Why you MUST not use an ad blocker - unless you want to pay for content

[bam13302]

im fine with most ads, its when the products the website the ads are advertising are hostile/are a threat to my computer, is when i started blocking them, if the maker of the site reviews the adds before allowing them on their site and only allows ads from safe companies, im good, otherwise, consider them blocked
this site is quite good with its ads, and i dont mind them
however other sites do not, an easy example is google ads, because they are straight HTML links, my "W.O.T." (web of trust, a chrome (and probably other browsers have this too) extension that will mark dangerous website links with a red circle and gets its ratings from other users rating them) marks about 1/2 of google ads advertisements as dangerous links, so i make a habit of blocking those ads so i dont accidentally click them and go someplace dangerous.
i wont go to much into video ads as i dont watch many videos, but when i do watch them, the dont normally bother me
until i start getting Cialis commercials (or something similar), which is most of the reason why i stopped watching tv for the most part

 

[Kermi]

I don't use adblockers, for exactly this reason. I like the Escapist and want it to continue to exist. I don't enjoy all their content, but I may as well support the parts I do like.

 

[thebighead01]

When is comes to adverts anyway I tend to ignore as much of them as i can. take tv for example. I know that adverts pay for them but I would never intentionally try to watch them. especially now with tv that can be recorded when ever I want to watch something i record it first, wait about 15 mins so I know that i can just fast forward them while I'm watching. if I can't be bothered I mute the tv.

now with the internet it's a lot more irritating. firstly when watching a video on youtube for example, when you click on a vid you are forced to watch and ad, sometimes 2 or even 3. I understand what they are doing with the adverts but when I click to watch some clip where a gorilla is scratching himself (for example) i expect to go straight to it and not be forced to watch an ad.

and the thing is i don't pay attention to them. i just press mute and I don't have to listen to a word. it becomes even worse when its the same fucking advert that they keep playing (to watch the guild you have to watch it on bing video and the only ad they seem to play is the sprint one. at least have some variety.

I understand what the ads are paying for, but i never pay attention to them anyway, so why bother?

 

[PayneTrayne]

TV doesn;t ban you for using tivo does it?

Point won.

You mean a little device that you have to pay extra for? Sounds like PubClub, don't get banned for PubClub round these parts.

OT: I don't block ads, but I've never clicked on one either. (at least on purpose) Also, I've never even seen this mysterious and hatefilled SlimJim commercial everyone talks about. I count my blessings.

 

[Woodsey]

Everyone should just join the PubClub

It's cheaper to put up with the ads; personally I miss the ones advertising big boobs bras.

you mean the evony ads?

No, bra ads for extra busty women.

They're gone now though *sad face*

 

[Zephirius]

"Things will sort themselves out in time. The internet needs to find the most efficient way to make money. But, please keep watching the ads."

I'm not sure compliance wouldn't just compel marketers to leave the situation as it is.

In any case, I do use an ad blocker for Chrome, but I do so selectively. I am well-aware of where the funding for sites I like comes from and so I add the sites I like to the list of excluded sites. I realize ads are a necessary evil, but I don't want to indirectly support sites that I dislike simply by having first visited it and having let ads annoy me. Perhaps I have cost the sites I like a few bucks, but on the internet, everything is crap until proven otherwise.

Just my two cents.

P.S.: Localized ads are a whole special kind of annoying for me. I've seen maybe two ads in my country that were actually funny, and my native language is in my opinion just horrible to listen to. It's one of the reasons I try to avoid YouTube nowadays.

 

[EHKOS]

Don't know if this was said before, but some ads have trojans in them. Kaspersky blocks those for a good reason. Plus, they have television, newspaper, and all the other crap.

 

[mirasiel]

This is a very touchy subject obviously.

On the one hand the fine folks here at the Escapist are not unreasonable in trying to cover the heavy burden of maintaining this site and traditionaly ads have been a good source for that revenue but on the other hand users are not being unreasonable in taking steps to ensure that their rigs dont become steaming cess pits of malware, trojans and infinite pop ups.

The problem really lies with the advertisers* themselves, modern web ads are offensively intrusive whilst quiet sometimes being poorly coded to the point where they are a real drain on your available system resources or are lovely vectors for adware/malware/straight up trojans. Is it any wonder that savvy internet users take steps to protect themselves from such things as a basic part of internet security? You are effectively asking us to render our personal hardware and data vulnerable to theft,damage and loss to support you in your chosen profession and as much as I enjoy the entertainment provided here that is too high a cost for me and it seems *many* of your fans.

If the site cannot be maintained without the use of ads that harm your users then perhaps it would be in *your* interest to start looking for another source(s) of revenue, to be honest I had never noticed the option to pay a membership fee for the escapist til this thread, maybe it was in an ad that I mentally ad blocked. Perhaps more focus could be made to drive subscriber numbers.

