Is this the right move by content creators?

Is this the right move by content creators?

Other urls found in this thread:

reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

not really usually i just open the web console and remove the overlay with one move.
that is if i really have to visit a site but usually i just skip the ones that do this.

No, the right move was to not be so obnoxious with ads in the first place.

yeah also you can alter your useragent string so that the site thinks you are a google bot and it will show you anything.
also if they do this a lot adblocker will adapt and disable these scripts.

ad blockers isn't just about blocking ads, it's about blocking mallicious content hidden in ads that they don't take responsibility for. If they're going to insist people stop using ad blocks then they should take responsibility for malicious content hidden in those ads and any damages caused by them.

In short, no, it'll cost more in the long run.

also, it won't be long till ad blockers adapt to this stuff

How should content creators make money then?

They should get a real job.

>They should get a real job.
This. We didn't weep when all the people who manually sorted wheat grain from stalks lost their jobs because of technological advancement, why now?

Nope, their business model is busted

Thinking only in the now is a characteristic of one with low IQ.

Why should you get paid for blogging about shit?

whatever you say shitposter kun, but if you were capable of following the argument in the thread, you would see that your statement is dumb

I don't see any evidence of the contrary. All I see are posts that confirm my statement.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your tangent.

Adblockers are basically the free market deciding that their content is not worth displaying malicious ads that often are scams or malware.

If you're so smart why aren't you rich?

Thats a good view.

I think so, I say this as an adblock user. Content needs money to be created and if you want good quality content then there needs to be some revenue model. I don't know if internet ads can provide adequate revenue for any decent site, so I think they're fighting an already lost battle.

I find it annoying when I see it on porn sites and don't disable it there.

Content does not need to be created.

i don't believe information should have any price affixed to it, you should be doing it because you're interested and care about it, perhaps working off donations or other charitable acts but ruining user experience to earn 0.001 cents shouldn't be tolerated.

from the cucks that don't use ad blocker obviously.
if you provide a free service don't be butt-hurt to give it for free.
i use ad blocker because ads annoy the fuck out o me and ruin the browsing experience slowing down everything and overheating the cpu with fucking flash apps and also ad sites are a great source or malware.

It's a problematic. Because my website is one people would visit once or twice a year. If they need help in a certain niche.

People arent going to unblock ads if they incidentally visit a website. My ads arent adsense either, but just static images with links. So if someone would put them on a blocked list it wouldnt really do the site justice in my opinion. Becauae there are no privacy, security or annoying issues.

I can deal with the problem though. I have no problem getting paid for sponsored content. It degrades the user experience, but that's how it is. And I can use the visitors for any project.

Classical online advertising is going to go extinct within the next 10-20 years.

"Content creation" is essentially marketing, starting up a popular blog or website involves a ton of marketing. Those who are interested in selling ideas or product to people should be paying for the content, not the people who are consuming the media.

Information is created through labour, time and skill and that requires money. Your utopian view that people will create quality content out of the goodness of their heart because they have so much free time and somehow have the adequate training and skills for it all because they just care so much is stupid. Why don't you ask farmers to give away their produce for free and then hope for a some donations?

People are so weaned on free, free, free that they've deluded themselves into thinking that this is a sustainable model. It's not.

>It's a problematic. Because my website is one people would visit once or twice a year. If they need help in a certain niche.

Too fucking bad, why do you think you deserve money for sharing your shitty ideas?

Ideas are fucking cheap, people write free books, free blogs, free wikis, create free software for everyone to use. And *YOU* think you deserve some fucking shekels? fuck you

It's like with the google play store, seriously, $5 for a launcher? There is much more featured Desktop Environments created and written by developers entirely for free, yet you think you should be getting $5 for some basic shit?

>People are so weaned on free, free, free that they've deluded themselves into thinking that this is a sustainable model. It's not.

Why is Linux, a superior kernel created as a fun project used on millions of devices for decades capable of being free?

Why is there so much Free (as in freedom as well as cost) software used all over the world capable of being free?

>Your utopian view that people will create quality content out of the goodness of their heart because they have so much free time and somehow have the adequate training and skills for it all because they just care so much is stupid.

Why are the basic building blocks that make the Internet what it is today capable of being Free?

If the content is so good that it's worth any money, the creator should offer one month free trial subscription to get readers. After the trial subscription expires, start charging money.
If the content is still good and free, the adblock block thing might work, but the number of free content creators is huge, there's a lot of competition and blocking adblockers might slower the increase of new users.

If the content is not so good and you do this shit: you're a fag and you're fucked.

If you can affect a lot of people, or solve a problem for a lot of people, even just a little bit, you can get lots of money. It's basic business sense.

Who cares who deserves what? You get paid to answer a need.

And if people do it for free they have no business sense.

Maybe because information shouldn't have a price and that you should be selling a product or service instead.

The information is free. Paid for by advertising.

Too bad. I am going to block it

Then chances are the information will become more biased in the future.

