Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[RicoADF]

I don't use Adblock, nor do I plan to, nor do I advocate its use, but by god, The Escapist hasn't been making it easy for me the past few months. Video ads, which play on the sides and bottom of the page, starting themselves, with SOUND, which I then have to close everytime I open a new page, have occasionally made browsing the site a downright pain in the ass.

There is no threat here, I've been visiting this site for over 5 years, and have been a member for almost as long, but please Escapist, contact whoever is responsible for the advertisements placed here, and get them to stop it, because in the long run, I'm sure it is in fact the kind of thing that will drive people away, and I'd like this place to continue thriving. Thank you.

I second this, I have never and will never use adblock as I believe those that host the websites have the right to be paid, however the escapist especially needs to clean their adverts up. Ads on the side fine, adds at the top fine, video ad at the start of a video fine, but video advert on the side of a video your trying to watch which you cannot pause or mute and thus you literally cannot watch the video that you've come to the site to enjoy, well that's just getting stupid. Not to mention the Killzone adds a few months back which made it literally impossible for me to use the site, so I just didn't come until it stopped.

Like Fat_Hippo here I don't want to threatern or demand but whoever is in charge of advertisement needs to get their act together because these sorts of issues will push your audience away which would seriously be a shame, I am considering joining the publishers club but if these sorts of adds continue I may just have to reduce my visits instead since as it stands it feels like joining the club would be supporting a practice I don't agree with (that is punishing your add paying viewers for not forking out the cash themselves).

Also, thank god for you Jim and I'm glad to hear you've got a down to earth view on the subject, even though I don't use adblock I do understand why some do and it's good to see you do too.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I've never used Adblock on any webpage. I spend a lot of time on YouTube, it's my primary source of televisual entertainment these days, and have just come to accept adverts as part of the "broadcast" so to speak. That said, I am an Escapist PubClub member which, for me, is incredibly worth the money. I'm proud to support this website.

I get the most satisfaction from knowing that these companies are paying millions of their equivalent currency to display me advertisements for their products and I'm never once going to once be affected by them nor encouraged to actually make a purchase outside of my own decisions to do so. /smug

 

[IceForce]

Tries to have discussion *Gets warning for "Sassing the moderators"*

I just... i don't... *facepalm*

This thread isn't worth posting in anymore. I still maintain the moderating here is disastrous. I shall be disputing this.

On nearly every page of this thread, I've been critical of the moderation and handling of this situation. And I haven't received a warning yet.

Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead...

 

[RicoADF]

Before I used to be adblock free. That changed for me when a huge site I frequented and trusted let in numerous ads that infected and fucked my computer numerous times. I assumed at first that it was simply a link. But nope, it was the actual ads on the site. Now I'm paranoid as hell. Especially since then I continued to have close call. In general a lot of websites don't monitor what kinds of ads grace their site. The constraints in quality control has steadily dropped.

Actually you remind me of another point, when I visit the site on my smartphone I often get popups trying to send me to infected sites "install such and such app to clean your system" crap, only on this site. I literally stopped visiting on my phone because of it, whatever adds this place allows is seriously questionable from a security standpoint.

Without necessarily commenting on my own adblock use or lack thereof, the Escapist is one of the worst sites for ads I've seen, hands down. I mean hell, they run those banner ads that try to lure the gullible into clicking on them by saying you've got a virus or something. When viewing on my tablet, I've been getting popups that redirect me to dodgy-looking sites when I try to close them (and yes, I've checked for adware, and this only ever happens on the Escapist). That's not the kind of shit you should see on a legit site.

Seems I'm not the only one being hit by this crap, seriously!

 

[viranimus]

Wow, such a overwhelming response. I sort of understand because the issue is a little more divisive and a little less cut and dry. So please forgive me in advance for the thesis I am about to spit and the wall of text that will result. My most sincere apologies and if you do not want the headache and homework, do yourself a favor, avert your eyes and pretend this post doesn't even exist because it is a whole lot of me philosophizing at length on the subject.

Because of such I will not placate for a TL;DR. This is effectively exercising thought and deep consideration. It is meant to provoke not only thought and to construct a highly complex line of reasoning to achieve a position that while extensively reasoned out in fact runs counter to the accepted reasoning on such matters. To give a glib overview summary effectively defeats the point and purpose.

Spoiler: Disclaimer

Now keep in mind I have the escapist fully white listed on multiple levels which will be discussed later, so I do continue to ad support despite being vehemently against Marketing as a rule. However I was also a pub club member (would still be one had the escapist decided to do a very muddy backtrack on the "no advertising" benefit of Pub Club by their store advert box, which does not fit under the definitions of pub club benefits, Neither here nor there) I had at least at one time been a relatively heavy user of the site and as such supported it. While I still on occasion use it, I feel that white listing is ample enough support for the content provided. So while I do support the usage of ad block as a necessary evil, I am not in any way advocating its irresponsible usage and neglecting to configure it so that acceptable marketing can be allowed while curtailing unsolicited, unwarranted, unwanted, and potentially unsafe forms of marketing. Please do not take my intent to mean anything otherwise or as advocacy of neglecting the individuals role in the content/marketing relationship out of self serving interest that takes everything but gives nothing in return. I do not feel that is something that can or should be condoned.

