Wired to Block Ad-Blocking Users, Offer Ad-Free Subscription

[Neeq]

Some online ads are so intrusive. They literally hijack your browser and makes browsing very difficult. I only have a couple of trust website on my white list.

[givegomezthegun]

4 hours ago, SirRoderick said:

See the bolded part? Your traffic is literally worthless to the site if you adblock them. I don't quite see why people feel entitled to consume a website's products and articles for free. You have the choice to stop visiting their website or to whitelist them, I don't see the problem there. Both are entirely fine and that is your choice as a consumer.

See the bolded part?  That literally applies to what I said.

 

The unbolded part is inaccurate.  Traffic is incredibly important to web sites.  Take this one for example... Do you think LMG gets any sponsors without traffic?  If Linus went to Intel and said hey I want to do a video for this or a review for that and gave them his proposal, and finished it up by saying his site gets like 20 views a week, they would laugh.

 

There's no sense of entitlement here.  It's more of a situation where a bunch of sites ruined it for everyone as far as I'm concerned.  

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, givegomezthegun said:

See the bolded part?  That literally applies to what I said.

 

The unbolded part is inaccurate.  Traffic is incredibly important to web sites.  Take this one for example... Do you think LMG gets any sponsors without traffic?  If Linus went to Intel and said hey I want to do a video for this or a review for that and gave them his proposal, and finished it up by saying his site gets like 20 views a week, they would laugh.

 

There's no sense of entitlement here.  It's more of a situation where a bunch of sites ruined it for everyone as far as I'm concerned.  

That's only partially accurate.

 

For a sponsor, views only matter in so much as an audience they can reach. A viewer using Adblock is an "inflated" view to them. It's still worthless, since you're not going to see their ad anyway. This isn't like LMG where they have integrated ads in videos via sponsors.

 

The point being that if their ads are too intrusive, you should ideally just stop consuming their content, rather than adblocking and consuming the content anyway.

[Mihle]

I have ads on on the most of sites, but some sites I have them of because of the bad ads.

[jaggysnake57]

21 hours ago, Bensemus said:

It's your choice to block ads but it's also their choice to block you. While you might not use WIRED, if a site you do use a lot decides to block adblock users you will either have to whitelist them and see ads or sub to them. You could always use a script to get a round that but then you are just wanting stuff for free. Everyone is allowed to make money for their work.

its not there choice to block me or more over consumers.  1 disable javascript and then they cant block anything. 2 and more my point, if people choose not to read them any more then they loose.  its up to us the consumer to allow them to block us.....

[as96]

Cool, I'll add it to the websites I'll never visit again.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

its not there choice to block me or more over consumers.  1 disable javascript and then they cant block anything. 2 and more my point, if people choose not to read them any more then they loose.  its up to us the consumer to allow them to block us.....

It 100% is their choice. You're just choosing to circumvent their blocking technology. Sooner or later, if that becomes a problem, they'll find a way to block your "unblocker", and then there will be a new unblocker that will circumvent that, and so on and so forth. It'll just be a round-robin of one side circumventing the other side.

 

Point being, if you're circumventing their ads, they have the right to at least attempt to deny you entry to the site. Whether their attempts will be successful? That's actually not even relevant.

[Bensemus]

5 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

ts not there choice to block me or more over consumers.  1 disable javascript and then they cant block anything. 2 and more my point, if people choose not to read them any more then they loose.  its up to us the consumer to allow them to block us.....

It is their choice just like it's your choice to circumvent that and see their content for free. You seem dead set on reading this websites content yet don't deem it worthy to pay for. Why should you get to read the content for free when it cost money to make it? Why not apply that logic to everything. Take stuff that you want and not pay for it. It doesn't matter If the content is digital and not made of physical stuff. It still cost someone time and money to make that content. If you think the content is good enough to read it should be good enough to pay for.

 

I'm not some white knight of websites. I use adblock too but I try to remember to white list sites I use and if a site asks me to whitelist them I will If I use that site. If they end up being a crappy site with terrible ads then I leave and find somewhere else.