---------------

As a side note I am a little bemused to see someone making a topic where the otherside runs a pretty heavy risk of being banned from these forums if they do not effectively self-censor or play word games.

Hypothetically I could say that I infact sought out an adblocker after several of the video adverts on the Escapist chewed up many system resources causing my (home pc )broswer to fall over and die taking with it an hours worth of semi-urgent work, in an attempt to make you see my side of the problem.

Hypothetically though I would run the risk of being banned.

I didnt even touch on things like the use of *my* limited data allowance.

*since bad ads came before 'bad ad blockers' I feel that the blame lies soley with the people trying to rape your computer, not the people giving you computer mace....
that was a wierd line of thought really.

 

[PayneTrayne]

TV doesn;t ban you for using tivo does it?

Point won.

You mean a little device that you have to pay extra for? Sounds like PubClub, don't get banned for PubClub round these parts.

OT: I don't block ads, but I've never clicked on one either. (at least on purpose) Also, I've never even seen this mysterious and hatefilled SlimJim commercial everyone talks about. I count my blessings.

No. Adblocker is the equivalent of TiVo. Your broadcasters, which are the equivalent of The Escapist in this parallel, do not make any money when I purchase a TiVo.

Nice try.

If I paid money for my adblocker would that give me the right to not see Escapist ads?

You have the right to not look at ads anywhere. However, that doesn't mean you also have the right to view the content that is being made. It's not free, it comes with the price of ads.In the word of a movie "There's no such thing as free titties". If you want something for free, that's fine, don't be angry when you're looked down upon for taking someone's job away from them though.
I do believe you have the right to protect yourself from malicious content in ads, but just saying you don't deserve money for your work is bull.

You can just walk in to a movie theater, but you should pay.

Now unfortunately, no matter how much you try to sway me it won't work, as I'm a LRR fanboy. Hearing an outcry from something I've been listening to for the past few years means I'm going to be full of relrrgious fervor.

 

[tavelkyosoba]

I only block ads because some of the advertisers push malicious code onto our machines. Those few ruin it for everyone.

I don't mind hearing the saleman's spiel to get something for free, but I do mind when they start throwing bricks at my car to get my attention.

 

[Spy_Guy]

TV doesn;t ban you for using tivo does it?

Point won.

You mean a little device that you have to pay extra for? Sounds like PubClub, don't get banned for PubClub round these parts.

OT: I don't block ads, but I've never clicked on one either. (at least on purpose) Also, I've never even seen this mysterious and hatefilled SlimJim commercial everyone talks about. I count my blessings.

No. Adblocker is the equivalent of TiVo. Your broadcasters, which are the equivalent of The Escapist in this parallel, do not make any money when I purchase a TiVo.

Nice try.

If I paid money for my adblocker would that give me the right to not see Escapist ads?

The TiVo comparison is inherently flawed though. Broadcasters get paid for broadcasting adverts, not according to how many people viewed a specific advert. It's true that TiVo systems could reduce the interest shown by advertisers in buying ad-space on major networks, however usage of a TiVo in itself is not going to reduce the ad income of a specific broadcaster.

When you use the adblock addon in Firefox it completely removes the advert and whatever thing it uses to monitor views, meaning a direct impact to the site's revenue, since they get paid-per-view (I still never click ads, though, good way to get computer-aids)

Now, I hardly understand how The Escapist profits by advertising its' own shows but whatever, very unobtrusive (and introduced me to There Will Be Brawl).
[hr]
So, to conclude:

if (Tivo != AdBlock)
{
Argument = Invalid
}

Your argument is invalid.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Or rather we're viewing the free content they put up.

I never really liked Kathleen anyway, always seemed to over explain things in her mannerisms. The bearded ones have better lines/delivery.

Also I find the shortening of the title humorous.
"Why you MUST not use adblockers - unless you want to"

/note. Legally speaking I never signed or agreed to anything that stated I was not to use adblocker. My 'rights' are not in question here at all.

Just one last thing. Although it's free to watch, they're expecting to make a profit via ads. It's a two way street, they give you free content, and you give them free money by having ads on the site. If you take away your part of it, would you be angry if they took away theirs?

 

[bdcjacko]

I replied to the original post in the ENN thing, and I'm reposting...btw, I just joined the pub club thingy because I do want to support the site, I just don't want viruses.

I'll consider it getting the pub club thing...what all does it do for me?

I will not be turning off my ad block, but that is more for anti-virus reasons. Earlier this year, I got a really nasty virus or root-kit, I don't know what they are called from an ad on facebook (we believe). We have anti-virus software, but I was lucky enough to be one of the first people to get this virus and the software wasn't up to date enough to handle it. The anti-virus company suggested going to mozilla firefox with ad blocks to prevent ads from giving me viruses. Now here is the thing, I never clicked the ad, somehow it embedded the virus just by looking at it, possibly dragging the arrow across the ad accidentally. Long story short, ad block is staying up.

