Flashers are not welcome
A while ago I saw a short spat on Twitter.
A chap was decrying the likes of Adblocker because he said it was leading to the death of the Interweb.
His argument was that people use Adblocker to block advertisements and that sites that relied on those advertisements were losing revenue and ultimately were heading for a fall. Even worse, he said that those same sites would have to revert to sponsored articles in order to stay alive, which would lead to bias and corrupted content.
Let's examine this argument.
I use Adblocker Plus for the simple reason that I hate advertising. When I visit a site I do not want to be regaled by distracting, garishly coloured things flashing at me trying to entice me to buy their wares. I don't give a flying fuck if the site claims it's losing revenue because of my actions, because it isn't. Those distracting pieces of crap only earn cash for the site owner if they are clicked, and I would never click on them even if they were there. All they do is piss me off and make me less likely to ever visit the site again.
Sometimes advertisements creep past the block, but they are invariably text based things which I can easily ignore. The flashy image ones though take time to load and I really do not, under any circumstances, want to see them.
I did run Google Ads once on this site, I confess. Because I didn't want to piss people off I stuck 'em to one side and waited for the money to roll in. Roll in it did. They promised me they would issue a cheque every month once there was more than $100 in my account, and indeed I did get a cheque – after about eighteen months. I decided that $60 a year wasn't worth the hassle and irritation of seeing them so I canceled my account [though I think they may still owe me about $4].
As for the argument that if advertising dies that sites will have to rely on sponsored articles, I frankly couldn't stop laughing. Are they seriously suggesting that at present we are getting the whole unbiased story? Do they honestly suggest that we are getting the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without any political or financial influence? Seriously?
So my Adblocker stays.
I had a go on this on a day or so back. If sites rely on forcing people to download their adverts at their own cost, then they shouldn't be too surprised when people decide to block them. If they cannot come up with another way of raising revenue, then too bad.
Yes, I use Adblock too. I use it because I fail to see why I should pay to have advertisements for tat I don't want and will never buy thrust into my face without consent.
Indeed you did. I had forgotten what with all the excitement of life.
There is one site I visit occasionally where I can't play their video unless I switch off Adblocker. I switch it off and they launch into a series of advertisements. Is this supposed to make me buy? I go off and make a cuppa tea or something until their little "ad break" is over. It is not an inducement to buy – it is a fucking irritant. The only possible reason is that they can go to the advertisers and say that that video had been watched X times which is utterly meaningless.
Adblock is invaluable for folks with a limited data allowance, i e most mobile deals.
Absolutely. Nothing worse than sitting, waiting for some damned ad to appear before you can get to the content and knowing that it's sucking up the data.
Homely lady from Russia would love to meet you. That's the kind of ad that's hard to Adblock. But if a leaflet with a similar message comes through my letterbox addressed to The Occupant, I'll know what to do.
I have never seen those on a web site, but there again I have seen precious few due to my blocking. Are they the same as the F~ckbuddy who keeps writing to me? If it's any help, they "just want to get my pu$̟$͊y f~cked hard" apparently.