[jaggysnake57]

1 hour ago, Bensemus said:

It is their choice just like it's your choice to circumvent that and see their content for free. You seem dead set on reading this websites content yet don't deem it worthy to pay for. Why should you get to read the content for free when it cost money to make it? Why not apply that logic to everything. Take stuff that you want and not pay for it. It doesn't matter If the content is digital and not made of physical stuff. It still cost someone time and money to make that content. If you think the content is good enough to read it should be good enough to pay for.

 

I'm not some white knight of websites. I use adblock too but I try to remember to white list sites I use and if a site asks me to whitelist them I will If I use that site. If they end up being a crappy site with terrible ads then I leave and find somewhere else.

i dont give 2 shits about wired its not a site i read at all its more an example.  why should i get to read it for free.....because its on the fucking internet behind no pay wall, thats why. im sorry but if you choose to use ad revenue as your income source then you have to accept that essentially your giving your content away. the end user dosnt part with money to view your content and has every right to block ads......no one is entitled to get paid for there work, im sorry if you have lead to think otherwise but thats not how the world works. people get paid because other people think that the work they do has a value. 

 

if your looking for someone to blame, try the advertising companies that have thrust ads down the consumer neck for so long and have only gotten worse

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i dont give 2 shits about wired its not a site i read at all its more an example.  why should i get to read it for free.....because its on the fucking internet behind no pay wall, thats why. im sorry but if you choose to use ad revenue as your income source then you have to accept that essentially your giving your content away. the end user dosnt part with money to view your content and has every right to block ads......no one is entitled to get paid for there work, im sorry if you have lead to think otherwise but thats not how the world works. people get paid because other people think that the work they do has a value. 

 

if your looking for someone to blame, try the advertising companies that have thrust ads down the consumer neck for so long and have only gotten worse

That behaviour is going to drive websites to put their content  behind a paywall. Is that what you want? Because you don't seem overly concerned that this is where it's heading.

 

Wired has taken, I think, a balanced approach to the possible different things they can do.

1. You can view the site for free - no paywall - just have to see ads - presumably, Wired will do their best to ensure the ads are unintrusive - if they breach this promise, you simply stop viewing their site, and use one that will keep their promises.

2. You can pay a weekly/monthly/yearly sub fee, and have an ad-free viewing experience.

 

I see no issues with this at all. Sure, you can block the ads, and block the adblocker blocker, etc, but to what end? You're just driving out content that you presumably enjoy, to either force them to institute a paywall, or beg for donations, or even possible closure.

[PlayStation 2]

Wired's concerned that a fifth of their traffic is using adblockers but their ad placement is worse than Yahoo's.

Well, duh, people are complaining.

[Bensemus]

1 hour ago, jaggysnake57 said:

i dont give 2 shits about wired its not a site i read at all its more an example.  why should i get to read it for free.....because its on the fucking internet behind no pay wall, thats why. im sorry but if you choose to use ad revenue as your income source then you have to accept that essentially your giving your content away. the end user dosnt part with money to view your content and has every right to block ads......no one is entitled to get paid for there work, im sorry if you have lead to think otherwise but thats not how the world works. people get paid because other people think that the work they do has a value. 

 

if your looking for someone to blame, try the advertising companies that have thrust ads down the consumer neck for so long and have only gotten worse

Our society acts based on compensation for worked rendered. Putting something on the internet doesn't mean it's free. Up until recently there wasn't really any way to block ads so websites didn't have any "security" to protect their content. Now that ad blocking is widespread sites need to protect what is theirs from people who want to access it for free. Some put everything behind a paywall while others are starting to block or at last sense ad block and asking you to whitelist their site.

 

Quote

people get paid because other people think that the work they do has a value. 

This is true but it doesn't work in reverse. You can't take something just because you think it doesn't hold any value. I can't just go to Adobe's site and download their programs cuz I've determined they aren't worth money to me. Adobe has said they are worth so much and I need to play that to use them or else find something else (It is more complex with supply and demand but that's extra for my point).