Now.. on with the show.

Spoiler: Building the framework of a point

I have long been confused by the vehement opposition on the escapist over Ad block, at least as it relates to mods & Admins who adversely effect people for even ancillary references to its utilization. Rest assured I absolutely get the point from a business end and how the business model is built with a focus of content in exchange for ad revenues and effectively anything else that can be pulled in. It also is quite understandable that because such an online endeavor is not a hotbed of commerce, that ad revenues are crucial in keeping the ship afloat. That is fully understandable and completely reasonable. I do NOT speak against that.

However I think it is also important to realize that there is far more in play than simply one website. While I think anyone watching videos or perusing forums or even lurking just to stay in the know of gaming developments the website should certainly be white listed, but the way it is perceived and handled is as if ad block should not be used at all and honestly I think that is a pretty unreasonable expectation for any website to make. Not because it denies the site money, but because it is basically like expecting a date not only put out on the first date but cannot use protection. Is it really reasonable to adopt a philosophy that users should endanger their equipment to satisfy one websites needs?

I think my problem is that given the years in tech support, How I am effectively the 1 man IT department for all my friends and family, and how many computers I have been tasked with repairing that I understand something VERY important. Most people do NOT understand how computers and the internet works.Now this is not one blanket statement. Sure there are people who do, but the number of people who do understand is but a drop in the ocean of people who do not, or worse those who understand a good deal, but still have a lacking understanding.

Allow me to explain for the benefit of those who might not understand or see where I am driving this. Forgive if this seems like teaching net for kindergarteners and seniors, but it serves to build prerequisite knowledge. So if you understand, great, skim down until you start seeing things that you were not familiar with, or to the next point.

Spoiler: Lesson in web design, access and function on the absolute most elementary of levels

Now, Say for example you open up a new browser and direct it to
www.Google.com
Congratulations, you are 100% on Google. Now, Google for all of its reach across the internet, on its own accord is not very interesting or even useful. The "use" of Google is its search engine (or potentially for its interconnected network of tentacles reaching into every aspect of web life like Gmail, YouTube, etc.) So in order to get any real use out of Google you must search for something. For sake of argument, the escapist.

[link]http://www.google.com/#q=escapist[/link]

Now as we see predominantly the search results are directing you to this very website. You are still on Google, however if you will notice there is a Google+ content box about recent posts mentioning South Park Stick of Truth. While still a Google site and a part of Google's network, that element on the page is not purely a part of Google. Rather it is Google Plus page.

[link]http://plus.google.com/+theescapist/posts/T79HXBaTABG[/link]

So while you directed your browser to Google, already before even selecting the first link in search results, your browser has already communicated and transmitted data from a website that is NOT (100% anyway) Google.com. This is the very beginning of where people fail to understand the way webpages display content.

Moving forward, Lets click on the escapist search result because you know the escapist is a "safe site" you go ahead and click

[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/[/link]

Now, you have been moved to the Escapist's page. However, it is now more complicated than the average user really understands. While you are on the escapists page, one of the noticeable things you will see is the line of social networking Icons near the top of the page. These icons direct users to connect to escapist related social media pages like twitch, YouTube, Facebook, Pin interest, etc. By clicking any of those icons it will redirect you to a page for its respective service.

Now this is where it is important. While these "links" thumbnails may be hosted by the escapist, ON the escapists servers, we understand from what was learned earlier that all the content on a page may not actually originate from that pages server. The way many webmasters will develop pages is to utilize widgets and other types of graphic elements from the source servers. So while it may or may not be that the face book thumbnail is actually being hosted on the escapist servers, it is also possible that it could be hosted on the other end and the page is simply displaying that content.

Now lets take the next step in illustrating not only the theory, but practical application of this. From the escapist main splash page, lets go to your profile.

[link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/[/link]

Now we get to see this in action. If you are not currently a pub club sub (which this may apply to pub clubbers too, not 100%) Right now and as of late, there has been a new "box" displayed on the escapist profile home. The new "Lockerdome" contest element that effectively pushed all the content below it down, and has (at least currently)replaced the escapist "Shop" box. Now here it is in perfect practice. You are "on" the escapist. However part of the content you see displayed on your profile homepage is NOT on the escapist, and is rather hosted on this "locker dome website.

This is why it is so important to understand how this works and where the average user they do not make such a connection. To most people they make the incorrect assumption that if they are "on" a page, and they feel that content is "safe" that THEY are safe.

Another example of this. Solve Media that provides the advert captcha system. Every time that captcha pops up, that is the escapist using simple coded directions to display the content at its specified web address. So each time you see it, your browser has displayed what the escapist has directed the webpage to redirect in order to display. Each "solve media" captcha is your browser again connecting to a completely different website, specifically the server that provides the captcha service and in turn facilitates the advertising involved with it.

