DoubleClick Warns Against Ad-Blocking Browsers

An anonymous reader writes "The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned. Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Comments

cry me a river

[Cheeze]

So you run a company who's job it is to annoy people, and you are mad because someone wants to run your out of business with their new product. Sounds like capitalism at it's best.

Re:cry me a river

[Trigun]

Not capitalism, idiocy.

Doubleclick wants to get rid of the free as in beer internet as well as the free-as-in-Mel Gibson painted blue internet. If they had their way, they would track every single person on the internet and their shopping habits, eating habits, and any other thing that they could figure out how to track, and sell it all to the highest bidder.

Fuck you double-click! If people weren't trying every single underhanded trick to make money on the Internet, the place would be better. Fuck you, fuck your adware-hocking buddies, and fuck Roland Pipsqueakalli for their desperate attempts to make a buck off of my back.

Re:cry me a river

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. Seeing large, flash animations telling me about a service I am completely uninterested in irritates me. Sometimes I click[1] on them on the basis that it will cost someone money and not give them any sales.

Google ads, on the other hand, I have no problem with. They are small (both in terms of content and download size - particularly important if I am using GPRS and paying per byte), unobtrusive, and - most important - relevant. I have even bought things as a direct result of Google ads, something no other advertising mechanism can claim. I have no problem with well-targetted adverts, but blanket adverts just get ignored. Whether the filtering happens in my browser or my brain makes very little difference.

[1] Open in background tab, then close without ever actually looking at the tab.

Re:cry me a river

[Winckle]

I agree with you, if only because of your amusing use of the word fuck.

Re:cry me a river

[Bush_man10]

Annoying maybe, but these ads are a much needed source of revenue for the internet. What would happen if people ended up blocking google ads? Would we have free searching on the internet?

Ads maybe annoying but I like the fact that I don't get charged for using a lot of the services on the internet that I love to use.

Now if I could only figure out how to put ads in my posts :)

Re:cry me a river

[Cheeze]

Capitalism, because Doubleclick has the right to sell ads, and programmers or anyone else has the right to ignore those ads.

Sure doubleclick totally sucks because they think ads should be EVERYWHERE, but they have all legal right to be dicks and cry like babies when their revenue stream is decreased.

Re:cry me a river

[trevdak]

Not only that, but those who are willing to go out and get adblocking software most likely will not click an ad anyways/. It is like the spammers who put so much effort in making emails get through spam filters. People put those filters there because they don't intend to read any spam and therefore would rather not even see them. Yet spammers still exist out there, because there are morons dumb enough to buy from them. In the same way, ads will always be out there because people will always click them. And finally... I use firefox, but do my adblocking through my hosts file. I've made up a good list of a few hundred ad companies, and rarely see any more ads. The advantage of using a host file is that you can block out the request sent to their server, so you don't get cookies, you don't get their javascript loading, you don't get their iframe, and they can't hijack the page you are using.

Re:cry me a river

[iamwahoo2]

Don't forget about the horse that they rode in on!

Re:cry me a river

[Guspaz]

Like it or not the internet as we know it is made possible by online advertising. The vast majority of free sites out there, slashdot included, rely on advertisements to pay the bills.

Google, for example, would not exist in it's current form if it weren't for AdSense, which now makes up most (Or nearly all?) of their profit. AdSense advertisements are what keeps us in the cool free google products.

Without online advertising, the internet would be a hollow shell of it's present self, with VERY few of the sites that you know and love today.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

can you give us your hosts file? (you could put popups on the page to pay for the bandwidth ;)

Re:cry me a river

[Trigun]

I think, as well as the size and type of ad ( I blocked ads from freshmeat because they were using flash animations with sound. Freshmeat is great, but the ads that they had were very intrusive), is the targetting of the ad. I would have no problem if google served me an ad based on my geographic location. I would have no problem if they serve me ads based on my current search terms. I would have a problem with google gathering my search terms and building a profile on my habits and serving me ads based on that (primarily because I share an IP with my wife, and we both use google, and the ads she'd get would end up costing me my house, and secondarily the whole privacy/big brother/ gubment doesn't need to know that I have a midget-viking-horse porn fetish), and I would switch my allegiances very quickly.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you run a company who's job it is to annoy people, and you are mad because someone wants to run your out of business with their new product. Sounds like capitalism at it's best."

How typical of the myopic socialist view rampant on slashdot.

I don't have a problems with online ads. Why do you think for a minute any website has an obligation to provide you with free content? They don't, moron. Many sites go ahead and do it anyway because they can make a buck off advertising. If you don't like sites that have ads, don't visit them.