 

WIRED and other sites are saying their content is worth so much and if you don't like their price you can leave. They don't have to give you anything. The site cost money to run. The content cost money to produce. This money has to come from somewhere and if everyone took your approach then nothing could survive on the internet. The fact that it's on the internet means someone somewhere paid money for it to be there.

[linuxfan66]

13 hours ago, Bensemus said:

This is true but it doesn't work in reverse. You can't take something just because you think it doesn't hold any value. I can't just go to Adobe's site and download their programs cuz I've determined they aren't worth money to me. Adobe has said they are worth so much and I need to play that to use them or else find something else (It is more complex with supply and demand but that's extra for my point).

 

WIRED and other sites are saying their content is worth so much and if you don't like their price you can leave. They don't have to give you anything. The site cost money to run. The content cost money to produce. This money has to come from somewhere and if everyone took your approach then nothing could survive on the internet. The fact that it's on the internet means someone somewhere paid money for it to be there.

 

One is not to obliged to read magazine ads nor watch tv ads if you do wish. The internet is no different. And if a website misuses/abuses advertising and collapses because I ain't willing to deal with the misuse/abuse...good riddance I don't mind a major website with low quality articles disappearing. At no point was I obliged to deal with ads legally, so therefore if my lack of ads doesn't pay you...get over it. As said earlier you aren't entitled to guaranteed advertising revenue. I turn on ads on channel awesome, but I'm seriously considering taking them off the list due to noxious hidden video ads near the bottom of the page.

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, linuxfan66 said:

One is not to obliged to read magazine ads nor watch tv ads if you do wish. The internet is no different. And if a website misuses/abuses advertising and collapses because I ain't willing to deal with the misuse/abuse...good riddance I don't mind a major website with low quality articles disappearing. At no point was I obliged to deal with ads legally, so therefore if my lack of ads doesn't pay you...get over it. As said earlier you aren't entitled to guaranteed advertising revenue. I turn on ads on channel awesome, but I'm seriously considering taking them off the list due to noxious hidden video ads near the bottom of the page.

The difference is that, with TV and Magazines - the ads are still there, you're just choosing to ignore them, or change the channel until the commercial break is over (which I equate to letting a YouTube ad play muted, while I do something else on another Window waiting for the ad to finish - which I might add, is a practice I follow regularly).

 

Sure, you can TiVO a TV show and fast forward through the ads, but that's not very different from muting a YouTube ad while it plays. The ad is still there - the content provider still gets paid for it, even if you aren't actually looking at the screen while it's playing.

 

I guess I just have a hard time understanding peoples justifications for their stance when they have an opinion like yours. Certainly, there's nothing legally forcing you to watch those ads. You should do so because you value the content.

 

If you don't value the content, then why are you consuming it? Stop it - drop the site/channel/whatever, and do something more productive/enjoyable with your time.

 

Of course, there's also the difference between a site who employs relatively harmless/unobtrusive ads, vs the sites that use obviously terrible ads (The annoying "YOOOHOOOOOOO" animated ads, or ones that play video suddenly and you have to track them down). Basically any site I visit frequently, does NOT use the latter type of ads.

 

And frankly, if they did, then they don't deserve my traffic, and I'll quit viewing their site and go elsewhere.

 

If we want content to stay FREE on the web, then we have to SHOW the content providers that:

1. We are willing to SUPPORT them, as long as they use ads that aren't annoying/harmful, or have a valid subscription based alternative (Eg: YouTube Red).

2. We WILL drop their site if they employ annoying/dangerous ads.

 

By continuing to view a site that has harmful ads while using AdBlock (Or continuing to view any site while using Adblock), you're telling the content provider that their content isn't worth paying for. It will contribute to the possibility that they will have to shut down because of lack of operating funds.

 

Exception: Site that offers alternative valid method of contribution - eg: LMG with users who have a monthly donation subscription - I would say those users have earned the right to use AdBlock - In fact, I'm surprised that @LinusTech, @Slick, etc, don't have an "AdFree" subscription option on the forums. Perhaps it's a technical limitation - too difficult/time consuming to implement on forum software?

