon.
Just going throw my two cents in here because I use adblock. As someone who like to binge watch youtube videos it gets really annoy when it's the same ad over and over and over again before each video you watch, even more so when they are trying to sell something I don't want or need. Life's much better with adblock.
I have an ad blocker installed, I don't run an ad blocker constantly. When an ad comes up that's obnoxious, I block it, and then I inform the website about their obnoxious ad. I find this is ethical because for the most part, web hosts don't want their users to be hurt by their ad content, and generally after blocking the offending ad and reloading, a more acceptable ad replaces it. If there were a system in place where you could let the ad network know "I don't find this acceptable, and I'm blocking it." then i think we might move along to a point where we reach an equilibrium between advertisers and consumers.
I do not have issues with "banner ads." I do not have issues with ads that show before or during a video. I DO have issues with pop-up ads and ads that cover content to push what they're selling. It's like when you are playing your Xbone or PS4 or whatever and suddenly someone starts watching TV right where you were playing Fallout 4. You can ignore banner ads and tolerate video ads (when you know where they are) but pop-up ads and the like are more of an unexpected punch in the face.
I'm curious how many others feel this way: With the exception of food ads when I'm hungry - ads have no effect on me. When I go to buy something, I go on amazon and look for the highest ratings and (after checking that the ratings don't seem to be BS), that's what I buy. I never buy something because I saw an ad. I never buy what I saw in the ad. Sometimes I don't even know what the ad is for.
There are two huge issues that I have with ads. The first is that, from a security perspective, the chances of running into actively malevolent ads is just way too high for comfort. A lot of the major ad networks have taken are at least doing something to combat this, but the fact that I still see things that, for example, automatically open the Play Store, they are clearly not doing a good enough job yet. The other big thing is that they can severely degrade the experience. This was touched on a little but in the video, but it goes much deeper than just being distracting. Ads often cause (often serious) issues with performance, battery life, site navigation, downloading a ton of extra data, or even being able to use the site at all. The advertising industry really just generally needs to scale back what they're making their ads do, because ads are a MASSIVE source of bloat when it comes to web content. Somethings wrong when auxiliary content like advertising is consuming the majority of the resources involved with retrieving and viewing a web page.
RUclips red seems to provide a similar share to what people receive from just ads. especially with the fact that many people were using adblocker and now have red instead.
A person on a satellite connection or mobile network pays per unit of data. When one sees an ad in a paper they have already bought the paper. You see an ad on your phone - you're data is being used, essentially paying extra to see an ad. To the user this feels wrong because they perceive a greater opportunity cost when compared to other media. As some one who travels though the biggest frustration is buffer times. Don't even get me started on how frustrating it is to sit in a hotel with a 128kbp/s down connection waiting the extra 5 minutes while a trailer for a movie in German loads...
My concern with internet ads is more the issue of them being intrusive and obnoxious. Full page ads that hide content until you click them off, video ads that autoplay and have sound enabled, ads with flashing colors to get your attention. These are the things that bother me with ads and why I block. Sites that I do frequent, I leave the blocker off unless they have ads in one of those formats. If we had less intrusive ads that do little besides frustrate visitors, I think the issue would be less pronounced and people might actually want to look at them from time to time. American TV ads are on some level getting that they're not what people want to watch and in some cases are trying to make them actually entertaining to watch (Old Spice, for instance), so maybe online advertising might want to take a look at what people actually WANT to see and provide that.
Seth Godin wrote a book titled "Permissions Marketing" back in 1999 that talks about this disconnect between advertising and the view. The premise is that marketing is ineffective when the consumers don't want to be advertised to and the real way to market to consumers is similar to what was listed in the second half of this video: by understanding when they want to be marketed to and market to them then. The book dates itself by discussing AOL (lol) and Netscape (looooooool) but the premise has held up surprisingly well in the 21st century. Consumers use Ad-Block because we don't like "Interruptions Marketing" as Godin describes it. Modern consumers prefer to follow a company on Twitter and they don't care if they're being marketed to when they scroll through their feed.
I enable adblock individually on sites where I find the ads invasive. Ads that hijack my web-browsing experience by playing audio when I'm trying to pay attention to something else, or that bypass the ad provider's system in order to spawn pop-ups or pop-unders have encouraged my use of AdBlock more than anything else. When I bring up a music mix on RUclips, I want to hear music, not an alternating pattern of songs and ads like a barber pole where all the red stripes are awful, horrible things... As RUclips doesn't place ads based on total length of the video, but just slaps them on the beginning of every single video, aving AdBlock turned off is a terrible idea if you're watching anything shorter than fifteen minutes -- which, with older videos, is EVERY VIDEO.
I used to use AdBlock and skip ads on RUclips, but recently (starting about a year ago) I've decided to opt out of either one. I appreciate the content people produce, and in the off chance that sitting through an ad pays the creator a small amount, I volunteer my time to support them. Exceptions being very long ads which are not interesting or entertaining enough. Some ads, I might add (pun intended), are even enjoyable to watch repeatedly. Even though I don't buy any of the products advertised to me, it would be nice to choose which kinds of commercials I'm subjected to, so at the very least I'm updated on products which interest me (video games, electronics, etc.), and/or are entertained by the ad's style (crazy Old Spice commercials). That way the ads are more tolerable and I get to support the media which I'm interested in. Content creators spend a lot of time to produce the media I enjoy and appreciate, so, I figure, the least I can do is donate 30 seconds or a minute to give them a fraction of a cent (just a guess). While I'd like to live in a world where the creator was paid AND I got their content for free, a happy alternative would be for me to choose the products and the style (satire/comedy/etc.) of the commercials I receive.
This argument, like most arguments revolving around ad-supported content, tends to assume all ads are equally invasive or annoying for the user, and they really aren't. I've generally been fine with Google Ads, since they're mostly a text block on the side of the screen. However, when I'm trying to read a large amount of text for some news or blog post, and there's something flashing siezure-inducing colors in my face, it's a different story. Worse, many programs use memory-leaking code, flash programs that slow down my browsing, or are security vulnerabilities, even when we ignore all the spyware. My TV doesn't have decaying performance or get viruses from the ads on TV. Worst of all, depending on what browser I'm using at the moment, I can actually run across pop-up ads that are impossible to even close, thus meaning I can't even view the content I "paid for with my eyes". If you want an "ethical ad blocker", let the ones that are mere banner ads through, and block the ones that use Flash until the advertisers get the message. There was a quote I remember from a former Google employee talking about how the way to deal with ad blockers is to simply stop making ads that people are desperate to want to block.
To add onto my previous comment... There's this state of mind at play where all responsibility for action seems to lie with the consumer, and it is just assumed that the ad agencies always will just be what they are now, with no responsibility for their own actions. Again, there's a choice that ad developers make when they create their advertisements about how intrusive, or even abusive, they are with their audience. A quiet banner ad is a different thing from a noisy pop-up that hides the "x" to close it, much less one that seeks to spy upon or take control of your computer. What's the difference between a hostile invasive adware and a forkbomb or other form of virus if you get right down to it? If someone pays money to the host for content hosting costs, does it suddenly become your ethical duty to become infected with a virus while reading your content? When I went googling for that Google employee quote, I actually came across a different article about a different Google employee starting up a company where he declared that he was "at war" with ad blockers and the people using them, because they were "thieves". Take a moment to really consider what that means, in terms of the relationship, here. This goes beyond the RIAA or MPAA declaring that people who pirate media, who skip out of participating in the exchange part of the media they are delivering, are thieves, this is the advertising industry declaring that they are at war with literally their whole customer base. The hypothetical role of an advertising agency is one of subtle and skillful persuasion, convincing someone who otherwise wouldn't try something to do so, and, if they're being ethical, be happy with that choice and continue to enjoy whatever they were sold long after that persuasion took place. With this declaration, however, we're talking about a relationship where we aren't being offered a choice, we're being grabbed by the throat, and told to listen, OR ELSE. While I perfectly understood why the music and movie industry tried to stop piracy, it was their overt hostility to their own audience that really drove most people off from their message. Now, advertisers seem poised to make the same mistake: Declaring war upon and verbally abusing the people they were supposed to be trying to subtly suggest things to. If they think they can get away with screaming at people to buy their products while they insult us to their faces because they think they hold the only moral high ground in the social contract we are participating within, someone really DOES need to tell them how to do their jobs, and they SHOULD have their efforts undermined until they are taught how to behave in a civil society. If I want to watch an anime on Crunchyroll, they have commercials at different breaking points in the show unless I pay for a "premium subscription", which bypasses the ads by asking me to pay with my actual money instead of my eyes. (A system I think is perfectly laudable, although I find it more than slightly annoying that they force the volume to maximum. I know they do this to prevent people from muting the video, but there may be good reason I was listening to the show at 20% volume while on a mobile in a crowded spot, and now, there's a max-volume commercial blaring, disturbing everyone.) There, the ads are an option, and that, as well as ad blockers that might work in more sophisticated ways, allowing blocking of specific types of ads/programs presents a far better path forward for the Internet. Also, it means the more that their advertisements are confrontational, the more people are likely to just spring for the premium package that kills their chance to advertise to people to start with, and that creates a natural feedback loop to advertisers about how far they can push their audience before they face the backlash. Opera has a nice system where I can manually choose which ads to block from a ad-blocking mode entered from a simple right-click drop-down menu of the page in question.