You geeks are smart enough to create a directory of ad-free sites, aren't you? Good. They go ahead and do it. For me, an ad or two is a small price to pay to get some great content not easily available to me otherwise.

Honestly, most of the idiots who scream about ads have to be mental midgets with all the concentration skills of hyperactive squirrel. I unconsciously edit out almost ads as matter of course. It's not hard.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Would we have free searching on the internet?

Um Google is not the only search engine out there...there are literally hundreds of other search engines, some of which offer no ads. If there is anything to be learned from the internet its that someone somewhere will offer what you are charging to do for free.

Re:cry me a river

[Enigma_Man]

Exactly! I love doing that, clicking on craptastic advertiser's adds, just knowing that I just cost them a nickel. If they would keep the advertisements reasonable, not flash, no animated GIFs or blink tags, then I wouldn't mind at all.

Re:cry me a river

[man_of_mr_e]

Advertising will never go away. It will just become more insidious. In a way, I think adblocker and the like are akin to people taking anti-biotics every time they get a sniffle. It just ends up creating new strains of antibiotic resistant germs which, eventually will not be able to be combatted.

Today, it's relatively easy to spot the advertising within the page to block it out. Eventually, advertising will become so integrated with the content that you can't automatically detect and strip it out.

I agree whole heartedly with blocking truly annoying forms of advertising, such as popups, but to block all advertising, including stuff that goes out of its way to not be annoying (such as Google Ad Sense) is really just shooting ourselves in the foot.

We want to encourage non-annoying advertising!

Re:cry me a river

[MikeFM]

My websites will always be free. A couple to try.. Techie Stuff and File Sharing. Funny, if all banner-paid sites had to go away then the websites made by people actually doing it out of interest might get more traffic. I'm sure users would hate that.. search for something and actually find a site with real info rather than just ads.

Re:cry me a river

[Winkhorst]

I agree. But let me just say that I really didn't mind static ads. After all, the internet was originally a static medium and, like newspapers, one expects some nice little static ads.

It was when these retardo-bozos began the damned flash ads that winked and blinked until they drove you nuts that I began to get angry. When the damned ads started getting up and marching across the screen like wooden soldiers in a little kid's dreams, I began to get apoplectic. Then you couldn't even click on a link without being redirected to an ad page before being permitted to see what you wanted to see.

And somewhere along the way these veritable cretinous lunatics decided that they had the right to set malicious cookies that would phone home everytime you turned on your computer thus slowing down your boot time and generally mucking up the innards of YOUR VERY OWN computer paid for with your hard earned dollars. And this character has the nerve to threaten us with the DEATH OF THE INTERNET!!! if we don't stop preventing him from annoying us.

Yes, I agree. Screw you double-boner and the rest of your silly fannies.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought "free-as-in-Mel Gibson painted blue" was a particularly nice turn of phrase.

Re:cry me a river

[chris_mahan]

If your site is expensive, then it's your fault, not mine. Pick a better vendor, or diy.

If your bandwidth is expensive, same as above. Redesing your site. write it well.

If your site is used by millions of people and they don't want to pay, turn it off. Why are you doing it anyway? Do you enjoy losing money? Again, not my fault.

If your site has great content and needs to pay for its writers, that's a business decision on your part, not mine. You figure out how to make money. If your content was so great, people would be willing to pay for it. That they not means your content is not. Get over it.

As far as google is concerned, well, I am yet to see a popup or a flash animation in connection with them. Yet they are worth what, $80B? Larger than Time Warner. So don't tell me you can't make money if you don't have popups and large ads.

1998 called and they want their marketing campains back.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe not his, but a good one nonetheless

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Re:cry me a river

[iced_773]

Doubleclick and its cronies have been indirectly stealing people's money for years. Why does the average Joe switch from dialup to cable/DSL? Because these stupid Flash ads and images keep clogging bandwidth like crazy. Now that cable/DSL has overtaken dialup, Doubleclick can make more money by placing even more obnoxious ads on pages.

Also, look at some of the ads these guys put out: "Congratulations! You have won our hourly prize! Click OK to claim it," not bothering to tell you that you will have to give plenty of personal information, which is at their disposal to sell to spammers. "Shoot the villain and win a free iPod/Xbox!" At the very bottom of this ad is white text on a light backgroud saying "With participation in our program."

