Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Joe Gamer]

What I would like to know is if the Escapist actually earns money from me just loading the ads, or if they only earn through clicks, which is what I assume. If they earn through simple loading, I might actually disable AdBlock on the Escapist site, as I appreciate the content.

I believe it's on a graduating scale.

click through and buy = highest payment
click through = a modest payment
view video ad = a small payment
automatic audio = a smaller payment
visual add with movement(java/flash/html 5) = a tiny payment
static image ad view (NO java/flash/html 5) = a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny payment

It's important to note that in ALL of these scenarios the activity MUST be tracked and confirmed by third party, advertisers are not going to just take a websites word for it, "5 billion page views? sounds legit pay the man...". This is why white-listing is sometimes not enough, the ad companies themselves must be allowed to run their scripts before a website can generate any revenue. White-listing the escapist does nothing in No-script because you also have to white-list the advertisers and if you do that for the escapist, it's universal, you just allowed ads(and any other malicious behaviors) everywhere else you visit.

If you use no-script for the added security, as far as I can tell there is no way to effectively white-list a single website.

 

[Neta]

So it's okay to discuss AdBlock as long as you state in bold caps "BUT IT'S OKAY BECAUSE I WHITELIST THE ESCAPIST"?

You can talk as much as you like about blocking the advertisements on any and every other website, but as soon as you mention doing that kind of thing on The Escapist, THEN it's very very naughty and you have to be punished?

Hypocrisy for the fail.

 

[IceForce]

You can talk as much as you like about blocking the advertisements on any and every other website

Why would The Escapist care what people do on other websites?
Like any business in a capitalist society, they only care about themselves.

There's nothing wrong with this.

No, what I take issue with is how the Code of Conduct doesn't make this distinction.
The rules should be rewritten to clarify that mentioning you adblock The Escapist specifically, is against the rules.

The rules aren't specific enough. They only say "Do not link to, advocate, or admit to using ad blockers."

"... on The Escapist", should be added to the end of that rule.

 

[Neta]

You can talk as much as you like about blocking the advertisements on any and every other website

Why would The Escapist care what people do on other websites?
Like any business in a capitalist society, they only care about themselves.

There's nothing wrong with this.

No, what I take issue with is how the Code of Conduct doesn't make this distinction.
The rules should be rewritten to clarify that mentioning you adblock The Escapist specifically, is against the rules.

The rules aren't specific enough. They only say "Do not link to, advocate, or admit to using ad blockers."

"... on The Escapist", should be added to the end of that rule.

But then people could say "I heartily endorse using AdBlock on absolutely every website on the 'net except for the Escapist and recommend everybody gets it and uses it everywhere except on the Escapist."

Either AdBlock is a good and useful tool and there's nothing wrong with having it and using it, or it is a very bad and dishonest anti-advertising piece of naughtiness and people who acknowledge the existence of said software deserves to be banned. Why won't somebody think of the poor advertisers who are having their potential profits being stolen away by those sneaky AdBlock-using freeloaders (but not on the Escapist)?

 

[Dragonbums]

I don't have adblock, because I'm an adult and can ignore ads, or scroll to autoplaying videos and turn them off. Are they annoying? Whothefuckknows, I'm not that easily distracted.

So can we all, but look at the last three pages of this thread. The number 1 reason most people use adblock according to them has everything to do with how a lot of ads nowadays redirect you, insert bugs to track you, or in the most often worst case scenario put viruses on your computer. Not just some script kiddy shit either. Like some real nasty stuff.

 

[nodlimax]

When video and popup ads started showing up on more and more web sites I started blocking ads. I don't mind banners or ad links in general. I don't need block mechanisms to avoid them. But the really aggressive advertising I've seen over the last years makes me really angry. It unnecessarily increases the requirements for performance, causes problems whenever you're not in range of a high speed internet connection and in general is just a pain in the neck....

When the advertisers scale back on the annoying ads and go back to decent ads in the background I'll consider turning the blocking mechanisms off.

 

[Joe Gamer]

You can talk as much as you like about blocking the advertisements on any and every other website

Why would The Escapist care what people do on other websites?
Like any business in a capitalist society, they only care about themselves.

There's nothing wrong with this.

No, what I take issue with is how the Code of Conduct doesn't make this distinction.
The rules should be rewritten to clarify that mentioning you adblock The Escapist specifically, is against the rules.

The rules aren't specific enough. They only say "Do not link to, advocate, or admit to using ad blockers."

"... on The Escapist", should be added to the end of that rule.

Your forgetting, The Escapist isn't one entity, it's owned by Alloy Digital which in turn owns about a dozen other websites, who I'm sure plans to gobble up a dozen more websites. These entities see ad-block in any form as a very real threat to their business model so you're more likely to discuss the Tiananmen Square massacre with the President of the People's Republic of China than you are to be able to cast Ad-block in a positive light on ANY ad supported website.

 

[Neta]

Yet apparently it's okay for us to discuss AdBlock in this thread as long as we specify that we whitelist the Escapist.