So yet again we take this another step further. Focusing on the Locker dome box on the escapist, Lets say you are interested in entering the contest. You click the needed link (which to register for locker dome, you need to connect first to either your twitter or Facebook, which is automatically a redirection to those respective sites) and open the locker dome contest page.

[link]http://lockerdome.com/6170038851878465/6405803196292890[/link]

Now, much as we saw when we transitioned from Google to the escapist, you quickly see boxes for both twitter and Facebook. Those ARE in fact widget type boxes from their respective pages, NOT locker dome. As you scroll down the contest page, eventually past the comments you will find "recommended feed" content. Now here is where you see this absolutely explode.

Right now you can see "feeds" for other Locker dome content, along with content that originated from other servers from all across the web. Reddit, Mashable, YouTube, MLB, NPR, MSN, Fox, and effectively all without end. So by simply clicking one link to take you to the contest page for Locker dome, you have in effect accessed dozens of different websites that the locker dome page has embedded as a part of the contest page. One click, potentially hundreds of different sites accessed with content downloaded by your browser in order to display what the page was coded to display.

This is effectively how website advertising works. A site will code commands for a page to display content from external sources that will advertise for their clients. It works as a seamless display embedded and built into a page, either directly or more subversively. Then by simply opening up a page with that embedded content, effectively to display it, the user has downloaded it so that the page can display it. Again, usually in the form of a widget that will redirect to the advertisers desired page. Even if you did not notice its presence, it has been downloaded into your machine effectively by simple and oblivious navigation. Does not matter if you click on it or even look at it., It is there.

So now that we fully understand how individual webpages work, and that the content on a webpage may or may not originate from the source pages server, it is understood that even when you visit what you think is a "safe" page, that page may very well have coded directions to display/redirect to much more questionable content.

While we understand this is how legitimate web advertising functions, it is also the exact same delivery method that is utilized by those with more nefarious intent. Some advertisers are not simply satisfied with trying to get you to look at their ads, they want to know what you look at, so they can mine such data to produce even more effective marketing. This is where things like Spyware/adware/malware come into play.

Even in its most benign form such as cookies these wares open the door for much more threatening potential. If by simply getting someone to click a link you can hypothetically get them to download something without their knowledge it then becomes possible for you to get them to download self extracting/installing software that they will likely not notice. This will range from "call home" nodes from advertisers who want reports on your browsing habits, all the way to script kids who make fake pages to appear like trusted pages in order to get active scripts installed into a browser that will call home details like keystrokes that were recorded when you were typing in your password for whatever site you might have visited, not the least of which to be concerned for is your personal banking site. Even now it still does not end there as those with the most ill of intent not only want to gain access to your personal information, but give themselves open windows so they can even remotely control your machine.

All this... from simply accessing a page you "trusted".

(Note: My apologies to "write it in crayon" something that many people fully understand. My experience has shown me so many times over that this is a thing that a surprising bulk of computer users are completely oblivious to. It is for their benefit and if all the computers I have resurrected are any indication it is a lesson sorely in need of being presented. If you get all this, do not take offense at it. Simply understand it was not written for your benefit but there are others who will benefit from it. =) )

Spoiler: Unending devastation only a click away

Now with all the prerequisite understanding out of the way it now brings me to my point. Is it a reasonable expectation for any one site or community to expect its users to subject their hardware to all the perils across the net? It was illustrated in the elementary lesson that webpages can and often do display external content and the escapist is no different. While the escapist on its own is benign, when you understand how things work you understand that being on a "trusted" site can put you into harms way only one click away. Even staying purely on escapist content pages like videos and articles are at best at the mercy of the decency and legitimacy of any external advertisers such as Solve Media. That does not even take into consideration what can happen when someone posts a link as a source or reference. Even content articles by staff, citing news article sources that redirect to external web addresses present the potential for risk.

Am I saying do not trust the escapist? Certainly not. Am I even suggesting not white listing the escapist? Absolutely not. I am simply explaining that the net is filled with all sorts of traps and perils and even people with above average computer literacy expose themselves unwittingly to dangers that they simply did not realize they were doing.

This is why programs like Ad block are actually very important even though they are effectively necessary evils in their own right.

Spoiler: My over killing anything resembling overkill security measures

(Disclaimer: The escapist is completely white listed and allowed to run through all the precautions I am about to detail)

Personally I am downright overzealous in protecting my hardware. There is in fact a point I am driving to in detailing my security protocols and hardware structures. So bear with please.