The legitimate problem with advertising is the intrusiveness of ads. I have no problem with non-sound non-flashing banner ads and the like. Simple ads. I'll even sometimes click on stuff even if it doesn't interest me to support sites if they have that type of ads. RUclips almost single-handedly convinced me to GET Ad-Blocker. It was basically the first domino: I started debating getting Ad-Block back when RUclips started doing video ads. (Again, I used to click the banner ads, and will still click the little bottom-of-video ads if they show up instead.) What happened was I'd get ads that were sometimes longer than the video I was intending to watch. I put a lot of videos on in the background for white noise, so I don't always have the ability to click the next button if I'm in the other room and I'm listening to a music playlist. Further, early in the ad cycle I seem to remember a time before the skip option in the first place. I remember multiple ads coming up over my time on YT that were thirty minutes to an hour long, sometimes for a two minute video. It was repulsive and absurd. The second was the continued irritation of three types of ads (luckily popups had MOSTLY died by this time, though they'll never be truly dead): sound ads that appear in unidentifiable places on sites; sites where the whole background is an ad link, and if I click out of window and back in, I can occasionally click an ad, lose my place, and stop caring about the content; and those sort-of-popup pop-over ads that stop you from accessing the content until you find the exit, sometimes having to wait a certain length of time before you can even do that. I am okay with advertisements that aren't intrusive. Give me a banner ad or a personalized square ad on the side of a page or video or whatever, and sure, I'm fine with it. Like I said, I'll sometimes click links, browse for a little bit and make use of the ads, even if the product doesn't fully interest me. Heck, I do surveys for companies, whatever. I'm happy to help places that provide services for me, but you gotta meet me halfway. I am fine with going to a place and having them ask me if I want something from whatever their push sale is. I am not okay with them stopping me for thirty minutes to push something on me I don't want. It's about balance. There need to be kind of self-imposed regulations about what is intrusive and what is not. Advertising is its own sort of beast. It has a motive. It wants to sell things. I will not buy something if I feel put off by the delivery (why I didn't shop at Old Navy for quite a while. I found their ads extremely irritating at one point.) As such, my arm was somewhat twisted by the arguably unethical lengths online advertisers will go to to force things on me too much, too hard, and for too long, that drove me to use ABP. I tried to avoid it, for a couple years I did, but eventually it wore me down. To this day I still have marked the "allow some nonintrusive advertising" option. I don't want to starve the content providers. I want to see places succeed. You can't do that through underhanded tactics, and I know the providers aren't to blame, it's the ad agencies that accept unacceptable ads onto their service, and receive no reprimand for it. In that way I could almost argue that ad agencies are destroying the content of the web by driving users away.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
You know what ads I'm okay with? Nice calm little ads that stay in their box on the side of the page or the end of the video. Ones that don't start talking without my permission or jump out into a new window. If an ad is civilized and looks legitimately interesting, then I will click on it. The moment it does something without my permission and interrupts what I'm doing, ad block goes on.
+Bud Charles
I totally agree!
+Bud Charles pretty much how I do it too.
+Bud Charles I agree with your points and would like to add that when advertisers stop allowing viruses to transmit themselves via internet advertisements I will stop blocking them
there are other forms of ethical blocking (unlike the one mike mentioned here) that allow some ads, like the ones you've mentioned - ads that don't disrupt your flow of reading on a site. i think that might be an effective way to approach the problem without eliminating it altogether.
+hypothesised
I remember when most on-line advertising were nice static banners and reading those sites was fine without adblockers. The problem is that the more intrusive the ad, the higher the click rate and the more money the advertiser makes for confirmed impressions. If an advertiser made more money by sending a robot to your house to repeatedly hammer on your ball-sack, they would. I am yet to work with a marketing exec who isn't an entitled socio-path.
If Ads were only 15 seconds long and didn't insist on loading in HD when I'm on a slow connection or on my phone than it wouldn't be a problem. UNTIL that day I'm blocking ads. Seriously. a 30 second ad on mobile youtube is 16 mbs of data used.
+NRGpony Yes, exactly. I resisted getting AdBlocker until RUclips finally pushed me over the edge because of its invasive and irritating ads. If they didn't treat us like crap maybe we wouldn't rout around the damage.
+NRGpony Also the fact that some places won't load your content if the ad is not loading correctly (which happens a lot when your connection is flaky). I already entirely stopped going to some websites because of ads, not blocking the add anymore, not seing the content. This is a loose loose context
+NRGpony To be fair part of the issue is paying for data is outdated and a stupid practice that makes no logical sense in the modern world, yet companies think they can do it anyway and rip us all off.....
+GrdAlf Yep. A while back i reinstalled windows and didn't download AdBlock until RUclips's Ads weren't loading, preventing me from watching a Video...
+Michael Vipperman I think RUclips is one of the places were Ads aren't that bad... Given that you are close to your mouse of course.
advertisers need to stop being so scummy about their advertisements. if they weren't tracking my data, and taking up my time and being a giant hassle I wouldn't block them.
+Spencer Oldham Exactly this! For me, especially the time thing. In addition I would like to add taking up too much screen real estate.
+Spencer Oldham Exactly. Make the ads fit in with sites (just making them a bit more modest would help) and not flashy, noisy things that try to clickbait me with false X signs, etc... then I'll consider letting them through.
I don't use AdBlocker, though. I use Noscript, because it's been proven that active moderating of all scripts you allow through works better than firewalls and the like when it comes to protecting your computer on the net. This also happens to eliminate adds and it can be a bit of a hassle to tweak the site to allow them; however, it also means that if 1 ad provider is ethical in how it delivers adds, I'll be able to just allow that 1 through and keep the scum out.
+Unahim
Normally, I use ABP with Disconnect.
I'm getting more & more into Tor, though, so Disconnect + NS + TBB inclusions is about as secure as you can get without Tails. And I can neither confirm nor deny I use Tails.
ikr, I don't mind ads, but the data collection and tracking are just creepy.
Reasons why I block ads.
1. Malware/ fake download buttons.
2. Full volume ads. I don’t use head phones and I never intended to I have a full surround sound setup and if its 2am I don’t want everyone in my house waking up.
3. Pornographic ads
4. Irregularity in ad lengths (youtube)
5. Pop ups and uncloseable windows.
+Flying Karapet
Reasons why I don't
1. I understand that using ad block is the equivalent of stealing money from content creators
ProxyBarracks Yes, all the consequences of sitting through 5-15 seconds. first world problems at its finest
Chris Cuthrell Well have fun :)
You too :)
ZombieTux That's understandable
What can be done IS ALREADY DONE. Companies should adapt to the consumer's standards, not otherwise. If they don't, then the system is broken. Adblock is not METICULOUSLY BLOCKING EVERYTHING, They laid out a set of instructions for how to make *non-intrusive, non-tracking* ads that WON'T BE BLOCKED AT ALL. This is setting a possibility bar for the companies relying on these. This bar is pretty high, and that's why it's still almost fully blocking the web, but some sites are already respecting the rules, and their ads go through Adblock untouched.
THANK YOU!
I don't even mind advertisers tracking me, like do that all you want, I don't care, just let me take in content without forcing your ad on me, in disturbance of the content.
Ashley ASHLEYM Me, and a lot of others concerned about privacy do.
May I add, too, that sometimes Adblock may even INSERT new "ads" in a website?
When it comes to PSAs concerning the Internet, or human rights, on special occasions I saw Adblock actually insert new objects on websites instead of just filtering stuff out. You're given the choice to remove them, though..
I don't get one thing. If not watching the ad is immoral because it pays the content to be made, isn't the same when you watch TV and decide to change the channel once the ads are displayed.
+mundotaku Also,
I'm not 100% certain about in America, but I have to PAY for my walking dead here. And then there's still ads! (which we fast-forward through anyway.... is that unethical?)
James Hansen We pay for cable too and we get ads in cable, We have open TV but few people uses the free reception. 83% of households has cable, satellite or IPTV at home.
+mundotaku wouldn't the tv channel have already been paid by the company at that stage? so not as unethical since its not depending on clicks or whatever?
+mundotaku
I'm going to take this example a step further. I have free over-the-air television. When commercials play it's a common occurrence for people to get up to go to the bathroom, get a drink/snack, stretch a bit, talk about the show, goof around on a smartphone or handheld game, etc. Basically commercial time has been used as an intermission for the content we are actually viewing. In this scenario no one is hostage to watching ads, and the advertisers are not getting the eyeballs they thought they were going to get. No one has felt obligated to watch the ads, felt that it is immoral, or felt guilty to not watching the ads. They'e always been seen as something obtrusive to the general experience, but avoidable.
With paid cable, I find it ridiculous that ads show up in the first place since it used to be that ads were not shown on cable. That was one of the selling points for cable initially. I lived in England for three years back in the 90s. To get TV you'd pay for a TV license, the only thing that shows up that's remotely ad related is short segments that let you know what other shows are on the BBC. Paying for access to content and getting ads is incredibly frustrating. It feels like the money you've paid toward any sort of subscription is wasted in some way.
Generally, everyone pays for Internet access. To have ads in addition sort of feels similar to ads on cable, but worse since you are Interacting a bit more with content than you would on TV/Cable. Content creators are separate from whatever your payments toward Internet are used for, but it still feels frustrating to pay to use something and still get ads, particularly the obtrusive ones.
I personally don't mind simple ads that are unobtrusive. There are some forums/sites that have unobtrusive ads for things related to the subject that the forum/site is focused on. For example, another youtube channel, Tek Syndicate, has an online forum focused on science and tech. Their ads are tech related, and usually things they either approve of or use themselves. The ads themselves stay unobtrusive and in the sidebar away from content or discussions I want to focus on. I'm absolutely fine with this since the ads are curated by the content creators and are generally things I may be interested in. The fact that everyone get's the same ads and no tracking needs to be involved is a huge plus for me.
The challenge is implementing this for larger audiences since there would be a large diversity of interests, and no one ad would interest everyone due to that disparity. If ads could be more low key, did not have the tracking that advertisers felt they needed, and did not have the risk for malware that they do, then blocking them would not be as popular as they are. I browse /r/talesfromtechsupport on reddit. Many users come into IT support with computers infected with malware, sometimes there are repeat visits. Generally this is from people clicking on things they aren't supposed to, like suspicious ads or popups. Adblock also blocks the "ANDROID/WINDOWS/iOS/etc. IS INFECTED WITH A VIRUS. CLICK HERE TO REMOVE IT" phishing ads, so Adblock is also used as protection when browsing online. It's fairly standard practice for IT support to install Adblock on systems that have been cleaned up after being infected with viruses/malware/trojans/etc.