Or does that rule only apply to Pub Club members?

 

[grrrz]

What I would like to know is if the Escapist actually earns money from me just loading the ads, or if they only earn through clicks, which is what I assume. If they earn through simple loading, I might actually disable AdBlock on the Escapist site, as I appreciate the content.

I believe it's on a graduating scale.

click through and buy = highest payment
click through = a modest payment
view video ad = a small payment
automatic audio = a smaller payment
visual add with movement(java/flash/html 5) = a tiny payment
static image ad view (NO java/flash/html 5) = a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny payment

It's important to note that in ALL of these scenarios the activity MUST be tracked and confirmed by third party, advertisers are not going to just take a websites word for it, "5 billion page views? sounds legit pay the man...". This is why white-listing is sometimes not enough, the ad companies themselves must be allowed to run their scripts before a website can generate any revenue. White-listing the escapist does nothing in No-script because you also have to white-list the advertisers and if you do that for the escapist, it's universal, you just allowed ads(and any other malicious behaviors) everywhere else you visit.

If you use no-script for the added security, as far as I can tell there is no way to effectively white-list a single website.

ok, If I can get an estimate of how much the advertiser gives to the escapist for each video/page I see, I will gladly match this. people get crazy over this issue, however you look at it using ad to make money in itself is a shameful practice, you can try, but you don't get to get righteous over the fact people are legitimately filtering this crap. again, whitelisting a website and enduring this BS can not in any way be an act of support.
Showing support for a project can mean many things, giving a bit of money, giving time to help for whatever reason, giving unused hardware or a talking kenny buttplug, but enduring shameful brainwashing is not on the list.
again it's never a mark of disdain for Jim or the writer of the escapist, it's a general advice
(by the way the publisher's club is only 1,66$ a month, I think that's seriously worth considering)

 

[lunalicrichard]

To Jim .
After the video on adblocker i did unblock The Escapist from today onwards , just to support you . I hate adds with a vengeance but i do want to support the people i like to watch .
I do hope it will help ....

 

[JimZiii]

i think its really sad that the mods give people warnings for saying they adblock the site in a thread to a video about adblocking. i just whitelisted this site and this is actually the first site i whitelist. i started using adblock when i started watching videos on youtube regularly and the only ads that i really hate i really want to get rid off are the ads i have to watch before the video starts or in the middle of the video. oh i almost forgot the ads i hate just as much, the f-ing poker ads that open a new minimized browser window. so i'm satisfied as long as i can avoid those two types of ads without adblocker.

 

[diab0l]

When I saw my first episode of Jimquisition I thought: "****."
Then it took a while for me to get back to it and now I know that Jim *is* a ****, a **** worthy of worship.

After this episode I started to unblock the escapist occasionally (my ff is set up to not remember anything, so I gotta do it manually) and damn, these ads are awful.
Localized ads with sound and autoplay, screaming some bullshit while I try to enjoy some top-notch flaming - jeez.
Also annoying: the ads which spill into the page and totally break it - like whaaaat.
What's going on with advertisers? Does annoying people to death really help promote products?

Apparently so, otherwise these god-damn awful ads wouldn't be so wide-spread.
Same goes for Spam.

Makes you wonder if we'd have the same annoyances, had adblock not become as popular as it has.

With adblock the page is totally fine and frankly, the free content on the escapist by far outweighs whatever benefits the pubclub may offer, but I bought it anyways.
Because you guys deserve it (and now I don't have to manually unblock any site).

Thank god for Jim Sterling

P.S.: For anyone who believes that viewing ads doesn't count as support: It does. Ads have been what has driven free content for decades. That includes TV channels (which are expensive to produce) and some of the earliest websites (including shady wares sites which forced their users to click some ads via JavaScript and stuff if anyone still remembers those - ahhh good times) through to just about every website today.
Some websites can generate revenue in other ways, but the universal way to do it is to show ads and a large percentage of adblock installations does hurt these.

P.P.S.: There is no good adblocking for mobile phones, so I'd expect ads to be less intrusive there which is unfortunately not the case. Actually, some try to exploit Android and shit. Shame shame shame

 

[diab0l]

I really don't get why some people have to go out of their way to tell you they are not supporting your site. If I don't like someone's content, I just don't watch it.

There's always people who try to be cynical assholes (a good thing) but end up being idiots (very bad).
Apart from that, some people like to troll (but fail at it) and some are seriously bored I guess.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

What about all that godawful tracking? Facebook widgets? Twitter shit? Analytics?

I don't want any of that. So I use Ghostery. It shows 7 blocked items on this page. I don't know what is just adds and what also tracks me. So, disable all the tracking and social media stuff and I'll disable Ghostery.

It's not ads I'm trying to avoid. It's all the other crap.

 

[Neuropain]

Since you asked me to Jim, I've turned of Adblock.