I run Six active computers. (Gaming, HTPC, Audio Dev, Video/animation dev, Sandbox, Media server) And these measures I am about to describe are for the most part uniform across all, but there are of course relevant variances. However as generalization I am referring to my "primary" tri monitor display Gaming PC, codenamed: "Anti Venom"

[link]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/251/3/f/gaming_by_viroodiem-d6lkunp.png[/link]
[link]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2013/251/5/2/tri_monitor_alpha_by_viroodiem-d6lkvgr.jpg[/link]
[link]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2013/251/9/6/tri_monitor_beta_by_viroodiem-d6lkvrb.jpg[/link]

I (at least try) to reformat yearly(although I'm about a year and a half behind schedule atm) to clear out anything that might be lingering that I cannot see. On PC I first run dual Antivirus. I then relegate all browsing to virtual sessions of Linux(might soon switch them to android though) to create browsing sandboxes and contain anything truly malignant. I run at least two VM box sessions as basic day to day usage. One for primary browsing, and a second locked sandbox for websites I am not comfortable with. I also keep Inactive VM Box sessions of Linux for anything related to purchases or data to be transmitted that I wish to keep secured (like any sort of registration that involves real life data such as social security numbers, drivers licenses, etc) That session is rarely opened or even exposed to the internet, period and it is once a quarter reset to its original "snapshot" so as to not allow anything to accumulate that might go unnoticed.

Underneath that I run not only windows firewall, but a secondary firewall that is better for real time observation. Furthermore the next precaution I take is to run Peer Block underneath everything. (again, Escapist is white listed)Not that I use torrents, but the program itself acts as a wonderful reverse firewall that makes the PC aware (regardless if in Win environment or virtual Linux environments) of questionable web addresses even if I would not notice them. Being as I mentioned before the family 1 man IT staff, any system they may use that runs Windows also gets peer block along with it and instruction on its use to help empower them to protect their systems themselves. (family I cant convince to migrate to Linux anyway) Beyond peer block I also keep a unified monitor program that keeps an eye on just about everything imaginable, Performs disk de fragmentation on the fly,Registry monitor, Malware/spyware/adware monitor, Privacy monitor, Ram optimization, even friggen fan control. Even all these software precautions are not enough for me as I constantly monitor system resource use, network use, and strictly control any and all actively running processes.

Moreover my browsers are enabled with Ad block (again escapist is white listed) In those virtual sessions as well as semi conflicted No script. For "most" browsers I also utilize fire fox options to turn off popups, java script, auto load images, even site colors/fonts. All these precautions give me the power to (about as much as any one person can) control what they allow onto their machine and what does not get in.

Spoiler: Exposure leads to contamination

Yet for all this well beyond overkill, effectively neutered, and at times security conflicted measures, even my systems have picked up malignant ad/spy/malware and even been virii infected.(albeit it rarely, but when you utilize four active windows based PC/Laptops over a decade and a half its bound to happen.) I am not trying to suggest that I am so much more vigilant, or better at keeping my equipment defended. I explain all that so it is understood that even going through all of those precautions of which are absolutely overboard and someone who has an in depth understanding and capable of both detecting and avoiding traps can still, even with highly cautious usage end up exposed to unwanted elements. If someone is this over the top paranoid about such things cannot 100% avoid such problems, what chance does the average computer user who has like 4gb of system ram but has allowed over 200 active processes even though some of them have not been used in virtually the life of the machine, have at avoiding dangerous exposure?

They don't and that's why such programs like Ad block exist. Effectively they are just as much vital tools to responsibly use a (win based anyway) computer and take it onto the internet as firewalls and anti virii.



While the solution is to run ABP and similar software, but white list where it is logical, needed, and poses little risk to the end user, I think it goes without saying that most of us understand that an overwhelming majority of computer users would barely be able to install ABP, much less understand and properly white list sites, and electing to rather just opt for a "whatever ABP thinks is worth me blocking" approach. ABP is well known enough that most people utilizing fire fox will either have installed it themselves, or whoever admins their PC for them will have put it in place to help protect them. ABP is also arguably the foremost program to perform this essential function.

Spoiler: Environmental footprint

You MUST understand in this. This is not a "chicken and the egg" Scenario where you cannot determine which came first. The internet existed in its early forms completely devoid of advertising for years before the first attempts to monetize the internet came forth and with it came an unrelenting and exponential self proliferation and that is the situation that created the need for software such as ABP to exist. Even before there was a legitimate reasonable exchange possible of content for marketing, the marketing was already there.

While it is completely understandable from a business perspective to take a dim view toward what programs like ABP do because it hurts your revenue generation, It is not anywhere near as understandable to not only expect people to refrain from its use, but punish those who would admit to its usage, considering how important a tool for computer health it is. As Ya point out Jim, its the fault of the advertisers who create an environment where the television business model of exchanging content for ad sponsored marketing cannot exist because to do so is irresponsible computer usage. If taken to heart completely and utilized with the same level of acceptance as given that broadcast tv model can only end in creating work for someone like me to have to come and repair. That is simply the nature of the environment but that is still off kilter

Spoiler: The beast

Now anyone who has spent a good degree of time involved in the escapist forums knows from either direct or indirect experience how the admissions of ad blocking software is handled. More often than not it is met with nearly indiscriminate intolerance and bordering on near militaristic regulation.

Again it is absolutely understandable to be so adamantly opposed to such a thing when you are having your ad revenue being destroyed by a piece of software. It is genuinely hard to fault any organization from taking such a hard line stance against it. Its like watching the lifeblood that keeps your business going being pissed away.