The other day my mother got a popup on a site that said "Update Windows Now" which was obviously suspicious since it did not remotely look like an official Windows update popup, and she was using the family computer that ran Ubuntu, not Windows. My mother is smart enough to not click on stuff like that, and actually had me come look at it. But lots of older, trusting people click on stuff like that. So adblocking is used to protect those people.
Ads in general are very focused on the psychology of people and exploit that. Catchy jingles, happy/sexy looking people using said product, getting people to feel like they are part of the group and fit in, Pavlovian response, bright colors, and an extensive etc. of everything else get used on people. I do not like it when something is demanding my attention or money, I use the Internet to relax and enjoy myself at the end of the day, do research for school and personal interests/projects, communicate with people, and contribute when I can to the online communities I'm involved with. Obtrusive, demanding ads make my interactions with the Internet very frustrating and generally waste the time technology was supposed to save people to begin with.
+DerVerruckteFuchs No TL;DR?
This is something I actually feel pretty passionately about. I love Ad Blocker, and I will never stop using it.
I understand that advertising in general pays for much of the "free" content I enjoy, but there truly is a problem with the way it is implemented. I have had that thought as far back as I can remember seeing tv commercials, as a kid watching cartoons, I just couldn't WAIT for the advertising to end so that I could get to my show again, and ad blocker was a life saver (albeit much later than I would have liked it). But I think the controversy around Ad Blocker is misleading, and we're looking at it the wrong way. I think the growing phenomenon is a symptom of the very thing everybody out there has been thinking about commercial content for years; it is irritating, in my opinion, and almost NEVER shows me anything I need, or will need, and I almost NEVER buy what they're selling.
We waste so much of our precious time watching advertisements for products that we never ever purchase, and it makes me wonder why I should waste my time watching the advertisements. The actual reasons why we don't buy are many, whether we already have one, don't need one, don't want one, can't afford one, or whatever, but they are ultimately irrelevant. Why SHOULD I have to sit through what accumulates to hours weeks and days of my life watching something I'm JUST NOT GOING TO BUY?
Now that isn't to say that I've never bought something I saw from advertising, but the few successful commercials that convince me are so few and far between that it's negligible at best. When I want tooth paste, I don't remember what the tooth paste commercials told me; I buy that one that has teeth whitening and is cheapest. When I want insurance, I don't listen to what the people say who are SELLING the insurance! That would be silly, they only say good things about their products. I look up reviews and experiences from people who have it, and listen to their first hand knowledge. When I want a car, I'm almost certainly going to go with the one with the best online reviews and lowest price, when I want food I'm going to go to the one that is easiest to reach with the best overall combination of price and quality (or speed, if I'm in a hurry). So the advertising, for me, is almost invariably a waste of my time. I don't remember what that Applebee's commercial said about their new menu, and It's across town, so I won't be going.
What angers me is that people put the blame for their drops in sales on the people who use the program to get what they want: an environment free of time wasting invasion of your mental space. But I think we should be looking at it from the perspective of the people who use it, we should be asking WHY are so many people using it? Is it because we feel alienated by insistent advertising that repeats itself no matter how many times we've heard it? Is it because we're bored with having to hear people talk about all the good things about a product we can't afford? Or that we don't want or even like? Are we tired of the irony of people saying their online content in particular is "free", but then being halted mid stride for a message about the new Honda, even though you already have a car?
Why are advertisers putting on this pouty display, and directing anger at US, the people who are tired of them, simply for being tired of them? This is a message they are failing to read. It's a message that their pushy shotgun style of advertising at all times to all audiences is largely just... irritating, and has become more and more invasive as technology allows for it. This is a message to all that content should be paid for, but the public method of supporting content creators should be easier to come by, and we should stop laying guilt on the heads of people who use a totally legal program to have some level of control over whether or not they see unwanted advertising.
+Kraaken Hex For a while it was beginning to look like I was reading a speech on the subject. Well said.
+Kraaken Hex i couldn't agree more!
+Kraaken Hex TL:DR "I'm entitled and trying to justify effortless content theft so I can still consider myself a good person"
+Kraaken Hex
This is going to take a while to go through, which I can't do currently. I hopefully will get back to this.
But currently what I'm able to say is that I disagree with every single last one of your statements.
yes
9:55 is a good example of how advertisements can exist harmoniously with viewers.
+Ross Llewallyn Actually specifically the disclosure isn't to standard. I can't remember if it's official, but certainly people in the business have come out saying it should be disclosed at the beginning and that it should be disclosed in the video, openly on screen and in audio in such a way that the viewer/listener can't avoid it and clearly viewable all the way through.
The fact that it's not hidden beneath the YT description fold is nice though.
+Ross Llewallyn I agree. I don't mind if a video is sponsored. Put the ad at the front, middle, or even the end. For those of us in the 20-40 age range, we are used to this style of ad from the television. I find it as a nice "take a breath" before we get back to what the video was talking about. Idea Channel puts a lot of information and ideas forward in its videos. It's nice to have a moment "to breathe," if you will, to think and process some of the information I've just heard.
+Ross Llewallyn That type of advertising doesn't help the platform hosting and delivering the content though.
+Michael Bower That's for native advertising.
+Ross Llewallyn That one was fine, make all the ads like that.
For me it's pretty simple. Advertisers have just gone too far. I don't mind a few banners or something. But a few assholes adding autoplaying videos, sound and even virusses to ads is just too much. The trust is just completely gone. I do not trust advertisers to be ethical and they have forced our hand to block unwanted content. I've even gotten virusses from google ads once. The internet is not a safe place, blocking is the only option.
its not "unethical" to block ads. No one ever "opted in" to viewing ads in exchange for content. To point this out even further, we didnt have any ads on youtube before they decided to montize it, and GASP people created great content for the sake of creating great content. same thing with no ad in the 90s yet GASP content still existed. The idea that adblockers will kill content is an extremely stupid one funded by the ad industry.
I've never seen an ad on Wikipedia. One of the most accessed sites in the world and with unparalleled content.
I've always had adblock disabled on content I want to support, so things like youtube still get ad revenue from me, while other places that are ze worst or I don't want to support I have it enabled. At the time in which I judge that the content is worth my support, the adblocker gets disabled. I am fully aware that is a rocky judgement but man the current way ads are handled on the internet sucks.
ethical adblocker, dont view content you dont want to support
+AdellRedwinters hard to argue with
+AdellRedwinters This is very much what I do as well. +Valtteri Valonen to say "don't view", the trouble is that I'd like to "have a taste" to know I want to support it.
+AdellRedwinters i used to be like that, but then there was a youtube glitch where adds wouldn't load and the video wouldn't load untill the add was finished. so i had to get addblocker to use youtube. it's since been fixed but i've now become so used to addblocker that i can't be bothered to revert.
+AdellRedwinters I'm like you, I feel a sense of responsibility to watch the ads for videos I want more of. Idea Channel definitely falls within that category. I go through cycles where I don't mind the ads and disable it for all of RUclips, then get fed up and switch to blocking ads. Personally, I wish there were a way to sub-categorize youtube channels in the domain name so that Adblock software could filter the ads through on certain channels I'm subscribed to and for which I have given my consent to be shown ads. That would be my personalized solution.
I've been using ad block for like 8-10 years. I wont stop. There are other ways of supporting RUclipsrs. Like buying their merch such as t-shirts and through other donation sites.
I do also enjoy my browsing WITHOUT "singles in your area", "asian beauties" and horse porn. Not everyone on the internet is a 40 year old virgin you know. Oh, those "this is not a joke" is a classic as well. If 90% of ads weren't scams and annoying maybe I wouldn't be so negative. But as it looks like now I'm not turning ad block off. Not even on RUclips.
+TalesOfGamerz You realize that ads are based on YOUR search history.
Rebecca Johnson No they aren't. lol Everybody gets those. I'm not a lesbian.
TalesOfGamerz I don't. I get ads for clothing sites I shop at.
+TalesOfGamerz Can confirm. I am a lesbian without these ads gracing my screen.
+TalesOfGamerz Or the 13 minute political unstoppable ad videos on a 2 minute video.
Even ignoring adblockers and the like, aren't Internet ads supposed to be ludicrously ineffective though? The number of clicks they get is absolutely minuscule, and the amount it actually pays content creators is equally minute. I highly doubt it's ever really significantly influenced anyone to buy anything either. Everyone hates Internet ads. No one pays attention to them. They do nothing but breed resentment. They are a blight on the world and their failure it more than deserved. That's why adblockers are so popular. They finally give the audience the ability to get rid of that which has been nothing other than a negative in any of its incarnations. They finally give the audience a voice and agency.
Which brings me on to another point. There's a lot of discussion about how "ethical" adblockers are, and whether people should use them or not. The blame always seems to fall on the audience. As if we should feel guilty for hating obnoxious advertising. It's the marketers who did this to themselves. They're the ones who created this trash. They're the ones that make adblockers so appealing in the first place. It's their fault their industry is failing, as it should, because it's horrible and no one wants it.
+Scrustle How are ads ineffective if PewDiePie is making millions off them?
+Scrustle Advertising has always been largerly about exposure. Advertising on TV has no engagement (TV is passive), but they are a multi-billion dollar industry, because exposure is the valuable asset being sold.
+XerxesTexasToast billions of views
+scrustle It is unethical. despite how pitiful it is, walking into a store and stealing a video that costs 1cent is unethical. Walking into a timeshare pitch for the 'free trip' they give and not listening to the pitch, or going to the meetings held to 'sell' the time share, is unethical.
I agree ads are not effective, but it's still theft and still unethical, as you never did your part and did what you could to not fullfill your agreement, aka viewing the ads selected for said content.
+Scrustle If that were the case (that ads don't actually make the companies more money) then they wouldn't be paying thousands of dollars for adspace. Clearly they benefit from it otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Goldroman22 Your example is flawed.
1. If the conditions for entering a store is listening to the an ad or some guy spouting an ad, at choosen people. then pushing him aside/removing that guy is literally breaking the conditions for being in that store, aka you've literally forcefully entered property you weren't given permission to be in.
2. Choosing to zone out/ignore without removing the ad, is a valid way, as none of the conditions say you have to pay attention.