 

[StevieC]

My reason for using AdBlock is quite straightforward: I've had numerous encounters with malware embedded in ads even on the most reputable of websites in the past few years. When ads on the most reputable websites have malware embedded in them, SOMETHING has gone hideously wrong, and if Jim is upset with me for doing it, then it's high time that he, and we consumers speak with ONE voice to demand that this issue be addressed by online publishers, before malware stages a hostile takeover of all online advertising. If we don't stand up to the advertising companies and call them out on the embedding of malware, they'll have no motivation to stop condoning it!

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

TWO clicks into the the escapist without ad block PLUS and Mc Afee site advisor starts telling me that the site is dangerous or suspicious no loud virus detected alerts issued yet.

i don't just see the ad block as a means to block ads i see it as an extension to my security software (but thats not its purpose)
i like escapist since they are a site to have fun watch my favorites like Lisa and Jim.

A problem i have experienced is that viruses in the past have piggybacked on ads this does not help the ad cause when they are or have been selling infected adverts(selling inventory) to each other (the ad companies).

i prefer ads that i am shown to have relation to the site i am visiting not based on my browsing history

 

[TheUnbeholden]

Problem 3: Security
A big problem with ads is that they are out of control. Today's Internet ads are so abstracted from the actual site (see Problem 1) that it's almost impossible to know where the ads are coming from. Therefore it is more than possible for people with malicious intent to use ads that exploit vulnerabilities in browser plug-ins, like Flash and Java, to hack your browser or your PC. This is especially true if you don't have up to date versions of the browser or plug-ins. Then of course, there are the ads which simply direct you to a malicious site or malicious software.

Problem 1 I can live with - I think this fact hurts the sites more than it hurts me. Problem 2 is intolerable, but at least not dangerous. Problem 3 is the biggie that sticks out like a sore thumb. As long as this doesn't change, it's practically irresponsible not to run ad blocking software.

I know that this is not directly the fault of individual sites that try to make money off ads. Or maybe it is, I'm not sure. But I think -someone- really has to think hard about how to solve these issues before condemning users that use ad-blocking software.

Direct you to malicious software? I would say embedding malware onto ads, which install onto your browser or computer. Changing your search engine, homepage, randomly directing you to ad sites is a common problem, not just the potential for being hacked. Ads taking advantage of outdated Flash and Java to install stuff on your computer is unacceptable regardless of how desperate the site in question may be, there has to be cooperation between hosting site and the ad provider. Tolerating issues of annoyance and intrusiveness is one thing, ads that have no relevance creating a bit of cognitive dissonance is another but comprising security... it seems like a deal breaker for those who want to take the middle ground stance.

Of course I'm always going to be on board with Escapist because I want to support the content, but the responsibility to create a enjoyable experience that is safe, without ads significantly affecting that enjoyement or comprising safety, is on the site.

I fear that there will still be a sizable portion of people that will stick with Ad Blocker to avoid those embedded mini-flash videos from playing that slow down your browser, which while having multiple tabs open, is like a form of torture.

 

[Domelo]

Problem 3: Security
A big problem with ads is that they are out of control. Today's Internet ads are so abstracted from the actual site (see Problem 1) that it's almost impossible to know where the ads are coming from. Therefore it is more than possible for people with malicious intent to use ads that exploit vulnerabilities in browser plug-ins, like Flash and Java, to hack your browser or your PC. This is especially true if you don't have up to date versions of the browser or plug-ins. Then of course, there are the ads which simply direct you to a malicious site or malicious software.

Problem 1 I can live with - I think this fact hurts the sites more than it hurts me. Problem 2 is intolerable, but at least not dangerous. Problem 3 is the biggie that sticks out like a sore thumb. As long as this doesn't change, it's practically irresponsible not to run ad blocking software.

I know that this is not directly the fault of individual sites that try to make money off ads. Or maybe it is, I'm not sure. But I think -someone- really has to think hard about how to solve these issues before condemning users that use ad-blocking software.

Direct you to malicious software? I would say embedding malware onto ads, which install onto your browser or computer. Changing your search engine, homepage, randomly directing you to ad sites is a common problem, not just the potential for being hacked. Ads taking advantage of outdated Flash and Java to install stuff on your computer is unacceptable regardless of how desperate the site in question may be, there has to be cooperation between hosting site and the ad provider. Tolerating issues of annoyance and intrusiveness is one thing, ads that have no relevance creating a bit of cognitive dissonance is another but comprising security... it seems like a deal breaker for those who want to take the middle ground stance.

Of course I'm always going to be on board with Escapist because I want to support the content, but the responsibility to create a enjoyable experience that is safe, without ads significantly affecting that enjoyement or comprising safety, is on the site.

I fear that there will still be a sizable portion of people that will stick with Ad Blocker to avoid those embedded mini-flash videos from playing that slow down your browser, which while having multiple tabs open, is like a form of torture.

I agree that we should also support the content rather than visiting ad block download page with an intention to get rid of ads, but it should be on one's discretion to do whatever he wants to with the ads. Otherwise, it it's just like forcing ones views to another. Isn't it? I myself is a great supporter of escapist, but it doesn't mean that escapist should start setting priorities for me.