Why the fuck are you asking me

That's their job to figure out

but information is a service

I don't use an ad-blocker but I tend to avoid large news sites like Forbes, WSJ, etc. in search results because they consistency have an advertising ratio that is significantly higher than smaller sites which makes their pages much slower to load and makes the size of the actual article much smaller. When less than 50% of the page is taken up by actual content (not ads), you've screwed up, whether it's due to a flawed business model or simply not viewing things from the end-user's perspective.

We live in a society where now every blogger or news organization has an agenda to push.

If you want a more unbiased source, think about having a news organization funded by the people (government).

>what is Free and Open Source Software
even Microsoft is using (and making money off) FOS software now, faggot

Worded another way: If I did start using an ad-blocker, it would be explicitly *because* of sites like Forbes.com which go overboard with them. I'd tend to side with the content creators if they didn't go crazy with making ads take up the whole freaking page.

>have multiple screens
>switching btwn windows constantly
>fucking ads that are the entire backsplash of the page
>clicking anywhere on page to switch windows launches the ad link
>REEEEEEEE

i never used adblockers until about 5 years ago when ad became annoying as shit. and fuck autoplay flash videos. i'll launch them when i'm good and ready. sometimes i'll be browsing multiple articles on the same news site and each tab is playing a different video. now every site has flash disabled.

desu, the vast majority of content that is worth buying is shit you....have to buy. just bought an old book off ebay for $15. because i think it's worth it. i don't watch TV at all any more. a lot of people are switching to a netflix only viewing experience. and torrenting is becoming more and more mainstream. conventional media distribution is a dying a slow death.

No it won't.

There is tons of free software better or equivalent to paid software.

If professional developers, with real jobs, with extensive skills and experience, can find the time to write this software, and provide it to the world entirely free of cost and attached with a license that allows users to do as they wish with it, or even modify it to their own needs and redistribute it... Why exactly would anything happen?

You're falling for a sham that more expensive = better.

I don't use any non-free software on my computer, it is equal if not better than the "paid" alternatives.

It is quite likely, no, rather it is certain that software you use everyday had a large part of it created and released under a Free Software license.

Hey that Apache server you're running on that Gnu/Linux VPS to host your shitty fucking website plastered in ads, what kind of software d oyou think that is?

>government funded news organizations
>not biased

sorry but are you literally retarded? holy shit

why are you comparing news with software? Those two things are nothing alike.

Where I live (in the Netherlands) the public media is hardly neutral.
Often you are forced to read right wing media or Belgian news to even get the stories told.

>news organization by the people, for the people
>not good enough
Enjoy your boner pills news network, senpai

Because if people with far more skills and experience can create things that are actually valuable and used by corporations, individuals and people all over the world FOR FREE.

Why do you think your retarded blog deserves money?

Congratulations on admitting your right-wing bias. You're awfully lucky that the US government sponsors /pol/, one of the best honeypots around.

Why do you think retarded free software should be used when people dont even want to use it. Except when you need some cheap throw away software for on servers.

>by the people
>the government represents the people

what kind of utopian wishworld do you live in?
why are you so hung up on the blog thing? There's far more to content creation than some shitty Veeky Forums adsense scam blog. We are talking about entertainment, investigative journalism, all of which should be done because people have nothing better to do in their free time than to create content for free?

>Why do you think retarded free software should be used when people dont even want to use it

>Retarded free software

In what way is it retarded? It is used by corporations and millions upon millions of individuals every single day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

>We are talking about entertainment, investigative journalism, all of which should be done because people have nothing better to do in their free time than to create content for free?

Yes. if you don't like it, fuck off and get a real job people actually wish to pay for.

The free market is basically telling you "Fuck off, we don't believe your service has a value"

And don't worry - your spot will be filled up by people actually passionate and interested in the field/area.

There's a reason why websites like "INVESTING PROTIPS: ONLY $9.99/month along with countless ads" are so much shittier than Free Investing wikis written by people actually into it.

>Yes. if you don't like it, fuck off and get a real job people actually wish to pay for.
>The free market is basically telling you "Fuck off, we don't believe your service has a value"

but it's not? Media companies are still around and are doing well. AP, one of the biggest news agencies in the world recorded another year of revenue growth last year.

YouTubers are literally making millions of dollars. Sites like Buzzfeed or Vice just keep on growing both in revenue and numbers.

Just because you have a retarded opinion doesn't mean the rest of the world thinks so too

Shit posting is getting automated as well. So I dont think your future is very bright either.

you are so hung up on these shitty blogs, I'm starting to believe you were scammed by one of them and are now venting

>content creators
man, I love the euphemisms biz people comes with

It is not shitposting to point out how retarded you are.

NO.

Definitely, doing this(assuming you don't do any shady shit like sell users' private information) would make your business a lot more money.

They shouldnt, at least a large majority should not because 95% of such content created is utter shit.

Meh. Adblock was a good idea but I think its time has come if we can create a ceasefire if you will where they don't push ads in my face and popups are banned then Adblock could go and I'll accept 30 seconds before a youtube video or Forbes covered in ads.

They just need to promise not to kill the internet again. They need to make money too and if that is the only way then its fine.

I actually have adblock turned off now and its been all right.

Ads are way too intrusive now. A lot of sites, not just porn, are unusable without an adblocker.