3. when you deny a place/person money, by breaking the coniditions for being somewhere or getting to watch XYZ content, you've effectively stolen and entered without permission.
Yes, ads are measured to make money on what's spent, and are being something of a gamble for them. Though when you literally introduce an element to cheat the system without any effort on your part on each one (aka ignoring them, or letting them spout on and finish without clicking or acknowledging it) is fundamentally breaking the entire setup, and if enough do it, it becomes enough of a threat consider alternate actions. (such as even more intrusive ads, malware, subscription models, lawsuits to those whom produced the sw that cause the problems, etc)
That is theft, but in your example, that's breaking the law, breaking &entering, and physical assault.
I had turned off my AdBlock for a time because I was beginning to feel guilty about not supporting channels and websites that I liked. I shortly had no choice but to turn it back on because repeatedly I would get the same unskippable ad for a horror film.
I am a big baby when it comes to these things. When a horror movie ad comes on on tv, I have to leave the room or change the channel temporary. Otherwise, it's likely that I will be unable to stop thinking about said ad and have nightmares.
There are a few websites that I have Adblock turned off on because silent ads that are off to the side of the website don't bother me. It's the ones that make sound that you can't shut up that I have to block.
Ads are not inherently reprehensible to the viewer (any viral ad will prove this), but rather the misdirection and sometimes malicious and exploitative nature associated with advertising is. People aren't against the idea of the advertisement itself, but rather the idea of being asked for something without any demonstration or goodwill towards the consumer.
This also somewhat explains why branding is important; how people view a company will also shape how they view their advertisements as well. Pragmatically, the company will also need money somehow to keep it running in the meantime, while waiting for people to perceive a company as "good" or "likeable," and if a company's revenue is an advertising model well, just about anyone's money will do just fine.
All ads are evil and I will never stop blocking them. You don't speak for me.
I use adblocker for one simple reason, it fixes the majority of the internet. I don't like it when a youtube video doesn't feel like loading or it breaks so I have to refresh the page and watch the ad all over again before maybe the video will play. So many times an ad will buffer instantly and a video will not.
For someone who has bandwidth caps and slow internet speeds, I do whatever I can to minimize it. I don't like when a website is broken because it prioritizes the ads to the content. I don't like it when I sit back to watch something on youtube from my TV that I have to get up to click the X on the ad.
And that's part of the problem, ads want you to participate too much. If there was just a short video ad before or after a video, no longer than a TV commercial, then I would be fine. But RUclips either puts an ad during the video that you have to X out or just ignore while it just contaminates the video with its presence or you have to get up to click "Skip ad" because youtube decided you needed a 45 minute commercial.
Screw. That.
I want to support content creators, but I have no money. I know that means ads are for me but ads try really hard to make me hate them. It's not the content of the ads always, I don't even care that it knows where I browse. I just want it to stop getting in the way of my content and to stop demanding interaction.
Play a 30 second - 1 minute ad before any content that is ad supported. Have some non-flashy/gawdy banners around the content as I read/watch it and we are good to go. Otherwise I won't care.
Now if you excuse me I have a 45 minute ad for converse to finish watching before I watch your last weeks comment response video.
I also want to say that I hate ads that try to disguise itself as content. Talking about the top of google searches and reddit.
And others have already mentioned the malware side of it. My family all use adblock because it protects them which means less work for me to clean their computers.
Let's not forget how for a while RUclips was allowing Flash ads on the
side that would play audio. So in the middle of trying to watch a video
and listen to what the RUclipsr was saying, all of a sudden it's just a
mess of audio very difficult to decipher. The obvious solution is then
to: 1) Pause the RUclips video 2) Scroll down to the offending ad 3)
Pause or mute said ad 4) Scroll back up to the RUclips video 5) Try to
locate the approximate video position at which the ad started
interrupting 6) Unpause the video. And with how frequently RUclips has
made updates to how it buffers/plays video, sometimes this will cause a
complete rebuffer, depending on the current system RUclips has
implemented. So I went with a simpler solution: 1) Download AdBlock 2)
Install AdBlock.
Advertisers who don't want to get silenced need to learn to make themselves less in need of silencing. If we gather to a certain place to enjoy a certain thing (video content in this case), any advertiser wishing to garner favorable opinion from its would-be patrons should take care not to disrupt the actual thing that brought us there in the first place.
One great example of RUclips advertising done right is CinemaSins. Companies approach CinemaSins to buy advertising. The team then writes an ad for the product/service using their own style of comedy (the same style as feature within the actual content) and places it after their videos preceded by a warning that an ad is coming up. It's honest, straightforward, and directly appeals to the target audience: fans of CinemaSins' unique sense of humor. I rarely close a video early, as I actually enjoy seeing the ads. And of course, this method gets through any and all ad-blocking software because it's just part of the actual uploaded video file. I call that a win/win/win.
+andrew dacunto He was bad at computers until he found out how to use Adblock.
+Ularg I think RUclips isn't even the main Problem. Yes, RUclips Ads can be too long and a little annoying (I remember there was a whole Let's Play Episode out as an ad and it was skipable after 1:30 Minutes, thank god 5 seconds is standard now...), but RUclips is one of the few places i have deactivated AdBlock.
The Main Problem is that on some websites (especially NSFW ones) you have to close SO MANY ads before you can even try to concentrate on the content. Once it was so bad that i couldn't even perform ONE click because that would always open up a new pop-up window. How am I supposed to use that website then? If the people hosting websites would implement Ads that are not as annoying, i would be happy do delete my AdBlock.
+ZombieTux one solution would be to not visit NSFW websites ;-)
Interestingly enough, Patreon says one of the most popular rewards on their platform is "Adblock forgiveness." The idea being that if you're supporting the creator directly, then it's okay to use Adblock since you're likely providing them with more revenue than they would earn if you only supported them via ads.
cool to see you here. you should get pbs idea on your channel.
I'd love to have Mike on the podcast! I would learn so much about the world!
+NerdSync Awesome point.
***** Thanks!
yes, adblock forgiveness is a GREAT idea /s
if a yt creator does it, google wont get its share of the ad revenue, and if everyone would do it, youtube would die without funding
also what about all the other creators with no patreon etc?
What, no patreon mention at all?
+THE BATLORD I don't block ads myself, but I do support things on Patreon and disable all plugins unless I specifically let them run. That kills most of the worst ads while still supporting content.
+THE BATLORD Patreon is awesome, but it doesn't support the distributors (i.e., RUclips) which also deserve a fair share of support. The system is not so simple.
+THE BATLORD The channel "In a Nutshell" even stated adblocking was accaptable if you support them with patreon.
+1ucasvb RUclips has RUclips Red though, which does the same thing as Patreon along with supporting youtube itself.
Yes, only recently. Still, if RUclips was subscription only it wouldn't be as popular. Serving ads is unfortunately a very real necessity of the model.
Print ads are static and supremely easy to ignore. Don't want to see an ad in the magazine, just don't look at that part of the page. They are the least intrusive. Radio ads are more intrusive, but because of the brief nature of radio content (songs onky last about 2 min each and are repeated multiple tines a day on multiple stations) it's really easy to just chang the channel and find new content. TV ads are structured intimately with the narrative pace of the show. Commercial breaks are used masterfully by the show runners to build tention, and the commercials themselves are simply of higher quality than most of those found online.
Online ads are cheap, very intrusive, downright obstructive to viewing the content I'm seaking, distracting to an annoying degree, and if I'm using mobile data (of witch I pay to have about 15 gigs a month), cost me money to view. It costs money to view online ads. Online ads is a blend of the worst parts of other media's ads.
It's truly a terrifying demonstration of how completely capitalism has pervaded our ideology that it's considered to be a reasonable position that one has a moral obligation to watch advertising.
So it is unreasonable to pay for the effort of the various creators that provide content and platforms? It like using public utility and refusing to pay tax, and if every body refused to do so then the Internet will be a rather empty place.
+Greedy Milk If you need ads for your website to exist, you better find another profession.
+yunikage Hmm well said.
+Jason King Like facebook Or Google? Or I don't know maybe the site your using now?
+Greedy Milk Patreon, merchandise, paid sponsors. Maybe when RUclips was still getting off the ground adblocking really was a significant block of creators income, but any semi-popular youtuber that knows how to network today will have a means of getting money from people who enjoy their content outside of youtube views. I recall something like 70-80% of one youtuber's patreon were people who used adblock that still wanted to give support to the creator, their contribution almost always was more than what the creator would've got from the views if they didn't have adblock as well.
I think it's worth bringing up that not all ads are created equal. It's been noted in every gender advertising study ever that ads are actively harmful to women and girl's self-esteem and adblocker tends towards blocking are the ads that promote harmful images (as opposed to, as a completely random example, a Dropbox ad). This can really skew the ratio between desire for quality content and the desire to avoid ads. Harder to enjoy watching a clip of anything after being reminded I don't have flawless skin or that this yogurt/cereal/anything can help me "shed those extra pounds."
+chibipandora Or ads with half-naked women that are basically prostitutes or some kind of spamware. On one website they had ads for Smite. Let's just say that it wasn't male characters they used to promote the game.
+Ikajo "This video game is for men only!!!!"
+chibipandora haha, I like it. Pit internet crusades against each other and see who wins!
Ularg Yeah, I've seen that as well. Let's just say I wont stop using adblocker any time soon.
I wish for an adblocker that hide the ad but send the "This guy saw your thing" message to the adserver.
+Stol Theds That would be pretty good
+Stol Theds I don't think that would work for very long. What company would pay for ad-space that doesn't get viewed? Eventually you'd end up with a similar problem.
+abexuro Here's the thing though, if the program is sending the single the ad server wants there is no real proof if you did or did not view said ad.
+Stol Theds same here, even if it meant staring at a blank screen for the duration of the ad, just as long as I don't have to watch the ad itself, some of them are downright repugnant
+Hellfire918 It doesn't matter, companies will look at results, the hosts of the add servers will tell their clients, look 90% of the people saw your add!!! And then the company who issued the add will see it 's actually not working, sales aren't going high and they've just lost money for internet advertising so in time they'll just stop doing it altogether.