However you really do have to consider where the source of the problem really is. Is it the users who are acting in their best (personal) interest by protecting their gear and in doing so killing ad revenue? Or is it the advertisers who created a cesspool like landscape in the internet doing all they can to paint every exposed surface available to try and generate as much revenue as possible? Just as it is hard to blame the users for both doing what is in their best interest, and doing what is in their selfish nature, It is difficult to fault marketing for doing what it is supposed to do. This is why the marketing industry is a multi BILLION dollar global industry. It does what it has to do to keep itself going, and the only way it can effectively do that is through locust hoard like continual growth. When one business tries to gain profit from marketing it forces all other competing businesses to do the same. Then it continually grows by needing to feed on bigger budgets, wider exposure and more effective campaigns. Given that most of us live in the "western world" that is effectively built around capitalism and trade markets this is simply marketing doing exactly what it was created to do in the capitalistic environment that it was born into. So can you really fault the marketing for doing what is effectively in its nature? Then where is the real source of the problem?

Spoiler: We have seen the enemy and they are US!

Like it or not you have to be objective with this. Again I do not feel you can blame users for using software like ABP (I do blame them for not properly using it and just allowing it to block everything indiscriminately) While I do feel that the true problem IS marketing, I feel that to fault the marketing industry for doing what it is designed to do and behaving in accordance with its very nature is inappropriate as well because it is something we allow to exist and grow to the state that it has. If we did more to resist it and stop it, sure you could blame marketing, but when you accept that it is normal to exchange content for advertising exposure you have to accept that beast for what it is, Warts and all. So what else is there? Unfortunately the real blame invariably has to fall to those who enable marketing to become the abomination that it is. While on an idealistic level that means we are all to blame for not focusing on stopping it, it also means on a practical level those who fall prey to its tricks. Effectively what you see here is marketing doing what it is designed to do and part of what it does is offers reward for those who allow it to proliferate.

Spoiler: A Streetwalker named Desire

So consider this, Picture any dark seedy, red light district part of any town in virtually any corner of the globe. You Understand you cannot eliminate the problem of prostitution because there is the market for it. You effectively allow it because you know there is little or nothing you can do on a widespread or really effective level to stop it. All you can really do is try to attack it at the source, which is one of both supply and demand. You arrest the street walkers pushing their "service" but no matter how many you bust as long as there are those enabling it as a profession the busted will either return or there will be someone else to come and take their place. So you have to bust the ones fueling such a market by accepting the offer and in the process telling the streetwalkers there is still money to be made in this.

That is what you have here. The marketers are out on the streets, selling their wares and offering a good time by trying to "sell" a benefit for something that should not be treated in a financial manner. So as long as advertisers know there are "johns" they can offer cheap/easy money to in exchange for their wares, advertisers will continue to come back and push to those who are willing to make that exchange for cheap thrills. You hate the game, but if you do nothing to change the game you cannot be upset when the players play the game as it is intended. So you cant hate the players as much as you have to hate what is encouraging the competition in the first place.

That is why I think that if one objectively views this then there has to be every bit as much focus put on those who are enabling advertisers by giving them the platform and access to people for profit. We know what the state of marketing is and it is one that we accept and tolerate by virtue of doing little or nothing to stop it. We understand that they will gladly offer up seemingly easy benefits, but the real fault has to be with the organizations that enable them to deliver their message through the exchange of profit earned out of ill repute. If there is no one to accept their "offer" and whenever they try to sell it, it is consistently denied, then the market to do so collapses in on itself because if there is no one buying what they are selling they will not be able to continue selling it and have to change their tactics to find something that WILL work to meet their ends. So out of this analogy it is the organization that for what ever reasoning, be it justifiable or not, who enables the ill repute of the market doing what it is designed to do, where the blame must invariably lead to.

Spoiler: Who's on first?

Now that said, do I blame the escapist or any organization for capitalizing on this ads>profit>content model? No. Certainly not. They are effectively just a different team of players playing the same game. Media outlets invariably play dual roles of both selling and buying. This is why it is understandable for the prospect of ad blocks damaging revenue to be frowned upon. It certainly is playing the game within the rules of the game. There is however two problems I do have about it though.

First, while we understand that the revenue is certainly important to keep such businesses going there in lies the spark that sets all this into motion. When an organization NEEDS that revenue stream that is generated from ill repute in order to keep their business going.

Lets be frank, no business should be built around a business model of advertising revenue. While we know that many media businesses have historically been built around ad revenues (Television, Magazines, newspapers, etc) their historical existence does not justify the ends to their means. We as a people need to understand with complete clarity not only the nature of marketing but fully understand its effects and refrain from doing what has led to this place of viewing its adverse effects on an individual basis, and rather consider it on a sociological perspective of the impacts on what this manner of action has on not just individuals but society as a whole.