I shouldn't have to worry about pop ups, adware attacks, malware attacks, flashing objects following the page scroll, 200+ MB video ads trying to play, redirects, and 2 minute unskippable ads.

Most people wouldn't care if they were just static images on the side

Most of the advertising is ridiculous anyway. Twitch was running ads for birth control cervical rings at one point. The audience is something like ~91% male.

Youtube used to run non stop ads about advocating blacks to get tested for HIV

Then you get shit like Tai Lopez literally buying all the ad space on Youtube for three months straight

Geico is the only company that has done video ads correct. Make it funny and make it only 10 seconds long

I remove ad-blocker if I trust and/or enjoy the site.

lol no. If anything, it drives me away from the site.

I think Forbes tries that shit? Haven't been on their site in forever. It's a pretty stupid tactic when I can just get the same information on any other million-billion media site

You could ask this question about literally any service that doesn't have some sort of financial return or possible financial return and it would still be equally retarded.

>Online media is booming, this a great business model
>How will they eat if people keep blocking ads?
Make up your mind.

No, people have to earn their way onto my white list.

Charge for access to the content. If people won't pay, your content is shit and you don't deserve to make a living from it.

>You could ask this question about literally any service that doesn't have some sort of financial return or possible financial return
Well yeah, why would you get paid for doing something that doesn't make money? This is a capitalist country.
If your activity is non-profit then get funded like a non-profit.
>and it would still be equally retarded
How?

Sites are more and more bothering me with that message. Its too much now.

Right click->inspect element->delete node (firefox)

that's were alternative financing and making less obtrusive ads to gain back people's trust will come in play. But saying that content creators shouldn't be paid for their work because >muh freeware is just stupid

Lol, haven't been on Forbes since. Its the wrong move, fuck ads.

The content creator should get paid for the content they produce, not because they allow a ad company to visually and functionally rape the shit out of their site to force adverts on visitors.

No. Information is data. A website, RSS feed, torrent, etc is a service that delivers information.

Is pizza a service? No. It is fucking pizza. Pizza delivery is a service.

Serving data costs almost nothing, and information gets generated all the time by assholes like us. Im doing it right now. I'm creating it and Veeky Forums and ISPs are delivering it to you, faggot. So enjoy it.

>The content creator should get paid for the content they produce

most people don't want to pay for content however, instead the ad model has worked for the past decades. It's in danger because ads have been traditionally shit and content creators didn't care. Now people have the means to tell them to fuck off, so a reaction is required
ok let me rephrase it: providing content is a service

This would be good shitposting on /g/

Forbes is shit.

/thread

This is me too except I alt tab instead of clicking or blocking flash.

I cancelled cable last month, will be watching all my sports through streaming services (free in certain countries by using vpn) or by streaming illegally. I might pay for nfl games if I can get access to ask games for

reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/

Winner, winner, chicken dinner

My ad site white list is pretty simple. 4Chins and Fark. Both have unintrusive ads.

>Is this the right move by content creators?
No. Also I dislike the 10-20 a month subscription model. I don't check your site every day which is what would be necessary to make such a subscription worthwhile. I'm not going to, effectively, buy a newspaper every day only to read one newspaper a month. That is stupid. Also what if you don't have an article I want to read and the website which does also uses a subscription model? Well now I'm paying 20-40 a month for two articles I wanted to read. That's retarded.

How about you do something reasonable and charge me a few cents per article I read and automatically charge my paypal when the balance reaches something like $10-20?
Benefits:
Only paying for actual use
No micropayments
No ads (there better not be ads you shifty fuck)
????
Profit!

now the next step in evolution is whitelisting non-intrusive ads of course this will cost ad companies they will have to pay for it to the devs of blockers.

>If anything, it drives me away from the site.

I think you're missing the point here, they don't want you on the site, you're a leach and you're costing them money

No, I usually close the tab when I see this.

I don't want a website, that most of the time is just a clickbait article that I'm reading while I'm bored to tell me to let them bombard me with ads.

THHISSSSS

Most people that blog for a living are insufferable, entitled cunts like feminists etc.
Why should they make money by simply writing down their opinions that are usually shitty ones anyway? Get a real job.

Key word is "obnoxious."

You would be hard pressed to find somebody more tolerant of ads than me. I surfed the net from 1992 to last year without an ad blocker. But one day I had enough of those fucking irritants that lock up the browser for a full minute to show me some garbage card game app that I don't want and never will want. You can't even scroll while this shit is dragging its ass to load 50MB of JavaScript or noises. Burn in hell.

You vote with your dollars. Giving someone money for a service you enjoy, like reading a blog, means you will be able to enjoy that service in the future. I don't get why people sperg out about this so much. it's simple supply and demand.

Simple economics is hard :(

Here's my question. Why are the alternatives either irritating/malware ads that pay $0.000000001 per impression or $19.99 per month? I might be convinced to throw away $2 or something.

Because large companies who offer tangible paid services inject money into the development.

Oracle, Microsoft, and RedHat Enterprise Linux, to name a few.

Adblockers still block Veeky Forums by default, so that excuse that you need to use non-intrusive ads is bullshit.

Whatever article I'm clicking on isn't important enough for me to disable adblocker.