Capitalism just needs to adapt, simple as that. I'm sure the almighty free market can think of some way to circumvent adblock without being too obvious. Product placement comes to mind, and would blend in nicely with so many RUclips channels that are effectively "talking head with cluttered background."
+I Am Enormous how about instead, we adapt to the nihilism of capitalism-- by not doing capitalism anymore. We're at a cultural cul de sac. I feel like there is no way forward from here. The only way out is through a new system that doesn't rely on the insane logic of market forces.
m8 I'm just talking about adblock here
+Punk Patriot Life isn't all that bad, bud
+I Am Enormous One alternative used in this very video. "Sponsoring", an ad in the video itself. This comment was brought to you by Dropbox.
The problem might be the middle man. Content creators sell ad space to some adcompany, they then fill the space with random, malicious(virus/malware) or user directed(tracking) ads.
These content creators should sell the space to a company selling a relevant and topical product, get sponsored by those companies.
A garage rock band could have ads for music and audio gear on therir site, next to ads of their own merchandise and stuff.
A youtuber doing woodworking videos could be sponsored by microjig. :P
+Punk Patriot I hate money, but until scarcity is not a thing, I am not sure we can create a better system.
I love my adblocker and feel no "moral" pings about using it. To me, adblockers are just >> fast forward 2.0. Problem solved.
If it is hurting the advertisers so badly to "give" away this "free" content then they need to stop whining and just straight up charge for the content...then they can see how far that will get them.
What advertisers are truly upset about is that they are no longer in control of the game. They expect to be able to tell us exactly what to buy and when to buy it and wants us all to be obedient sheep while they rake in our cash. The real issue is that they shocked to have lost the privilege of predicting and controlling our behavior. They no longer have access. We can all make our own purchasing decisions without them, thanks. :-)
Advertisements are a vestigial organ left over from television and print. Ads do not work on the internet because here they are seen for what they are: disruptive manipulations attempting to regulate human behavior to advantage ONLY the advertisers and their clients.
To me, this is all a false concern. I am happy to be free of invasive advertising. Good riddance.
Indeed. Interesting how we are told ad nauseam that the unprecedented amount of data collection, the negligence (at best) or 'selling out' (at worst) of privacy/security and the aloof profiling like lab rats - is all to generate metrics with which they can provide us with a "better experience" while in turn make more money for themselves. But when in response to their "better experience" we vote with our ad blockers, they don't see it as data, metrics or consumer behavior that ought to be factored into their strategies.
Do you think we, the youtube viewers will have to pay to use youtube in the next 10 years? Also, if we choose not use youtube, we don't have any other platform which has quality and is also free
Please someone pin this comment
how about instead of tracking the viewer you just let them build their own add profile. they can tell you if they have pets or children and if they like cars or fast-food or fashion. maybe even let them give feedback on the adds.
+Omni nulla Google ads actually do let you do this to an extent.
+Omni nulla Isn't that kinda like what Hulu does with it's Ad rating system? Anyway- that does sound like a good idea. :D
I'd be willing to go for this to some degree, if it could get rid of birth control ads, opt out of specific ads that use annoying attempts at comedy, and have it stop trying to program my brain to like certain cars when I'm nowhere near actually buying my own car.
*****
Exactly. I don't mind watching adds all together but some of them are so stupid and ineffective that it makes me mad. It's not good for my blood pressure to watch them.
+Omni nulla :D
I think there should be an ad filter which ensures no bugs embedded and ensures a clear, obvious 'x' button to close the ad.
+Harrison Harris Adblock Plus does this as far as i know, it's extremely customizable!
I like how some youtubers include sponsorship messages inside their videos, its unblockable and just feels more integrated since it is promoted by the actual youtuber and not an adman with a smexy voice
+Sudo Tgm some youtubers really need to get better at disclosing the sponsorship though
I saw two videos the other day from different youtubers who were sponsored by the same company (an iPhone game) and they couldn't have been more different
one had "Ad" in the corner of the thumbnail, mentioned the video was sponsored in the title, had "paid promotion" in the corner of the video, mentioned the video was sponsored in the video itself and at the top of the description where you're less likely to miss it once again pointed out the sponsorship - it was impossible to not know it was sponsored
the other one simply had one line at the bottom of the description saying it was sponsored and that was it, they even read it out this bullshit blatant advertising spiel halfway through the video (like, "oh and I've been playing this game it's really great etc") with the perfect opportunity to mention the video was sponsored and didn't take it
on the point of it being promoted by the youtuber not an adman, I can remember an episode of the Startup podcast a while ago where the hosts of ReplyAll were having a moral dilemma over the wording of some of their ads because they read the ads themselves and they decided to not do any ads from then on with any sort of personal endorsement since they felt uncomfortable with anything that strayed into product endorsement territory
+Karl Franks I'm fairly sure the second one is breaking the law unless it's a really old video.
Or the law in their country might be different but I honestly have no idea how it works with RUclips being in the US and everything.
But the rules on stuff like that I'm fairly sure say it has to be mentioned in the video preferably with audio and video and not just at the end it has to be at the start or around the beginning.
Cally well I just went back and checked, turns out they had technically put that it was a paid promotion in the video...with an annotation...meaning anyone watching it on TV, mobile, or just has annotations disabled can't actually see that...
+Sudo Tgm
What the hell is a smelly voice?
"Now I feel bad for using adblock" said no adblock user EVER!!!
while playing this video I downloaded adblock
The reason I Switch to ad-blocker is because of the ads that started talking to me. Don't do that.
Second reason is because certain websites load slow as all get out for some reason without it.
Lastly, and also one the BEST reasons I started using ad-block was due to ads popping up before youtube videos. It never used to be this bad, mostly because I could hit the neat little skip button to just skip the ads the second they started, but then they started delaying the skip button. Then some of them don't HAVE skip buttons.
And the worst case offender is when an ad-stops a a video mid way to advertise something I could care less about.
If and when these things stop happening I'll turn off ad block.
+Zeik War
I hate listening to a physics lecture or an analysis of "what is reality?" interrupted by a toothpaste advertisement.
Oh, and music, NEVER INTERRUPT A MUSIC PIECE WITH AN AD, EVER!!!!! Ugh.....
Do people actually have to click on the ad to support content, or do they simply have to view them?
I don't feel guilty for using AdBlock at all. I feel bad for the content creators and all but there is no way I'm turning it off as long as the internet ads don't change to become even slightly bearable.
No Mike, I'm not turning off my Ad-blocker on your videos.
There is a very easy solution, but the onus is on the user. Most Ad Blockers let you select sites not to block. If you want to support a site, unblock it. The problem there is that most people are unaware of this option, or just indifferent. The solution to both is education.
I know I am a little late. But I use AdBlock because advertisement never worked for me to begin with. In Television and radio adds. Because my realistic pessimistic outlook of the world, allows me to see advertisement as a dishonest franchise, that uses emotional manipulation and trickery to get people to buy your products. Be annoying as you like, I know your product doesn't work or won't do what I think it should do. I also know you're simply trying to pander to my consumerist mindset. However, considering I have no money and am financially instable, I only buy what I need. And have always been the type of consumer who is worried about budget and have only ever focused on what I need.
DON'T USE ADBLOCK!
use Ublock Origin
I use Adblock plus
Don’t use either
Use Adguard Ad Blocker they don’t track you like the other ones
Why? Because when I want to watch a video, I want to watch it NOW. I don't need to be shown "your product". I have everything I want in my life and if there comes a time when I think of something I do want, I'll Google it.
I've never used adblockers but some of my friends do and I try to convince them to stop, and sometimes they bring up something like "yeah but some websites over exaggerate" and they're right so I wanted to find an ad blocker that only works in a blacklist way meaning that it only hides ads on websites the user has asked for and that all the other websites have ads by default which I couldn't find. If there is a developer reading this, contact me ^^
+LazyMasterGamer Ad Block Plus does the opposite of this; white-listing sites that you wouldn't mind having ads on and removing them from the rest, but to do it the way your asking is extremely tedious for the user. I'm sure there are more places that I don't want ads than places I do, so having a white-list is far easier.
+Shake N Dake Ad Block Plus whitelists companies that pay to be "trusted" as unobtrusive ad providers.
+LazyMasterGamer as far as i know Adblock Plus is eminently customizable, and you could turn of anything but your personally black-listed sites with just a click or two.....?o
that's kind of their point, they are giving you your choice.
+Shake N Dake AdBlock Plus primarily works with blacklists... You subscribe to lists that other people update, but those lists are blacklists (when you install it, you usually automatically subscribe to "EasyList"). You can also choose to not subscribe to any list and maintain your own blacklist (what you wanna do, +LazyMasterGamer). However, it is possible to deactivate rules or make a whitelist rule that overwrites part of one or several already present blacklist rule(s) (so you're not *completely* wrong, +Shake N Dake).
There should be no ads on the Internet. Period.
I think it feels "blockable" because those internet ads go through our screen after going through our network and our processors. So private property and so on. "A man's home is his castle". Though I don't necessarily agree with this previous statement, I do think it has value in this discussion.
Ad supported video supports not supporting ad blocking.
An ad supporting other ads.
+Alex DaLyen And you, subscriber, enjoy the content of the video without any direct monetary contribution to it.
+Peregrine Hawthorn and? I've donated to PBS. But PBS is also supposed to get funding from the Government, which is basically nonexistent now. And I pay taxes. And besides that, capitalism creates so much overproduction, yet we have no way to use any of that surplus because of capitalism's internal contradictions-- surplus means shortage. Surplus, arrived at through exploitation of the people who would have bought it, means that nobody can buy the thing they made. So they throw it in the ocean or whatever, to artificially create scarcity, to bring the price up, so that those who can afford the buy the thing pay more. The system we live under is insane and illogical. Why not put our surpluses towards making sure everybody has their basic needs met, guaranteed. Then if people want to work to create art and culture, they can do that. And if they are good, they will get known for being good. And they won't have to in the meantime worry about losing their apartment or about not being able to buy food.