You know, I've never heard of a tv or radio commercial that destroys your tv or radio just by being on.

 

[Something Amyss]

Back in the days of TV, we expected to get quality programming for free, but we understood that we got it in exchange for watching advertising. The ads supported the shows, and the people who worked the shows on them got paid decent salaries.

I don't remember that. The only programming I've ever got "free" was broadcast, and even then you had to pay if you didn't want to use rabbit ears or (like us) lived in an area where the reception sucked like a Hoover in a wind tunnel.

But okay, that actually benefits your point, probably. I grew up on a "no such thing as a free meal" mentality. I had to pay just to get "free" TV like most people.

But here's the thing about ads on TV. They've always been there. Not so much for "free" entertainment on the web. Yeah, people actually did quality content without asking for money, requiring a subscription, or themselves relying on ads. Naturally, when you lose a level of freedom (even if perceived), there will be problems.

But that's not my problem with ads.

It's also not my problem with what you said.

It's a tangent.

So here's me. I've complained for years when the players on this site broke. Nothing's happened. In fact, I think the newer iterations of the player her have gotten worse. Other people have complained. Nothing.

So I ask, in earnest: Do you expect me to believe that watching ads will cause things to "work themselves out?" If the medium for delivering the content and the ads doesn't, what would lead me to believe the ads will?

Further, isn't watching ads that are almost as long as the content literally sending the message that it doesn't need to work itself out? That I, the viewer, will watch an ad almost as long as the video I'm getting for "free?" How does this resolve itself if we continue the status quo?

Beyond the intellectual, beyond the rationale, here's my biggest problem.

Ads on this site and others screw up my browser, and sometimes lock my freaking computer. Granted, only on my laptop, but that's where I spend most of my time, both at work and at play. Dealing with broken content and ads that might as well be adware turns me off as a consumer, and reduces my chances 1. That I will watch further content and 2. That I will pass these along to friends. Since you guys get a lot of your revenue through the shared videos (That other people watch, ostensibly with ads), your system harms both of us as well.

I could join the Pub Club, but I refuse to pay for something and reward the administrators for broken content. Paying to not watch ads as long as the videos is just as bad, because I'm now supporting that broken system in the same way. None of this is new, either. I and others have complained before.

I'd honestly rather just watch the videos than pay for a service, but when you make a system difficult, cumbersome or frustrating, there's also the tendency to "none of the above."

Content on shows like ENN is getting shorter, and thanks to stupid programming or whatever, I often have to watch the same ad multiple times just to get to it. the system isn't working itself out, and that makes me increasingly likely to just not click on next week's video with each passing tacit "screw you" to the contract being alluded to here. If you want to treat it as as a contract, or a business relationship between producer and consumer, then you're doing it wrong.

If Television operated like this, it would have died in the fifties. And rightfully so. If you want to keep us "customers," then you're doing it wrong. Telling us to hang on while "it works itself out" is a bad business model, and while it's eventually harmful to us to use ad blockers, it's also harmful to the business model in general.

Not to mention, those of us who do watch the ads are getting punished right now, and will get punished if ad blockers cause content to go premium. I'm already punished for doing the right thing; I have trouble seeing the downside to doing the wrong thing, or blaming people for doing it. Especially since any contract is supposed to go both ways.

Next up: Why we must not use Spyware detectors, because they hurt us in the end. A good number of the ads function like malware to begin with, so why not?

 

[khaimera]

I know this comment is late. But anyone who reads this, do not be honest about what you do with ads on this site. You will be suspended.

I think this thread was started for the whole purpose of finding out who uses adblockers and its kind of insulting.

And if the internet sees much less crappy low budget videos because of a lack of ads, I support that.

This is coming from a user who thinks the vids here, and on mots sites, are pretty shitty. Suspend me if you want, but its my opinion.

 

[Jinjiro]

TV doesn;t ban you for using tivo does it?

Point won.

That's a fair point, but take it to the extreme. If everyone started using Tivo to skip ads, eventually advertisers would catch on, stop paying the studios and bam, no more content.

So until someone comes up with a genius idea that lets publishers get paid and consumers watch for free, some of us that watch adverts get to be the only ones who do, to make sure the advertisers pay for the content we enjoy, while others block them and enjoy the content for free anyway?

Jeez, that sounds fair.

I think a lot of people have been spoiled by the amount of free content on the web, and they forget that because of the commercial success of the Internet, that it's evolved into a media marketplace where people post their own intellectual properties as a service, NOT for free.