[linuxfan66]

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The difference is that, with TV and Magazines - the ads are still there, you're just choosing to ignore them, or change the channel until the commercial break is over (which I equate to letting a YouTube ad play muted, while I do something else on another Window waiting for the ad to finish - which I might add, is a practice I follow regularly).

 

Sure, you can TiVO a TV show and fast forward through the ads, but that's not very different from muting a YouTube ad while it plays. The ad is still there - the content provider still gets paid for it, even if you aren't actually looking at the screen while it's playing.

 

I guess I just have a hard time understanding peoples justifications for their stance when they have an opinion like yours. Certainly, there's nothing legally forcing you to watch those ads. You should do so because you value the content.

 

If you don't value the content, then why are you consuming it? Stop it - drop the site/channel/whatever, and do something more productive/enjoyable with your time.

 

Of course, there's also the difference between a site who employs relatively harmless/unobtrusive ads, vs the sites that use obviously terrible ads (The annoying "YOOOHOOOOOOO" animated ads, or ones that play video suddenly and you have to track them down). Basically any site I visit frequently, does NOT use the latter type of ads.

 

And frankly, if they did, then they don't deserve my traffic, and I'll quit viewing their site and go elsewhere.

 

If we want content to stay FREE on the web, then we have to SHOW the content providers that:

1. We are willing to SUPPORT them, as long as they use ads that aren't annoying/harmful, or have a valid subscription based alternative (Eg: YouTube Red).

2. We WILL drop their site if they employ annoying/dangerous ads.

 

By continuing to view a site that has harmful ads while using AdBlock (Or continuing to view any site while using Adblock), you're telling the content provider that their content isn't worth paying for. It will contribute to the possibility that they will have to shut down because of lack of operating funds.

 

Exception: Site that offers alternative valid method of contribution - eg: LMG with users who have a monthly donation subscription - I would say those users have earned the right to use AdBlock - In fact, I'm surprised that @LinusTech, @Slick, etc, don't have an "AdFree" subscription option on the forums. Perhaps it's a technical limitation - too difficult/time consuming to implement on forum software?

im glad you feel and understand your convictions. as i said if a site sees they aren't making revenue from me, they probably will work out i dont value them eventually anyway(or collapse from lack of revenue which I'm also fine with). and there is sites with content i do value(well enough that i want them around while they feel like it), but by no means value the bad ad design...

 

If channel awesome asked 1(i dont think my effect ad revenue with ads would even add up to that much...) per month for all contributors on the site i'd do it. but i'm not doing per contributor patreons unless i want to influence their choice. I personally find asking multiple dollars per episode on patreon greedy when its replacing ad revenue that gets maybe a cent per view. and two most are amateurs. 

[jos]

I have not visited the site after seeing the news here. i used to visit the site. It is not the only tech news site available.. Those who have problem visit others..If every one does the same, i am planning to open a piratebay for the sites.. come and read without add....all in one place..

[jaggysnake57]

On 11/02/2016 at 10:37 PM, Bensemus said:

Our society acts based on compensation for worked rendered. Putting something on the internet doesn't mean it's free. Up until recently there wasn't really any way to block ads so websites didn't have any "security" to protect their content. Now that ad blocking is widespread sites need to protect what is theirs from people who want to access it for free. Some put everything behind a paywall while others are starting to block or at last sense ad block and asking you to whitelist their site.

 

This is true but it doesn't work in reverse. You can't take something just because you think it doesn't hold any value. I can't just go to Adobe's site and download their programs cuz I've determined they aren't worth money to me. Adobe has said they are worth so much and I need to play that to use them or else find something else (It is more complex with supply and demand but that's extra for my point).

 

WIRED and other sites are saying their content is worth so much and if you don't like their price you can leave. They don't have to give you anything. The site cost money to run. The content cost money to produce. This money has to come from somewhere and if everyone took your approach then nothing could survive on the internet. The fact that it's on the internet means someone somewhere paid money for it to be there.

if you put something anywhere with out some sort of paywall its free.....sorry but thats fact.

thing is adobe sell you a product you have to pay for the product its not ad based. your anolgy has no merit. ad blocking is not ilegal and untill it is i have every right to "not pay" for content.  