@PBS Idea Channel: I'll summarize some of my feelings, as well as several I agreed with in the comments below:
1.) A lot of website ads are very shady clickbaits that can possibly install viruses and malware onto your computer. It's mostly because of these ads that I installed adblock software in the first place. Some websites will personally screen their advertisements to make sure they are safe, and notify you that turning off adblock is okay. In these cases, I will happily turn it off. While ads are annoying, I'm willing to tolerate them if asked nicely.
2.) While tracking your cookies and invading your private data without asking permission is a big no-no, I do believe that customizable advertising is the way of the future. Something similar to Hulu's ad rating system, for example. If you're going to waste my time, at least do it with something I'm actually interested in.
3.) Video advertisements for RUclips and the like would be tolerable if they didn't run HD and take up so much time and bandwidth. Seriously, do you know how frustrating it is to wait ten minutes through a buffering ad, just so you can watch your two-minute video? (And don't get me STARTED on those random non-skippable, super long ads!)
4.) I can understand why adblock software can be especially appealing for mobile users, because the lack of screen space causes the advertising to be even more invasive and distracting than usual. (Plus, the touchscreen interface makes them 10x harder to close) Advertisers might have it easier if they adjusted their ads to appeal to this market.
5.) Personally, I've always hated traditional media advertising in general. It hardly ever convinces me to actually buy a product, and just feels like an attack by the company. What really appeals to me is the "RUclipsr-style" advertising- where instead of some spokesperson in a select piece of media, someone you've gotten to know/trust personally suggests you try something. And I don't mean just hiring someone to be in a commercial, I mean having an organic experience. It's like the difference between a friend/colleague telling you to try something and a door-to-door salesman. While both are much better than a poster, the former is much more effective.
That's all I have to say. Interested to hear your thoughts. :)
Think about the chain that gets money to the "content". If you watch an ad but do not purchase the product, you have not paid for content, you have only leeched the content and the advertiser's money as well as wasting your time. Therefore, if you are not planning on purchasing the advertised products, or do not have the disposable income to purchase those products, it is actually more ethical to not watch the advertising.
All this being said, I do think that advertising itself is not ethical. Its aim is to brainwash a person into buying something they do not need. Not only is this unethical in and of itself, needless consumption by the wealthy (which includes nearly all of the western world, when considered on a global scale) is the leading cause of global warming and pollution.
I think that the sentiment that people are not willing to pay for the content that they enjoy is flawed as well. Content providers need to become better at marketing their work beyond advertising.
Advertising is grossly inefficient, wasting thousands of human hours (producing the advertisements, and humans stuck watching the advertisements) for small amounts of money, and taking a crazy roundabout way to get the money to the content providers.
Content would be cheaper and waste less human time, therefore improving the quality of life of everyone if advertising were banned.
If you do not use adblock, you are increasing worldsuck for nothing.
''If you do not use adblock, you are increasing worldsuck for nothing.''
BOOOM! Rachel Evans brings the fire!
I made friends with some ads. they show me when there's a sale in a nearby store, or in an internet store I recently visited. They show me new internet shops I didn't know existed, which is nice.
I didn't pick up an ad-blocker until a few months ago, mostly because I know that the ads on the videos I watch go to paying some of my favorite content creators, but I had a prolonged issue of sidebar ad that would continuously scroll the page down from the videos I was watching and that was my line.
The day that internet access costs nothing is the day I turn off Ublock Origin.
You know, usually in meat space, ad disengagement just drives better ads. Why are Geico ads so great? Because you'd flip the channel if they weren't. You would flip it without fear you were punishing the shows you like or that you were somehow morally reprehensible for doing it. And yet despite this, most people stay and willingly sell their eyeballs for a few seconds, presumably because those ads are just entertaining and informative enough to merit that.
Why are internet ads so terrible? Because if we opt out of them, somehow we, the users, are the bad guys, punishing only ourselves and the online places we love. Yet if we don't opt out, we're still punishing ourselves and the very devices on which our content consumption relies. It's this disgusting catch-22, predicated on our lack of privacy rights online. There is no other media platform on which any country in the world allows forced ad viewership, individually tracked ad-viewing, or content provider punishment for insufficient ad views. It shouldn't be this way online either. Bad ads aren't my moral responsibility to watch, they're the website and their ad provider's responsibility to fix.
+GelidGanef For the record, I actually don't use ad block, I'm just not very happy about it ;)
My eyeballs aren't paying for anything, ever again.
My reasoning for using ad block plus is that many websites are so full of ads that some websites become unreadable or even wouldn't load within 30 seconds on my home wifi. I respect content creators and what they do and it is because I enjoy the content that I want to view it without ads for my amazon shopping list blocking my screen.
I run adblock to get rid of inappropriate ads, but I allow sites like RUclips through so I can support content creators. People work hard to make videos, I don't want to block their source of income.
To Adblock! There is no question about it!
I use ad blocker for 1 important reason: Ads are malicious in nature so i will not subject myself willingly to them.
Now what does that statement really mean?
First, lets define how Ads are malicious. Simply put: To take my time for a vast multitude of products i have zero interest in.
Second, i dont want my PC loaded with trackers. And, lets not forget accidentally clicking on of these things and having malware, spyware, phishing attacks, trackers, data usage, ect. opened up to my PC. Not all ads are harmless. That pepsi ad might really steal all your personal information.
Third, "I will not subject myself willingly to them" this is simple. Straight forward. There is ad blocker, so i will use it. Ad blocker is free. I will use it. Ads cost my time.
Simple equation: Content + Ads = Time. If i watched 5, 30 second ads a day every day for a year that's going to be a lot of my time wasted to not even watch content. I pay for my internet bill, i shouldnt have to pay for every video i watch.
Like you said earlier, "I work enough" This cant be any more true.
When i am driving down the road i can ignore an ad on a billboard. When i am watching a TV show, i can leave the room during an ad to do something else or just sit through it, But on the internet i am in control and ads are intrusive. I have to wait to skip? Not when i have the power to say no. I can't filter all things from this world. But i am given an option to filter it so that is what i will do.
If you want to pay for my time. Then pay me for my time. Up front. I'll watch as many ads as you want if you pay me. Pay someone else for my time? What do i get from this? The ability to view the content? So you're going to blackmail me by holding my content hostage.
I don't apologize for your loss of revenue. This is the markets way of telling you to innovate. This is the consumer speaking their mind. This is my little way of saying "Come up with a system that doesn't invade my privacy or pay me for my time in a way where i am earning it not sitting through it."
If i got paid to not use ad blocker and watch ads, hell yeah i'd stop using ad blocker. But there wont be a compromise. So i wont compromise either.
Adblock all the way.
The reason I started using ad blocking software is because at the time, the vast majority of ads were fake, dripping with malware, and would intentionally pop up just as I was about to click anything. These ads would show up everywhere, from messageboards to news articles.
The main reason I use an ad blocker is because I hate having my videos on youtube or the article I'm reading interrupted. When I'm binding on videos I dont want to be stopped and forced to watch a 30 second ad or have to click on the skip ad button just to find out I've either already watched that video or don't care to after I started. Same with any article I'm reading. When I'm half way through a paragraph on my phone and ads start loading making me lose my place or a large screen filling popup takes me away from it I'll feel less like finishing it and not going back again.
I'll support the people I follow in other ways. Such as buying T-shirts from them or supporting them on patreon.
I am wondering, do we want to support people who lie for living? is it worth being tracked by every step because they want to lie to me better?
Yes it is
Framing ad blocking as a question of "ethics" is absurd.
+Michael Kovarik It also shows a lack of understanding what ethics actually are and what you do with them.
+Diggnuts You should see his ridiculous discussion on feminism. This idea channel is only fun to watch when it picks up retarded discussions like "is Super Mario actually scizophrenic?"
Basically - whenever some random internet-person has seeded the idea.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune 500 companies, or to take arms against a sea of sponsorship...
I never appreciated how helpful is host file in windows and adblock. Thanks for making my day a better day :)
It is very curious, I downloaded Adblock years ago, I realised/ was told/scolded that the content I watch depends on the ads I'm blocking, and I started disabling adblock in places where I felt like "My 0.001 cent is well earned."
Lately, as I transit more frequently around the same places in the internet, I realise my adblocker is usually disabled. I guess ads didn't bother me as much as they used to once I discovered that they are not there to annoy me - albeit they do.
And, as is probably very well known, things like Patreon are nowadays what appears to be the modern solution. 'If you don't like ads in your face but you love what I do, no worries! Just pay me how much you think I'm worth. And hey, you get extra stuff too!'
So far, it seems to be working very well for lots of people. o.O
I start watching adds when they start paying into my monthly subscription to the internet.
Whitelist the product creators YOU support, and therefore PERSONALIZE your entertainment.
Can't we just Patreon the content instead?
I read this once:
"The internet is a pull medium, not a push medium.
I simply refuse to request ads."
The reason I use an ad blocker is simple. There is either more ad then content, the ads block the content, or the ads are just awful and flashy. Make descrete little ads that don't take up more room than the content, and doesn't block it, and I'll consider going back (yes, I really would--I've turned it off for certain websites to give them ad money).
I mean, how are ads ethical in the first place?
I have adblock enabled on youtube, but if I could specifically exclude, say, channels that im subscribed to i would. Wouldn't that make sense? I don't want to give someone money for all the other, shitty content i view and couldn't care less about.
Personally I believe the advertising industry to be a sinkhole of money and production that provides no service (unless if you consider manipulation a service). I'm sorry for content creators, but at the same time I think content would be better if it was directly funded by the people viewing it, either through something like patreon or real subscriptions.
+MrJethroha also the in built adds like you do at the end of your videos are a whole lot more appealing than almost anything an advertising agency could show me.
+MrJethroha you can do that try reading adblocks manuel
Get rid of autoplay ads, intrusive ads, and ads with sound, and THEN i will turn off ad-block.