This is an instance where it is paramount to understand the value of "the greater good" and realize that this type of business model should have NEVER been encouraged because we can see what happens when it is allowed to grow unchecked. While it is without question that without that revenue stream gained from advertising it effectively limits or outright eliminates the ability to produce content that will in turn grow that customer base. However there is nothing that states that has to be where revenue MUST stream from. It is certainly a "practical" arrangement. But are the ends really appropriate to justify the means that result?

Now the other end that concerns me. While I certainly do not blame any organization for playing the game, I do find it hard to swallow seeing an organization utilizing rigid negative reinforcement to fault their customers for playing their role in the same game. How many users have been disciplined for confessing to using something that the nature of the internet functionally needs people to use? Then consider, if there was no or little dependence on advertising revenue then would such a position still exist? If not then the real problem is those who are enabling(intentionally or inadvertently) the structure and being so reliant on it that it CREATES the position of being against it. Effectively that is like game development making a design choice. There is nothing wrong with choosing to structure a business anyway that those involved feel is practical and profitable but at the same time it truly does smack at inappropriate to take a hard line opposition toward an action when that position was born out of the effects of their decisions.

Spoiler: In the end, nothing really matters

So I am honestly left to wonder, how can a merchant be upset over customers taking actions that are basically the consequences of decisions made to support and benefit from a structure that ultimately negatively effects the customers in far greater scope than what potential benefit they would get out of it?

In what other instance can the merchant not only sell their product to their customer, but would also negatively reinforce the their needs and expectations of how the product is consumed, when it effectively comes at the expense of the customers ability to chose how they wish to consume it?

As I have repeatedly asserted I have no problems with the actions of those adhering to the rules while playing the game. I have no problem playing my part in the game either. My problem is more of a hard line being drawn against the would be customer, when such an adamant and rigid philosophy would server infinitely greater ends in directing that focus and intent toward the causes of the problem rather than the effects that are born out of it. I am sorry but that seems neither completely logical or rational to me, though it is only one nameless faceless opinion from the void standing on the gigantic wall I built philosophizing on what all it took to get so high. So take that for what any other opinion is worth.

Spoiler: TL;DR "ish"

Individuals:
Ad block is a necessary evil for using computers at least in a windows environment. It is made so because of the nature of marketing. While it is needed, it also goes without saying it is also misused and abused for self serving desires. But even if it is, it is not really appropriate to expect customers to risk their equipment even if the reasoning for it is certainly justified.

Marketers:
While marketing does at times serve a beneficial purpose to those who rely on it, more often it does not and only serves to perpetuate what keeps fueling it. To evaluate the subject objectively one must fully observe the nature of marketing and what keeps it alive. It falls under the category of "if it didn't work, we wouldn't do it" and operating with that sort of philosophy has allowed it to exist under the guise of being something beneficial to people when it is really effectively no more beneficial to the species than say prostitution is. We need to look at it in its true light, and not the more noble one we let it fool us into thinking is its real reflection.

Enablers:
While understandable for playing the game by the rules, what is missed is that in so doing it effectively fuels marketing and all the negatives that come from it. If marketers were not enabled by those taking the temptation of profit in exchange for an audience, then marketers would not waste their time and resources looking for such audiences. That may be a heavy burden to put on those who produce media content, but in the scheme of the game it is effectively the only end that has any sort of power to control the situation and steer it to a greater human good. While it is regrettable that some businesses have little choice but to rely on such unseemly revenues to survive, even at the expense of content not being created the price that comes along with it is far too high when we observe objectively all of the effects. So while it is an unfair burden, It is also just as if not more so unfair to use negative reinforcement against those of your customers who have adapted for good or ill to the results of the merchants choices. To be displeased or resent them is understandable but to proactively punish them for undesirable actions with intolerance is misplaced because invariably it was those choices that created the problem, not the other way around.

It might not seem right or fair, but such is the costs of being in business and the obligation of necessity that makes you as a creator/producer as servants of and ultimately at the good graces of the customers for which you would serve. To place ambivalence toward them is putting it in the wrong place as it should be directed to marketing that creates such a dismal landscape, though from that same perspective it is still hard to bite the hand that feeds as it were. So for those who would enable marketing it is an futile scenario to continue playing within the rules of the game that is what keeps to that unjust status quo.

The important thing is to remember from this perspective, that while it is the most unjust with negatives coming from both sides, it is also the position with the greatest degree of power to change the rules of the game for the better. That however will never happen without breaking those rules and finding a way to write new ones.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I see where the content creators are coming from and i acknowledge that there is a problem. But isn´t it a broken business model if something that´s built into most standard browsers, are choking the sites to death? If it´s a problem that people watch the stuff for free (stuff that is made available for free), wouldn´t it be better to change the business model and start to hide stuff behind paywalls? This Ad business obviously isn´t going to work forever if this keeps on going, because the majority is probably oblivious to the fact that their browsers are automatically blocking ads.

I obviously do believe that people need to be paid for the work they produce, shit ain´t free, but i can´t stop feeling that maybe it´s a problem that everyone is offering free stuff, we got used to the fact that and entertainment was free, and now here we are.