 

its simple if wired wants to charge for its content stick it behind a paywall. right now they offer a an essential honestly policy on there content

[alextulu]

Linus compared using ablock with piracy, but it's not the same thing.

 

When people using adblock are accessing a website, the site has to pay for the bandwith that they are using, and it also needs to scale its servers to handle the traffic. So, they are actually causing a loss.

 

But people who pirate are instead downloading form other sources, so it has no cost for the content creator, developer or publisher.

[jaggysnake57]

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

Linus compared using ablock with piracy, but it's not the same thing.

 

When people using adblock are accessing a website, the site has to pay for the bandwith that they are using, and it also needs to scale its servers to handle the traffic. So, they are actually causing a loss.

 

But people who pirate are instead downloading form other sources, so it has no cost for the content creator, developer or publisher.

your right its not the same piracy is potentially theft, ad block isnt......when you run a site and use adverts as a revenue your are essentially asking for donations, your asking people "if you think our content is good enough turn off the ad block". its a honesty policy, they are not charging you. if they want to ensure that people "pay" then they should use a pay wall.  they wont because people wont pay. thats the long and short of it. 

[theanimun]

And what makes this worse is while they want to charge you $1/week to go ad free, if you for some ungodly reason choose to whitelist their site, you also open yourself to computer viruses that could be transmitted via ads

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, DEcobra11 said:

Ez. Block adblock blocking sites

Or you can just pause adblock, reload the page, and then unpause adblock before the ads load, but after the article loads.

 

I did that last night on some mainstream news site, and it works perfectly (New York something something).

 

Page loaded, article loaded, ads did not. Probably the only time it pays off to have a slow internet connection lol

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, DEcobra11 said:

._.

-snip

Not really, I just wanted to point out that my method works on the NY Times website, which won't even load at all if you have adblock on.

[Bensemus]

11 hours ago, jaggysnake57 said:

f you put something anywhere with out some sort of paywall its free.....sorry but thats fact.

thing is adobe sell you a product you have to pay for the product its not ad based. your anolgy has no merit. ad blocking is not ilegal and untill it is i have every right to "not pay" for content.  

 

its simple if wired wants to charge for its content stick it behind a paywall. right now they offer a an essential honestly policy on there content

That's why they are doing this. They don't have to let you see their content for free. The wall they are putting up blocks non paying viewers. They just have two options to pay. Ads or money. Before adblock became a thing there was no need to block ad blockers cuz they didn't really exist. Now that they do websites are reacting to protect their products. Now if you try to circumvent their wall its the same as trying to get around any pay-wall to get the content for free. 

 

Quote

right to "not pay" for content.

Their putting up a pay-wall means you are now trying to get their content for free. You are not longer just blocking ads. You are going out of your way to get something for free.

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, Bensemus said:

That's why they are doing this. They don't have to let you see their content for free. The wall they are putting up blocks non paying viewers. They just have two options to pay. Ads or money. Before adblock became a thing there was no need to block ad blockers cuz they didn't really exist. Now that they do websites are reacting to protect their products. Now if you try to circumvent their wall its the same as trying to get around any pay-wall to get the content for free. 

 

Their putting up a pay-wall means you are now trying to get their content for free. You are not longer just blocking ads. You are going out of your way to get something for free.

I have to agree with this.

[jagdtigger]

6 hours ago, Bensemus said:

That's why they are doing this. They don't have to let you see their content for free. The wall they are putting up blocks non paying viewers. They just have two options to pay. Ads or money. Before adblock became a thing there was no need to block ad blockers cuz they didn't really exist. Now that they do websites are reacting to protect their products. Now if you try to circumvent their wall its the same as trying to get around any pay-wall to get the content for free. 

 

Their putting up a pay-wall means you are now trying to get their content for free. You are not longer just blocking ads. You are going out of your way to get something for free.

Before you label all adblock user as "pirate" think for a moment, why users use adblock? Because many sites using irritating ads. Unstoppable videos, flash ads, advertisements over the full page which cant be closed until you click on the ad and etc...