Not to mention the fact that they put adware/spyware on your computer without your consent or even your knowledge. Granted, this is only a minor problem if you are a more educated user who has a spyware removal tool and runs Windows Update regularly (if you have Windows), but it's still a problem. While Doubleclick may have a right to place ads on pages, they have no right to exploit people.

On top of that, the executive's warnings are completely unfounded. IE still takes up most of the browser market, and how many average users who happen to have tried Firefox would even know that it supports extensions, much less even know that Adblock exists?

Re:cry me a river

[ShieldW0lf]

This might mean the end of a lot of free content, but it won't mean the end of peoples desire to publish. And computers are cheap. And getting cheaper. And bandwidth is cheap. And getting cheaper. So anyone can publish, and peer to peer is getting better. And ISPs like to make money.

If all the advertising in the world dried up tomorrow, there would be an instant and huge opportunity for ISPs that provided good, seamless and easy P2P publishing, because whichever ISP provided it would be the one providing the free content.

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where this happens. It might spell the end of a lot of the crappy "me too" technical review sites and others of their ilk who are churing out mediocre content purely for the money, but a good reputation is still a valuable thing, and being published and respected worldwide is still a valuable personal asset.

I imagine that there'd be another greed-based crisis later when the ISPs try to leverage access to the content it's users create as a means of getting more users by cutting off access to other ISPs unless they pay, until we end up with a global monopoly in the ISP market or we collectively call for the governments to step in and roll ISP services into their basic tax-funded infrastructure.

Regardless, the people are collectively happy to publish for free, they want to read what other people have written, they don't want to be manipulated by scumbag advertisers when they do it, and they are already paying money every month
for access to the internet. That is a market waiting to be tapped.

So fuck off and die, doubleclick. We don't need you.

Re:cry me a river

[diggem]

Whether you looked or not, they think you did and that only encourages them. They take that as a view, an impression. They take that set of eyeballs and turn around and sell it as more positive feedback. "This add is working, it's getting more views, let's keep doing this"

Of course, if you wanted to do it right you would create a script to continually download their images and any other large objects. They'd get the clicks but no revenue off the spent bandwidth. Eventually if you were irritating enough they might BLOCK YOU (In Soviet Russia advertising company blocks you, heh)

Re:cry me a river

[MikeFM]

My experience is that you can shutdown most site's AdWord ads by clicking on them a hundred times a day for a few days. It seems Google will decide they're cheating and cut them off without any chance to defend themselves. So if you see an annoying AdWords site now you know how to hurt them.. ;)

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately there are thousands of capitalistic lemmings like doubleclick.com. Waving a stop shield with a few regex's won't help, since they only see the coins - and fall off the cliff. I'm always shocked, when it happes that I have to browse the web without any advert blocking solution; But watching lemmings is fun. :)

Re:cry me a river

[HaydnH]

You can block googleAds in firefox as well! (see the cyan bit at the bottom).

Re:cry me a river

[Trizero]

Well the prick does have a point. After all, if advertisers stop supporting Web sites, then they may have to charge for content. However, wouldn't be a novel idea to have advertisments that annoy people. I mean eliminating pop-ups is not something difficult to do. Look at /. Ads exist, but they are not annoying. They don't inhbit the usability of the Web site, and further to the point, they are integrated rather well with the design. What annoys me the most are the ads that jump out of their little box and block the content I am looking at. That and ones with sounds as well. Annoying indeed.

Re:cry me a river

[RavynWork]

Yeah. They've been innovative enough in the past so I'm sure something else will be thought up. But, until then, good riddance!

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not one of those lonely farm boys are you?

Re:cry me a river

[grupopper]

An ad or two would be perfectly acceptable by many people out there, as it was a few years ago. But now we don't get an ad or two. We get three, four, ten ads on EACH AND EVERY PAGE. To top it all off, we have misleading or downright false ads. Viruses weren't enough for these folks. Now we have to concern ourselves with Adware, Malware and Spyware. Where does it end? But it doesn't end with free content either. Think what happens when you sit down to watch that new DVD and Disney or Sony or 20th Century Fox decides you need twenty minutes of advertising (it's gone beyond previews these days). I paid for that movie, not the Doritos ad before it. You buy a CD or a video game and they stuff them chock full of ads. Even a good portion of fee-based sites still have pop-up advertising. My quantity of physical and electronic junk mail has dipped quite sharply (to all but none) in the past few months and my online ads have disappeared completely thanks to Firefox and programs like it. I still buy quite a bit of merchandise online, but now it is from proven, ad-free retailers. The war will continue, just like the battle against harrassing telemarketer phone calls will continue. Do I feel bad that I may be costing some salesperson his job? No. Learn a skill. Get educated. Do something else. I did. (And, yes, I worked in sales for many years - coldcalling included)

Re:cry me a river

[xerxesVII]

Sounds like you have very interesting days, friend.

