Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the can-we-please-come-up-with-a-new-funding-model dept.

Advertising 418

theodp writes: "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it," writes longtime ad guy Ken Segall in The Relentless (and annoying) Pursuit of Eyeballs. "Unfortunately, for some this is simply license to abuse. Let's call it what it is: advertising pollution." CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm. "Google," Segall adds, "is a leader in advertising pollution, with YouTube being a showcase for intrusive advertising. Many YouTube videos start with a mandatory ad, others start with an ad that can be dismissed only after the first 10 seconds. Even more annoying are the ad overlays that actually appear on top of the video you're trying to watch. It won't go away until you click the X. If you want to see the entire video unobstructed, you must drag the playhead back to start over. Annoying. And disrespectful." Google proposed using cap and trade penalties to penalize traditional polluters — how about for those who pollute the Internet?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You dorks (1, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about 3 months ago | (#47490695)

Are going to go apeshit when you find out people PAY MONEY for things like fashion magazines and Sunday newspapers, BECAUSE of the ads.

Also, you don't have to go to the CNN site if you don't like their ads. No one actually forced you to read CNN. It is their media property, they can do what they wish.

Your only role is to decide if you want to visit their media property or not.

You don't get to decide things you don't pay for. The people that pay for things gets to decide them.

If you ever feel the need to install an ad blocker, you're doing it wrong. The correct response is to NOT visit that site in the first place if you don't like their ads.

Again, please try not to make things convenient for you when you don't pay for it. You need to pay for things that you want your way. More people should be taught that.

Re: You dorks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490873)

I disagree with ads on a very fundamental level. they're manipulative and serve to change and circumvent logic and the decision making process. I don't appreciate anything or anyone that is intentionally trying to manipulate me.

I am still going to go to all the same web sites as I always have but you can bet I'm going to adblock as many ads as tectonically possible. The industry brought it upon themselves by pushing the intrusiveness way to far. I don't feel guilty in the slightest.

Re:You dorks (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 3 months ago | (#47490993)

Ads and marketing in general have evolved from simple, respectful "hey, try this! It's good" into manipulative nonsense. Few people can see through it and the result has been devastating to them. It has shaped and certainly harmed the culture of the US and even results in violence in some extreme cases where people want things so badly they hurt and kill each other to get it. Though most will disagree exactly when things have gone "too far" few will disagree that they have.

Re:You dorks (4, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 3 months ago | (#47491157)

Exactly you nailed it. For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV? Sure we have Tivo like apps but the reality is that commercials have always been in your face. It is just that on the Internet we have become used to non-invasive free Internet (as in free beer). The fact that this has changed does not surprise me in the least. Don't like it, do like the parent poster said, don't vist the site. Or better yet fork over money so that sites don't need ads.

Re:You dorks (5, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 3 months ago | (#47491227)

For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV?

Well for one thing on old TV ads didn't pretend to be part of the show you were watching. Viewing them didn't turn your computer into a botnet, track your every move or adorn your sets control knobs and television cabinet with vendor advertising. TV ads also lack self awareness.

Re:You dorks (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 months ago | (#47491345)

"Also, you don't have to go to the CNN site if you don't like their ads. No one actually forced you to read CNN. It is their media property, they can do what they wish."

Sure, just as it's our right to render on our screens only what we wish.
And we do that.

i'm glad to work for free (5, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 3 months ago | (#47490703)

Most of Youtube is professionally produced videos where youtube shares the ad revenue with the creator. That's how people make money to be able to produce more videos.

you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising. My account is enabled for revenue sharing, but i rarely upload anything and don't rely on it. but if took and produced videos and relied on ad revenue, i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.

Re:i'm glad to work for free (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490739)

Can we pay you to learn how to use the Shift key?

Re:i'm glad to work for free (4, Insightful)

Rising Ape (1620461) | about 3 months ago | (#47490885)

you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising.

I have no objection to paying for ad-free stuff. Of course, to be fair, I'd then like a refund on the part of the price of the stuff I buy that goes to advertising it.

That's the worst thing about advertising - it's surely more expensive than just paying directly, as you have to pay people to make the ad, plus various extra middlemen. And in return for that extra money you get to be assaulted by obnoxious audiovisual pollution.