 

[SecondPrize]

Fell free to lock the thread then because everyone here has mentioned adblock in one form or another. It's hard to have an opinion on the topic if you don't have personal experience with the topic. This was a video posted by one of the site's own paid contributors. Why are people receiving warnings for participating in the discussion?

We don't lock official content threads. So that's not going to happen. (IceForce, that goes for your continued requests, too.)

People are receiving warnings for advocating the usage of ad blockers and admitting to their usage. You do not need to say "I use adblock" in order to share your opinion on the subject.

Why aren't people who admit to using adblock but say they whitelist this site getting warnings? It's been posted again and again that merely admitting the usage is a violation. You said in the quote, "and admitting to their usage." Well, there are plenty of quotes admitting to the usage of adblock that have been skipped over. Do you feel this is facilitating free discussion?

 

[szaleniec1000]

I mostly have Adblock Plus to avoid the sketchier ads that insist upon downloading executable files. I don't want to choke the life out of anyone's livelihood, but advertising could use some quality control.

That's why I like the idea of ABP's new trusted advertisers whitelist: if an advertiser can guarantee their content will be secure, tasteful and relevant to the audience's interests, it lets them through by default. A well-designed (i.e. no Photoshopped elf tits, horribly clashing colours or unreadable fonts) static image banner or text block announcing the existence of a product you've got a reasonable chance of wanting to buy isn't the kind of thing adblockers were developed for. And adverts on videos are no different in principle from adverts on TV (often the same content, in fact) and I've got no problem as long as they're a reasonable length and volume and not added to content such as trailers that are already advertising. I don't even mind those emails Amazon sends out based on your browsing history. Advertising isn't bad in itself and there's nothing wrong with relying on it as a business model; it's just a few arseholes spoiling it for everyone else.

 

[Jodski]

Tell you what Jim, because you asked so kindly, I will turn off Adblock on the escapist for you. Please keep doing what you are doing - don't ever change.

 

[Oskuro]

My two cents: I use AdBlock by default not only to get rid of bothersome ads, but to save on bandwidth and processing power on not so powerful computers. Also, some ads, specially on gaming sites, are quite NSFW.

I do un-block sites I frequently watch, and kind of feel pride at seeing the ads and knowing I'm supporting them (I even click on ads from time to time just to help that little bit more)

Then again, I've come upon a problem that often forces me to use AdBlock: In-video ads will sometimes render videos unwatchable. I'm not sure why (It happens often with Blip.tv videos), but sometimes the ads fail to load and the video itself won't load, or I even see situations where ads will not load even with AdBlock disabled.

Edit: I think this might be related to issues regarding broadcast of adverts into different countries. Just like we can't get Netflix or Hulu around here because distributors/advertisers can't (or don't want to) get their act together and build a workable model.


I've always thought that it'd be interesting to have people work, in tandem with content providers and the AdBlock guy himself, to create lists of "good" advertisers, so obnoxious ads can be punished, and forced through market pressure to clean up their act. Maybe a voting option integrated in AdBlock itself, or on the sites, where users can rate ads?

Then again, I don't see a majority of web users participating, and it'd be too tempting for some market heavyweights to tamper with.


This is an important issue, way more important than many people realize. I've personally noticed how some content providers have been scaling back their productions due to diminishing returns on their ad revenue (An example would be the That Guy With The Glasses anniversary movies no longer being made, and the attempts of Channel Awesome and affiliated producers to diversify), and that will have, in the future, harmful results for the audience, leading back to a world where only those with money put content out there, and our cherished internet "freedom" will be gone, smothered by our own disinterest.

 

[jackpipsam]

I have never used Ad-block, it makes me feel dirty.
I see many videos from many people and I'd love to keep seeing more.

Nothing in life is really free.

That said as someone who has had Publisher's Club for a couple years now, I'd recommend anyone who uses Escapist a lot but hates ads to consider it.
$20 for an entire year in my opinion is pretty cheap to have no ads, support content makers AND have a better video player.

 

[IceForce]

I have seen in the past sites have via some technical wizardry made it so that anyone running Adblock would not be able to access the site at all.
Has the Escapist thought about doing that in order to force everyone to comply with not using Adblockers? And what are your thoughts on such activities and the sites that use them?

The Escapist already does something like this, by having ad captchas.

When I trialled some adblock software some time ago (which I no longer use, mods please take note), the captchas wouldn't display correctly because they were counted as ads.
Which meant I couldn't post.

 

[ForumSafari]

snip

tl;dr :^)

Nah you're exactly right and this is the reason I use ad and script blockers as well as blocking tracking cookies. This isn't a question of trusting the Escapist, in the terms of that old STI campaign when you go to the Escapist you are going to everyone the Escapist has linked to.

As an additional aside I don't like the idea that support is expected because the site needs money to create content because it doesn't. The site actually doesn't produce anything others don't produce for free elsewhere, sometimes free really is free. Hell everything I use to host my own website (except the line to be fair) was free, both libre and gratis and the idea that we should 'take one for the team' because otherwise the Escapist couldn't make shows is...odd. I mean, it's like someone saying we can't fly because it stops him selling his cars.

