I am with the “no-ads” group

Its totally irritating to watch ads on either TV or internet. You see how ads have penetrated actual content (ad time >= actual program time on TV and ad content disguising itself with website theme) I’D BETTER PAY FOR SERVICES AND CONTENT. Google search results page recently got shrunk because of left side bar and ads on the right. Its becoming like yahoo. Is it pleasant to have your content surrounded by 1000 ads???? I think both the article writer and the “I’m with ads” commentators are small time site owners with no actual services except for revenue from ads.

If the composer, singer, recording label, whatever chooses not to give their work for free, it s UP TO THEM. It s their work. People don t have the right to dictate how they should manage and distribute their works. But the matter here is a matter of human nature, and there s no weapon against it.

I m not into the merit about how mercenary the recording labels were. No matter. It s how the world is ruled.
There s no justification to FORCE artists or whatever to give their work for free. But ok, it s reality, nothing they can do. They must find a way out.

But so I was thinking about how curious things r. A new model for music distribution is on test. Ok, people download everything illegally cuz it s easy. They don t wanna pay for it. So let s give them a way not to pay.
So it started, u see everywhere music now being distributed thru ADVERTISING.

So now ok, I can go to jamendo for ex and download for free a whole album and thru advertisements they can have some return.
Now here is the problem. It s just an example I m giving. But blocking the ads program everything is back to the same drama.
Besides everybody knows many of advertising programs thru the web work by page views and not only clicks.

Again what could be the solution for music to be spread thru internet FREELY, as everybody wanted, right??? Now again it s being threatened, although I m sure there will be a way out (that probably won t please people, again).

So the big question is, when is it enough??? Just to say I hate advertisements doesn t change anything. U buy pepsi or coke for an only reason. U try to flee from advertising, no matter, it goes after u.

Most of guys who say “I m not gonna click on ads anyway…” doesn t understand the advertising spirit.
If ur favorite show on TV went to advertising interval, no matter if u move to other channel using the remote. It doesn t matter for a brand how long u watch their content. They just need one only sec to be sure their brand will LIVE inside ur head and u won t forget, yea, even u who hates ads.

U ll change the TV to another channel, SUDDENLY u find Nike advertisement. So u quickly changed to another u find no advertisement. But u want to be back to the original channel to be sure u won t lose anything of ur favorite show. Oh! Disappointing! U weren t lucky enough and u didn t come in time, u had to watch the last 10 sec of Coca-Cola advertisement, but u know u need to stay there to be sure u won t lose ur favorite show.

The same about newspaper. Advertisements r not there to receive attention. It doesn t matter for them if u ll read or not. But they r sure u will “give a look”, and even looking at the side, too late, u already read the name of the brand there which is ENOUGH for them. They r just there to silently influence ur choices. U all hate ads, but u r all influenced by them. Just now that a plugin was created to give u a proud sense of right u think u have the right??? Things r not exactly that way.
The content on the page is still others’ content. Some people think just cause things r in the internet they r “public”, “free”, whatever.

I m not saying u don t have rights to avoid ads, but if u buy a newspaper, the only way to avoid ads is not buying it. If u like ur favorite show, the only way to avoid it is not watching that.
The same about websites.

I think it has to be the owner’s choice and not the contrary. If the owner doesn t mind about visitors coming to his/her page and blocking all ads, really nice for ads haters, but up to the owner. If the owner wants the visitors to watch all ads with bright flashy images, his/her choice.

Adblock is not democratic. To be democratic it needs to distribute rights to both sides. And I think a fair way it could work is, “This site contains ads which can invade ur privacy and/or disturb ur clean internet browsing, r u sure u want to continue into this page?”

So here is the solution. If u wanna proceed u ll see ads and accept the terms of service of the site. If u don t want ads, u won t enter the site. So that simple. But ok, it s just my view about how adblock could work in a fair way.

But as it s not the case, again we will have to accept that publishers will have to find a way out. The only thing which worries me is that in fact only the “weak side” has losses.
Google will find the way out for them, cuz it s not adblock which will stop a multimillionaire company who just owns 50% of the internet content, which everybody hating ads or not uses at least one service.

But so the weak side will lose and have no way out. The corporations will stand. And worse, the more u think u r fighting them, the more u give them power and ways to monopoly. What was the result of illegal music download??? Just to give more power to big brands to be promoted thru advertising. And when advertising thru internet won t work, they ll be even more intrusive, doing advertising directly thru music clips, or whatever. Well, that s it. I can t call adblock “illegal” cuz it s a complex subject, but I also can t say it s legal, democratic, fair, whatever.

But the war goes on. hahahahaha Sorry for the long tex guys.

I also rarely click ads. But I do occasionally learn of a product I may be interested in in an ad, and check up on it later. That’s why some ads are pay per impression rather than click.

And to those who actually want a subscription model on the web – you’re crazy. Most web users like to check a large number of sites regularly. Subscriptions all but guarantee you will be limited to a few sites. I’d rather live with ads than go down that path.

Before ad blockers, I never clicked on anything on any website

and

Before ad blockers, I never clicked on ads.

To be not only empty but plain rediculous. The fact is that site revenues have dropped by about 50% since AdBlockers came around. That math isn’t too hard is it?

i never click ads there only full of crap that i dont need or dont want. im just like this other guy. so just becuase it droped that mean i and this other guy clicked ads? haha your joking right? i dont and will never click ads. not worth the spam or adaware. ABP For the epic win.

If the model becomes broken, adapt to the new circumstances. Are you surprised that the world is changing all the time?

This stuff gets harder and harder…

“Before ad blockers, I never clicked on anything on any website”

and

“Before ad blockers, I never clicked on ads.”

To be not only empty but plain rediculous. The fact is that site revenues have dropped by about 50% since AdBlockers came around. That math isn’t too hard is it?

The web as I knew it was ad-free and you and all other “Marketing Savvies” were not forced to publish your contents in it, you did it voluntarily. If you do not like that then go and print your content in paper and try distributing it by other means.

A simple example of your short sighted opinion:

“When enough web publishers refuse access to freeloading visitors, the popularity of such extensions might start to go down”

The corrected version:

“When enough web publishers refuse access to freeloading visitors, the popularity of such PUBLISHERS might start to go down”

Many companies are earning money in Internet by providing real *services*. That’s the model we want to see and use. And if no one is willing to pay a cent for the services provided by you, then yo and do another thing.

No one. I repeat: *NO ONE* what to see ads in internet.

Got it?