This has been on my mind a lot. Particularly with RUclips. I want to support the people I really enjoy, and want to skip ads on other channels that seem more mainstream. What I would like is an ad-block service that tailors to your preferences. So for example if I put that I want to support animal rescue groups, than everytime I visit pet finder or something like that, I watch ads. It's the same things that advertisers do now, they track what you like, so track what I would feel good about watching an ad for! Tell me, "by watching this 3 min ad you are giving $1 to the ASPCA." That is what would make ad block obsolete.... in my opinion.
AdBlocker user since 2004, I turn it off when ads become less intrusive and decently personalized during my entire browsing experience . Advertising promotes consumerism and with such a powerful tool as the internet, people can look and find what they are looking for at the time when they need it .
Anytime I see promoted ads and listing, I skip those .
Advertisers finally learn how to advertise in a stylish, humble and custom tailored way(and not by guessing what you may like, but what you tell them to show you) .
Adblock everything until they go extinct, if i like something i buy, i don't need an add for chocolate, i will go down to store and buy some :D
I don't use adblock because I'm not tech savvy and I don't know how. And I'm perfectly fine with that fact. What's another 5 seconds and a click before watching yet another cat video?
+MostLikelyMortal If you use the google chrome web browser, you are just one google search and two clicks away from no more ads on the internet. Being tech savvy is not a requirement. (google search for the word "adblock", click on the first result, click the add to chrome button).
+MostLikelyMortal It took me literally less than 5 minutes to look up and get adblock on chrome it's really *really* easy.
+MostLikelyMortal Enjoy your willful ignorance. Advertisers LOVE people like you.
+MostLikelyMortal Malware delivered by an infected ad server is a concern
+MostLikelyMortal and the vast majority of internet users will do just the same. ad-blockers will always be a minority as so many will always remain ignorant of them. any amount of estimated revenue lost to blockers is meaningless without comparing it to the ridiculous amount making it through just fine, and RUclips is just not going broke any time soon.....!D
is it ethical that some youtubers make shitty 10 minutes video 2 or 3 times a day, videos without any real work or skills behind them, watched mostly by teenagers and they make huge amount of money, like 10000+ $ a month? is it ethical?
Sure, why wouldn't it be? Those "shitty RUclipsrs" caught a lucky break; I think we would all love to get lucky like that.
If someone finds a way to make a living without sacrificing half their free-time, more power to them.
I think you definitely need to do a follow-up to this video that goes into SEO Optimization. When you talked about advertisers and synchronicity the only thing I could think of is how every RUclips channel had a back to the future video on Oct 25, and how every RUclips Channel had some kind of reaction or commentary on the new star wars trailer.
I adblock everything possible and support people I like by buying their merchandise (if I like it) or donations/tipping/becoming their patron. I do this because I believe advertising is incredibly damaging to society. It undermines our mental health and self-image, invades privacy, and is a waste of productivity.
Man, the Dropbox ad at the end, totally impervious to ad blockers, adds a whole extra dimension to this question. I wonder if it felt weirder than normal doing it this week.
I am an adblock user and I frequently think about this dilemma of 'free' but ad supported content.
For me it some point a breach of trust happened. Let me explain. When I go to a newspaper website to read an article and I turn of my adblock I get bombarded with ads. And I don't mean the ad in the sidebar or that squeezes in somewhere between two paragraphs. I mean ads that frame the content of the page, blinking, showing me half a video, and in the worst case play some kind of audio. For god's sake I am on a newspaper website trying to read an article but I can't focus because directly adjacent is a blinking, video like, GPU-melting Flash ad playing.
This has been exacerbated by pop over ads that make it impossible to access the content, opening new websites when clicked on.
I have the same issue with buying a magazine, where I pay money and still get the feeling that I get 30% of pages content and 70% ads or native ads articles. The same goes for state owned TV. I pay my national TV license fee and I am okay with it because they produce meaningful content that I consume through various channels. But as I pay those fees how is it that I still get to see the sponsor of the weather news or some pharma commercial before a show? What are those fees for then?
Adblock for sure is not an ethical solution because it's like with many laws, regulations, and all kinds of broadband solutions to single infringement problems: they affect everybody, when they are in fact meant for a few.
AdBlocker, something I cant go on internet without.
Like a windshield of my car while driving on a rainy day.
A thing that just struck me is this, watching YT or generally consuming many Ad-supported media isn't actually free, even with AdBlock in place.
I pay a monthly contract for my internet at home, I own two PCs which I have already paid for as well. A phone, which didn't come for free either, and for which I'm paying yet another monthly contract.
Living in Germany I also pay a MANDATORY fee for the household I'm living in, just for the possibility I might use/consume publicly owned stations.
I also voluntarily support the media/artists I actually enjoy. I buy games, movies, music and I donate to people I actually want to support directly.
Why does there have to be a middleman with advertising? Before broadcast media, things were also working. That's what publishers are for!
The problem for me, is that the free choice to not read ads in the newspaper or to change the channel while watching tv, is done during my leisure time when I can decide if I have the time or will to consume the ad. Ads on the internet are presented both during leisure and work-related activities and I feel captive. They are also often "sneaky" about their presentation, blocking information etc that I need, and often not being up-front about the nature and duration of the ad. The ads that seem the least offensive to me are in side banners so I can choose to read or not depending on their content, how much time is available and my mood.
I've got a bunch of thoughts on this one, but I don't know exactly where I come down on it, so points to consider.
Reasons why some kind of ad blocking is good
1. Ads and viruses: there are and continue to be ways to use 3rd party ad space, cookies, and pop-ups for malicious purposes. Blocking ads may make the user have a safer experience.
2. Technical issues: if my Internet stutters or cuts out, or my machine has to restart or I simply misclick somehow, why do I have to rewatch all the ads that I already watched? If the ads were a one and done deal, it might be different, but having some kind of ad-blocking option to avoid repeated, excessive ads because my page got refreshed seems fair and quite useful.'
Alternatives to ads?
1. Tax on everyone to pay for infrastructure and content creation.
2. Tax on some people (say a hardware and equipment tax) to pay for content creation.
3. Better payment processing and interfaces so that a user can, at a very granular level, decide if they want to pay for content or watch ads for content.
4. ? (that's all I got)
I block all ads on every page until I feel the content is worth my eye-vertising time (oh, geez). In that way, I get to choose what my eyes pay for. Congratulations, Idea Channel is one of the few channels on youtube that I don't filter with ad block. So, thank you Dropbox for supporting Idea Channel.
Spot on! I though you would elaborate more on the synchronization, but that ok. That is the main problem. I think marketing have to update their text book, because that doesn't seem to work anymore.
All this adblock talk helped me remember to pause my adblock while I'm youtubing
There are also (non-free) options like Google Contributor, where you essentially pay some amount to the content provider and ad distributor to remove some of the ads. It's not perfect, but I'd say it's taking steps in the right direction; it lets you browse generally, supporting the sites you visit just as much as if you ran the ads. Ideally you'd have a system that replaces all of the ads served by a given ad distributor. The problem is ads (and presumably these ad-replacement services) are served using an auction model- you won't know how much you are paying until after you are served the content.
There is also an argument that ad block doesn't actually result in any net revenue loss; people who use ad block are probably not going to buy the product the company was advertising anyway. I'm not sure if anyone has done a study that successfully confirms this, though. Either way, I would say it is still inherently unethical since you are viewing content for free that was not actually provided free of charge.
There was a suggestion I saw once on how to move away from the ad-supported model of the internet, where instead of paying for their content by viewing ads, they contribute a bit of computing power to help mine bitcoins.
Of course this assumes bitcoin becomes a widespread form of payment but it's one of the best suggestions I've seen yet to replace ads.
While I understand many of the concerns on both sides of the adblocking debate, there's a major reason why I will not even consider removing my adblocking software: I have sensory processing disorder. I avoid visual, auditory, and video ads whenever possible because they tend to slice through my focus and disorient me with their intrusive, nearly always unwelcome sensory input. The flashing images, loud and/or repetitive noises, and other common attributes of ads often end up distressing and overwhelming me to the point where I can no longer enjoy whatever I was doing (and sometimes need to take a complete break from everything). For this reason, I have no intention of disabling my adblockers any time soon.
Just going throw my two cents in here because I use adblock. As someone who like to binge watch youtube videos it gets really annoy when it's the same ad over and over and over again before each video you watch, even more so when they are trying to sell something I don't want or need. Life's much better with adblock.
I have an ad blocker installed, I don't run an ad blocker constantly. When an ad comes up that's obnoxious, I block it, and then I inform the website about their obnoxious ad. I find this is ethical because for the most part, web hosts don't want their users to be hurt by their ad content, and generally after blocking the offending ad and reloading, a more acceptable ad replaces it. If there were a system in place where you could let the ad network know "I don't find this acceptable, and I'm blocking it." then i think we might move along to a point where we reach an equilibrium between advertisers and consumers.
I do not have issues with "banner ads." I do not have issues with ads that show before or during a video. I DO have issues with pop-up ads and ads that cover content to push what they're selling. It's like when you are playing your Xbone or PS4 or whatever and suddenly someone starts watching TV right where you were playing Fallout 4.
You can ignore banner ads and tolerate video ads (when you know where they are) but pop-up ads and the like are more of an unexpected punch in the face.
I'm curious how many others feel this way: With the exception of food ads when I'm hungry - ads have no effect on me. When I go to buy something, I go on amazon and look for the highest ratings and (after checking that the ratings don't seem to be BS), that's what I buy. I never buy something because I saw an ad. I never buy what I saw in the ad. Sometimes I don't even know what the ad is for.
There are two huge issues that I have with ads. The first is that, from a security perspective, the chances of running into actively malevolent ads is just way too high for comfort. A lot of the major ad networks have taken are at least doing something to combat this, but the fact that I still see things that, for example, automatically open the Play Store, they are clearly not doing a good enough job yet.
The other big thing is that they can severely degrade the experience. This was touched on a little but in the video, but it goes much deeper than just being distracting. Ads often cause (often serious) issues with performance, battery life, site navigation, downloading a ton of extra data, or even being able to use the site at all. The advertising industry really just generally needs to scale back what they're making their ads do, because ads are a MASSIVE source of bloat when it comes to web content. Somethings wrong when auxiliary content like advertising is consuming the majority of the resources involved with retrieving and viewing a web page.