Good point (5, Interesting)

desertrat_it (650209) | about 3 months ago | (#47490705)

I sat down to watch Paddington Bear with my 19 month old son.

The advert that I couldn't skip was for a horror movie.

Thanks, youtube. That was *fantastic*.

Re:Good point (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490753)

Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

Re:Good point (1)

desertrat_it (650209) | about 3 months ago | (#47490817)

I have adblock.

Have you tried to use Youtube without adblock? It's broken - the page looks like garbage, and the video is about the size of a postage stamp.

I really don't know what else I am supposed to do other than completely avoid youtube, which is really hard to do :(

Re:Good point (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490855)

Then you have something broken as well. I use adblock and never see the intro ads. And it looks the same since I am always surprised when they play on another computer.

Re:Good point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491015)

You could paste the youtube url into vlc which omits the ads:
http://www.howtogeek.com/tips/... [howtogeek.com]
You can do it either the way described there, or just by activation of the vlc window and then the usual ctrl + v.

You shouldn't pause too long, as the you might need to re-start the video, but otherwise it works quite well. Downloads also possible.

I have no flash, and use firefox (no dash yet, I think firefox 31 fixes this), so almost all youtube videos don't work for me. And when one does not, I play it in vlc.

Re:Good point (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490871)

Use adblock, it gets rid of ALL the adds on youtube. And if it's not your device, just hit F5 and you should get something else.

The amusing part is that youtube know this and has not "fixed" it. I guess they realize we are not a receptive market for that crap.

Re:Good point (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491021)

> The amusing part is that youtube know this and has not "fixed" it. I guess they realize we are not a receptive market for that crap.

Fixing it would break other things like non-browser access. Attempting to fix it in a way that still let non-browsers work would just escalate the problem such that we'd see browser plugins that emulate such devices - even if youtube forced ads into the same video stream and then rate-limited the video stream to make you always wait the length of the ad, someone would write a plugin to send the ad to /dev/null and show you some other video during the mandatory wait-time.

As it is now, I just drag-and-drop youtube URLs into VLC since VLC is so much more pleasant to use than the embedded one. For DRM'd videos I use a little wrapper around youtube-dl that plays it in VLC.

Re:Good point (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 3 months ago | (#47491019)

Adblock doesn't block youtube videos. They are the ONE advertising seller that "gets it." All other ad sellers do not trust the content providers to host or to count the hits on the ads. So Adblock is effective. But then again, Youtube is an ad seller AND a content provider, so the trust is within itself. Heaven help us when content providers are trusted by ad sellers.

Re:Good point (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 3 months ago | (#47491069)

Unfortunately, adblock doesn't seem to work for Slashdot's corporate overlord.

Make the mistake of posting your email address or phone number on dice.com, and even if you delete that information right away, you'll still be deluged six months down the road with recruitment spam and phone calls of third party recruiters who don't even bother to read your resume in the first place (yes, had I known this in advance, I would have just given a spamgourmet email address and a throwaway google voice phone number).

dice.com should just meter the number of potential job-hunters each recruiter can contact, and charge more accordingly. This would limit the incentives and rewards of spamming everyone in their database by the most incompetent recruiters, and actually make dice.com useful once again to job-seekers.

Re:Good point (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 3 months ago | (#47490763)

I tend to reload the page until a 4 second advert pops up. The other think to do is click the "disable sound" button on some adverts - they should collect information that people don't want to listen to it.

Re:Good point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491213)

I sat down to watch Paddington Bear with my 19 month old son.

It's no just the Internet that is a problem. Nerds seem to forget that. Go out in the real world. There are bright glaring television screens everywhere blasting ads. I was driving yesterday and saw one at a car wash. It was angled such that it was clearly intended to be visible to drivers, and it was playing *video* ads for beer, among other things.

I regularly notice the "FBI will come and get you" lies on the front of DVD and BluRay discs that I have paid for. These are unskippable, and then they launch into unskippable trailers for no less than 4 movies that I either already have, or have no interest in owning. It seems worse on kids discs - they really are trying to exploit the children.It's no wonder people download them instead of paying for the now; only a marketing person could be so moronic that they think everybody is so dumb that they won't get annoyed by having to wait though 15 minutes of rubbish every time they want to watch the main feature.

Try going to the museum or something like that. There is always "this exhibition sponsored by $SHITBOX_COMPANY" signs hung near all the exhibitions.

