Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[xGrimReaperzZ]

Whitelisted the site, couldn't bare with the ads though..

So i guess i'm part of the "Publisher's Club" now, just for you, Jimmy Boy!

 

[Vareoth]

Fine, alright! I'll remove the bleedin' block on this site.

Now, how about I'll make the Escapist a deal for a change: remove the unjust warnings from the people in the first three pages of this topic (and any future ones), and I will subscribe to the publisher's club within the week.

 

[04whim]

I do have Ad Block installed on Chrome for the whole browsing porn thing you mentioned. The last thing I need is virus infested pop ups everywhere but I do usually whitelist things like The Escapist, That Guy With the Glasses, YouTube, sites that generally are some people's jobs.

Of course I realise that, a few days ago adverts were refusing to play on this site for some reason which prevented me from watching videos. So I had to turn Ad Block on to get around that problem. So I've been watching videos on here for a week or two with Ad Block on without realising so sorry about that, guys. :I

 

[Kingjackl]

I use AdBlock for general browsing, though in light of this video, I think I'm going to start making a few exceptions. I immediately disabled it for the Escapist following this video and got an ad for a Hyundai on the very next page I opened. Might as well keep it off, that's no more intrusive than any TV ad and want to keep supporting my favourite content creators like Jim.

 

[Alterego-X]

I find it strange that between piracy and adblocking, Jim appears to be more soft on the one that affects him. Either both are theft, or neither.

For the record, I prefer the "neither" answer, and a similar stance would have been more welcome for that episode, admitting that not giving out "hypohetical future profits", is not the same thing as stealing. The important thing is that our content producers make a living, but beyond that, it's a matter of helpfulness and courtesy, versus hanging on for the ride as an extra freeloader but without bringing much extra burden either.

 

[Revolutionary]

C'mon people white-listing is easy, and the escapist is pretty good with ads (better than youtube at any rate.).

 

[Eri]

I'm gonna go into rant mode here so bear with me.

Does anyone remember the guys over at Rooster Teeth? I barely do,

You realize they are in the top 15 most subscribed on YouTube and are huge right?

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

I'm gonna go into rant mode here so bear with me.

But at the end of the day, nothing that I've found on the internet, that is ad supported, is vital or irreplaceable. And considering the harm they can do; and have done, the 'content providers' are going to need to do a major rethink before I or anyone who runs adblock is going to think twice about it.

To me, this has always been something I could never understand. There is no Ministry of Taste, nor should there be. Whether content is valid or invalid in one's opinion doesn't mean it's universally that way across the board. Whereas I might enjoy a certain video or concept, someone else may not. And that's okay. No one's taste should be the sole gateway of whether or not something is worth existence.

Although I have to question your concept of "vital" or "irreplaceable." If you don't think something has enough purpose to exist, why do you consume it while actively circumventing its payment. I would imagine you don't steal every movie you watch, book you read, or steal every meal you eat. In the same vein, why is it justified that you can have every bit of advertisement-supported content without needing to suffer the advertisements? If it's not vital, and you don't want it to continue, simply stop consuming. And if you like how it tastes, and enjoy the content, why not suffer through some ads or an annual PubClub subscription fee to pay for it?

By your analogy, all you really need is MREs and water to survive, so chefs who make gourmet food should all be provided raw ingredients, then not paid after they've prepared them. Nothing of physical value was lost (except the years of talent that cultivated the result), so it's all fair game, right?

So yeah, it may suck to have ads, but you should reconsider their use. Everyone has different opinions, but at the very least, consider why this helps people. All it costs you is thirty seconds. It costs these creators, by extension, their livelihoods.

Yes, I should have made more mention of the fact (rather than just a still image) that The Escapist has a reasonable ad-free subscription service. This is also a really good way to support the site if you have some spare dubloons and want the ads gone.

Also, thanks so much for the frank and civil response thus far!

Please read the following post as a radio announcer: If you want to support the Escapist Magazine, and its contributors, consider The Escapist's Publisher's Club [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/subscription/details] for ad-free viewing, higher video resolutions, and other benefits!

I never even thought about this, honestly. Have taken the escapist off the block.

Genuinely, consider a lot of sites you regularly visit, and whitelist them. Especially ones like this, where the contributors literally make or break at the end of the year based on whether or not the company can afford to keep paying them. For some, it is literally the difference between having a job and not at desparate times. Whitelisting is good.

 

[Brian Tams]

I only ever adblock sites that the ads cause multiple streaming, framerate, etc. problems. I haven't had a problem with the Escapist yet, so I don't adblock.

Really, I don't mind watching your ads, I just ask they don't be intrusive.