RUclips red seems to provide a similar share to what people receive from just ads. especially with the fact that many people were using adblocker and now have red instead.
A person on a satellite connection or mobile network pays per unit of data. When one sees an ad in a paper they have already bought the paper. You see an ad on your phone - you're data is being used, essentially paying extra to see an ad. To the user this feels wrong because they perceive a greater opportunity cost when compared to other media.
As some one who travels though the biggest frustration is buffer times. Don't even get me started on how frustrating it is to sit in a hotel with a 128kbp/s down connection waiting the extra 5 minutes while a trailer for a movie in German loads...
My concern with internet ads is more the issue of them being intrusive and obnoxious. Full page ads that hide content until you click them off, video ads that autoplay and have sound enabled, ads with flashing colors to get your attention. These are the things that bother me with ads and why I block. Sites that I do frequent, I leave the blocker off unless they have ads in one of those formats. If we had less intrusive ads that do little besides frustrate visitors, I think the issue would be less pronounced and people might actually want to look at them from time to time. American TV ads are on some level getting that they're not what people want to watch and in some cases are trying to make them actually entertaining to watch (Old Spice, for instance), so maybe online advertising might want to take a look at what people actually WANT to see and provide that.
Seth Godin wrote a book titled "Permissions Marketing" back in 1999 that talks about this disconnect between advertising and the view. The premise is that marketing is ineffective when the consumers don't want to be advertised to and the real way to market to consumers is similar to what was listed in the second half of this video: by understanding when they want to be marketed to and market to them then. The book dates itself by discussing AOL (lol) and Netscape (looooooool) but the premise has held up surprisingly well in the 21st century.
Consumers use Ad-Block because we don't like "Interruptions Marketing" as Godin describes it. Modern consumers prefer to follow a company on Twitter and they don't care if they're being marketed to when they scroll through their feed.
I enable adblock individually on sites where I find the ads invasive. Ads that hijack my web-browsing experience by playing audio when I'm trying to pay attention to something else, or that bypass the ad provider's system in order to spawn pop-ups or pop-unders have encouraged my use of AdBlock more than anything else. When I bring up a music mix on RUclips, I want to hear music, not an alternating pattern of songs and ads like a barber pole where all the red stripes are awful, horrible things... As RUclips doesn't place ads based on total length of the video, but just slaps them on the beginning of every single video, aving AdBlock turned off is a terrible idea if you're watching anything shorter than fifteen minutes -- which, with older videos, is EVERY VIDEO.
I used to use AdBlock and skip ads on RUclips, but recently (starting about a year ago) I've decided to opt out of either one. I appreciate the content people produce, and in the off chance that sitting through an ad pays the creator a small amount, I volunteer my time to support them. Exceptions being very long ads which are not interesting or entertaining enough. Some ads, I might add (pun intended), are even enjoyable to watch repeatedly.
Even though I don't buy any of the products advertised to me, it would be nice to choose which kinds of commercials I'm subjected to, so at the very least I'm updated on products which interest me (video games, electronics, etc.), and/or are entertained by the ad's style (crazy Old Spice commercials). That way the ads are more tolerable and I get to support the media which I'm interested in.
Content creators spend a lot of time to produce the media I enjoy and appreciate, so, I figure, the least I can do is donate 30 seconds or a minute to give them a fraction of a cent (just a guess). While I'd like to live in a world where the creator was paid AND I got their content for free, a happy alternative would be for me to choose the products and the style (satire/comedy/etc.) of the commercials I receive.
This argument, like most arguments revolving around ad-supported content, tends to assume all ads are equally invasive or annoying for the user, and they really aren't. I've generally been fine with Google Ads, since they're mostly a text block on the side of the screen. However, when I'm trying to read a large amount of text for some news or blog post, and there's something flashing siezure-inducing colors in my face, it's a different story.
Worse, many programs use memory-leaking code, flash programs that slow down my browsing, or are security vulnerabilities, even when we ignore all the spyware. My TV doesn't have decaying performance or get viruses from the ads on TV. Worst of all, depending on what browser I'm using at the moment, I can actually run across pop-up ads that are impossible to even close, thus meaning I can't even view the content I "paid for with my eyes".
If you want an "ethical ad blocker", let the ones that are mere banner ads through, and block the ones that use Flash until the advertisers get the message. There was a quote I remember from a former Google employee talking about how the way to deal with ad blockers is to simply stop making ads that people are desperate to want to block.
To add onto my previous comment...
There's this state of mind at play where all responsibility for action seems to lie with the consumer, and it is just assumed that the ad agencies always will just be what they are now, with no responsibility for their own actions.
Again, there's a choice that ad developers make when they create their advertisements about how intrusive, or even abusive, they are with their audience. A quiet banner ad is a different thing from a noisy pop-up that hides the "x" to close it, much less one that seeks to spy upon or take control of your computer. What's the difference between a hostile invasive adware and a forkbomb or other form of virus if you get right down to it? If someone pays money to the host for content hosting costs, does it suddenly become your ethical duty to become infected with a virus while reading your content?
When I went googling for that Google employee quote, I actually came across a different article about a different Google employee starting up a company where he declared that he was "at war" with ad blockers and the people using them, because they were "thieves".
Take a moment to really consider what that means, in terms of the relationship, here. This goes beyond the RIAA or MPAA declaring that people who pirate media, who skip out of participating in the exchange part of the media they are delivering, are thieves, this is the advertising industry declaring that they are at war with literally their whole customer base. The hypothetical role of an advertising agency is one of subtle and skillful persuasion, convincing someone who otherwise wouldn't try something to do so, and, if they're being ethical, be happy with that choice and continue to enjoy whatever they were sold long after that persuasion took place. With this declaration, however, we're talking about a relationship where we aren't being offered a choice, we're being grabbed by the throat, and told to listen, OR ELSE.
While I perfectly understood why the music and movie industry tried to stop piracy, it was their overt hostility to their own audience that really drove most people off from their message. Now, advertisers seem poised to make the same mistake: Declaring war upon and verbally abusing the people they were supposed to be trying to subtly suggest things to.
If they think they can get away with screaming at people to buy their products while they insult us to their faces because they think they hold the only moral high ground in the social contract we are participating within, someone really DOES need to tell them how to do their jobs, and they SHOULD have their efforts undermined until they are taught how to behave in a civil society.
If I want to watch an anime on Crunchyroll, they have commercials at
different breaking points in the show unless I pay for a "premium
subscription", which bypasses the ads by asking me to pay with my actual
money instead of my eyes. (A system I think is perfectly laudable,
although I find it more than slightly annoying that they force the
volume to maximum. I know they do this to prevent people from muting
the video, but there may be good reason I was listening to the show at
20% volume while on a mobile in a crowded spot, and now, there's a
max-volume commercial blaring, disturbing everyone.) There, the ads are
an option, and that, as well as ad blockers that might work in more
sophisticated ways, allowing blocking of specific types of ads/programs
presents a far better path forward for the Internet. Also, it means the more that their advertisements are confrontational, the more people are likely to just spring for the premium package that kills their chance to advertise to people to start with, and that creates a natural feedback loop to advertisers about how far they can push their audience before they face the backlash. Opera has a nice system where I can manually choose which ads to block from a ad-blocking mode entered from a simple right-click drop-down menu of the page in question.
The legitimate problem with advertising is the intrusiveness of ads. I have no problem with non-sound non-flashing banner ads and the like. Simple ads. I'll even sometimes click on stuff even if it doesn't interest me to support sites if they have that type of ads. RUclips almost single-handedly convinced me to GET Ad-Blocker. It was basically the first domino:
I started debating getting Ad-Block back when RUclips started doing video ads. (Again, I used to click the banner ads, and will still click the little bottom-of-video ads if they show up instead.) What happened was I'd get ads that were sometimes longer than the video I was intending to watch. I put a lot of videos on in the background for white noise, so I don't always have the ability to click the next button if I'm in the other room and I'm listening to a music playlist. Further, early in the ad cycle I seem to remember a time before the skip option in the first place. I remember multiple ads coming up over my time on YT that were thirty minutes to an hour long, sometimes for a two minute video. It was repulsive and absurd.
The second was the continued irritation of three types of ads (luckily popups had MOSTLY died by this time, though they'll never be truly dead): sound ads that appear in unidentifiable places on sites; sites where the whole background is an ad link, and if I click out of window and back in, I can occasionally click an ad, lose my place, and stop caring about the content; and those sort-of-popup pop-over ads that stop you from accessing the content until you find the exit, sometimes having to wait a certain length of time before you can even do that.
I am okay with advertisements that aren't intrusive. Give me a banner ad or a personalized square ad on the side of a page or video or whatever, and sure, I'm fine with it. Like I said, I'll sometimes click links, browse for a little bit and make use of the ads, even if the product doesn't fully interest me. Heck, I do surveys for companies, whatever. I'm happy to help places that provide services for me, but you gotta meet me halfway. I am fine with going to a place and having them ask me if I want something from whatever their push sale is. I am not okay with them stopping me for thirty minutes to push something on me I don't want. It's about balance. There need to be kind of self-imposed regulations about what is intrusive and what is not. Advertising is its own sort of beast. It has a motive. It wants to sell things. I will not buy something if I feel put off by the delivery (why I didn't shop at Old Navy for quite a while. I found their ads extremely irritating at one point.)
As such, my arm was somewhat twisted by the arguably unethical lengths online advertisers will go to to force things on me too much, too hard, and for too long, that drove me to use ABP. I tried to avoid it, for a couple years I did, but eventually it wore me down. To this day I still have marked the "allow some nonintrusive advertising" option. I don't want to starve the content providers. I want to see places succeed. You can't do that through underhanded tactics, and I know the providers aren't to blame, it's the ad agencies that accept unacceptable ads onto their service, and receive no reprimand for it. In that way I could almost argue that ad agencies are destroying the content of the web by driving users away.