Advertising is out of control. Let's just outlaw push advertising. In this wonderful modern age of the Internet producers are easily able to create websites and clients are easily able to seek them out with wonderful search tools like Google. Why should they need to force them at us any other way?

Captcha: "stalled" - what I think society has done, with all the time wasted looking at advertising.

Re:Good point (1)

ciotog (1098035) | about 3 months ago | (#47491309)

That's it, then. Your son is scarred for life. Better start saving up for counseling now!

Start small (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490713)

I never watch forced ads. I've yet to see content that's worth it. Pages get reloaded to pass the ads a couple times, failing that I'm off to something else. Oh, and adblockers and outright hostname and IP blocking still works. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to be even more abusive, they're google after all. But even they need to learn that trying too hard easily causes a loss of those precious "eyeballs".

No Advertising does not power the Internet. (5, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 months ago | (#47490741)

No Advertising does not power the Internet. Bogus assertion to begin the article. The internet ran fine before the ads. It would run fine without them. Advertising is one aspect of the internet. It does not power the internet in any way, shape or form.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47490791)

When people say "internet", they mean content showing their favorite celebrities, mainstream news, and the same special-interest articles that used to appear in print manages. They don't mean a bunch of bearded, pasty-faced nerds discussing filk music and making obscure UNIX jokes on Usenet like the "internet that ran fine before the ads" that you are thinking of.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47490809)

s/manages/magazines/.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490849)

The Internet was vastly better then by any measure. It wasn't used to commit financial crimes, to dupe people, to invade privacy, or to spy on whole populations. It especially didn't destroy more jobs than it's created and eliminate whole industries, and cause the vast amounts of unemployment and underemployment that have resulted from its going mainstream.

What has made the Internet the cesspool it is today is advertising, corporatism, and the kind of control and attempted control that goes with the undereducated being turned loose on something shiny.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491181)

First of all, you're wrong: it was still used to commit crimes, invade privacy, dupe people, etc.* Second of all, if you increase the population of anything by several orders of magnitude, you're probably going to see an increase in crime and bad behavior by several orders of magnitude. Finally, there is simply so, so, so much more quality content now than there was back then. Even in the mid-2000s, there were plenty of subjects were the internet was a near worthless resource.

*I'll give you that it wasn't used to spy on whole populations, but the only reasons are because internet access wasn't nearly as widespread, and storage and processing power would have been prohibitively expensive.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47490857)

The opinion of the kind of shitheads who watch reality TV is of no import. The internet is powered by communications companies, period. Content providing servers and the companies that run them can come and go.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491221)

Online commerce - a significant fraction of the internet - works just fine without advertisements. The sites are paid for with a tiny fraction of the profits from selling actual physical products.

Can we put those celebrities, mainstream news, and special-interest articles on their own internet, and have our own, advertising-free one back?

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490889)

Do you remember the Internet before advertising? I do. It was mostly educational, and technical. It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content. That money has to come from somewhere, and Universities are not financing it all like they used to.

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491177)

> It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.

Bandwidth costs have dropped exponentially since then.
We are looking at a 2000x drop in pricing from 1998 to the end of this year. [drpeering.net]
In 1998 it was $1200.00/Mbps by 2015 it will be $0.63/Mbps

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 months ago | (#47490893)

There is a fuckton more content on the internet today than in 1998, so what worked before doesn't necessarily work today and vice versa. To take the YouTube example of the story author, we have two sides to it - those who post the content without having to worry about being hit by a massive bandwidth bill, and those who view the content without having to whip out a credit card to pay for it. In between those sides, we have Google who is paying the infrastructure bill and funding the means to pay that bill by showing ads.

People on here and other open forums regularly bitch about paywalls, so there are only really two other alternatives - find another way to pay the bill, or offer the content completely for free. Offering the content completely for free doesn't work for a lot of companies, because they are there to make money....

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491119)

The internet back then was much smaller, a LOT slower and was paid for by governments/universities/research institutes.

Most stuff was done by telnet, gopher and Archie/Veronica were the best search engines

Re:No Advertising does not power the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491339)

Exactly! Ads power big corporations on the Internet. They do not power the Internet.

Daily motion is the most oblivious, imho (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 3 months ago | (#47490743)

I once was serenaded by infomercials (45 minutes long) when I tried to view some videos on their site. Yes, there's a skip buttion.