 

[Nexxis]

So far, I don't purposefully block ads on my PC, though I do regret not having an ad blocker many many times. Ads have gotten so obnoxious that they inconvenience me to the point where I can't even watch the content I came to a site for. It's happened a few times on the escapist, usually with the ads that autoplay videos. Sometimes they slow my browser down to the point where I can't watch other videos without them skipping or stalling. I've gotten to the point where I'll watch videos from "That Guy With The Glasses" on my ipad because it doesn't play ads. I've had ads that crash the video player (usually Blip) so that the video I came to see never plays. The closest thing I have to an ad blocker is McAffee Sitadvisor and, as far as I know, it usually only blocks ads that are prone to have malicious behavior that can harm my computer if clicked on or whatever. I'm all up for supporting content creators. I WANT to support the people that make this awesome content. At the moment, not blocking ads is the only way I can show support, but GOOD LORD it's hard!

 

[Triaed]

I am not going to get into whether I use AdBlock, instead my contribution to the discussion is this:

Everyone has the right to decide what content is displayed on their screens, regardless of where it comes from; this also ties to having cookies automatically installed from ad servers as well as increased used bandwidth (from downloading additional graphics and sounds). That last point might not be an issue for first world internet service, but it is in many other parts.

I see using ad blockers no different from changing the channel during the commercials while watching your favourite TV show, or PVRing a show and then skip through the commercials... or even paying for satellite radio.

There are lots of obtrusive advertising out there, but there is also the need to recognise that content creators rely on some of these ads. I do not think the answer is binary, either a yes or a no to ads, but someplace in the middle: some balance.

For the record, I do have the Escapist on my whitelist. After being a member of the Publisher's Club, going back to ad supported content wasn't bad at all (just don't put commercials in the videos, please)

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Oh, it also wants to appear on the empty space on both sides the the website? That's GREAT! You want to click on the forums button? "BUY A JEEP INSTEAD. I know I'm physically on top of the forum button, but IF YOU BUY ME I'LL GO AWAY (I lied, I'll ask you to buy another)"

Being blissfully ad-free for years as a Pub Club member, I had no idea it was this bad. And another poster up-thread mentions things like fake anti-virus software ads, which are usually relegated to the most tawdry cesspools of the web.

Does The Escapist just accept random ads from anybody they can? I would have thought that the site is popular enough that it could have more quality control and enforce some standards on advertisers. There are plenty of sites that curate their ads and make good money without running obnoxious ads from everybody under the sun.

I don't see how this makes business sense for The Escapist. By having such low standards for ads, they are actually devaluing advertising on their site. If they were more strict with who and what they allowed, that would actually increase the price at which they could sell the ads, while probably also decreasing the number of people who block them. You advertising is going to be a lot more effective if it is limited, and related to the interests and demographic of the audience.

I'd like to see Jim or someone address this side of the issue, as it appears to be the real elephant in the room - so many have commented here that they would like to watch ads, but that they are just too terrible to put up with. Unblocking ads in the hope that things will somehow get better does not seem like a reasonable decision. I'd especially like to hear from someone from The Escapist on what their policy is on accepting advertising, and if there are any that they would turn down.

 

[AdagioBoognish]

I feel like what you have said in this episode is in contradiction to what you said at the end of the "Early Access" video.

Link:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8681-Early-Access

"You don't pay for the Jimquisition. Just think about that. This is free."

I don't mean to take quotes out of context, so I've provided a link; but you can't say that your videos are a free service and expect at the same time we do something for you.

He's not expecting us to do anything. It was a really polite way of explaining his side of a situation and informing us that if we care to disable adblock, Jim and other Escapist content creators will benefit from the ad revenue. His videos are free in the literal sense of the word; no one has to pay a penny to watch them. Ads might be shit and you may metaphorically be paying the price of watching that guy build a fucking red vines robot before each video, but that doesn't change the fact that the content is free.

It's not hypocritical in any way for Jim to say his content is free and ask us to think about the effect of adblocking a site. He's not holding anything over our heads or threatening to be a dick and pull his videos if we don't stop using adblock or don't buy an escapist subscription. He aired this video and absolutely nothing changes unless you decide you want the situation to change. The free to play games he's attacking in that other video withhold content from people that don't pay and intentionally create a game that is essentially unplayable if you don't buy gems to speed up ludicrously long build times. I would be %100 on your side if the Jimquisition videos paused themselves every 10 seconds unless you white listed them or some other contrived way of keeping the videos technically free, but pretty much forcing you to pay to enjoy them fully.

 

[Matthewmagic]

I like the idea of a paid model. Maybe putting the trailers in the middle of the physical cut of the show but allowing a trailer free experience for those who pay something like 20 dollars a year. I know the escapist does exactly that, and I think they have the right idea now all we need is some kind of card kids can buy at gamestop or walmart to help them pay for this.

 

[MowDownJoe]

Personally I think the ideal scenario is Adblock Plus' <a href=https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads>Acceptable Ads initiative where sites which hold their ads to a specific standard can have their ads show up by default on users with Adblock installed. Notably Reddit ads are white listed by default. The majority of ad block users would probably be ok as long as the ads aren't annoyingly intrusive, although I do understand forcing ad companies to a baseline standard will be easier said then done.