If the Escapist or any other site is losing money my response is basically "too bad, you're trying to make money in a market that doesn't exist, this is a stupid business to be in." Quit trying to sell magic beans and being pissed off when no one wants them.

 

[Alandoril]

Ads are fine, when they're not obnoxiously spamming me with unwanted audio every time I view an article. The worst part is that they refuse to be muted and/or paused. The level of advertising is become so absurd that I'm tempted to just do the browsing equivalent of watching TV and change channel when the ads come on...by that I mean not using the site at all.

 

[Caiphus]

I must say, I became a Pubclub member to get away from the ads, but I can't remember them being this bad:

explicitly pornographic hentai in its ad banners.

...

*unsubscribes from Pubclub*

Wat.

Anyway, it's good that Jim tried to start this discussion, because it's one that needs to be had. It's one of the elephants in the room around here. It's slightly off that people are getting warnings, but the Escapist has to protect its revenue stream. The whole situation sucks, frankly.

Oh wells.

Edit: After reading what Kross and Marter had to say about adblocker discussion scaring off advertisers, I can see why they do what they do. So yeah.

Snip

This in particular was a bloody awesome post.

 

[nickpy]

I used to use adblock on the Escapist, but I always made an effort to craft some (heavily convoluted) exception rules so that (most) of the ads would get through - my issue was not the ads themselves, afterall I understood that blocking them was denying The Escapist revenue it needed to produce the content I wished to consume. My issue was with 1. the social plugins (privacy issues etc) and 2. the extremely heavy javascript that would outright crash my browser.

However, I have recently taken out a PubClub Sub so that now I don't have to worry about any such dodginess anymore, and any lingering guilt evaporated away there and then. Honestly, I think the Escapist could do more to push PubClub; had I known it was only $20 a year i'd have gladly taken it out years ago.

I also sent a feedback message to the site explaining all of this, including how it'd be nice to have an option to disable social plugins... never did get a response, though I didn't get banned either so hey-ho.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Personally, I prefer to use privacy-protection addons over adblockers. I don't mind watching an add once in a while (people gotta eat), but I want to know who gets all my data. Collusion tells me that browsing the Escapist for a bit can get me tagged by over 20 different sites and companies and I don't like it.

 

[themainc]

Eh, I just pay for the publishers club thing. I'd do the same for all the youtube guys I watch, but they don't have a system like that. And when I directly reach out to them and get no response, well there's not much else to do. On sites I absolutely have to support and can't just throw money add, I whitelist on adblock. Youtubers though usually eventually get apo box or something, that I can just post some funky coloured Australian money to.

 

[alj]

For me, notscript, blocking known add servers and add block addons are not about stopping content creators getting paid for me they are about security. If a site signs up with an ad network there is no way they can know if there malicious code in the adverts, cross site scripting is one of the biggest security problems on the internet and i am just not going to take that chance. I want to support the creators that is why i subscribe to the publishers club.

EDIT

Basic HTML adverts with no scripts are fine as are logos of sponsors links to sponsors sites, short adverts at the start of the video and so on.

In line adds in text that take up 1/2 of the screen, video adds, flash adds and adds with javascript are not ok. What is also not ok its dressing up your add as a download button or a log in button or as someone else mentioned a skip add button.

Possibly an idea would be a list of add networks that don't have bad adverts ( see above ) and then having an option in add block to whit list the networks would be an idea, however this is still a security concern as we don't know how long the network will stay with the " good " list.

The techdirt article on this linked further up is spot on

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100306/1649198451.shtml

EDIT 2 ( not regarding this site )

A system where we could subscribe to a YouTube channel ( a paid subscription not what we have now) where you pay say £5 a year and you get no adds on the videos and a few extra cool things would also be an idea or possibly access to higher res html5 video 2k and 4k as that was one of the main points on my for list when choosing to subscribe to the escapist .

 

[Legion]

*snipped for space*

A very interesting read, and hopefully people will start to be a bit more sympathetic as to why advertising is necessary. After all, it's not as though The Escapist (or any website for that matter) would want advertisements on their site if they weren't needed. I'm sure given the choice the staff would much rather the site was able to be kept as clean as it is for them and the Pub Club members.

I am not sure how viable it would be, but has the concept of a donation option been considered? The Pubclub does work in that way in some regards, but a lump sum probably seems more to a lot of people than a small donation might, even if the former works out as being cheaper in the long run.

I am also not aware of how much the advertisement for Pubclub is shown to regular users, but perhaps an advert showing off the positives of having it might encourage more people to join it.

While I completely get the reasoning behind it, the fact that ad free viewing is the main reason given for joining might actually put some people off, as it would seem like annoying advertisements are done in order to get people to buy it. Obviously this isn't the case, but even from an outsiders perspective, when I see people say "Don't like adverts? Get the publishers club" I can see why some people might think that way.