Reason I installed addblock. (5, Interesting)

Insomnium (1415023) | about 3 months ago | (#47490747)

I installed addblock because videos and streams I watched had add volume loudness so loud that it was a real problem. I often watch videos during the night and when the loudness jumps up for the adds it becomes annoying really fast. And that was the only reason.

I don't really mind adds and I know they run the content creators, but just that one small issue was enough for me.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490765)

This used to happen frequently on TV until legislation ended up banning the practice. It's the same scumbags performing these shenanigans using a different medium.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (2)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 3 months ago | (#47490901)

Just wait until Comcast, U-verse, and anybody else who can make sure there's a way to send data about you back to them starts to show FORCIBLY INTERACTIVE videos that quiz you about the ad content & make you re-watch the ad until you get the answers right.

By far the most obnoxious & intrusive ads I remember, though, were the UNBELIEVABLY loud Febreze ads that were shown at newegg.com for a day or two last December. I don't know WTF Newegg was thinking, but I sent them an email on the spot reminding them how many thousands of dollars worth of shit I've bought from them over the past few years... and promised them that I'd never buy another thing from Newegg again if those ads weren't gone "by tomorrow". I think they were gone by mid-afternoon.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47491001)

Just wait until Comcast, U-verse, and anybody else who can make sure there's a way to send data about you back to them starts to show FORCIBLY INTERACTIVE videos that quiz you about the ad content & make you re-watch the ad until you get the answers right.

Advertisement CAPTCHAs have been a thing for years now, just not so widespread. The CAPTCHA will be next to a big banner ad for a product, and you'll be asked to enter the name of the product into the text box to proceed.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 3 months ago | (#47491047)

I have seen video advertisement captchas as well, where you actually have to watch the video (or atleast most of it) to answer a question.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491037)

Newegg has ads on their site for stuff that they aren't selling?
WTF?

I guess adblock has given me an inflated impression of how smart newegg is.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47491189)

Too bad adblock doesn't work on my Xbox 360. Microsoft has really gone over the edge with cramming advertising down its customers throats. At this point, quite literally, MOST of the screen now is taken up by advertisements of one form or another on the main navigation pages. What's really irksome is that this was a post-purchase change that we were required to get if we wanted to continue to play with friends online, not to mention I'm already paying them $60 a year for the privilege of watching their advertisements.

I honestly don't mind the adverts about the new games or other available content coming out, as that's obviously relevant and appropriate for the platform, but I really wish they wouldn't advertising general products or take up so damn much of the screen real-estate, which is already rather precious on a TV screen. It's not one of those "frothing-at-the-mouth-angry" dealbreakers, but rather one of those "slow-burn grumbling" issues that are irritating enough for me to complain about on Slashdot, but not quite enough to cancel my service and ditch my Xbox. Although, when I finally purchase a next-gen console, I'm much more likely to look favorably at a PS4. Essentially, the Xbox one already has another negative tick against it because of the ads [cinemablend.com] .

Basically, you see there a great example of what many companies would *like* to do to the web. It's up to consumers to demand that they be kept to reasonable levels of intrusiveness.

Re:Reason I installed addblock. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47491313)

Unplug the network cable, poof, advertising gone.

I didn't realize how bad it was until I had accidentally left the cable unplugged as I'd used that port for another non-Wifi equipped PC. When I started the Xbox 360 again I was blown away by how much more pleasant it was.

Micropayments (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490769)

> "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it,"

No not everyone. This one gets that advertising has filled the niche that micro-payments would have filled if the technology had been advanced enough at the time. None of what exists on the net today requires advertising, except for the ad companies.

Some people will say advertising is what lets poor people use the net. To that I say, not for long. The Big Data trend will enable ad-networks to determine the value of showing you an advertisement. If you aren't the right demographic (the kind with disposable income) they'll know you aren't worth it. Today we have paywalls, pretty soon we'll have ad-walls where sites simply won't let people in unless their ad-network thinks they money can be made from them.

"advertising is what powers the internet" (3, Insightful)

Snufu (1049644) | about 3 months ago | (#47490793)

No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.

For those who voluntarily go to ad laden websites, you can't regulate self harm.

Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490903)

No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.

And pre-1913 we had no income taxes. When you get to todays world, let us know.

Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490991)

I'm in today's world. It fucking sucks. If you get the chance, stay in the past.

Re:"advertising is what powers the internet" (4, Interesting)

queazocotal (915608) | about 3 months ago | (#47490947)

No, it really wasn't.
The internet was invented to be an interesting communication protocol.
Later on, commercial entities and the general public got connected to it.
For a _long_ time, it was .edu (as latter became) only.

Imagining that the internet was destined to win, and there were no alternatives is revisionist history.

The internet very nearly didn't win, avoiding being relegated to a communications experiment that died likely sometime around 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org] - as an example of a competing service that lasted a long time, in the face of growing internet.
Aol, compuserv, and all of the other services didn't quite get joined up fast enough to make the internet irrelevant.

It was quite possible that this could have happened.
They decided that it was in their commercial interests to isolate their services, so that you couldn't email people on different networks.
This (amongst other similar issues) ended up killing them as other than ISPs when the internet took over this function.

If, for example, AOL, compuserv, Prodigy et al had gotten together and made it possible to email other services members, a prime reason for the explosion of the internet would have gone away.

Similarly, minitel could be a model of what the 'internet' might have looked like if the internet had not won.
It would be very, very different.

Network effects are _powerful_.

Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490803)

And what of the obnoxious auto play ads on Slashdot where multiple instances play when I have multiple tabs going?

Re:Yeah. (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47490865)

I've never seen them, are you a non-tech type who doesn't use adblock, flashblock, and noscript?

Targeted marketing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490805)

If they are gathering the kind of info on me I think they are, why can't they show me ads I'd like to see? If I go directly to buy something because I just saw an advertisement, I'm grateful for the information. Instead it's all Nissan and teen movies.

Re:Targeted marketing? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490909)

You mean you don't want to see a week of ads for something you just bought? Philistine!

Ads are good for the internet. (-1, Flamebait)

musixman (1713146) | about 3 months ago | (#47490821)

Imagine you had to pay every time you wanted to watch a YouTube video? Like when you goto a movie, or order cable TV, I'll gladly wait 10sec & click skip, vs shelling out money every time.

People seem to forget, the internet RUNS on advertising money. It's what pay's the "real" bills for servers, staff & redbull's.

IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 3 months ago | (#47490919)

And how does that annoying floating "Like us On FaceBook! Please! Someone! Anyone!" pay for servers?

Re: Ads are good for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490927)

The internet does not run on ads. It ran fine before ads and it would run fine afterwards.

Besides would it be that bad to pay for YouTube? I can't imagine they get more than a penny or two per view. If I had to pay around that much per view it'd probably be between a half and one dollar a day. Pay that for no ads AND support the content creators I enjoy? Heck yes!

See also the success of many popular youtubers with patreon and subbable and the like.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 months ago | (#47490939)

Yeah, just imagine. A micropayment system that worked. 25 cents for a video? 10 cents? 2 cents? I'd go for that in a heartbeat. Sure, have a choice - look at the ads or pay up. I suppose that some smart marketing folks have actually looked at this and decided it 's not worth it, but I for one would welcome our new micropayment overlords.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (2, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 3 months ago | (#47491017)

Imagine you had to pay every time you wanted to watch a YouTube video? Like when you goto a movie, or order cable TV, I'll gladly wait 10sec & click skip...

If it takes 10 seconds of your time, then you're paying with your time.

If you're a professional making $50/hour, then 10 seconds of your time is worth $0.14. If you're a laborer making $10, then 10 seconds of your time is worth $0.03. That's just the time wasted, mind, not counting the fact that watching ads is essentially subjecting yourself to black magic [youtube.com] , attempted mind control, and trying to put a value on your neurological integrity..

IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.

And since the Internet as we know it has become, thanks to scum-sucking advertizers, a hive of scum and villainy, little would be lost, and we could go about cleaning out the cruft and building something better. Fuck the online advertising industry with a rusty dildo.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 3 months ago | (#47491049)

People seem to forget, the internet RUNS on advertising money. It's what pay's the "real" bills for servers, staff & redbull's.

People used to have their own web sites about their hobbies and interests.. they used to actually participate until mass media came along and turned the network into a TV set. It was standard practice to offer users personal home pages when they signed up for Internet service.

IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.