That is a good solution, I must say. And if the Escapist's ads haven't changed in recent years (been a Pub Club member for a bit now), then they need to shape up and get into that mold. I remember once browsing the Escapist on my phone, and seeing an ad slow the browser down to a crawl and taking up half of my screen. The banner even scrolled with the browser. Now, that was just ridiculously intrusive. Ads like that are just unacceptable.

To be honest, the only reason I didn't just stop visiting the Escapist then was because they helped me discover LoadingReadyRun, and that the Escapist was where their new stuff was. And the only reason I signed up for Pub Club was because of the promo going on during Desert Bus where a sign up added $10 to the marathon's total. (Also, Daily Drop was running at the time, and I wanted to see the high-quality footage. The explosions look so much better.) If I was one of those people who only came to the Escapist just for Yahtzee... well, I probably wouldn't pay for Pub Club and my account probably would've been banned for preaching about AdBlock.

 

[mjharper]

I have adblock enabled by default, but disable it on a site by site basis. Youtube is whitelisted, because I watch so much material there, and I have subscriptions to sites like The Escapist or Nexus Mods. So I try to balance the convenience of blocking ads with supporting content creators. Maybe my approach is too selective, but I do try to be aware of the negative consequences of adblocking.

What annoys me with Youtube ads are those which challenge creator content for length. Does anybody watch 13 minute ads? In those circumstances I'll reload the page to get a shorter ad, because I know that pressing 'skip' doesn't generate revenue for the creators. Again, I think that's a fair compromise. But if the ads themselves were less intrusive, it would be easier to stomach them in general.

 

[Fayathon]

I hate ads, but I've no idea how bad they've gotten here, as I've been PubClub since its inception, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I love the site, I love the content (for the most part), but unless the ads are easy to skip around or are silent and unobtrusive I refuse to watch them.

For what it's worth though, I will remain PubClub as long as I can for the sake of my sanity, the site, and the fact that I love the high def HTML5 videos, the Flash player can fuck right off.

Keep doing what you do Jim, you make my Mondays a little better every week.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

BAH WEEP GRAH NAH WEEP NINI BAH

OT: I do use the software but have specific ads (Jim,Yahtzee and bobs in particular) whitelisted so they still show when I view certain content on this website.

I do however fully block most websites out there because I don't usually care for ads in general, to me they serve no purpose other than to annoy me.

It just happens that some here are the exception but not the rule.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Bottom line; advertising on the internet is in most places is out of hand. As a consumer who is given a tool to make their online experience tolerable i will take that opportunity. End of.

Jim keeps talking about consumer rights and he is dead on here; as a consumer i reserve my right to use No Script to control what runs when i open a page and how. No Script is especially a good case because i feel it is so vital to protect you from rouge plugins. It's a security and privacy issue as much as it is a convenience issue. Adds are effectively collateral damage in this regard. All scrips are a way into your computer. The web is simply not safe enough for you to NOT use these tools.

While I agree that safety is a priority, there's a difference between blocking all things, and blocking some things. Whitelisting sites that you frequently travel isn't a bad thing, even if it exposes you to a bit of risk. There is that in all things, risk is the nature of life. The trick is to cover your bases without doing much hard. To suggest that you pre-emptively head off all security risks is somewhat akin to the behaviors you see in games like Day Z. In order to verify that no one will shoot you, you shoot everyone first. Saves everyone the trouble of knowing who's friendly and who isn't: simply make everyone unfriendly, problem solved.

However, collateral damage is a side effect of that approach. Everyone's threshold for tolerable is different, so everyone deserves a fair shake. Adblocking everyone, and script blocking everyone, is not too dissimilar from that. Guaranteeing no issues by always heading off trouble while still getting benefits is a little unfair to the people who make a living this way. That's not to say it's an all-or-nothing approach, but that is to say making this the common, default approach will create problems, at least potentially in the future if not immediately.

Everyone's mileage may vary, but it may help some to reconsider. :3

 

[MoltenSilver]

I do run Adblock and no-script on my browser, but I do turn it off for sites i frequently visit like The Escapist.

That said, The Escapist does not make it easy.

Compounding that, I don't feel like I even have a 'choice' to put up with the annoyance; I have a hyper-sensory disorder, which means that a sudden burst of loud noise, or even something like 2 different audio tracks churning out gibberish by playing over each other that my brain can't interpret causes me PHYSICAL HARM, and in an absolute literal sense ruins my entire day by putting my body into a long-lasting panic-state (and sometimes night as well if I can't sleep due to the pain from said response). Every time this site's ad-network permits this kind of assault, I have to pay for another dose of my medication (which still ruins my day by crippling my mental faculties, but it's my only option to deal with my disorder).

I love the hell out of the escapist content, I'm on here daily, and it's the only reason I'm even trying to tolerate the grotesque ads allowed. but as I simply can not afford publisher's club in my financial situation, that puts me in a major dilemma. I'm not threatening to turn adblock/no-script on because I do agree its a form of revenue-denial for someone I think deserves their revenue, but that just leaves me with the options of a) continuing to put my health at risk if these practices aren't reigned-in, or b) walking away.

Guess which one is going to win sooner or later?