Good riddance.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47491241)

People used to have their own web sites about their hobbies and interests..

And they continued to do so until well after the explosion of advertising. Blogging through convenient, easy-to-use platforms only became a thing in the early to mid years of the first decade of the new millennium.

At least in some special-interest niches, blogging is now on the wane, with people moving to Twitter or simply falling silent. There are shortening attention spans, plus the fact that sites like StackExchange and Wikipedia are better centralized places to send the content that one creates instead of keeping it on an obscure personal website.

Many bloggers give up because they are unable to monetize their blogging, leaving them wondering what was the point of expending such effort on creating content when they get nothing in return. In fact, deft use of advertising actually helps ordinary people continue to stay focused on a personal website.

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491089)

Imagine you had to pay every time you wanted to watch a YouTube video? Like when you goto a movie, or order cable TV, I'll gladly wait 10sec & click skip, vs shelling out money every time.

I dunno, average payment for video is 2.4 cents. [adexchanger.com] Regular web pages it is 0.19 cents (thats nearly one-fifth of one cent). With an automated micropayment system I think a lot of people would be OK with direct payments rather than wasting their time. The people who would rather watch advertisements are probably low-value anyway since they most likely don't have much money to spend on the products being advertised.

We might even see a general increase in the quality of content since the consumers would be directly paying for it. It would probably mean the end of clickbait since that would pretty quickly piss people off for wasting their money.

captcha: sedition

Ads are good for lying to us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491123)

Ads are good for lying to us. How would companies lie about products to us if they didn't have ads?

Re:Ads are good for the internet. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 months ago | (#47491341)

Then you're an idiot.

For $20/month you'd more than pay for all the bandwidth you and everyone you know spends on YouTube at the rates YouTube pays for it. Do you have any idea how ridiculously little ads pay the ones who show them?

The Internet 'RUNS on advertising' because they can make more money that way, not because it has to.

You may be too young to remember it, but it wasn't always that way. There was a time before Google turned it into an ad platform. There was content then as well.

Netflix doesn't run on ads. AppleTV doesn't run on ads. My Internet doesn't involve ads, and not because I use adblock, because I pay up front for the services that are worth paying for and ONLY if they allow me to avoid ads by paying for service.

Ignorant people like you are the ones who think its Okay that you get ads on cable TV and Hulu Plus.

When "free" isn't free (3, Interesting)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 3 months ago | (#47490827)

This is because most or all website revenue comes from advertising. CBS has ads, but Netflix doesn't. Books don't, and newspapers and magazines have a limited amount, because part of their revenue comes from selling their publications to consumers. (Without ads, a copy of something like National Geographic or Playboy would cost $20 or more.)

The problem is that we don't have a good way of buying small amounts of content online. You can subscribe to some sites by the month or year, or perhaps buy limited access via PayPal, but the cost tends to be $ or $$ or $$$, and nobody wants to subscribe to CNN or YouTube. They want to see that video now, with no registration and commitment. The answer is the great lost Internet opportunity of 15 years ago: micropayments. If there was an easy and universal system for paying (say) a few cents to watch a video, why not? It'd be trivial for viewers, but could add up to real money for sites.

If I were a huge content provider, I'd figure out a way to make it happen, perhaps through ISPs. Subsidize them to give every user maybe $10/month credit. Offer content providers a great deal to install a one-click "Read/Watch Now for 1 cent" buttons. Get people used to paying tiny amounts of money to view content. If something like this could get going, it'd benefit content providers of all sizes. E.g. a comedian who writes one joke a day could make a living with 10,000 readers paying 1 cent per day ($100/day = $36,500/year).

Re:When "free" isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490973)

Dogecoin is perfect for micropayments.

*No, I don't have anything to do with Dogecoin. Also I think micropayments are a dubious business model and I prefer ad-based schemes.

Re:When "free" isn't free (2)

ljw1004 (764174) | about 3 months ago | (#47491135)

This runs into the problem of cluck-bait... Stupid zero-content fluff pieces but with headlines that entice you in (e.g. Upworthy, HuffingtonPost) but then you discover that they're stupid. If I had to pay even 1c before seeing the content (and discovering that I'd been duped) then I'd start to get angry, and start to refuse to pay for more sites. Even on legit sites like BBC News, by "internet attention span" is satisfied by about half way through the article, so something long enough to be a good preview is ling enough for me not to need to pay.

why? (3, Insightful)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 3 months ago | (#47490835)

CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm.

Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490897)

Free TV in my country (Denmark) is mostly free of advertising.

Re:why? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 3 months ago | (#47490931)

Television is funded by a 2414-kroner annual license fee. That allows broadcasting without advertising, but it's not free: citizens are paying for it very directly.

Re:why? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 3 months ago | (#47490985)

Free TV in my country (Denmark) is mostly free of advertising.

Are you one of the people who pays no taxes?

Re:why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491161)

Are you one of the people who pays no taxes?

No, you're thinking of juridical persons.

Re:why? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 3 months ago | (#47491151)

Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?

Who sits through TV commercials?

advertising does NOT power the Internet (2, Insightful)

dltaylor (7510) | about 3 months ago | (#47490841)

I used the Internet, quite happily and successfully, for more than a decade, before HTTP (curse you, Tim Berners-Lee) began to intrude on the experience. I would be very happy to go back to those days. Throw in an IRC/FTP/RTP+RTSP "subscription" for content, and there's nothing I would miss.

The old adage about TV ("99 channels and nothing on") applies to the web, but with several orders more magnitude of noise to signal.

Re:advertising does NOT power the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490899)

Ok. Put your money where your mouth is, uninstall your web browser and show us how wrong we all are and how much better off you will be.
 
I didn't think so.

Re:advertising does NOT power the Internet (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about 3 months ago | (#47491095)

IFF the methods I listed are supported. Comment system doesn't parse Internet News to build threaded responses.

I get my email through POP/SMTP, so don't need a browser for that.

Nav's built into the car, and I use hardcopy, so no maps needed.

Buy from stores, unless literally impossible, and place 'phone orders, otherwise, so no ecommerce.

Give me the others and I happily pull the browsers, on top of which, it would reduce my security exposure.

Re:advertising does NOT power the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491359)

I personally like http. But I've never put an ad on any webpage of mine. Some think that silly by today's standards. I also never sold information on anyone I ever did business with. Some think that silly. I think it respectful, and the proper way to deal with others. Perhaps someday we can return to such a world, where people prefer to do business with those who do not sell their data.

Let's call it what it is: SPAM (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490843)

Ads are spam. Does spam power email? Do pirates power seafaring?

Re:Let's call it what it is: SPAM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491169)

Someone mod this up

use your tabs (4, Informative)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 3 months ago | (#47490861)

Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.

Re:use your tabs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490971)

I want to support certain sites or content creators, so I have adblock disabled for certain sites. Not going to drop NoScript, but that is their issue. What annoys me is how repetitive the video ads can get. I've seen the same Panera's Bread commercial about "their flatbread not having a flat flavor" to the point where I will purposefully avoid their product out of spite. In the case of these ads specifically, there is no skip button with a run-time of 0:25, and if I mute it, then I'll miss the start of the video I'm waiting for.

I just want more variety and not creepy commercials like one I saw about Dasani's flavored water line. That commercial would have been cool two decades ago.

Waiting for the ad bubble to pop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490863)

I'm hoping one day corporations will finally understand that these massive ad campaigns just mean everyone will ignore them even more. Once that happens most ad companies will collapse and eventually the Internet will be readable once again.

This process may take a while though as intelligence is not one of the requirements for getting an MBA degree.

Simple countermeasure (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 3 months ago | (#47490891)

I just repeat "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you", while the ad plays. If it is especially annoying, I make a note to never buy from the cretins responsible.

Re:Simple countermeasure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491113)

Dude, you have to get adblock. It will probably save you from a heartattack.

Major flaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490925)

When I buy something I like to research it on the internet. Usually I end up buying what I am researching. Many times I will be relentlessly attacked for 1 to 3 months by ads for the item I researched then bought.

The goofballs behind this should be embarrased about this but I don't think they have figured it out yet. The amount of money wasted in this way must be staggering.

Youtube has ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47490941)

Youtube has ads? When did this happen?

Also those sliding "give us your email' boxes (4, Insightful)

david.emery (127135) | about 3 months ago | (#47490967)

I've noticed a really annoying trend, where you're on a site for a 10-20 seconds reading their content, when this (presumably JavaScript) box pops in front of the content soliciting for your email address. This is really annoying, since it totally breaks the concentration on what you're reading. Since this apparently done with JavaScript provided by the hosting site, pop-up window blockers and cross-script blockers don't prevent it.

So here's a hint for web designers: THIS IS F***KING ANNOYING! STOP IT!

Thank you.

Re:Also those sliding "give us your email' boxes (1)

Kardos (1348077) | about 3 months ago | (#47491009)

Block the element with ad-block.

Re:Also those sliding "give us your email' boxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491237)

Block the element with ad-block.

Find a site that provides information without doing that kind of invasive spam-ware crap. What do you think they want your email address for? To sell to advertisers, of course. Why wouldn't they also be selling everything else about your visit to the site too?

Expanders (2)

AndyCanfield (700565) | about 3 months ago | (#47491003)

The ones that get me are where you go to an ordinary (text) web page, probably news, and there is a flash add on the right side that starts playing instantly, video and sound. OK, bad enough. But to trying to turn it off I move my mouse over it, and the D*** thing expands to half the screen, blocking what I went there to read. And it won't go back to being small!

It is for this reason that I do not have Flash installed on my new notebook computer. Adobe Flash should give the user more power. How about a global option that says "Don't run anything until I click on it." That would be decent. Even door-to-door salesmen are required to knock on your door; they can't use bullhorns from out on the sidewalk, which is what Flash is used for.

Re:Expanders (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 3 months ago | (#47491079)

Use Quick JavaScript Switcher. When you see that a blank box is probably offering you a video you can choose to switch JavaScript on if you think you want to watch the video, or you can leave it off if you suspect it is an ad, or if you just don't want to be bothered by a video. Much of the time the video is just BS anyway, so read the text and move on.

Re:Expanders (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 3 months ago | (#47491205)

I'm a big fan of FlashBlock for this reason.

Wrong (1)

nukenerd (172703) | about 3 months ago | (#47491045)

FTFA :- "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it"

Wrong. My favourite web sites are my own ones, and they have no advertising.

what about malware ads from legit ad servers? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 3 months ago | (#47491057)

Case in point, from a customer last week. Legit local radio, click steaming button. Stream controls in pop up from 3rd party. Stream is broken, stars then stops. Ad in same window, from ad choices, plain white misleading ad, "you need to update your windows media player 11". What do people do? Oh I need to update. Boom adware or worse. There need to be laws and real penalties for this, it does real damag.

I have a fairly simple solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491061)

... I remember the ads I don't like/irritate me in some way, and then I NEVER buy the product featured and only buy the competition. I think if this is (a) widely adopted (b) understood by advertisers to be common, then more care would be taken as to how intrusive/irritating ads can be.

This is the future Republicans want for us all. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491081)

All ads and zeron content, just like their platform.

Why I use... (3, Informative)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 3 months ago | (#47491087)

Adblock
NoScript
CookieMonster
And Flashstop

Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.

NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.

CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.

Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.

This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.

advertisement doesn't work (3, Interesting)

Tom (822) | about 3 months ago | (#47491127)

...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.

But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.

Yes, it is pollution, the term is spot on.

Installed AdBlock years ago... (1, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 months ago | (#47491143)

...and I've got no idea what the internet looks like to mere mortals anymore.

I'm almost afraid to turn it off and see just how bad it's gotten out there.

Back in 2012, the average rate was 9.26%

http://clarityray.com/Content/... [clarityray.com]

I have to imagine adblocking has only gotten more common since.

Advertisement veiled as news stories (2)

v_1_r_u_5 (462399) | about 3 months ago | (#47491209)

What's even worse is when some insurance company publishes a scare article to Forbes' advertisement program, which publishes stories under the Forbes umbrella while vaguely disassociating themselves from the content. The content looks like it's Forbes. It's really sick. Here's an example [forbes.com] .

Blocking ads is good security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491239)

Malware through ads is common, sites won't take responsibility for the damage, but act offended when ads are blocked. If your site doesn't offer profession level service, don't expect professional level income.

Don't buy anything you can't avoid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47491257)

Take the vow: don't buy anything __from__ any source that pushes crap in your face.

They promised a search engine would be a wonderful help. They didn't mention the plan is to help the crap merchants find __me__.

There's no reason to cooperate with them.

If I don't __have__ to see your ads, I may buy your product. If you push the crap in my face -- never.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?