Re:cry me a river

[VdG]

Internet advertising is a relatively immature industry. There has been a tendancy to use various Web features - pop-ups etc - simply because they're there. This is obviously counter-productive.

The comparison with a newspaper is absurd, and probably disingenuous. Adverts in my newspaper don't interfere with my reading of the paper so I'm quite happy to put up with them and may even read them.

Pissing off potential customers is simply not a good idea.

Re:cry me a river

[Winkhorst]

"Whether you looked or not, they think you did and that only encourages them."

Well, then, they are even stupider than I figured they were.

Re:cry me a river

[slaker]

See, now here is a funny thing.

I use the positively militant set of Adblock rules from here, and as a result I'm barely aware that there are ads on the internet.

But... I happen to be interested in a cheap hosting plan for myself, and the parent poster here has a nice, non-intrusive advertisement as his .sig. I clicked his link, and I'm really considering signing up.

This is how ads should be. I'm glad for google, and people like this guy, who understand the power of plain-text advertizing.

Also, in the spirit of the last two posters: Fuck Double-click. Fuck them in their stupid asses.

Re:cry me a river

[cuzality]

Check this guy out. He updates his filter list weekly, if not daily, and it works great!

http://www.pierceive.com/filtersetg/

Just download the .txt named with the most recent date.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, most of the idiots who scream about ads have to be mental midgets with all the concentration skills of hyperactive squirrel. I unconsciously edit out almost ads as matter of course.

When identifying people as idiots, mental midgets, and such, try to proof read your posts. That, or define these "almost ads" that you speak of.

And where does "myopic socialist view" come from? Remember "freedom" and "capitalism", well these "myopic socialists" are exercising their rights to run ad blockers, because they are free to decide if they want to see ads, or not.

I think your view of "All users of the internet MUST see ads for the greater common good" is a lot more socialist.

Myself, I think that marketing people are about the lowest form of human life on the planet. I never have, and never would click an online ad. In fact, I go the other way, if I am being bombarded by ads, I make it a point to NEVER buy those products. So what difference does it make if I see the ad or not?

As a side note, if site owners were selling their web real estate to a specific ad, rather than to a rotating set of crap, then the ads couldn't be blocked, could they? What enabels ad blockers, is the fact that they have to connect back to an ad server before they can be displayed.

"Buy my ultra cool products, they will make you thinner, smarter, longer, harder, give you more hair, less limp, more degrees, more money, lower mortgages"

Did your ad blocker catch that one? Bet it didn't.

Re:cry me a river

[Ahman_Ra]

i think marketing campaigns are over. Otherwise we wouldn't so much rehashed crap served, in some cases, exactly like before but with different actors/actresses. It seems like marketing lately is just "It worked before. People are stupid. It will work again."

Re:cry me a river

[AtlanticGiraffe]

How the hell did a comment that makes little sense, adds nothing to the discussion AND uses the word 'fuck' four times get moderated to score 4: Insightful?

We seriously need to do something about this moderation thingy. This is just ridiculous.

Re:cry me a river

[cdavis4000]

This is very true. Consider newspapers like the Washington Times. It's not bad, but some people always believe that it was started by the Church as a covert advertising venue. The owners of the paper can slant the news the way they want. They choose the articles and they choose the facts that go in the articles. At least with standard advertising, you know where you stand. I would be sad if we lost the old system. The ads were generally kept separate from the content. It wasn't always perfect, but ad blockers will bring about covert advertising and that seems worse to me.

Re:cry me a river

[KarmaMB84]

wtf? Since when did browser cookies phone home at boot time? Perhaps you mean adware/malware that you've been picking up from porn sites?

Re:cry me a river

[robertjw]

When the damned ads started getting up and marching across the screen like wooden soldiers in a little kid's dreams, I began to get apoplectic.

Let's not forget the ads that make noise. Lately that stupid chick that says "Type whatever you want me to say" really irritates me.

Re:cry me a river

[Trigun]

What can I say? I've got charm.

Re:cry me a river

[awhelan]

I think the reverse could be true also... The agencies like doubleclick etc keep changing their ad styles, and the adblock tools keep getting stronger while fighting it. Eventually the agencies will see the intense lengths people are going through to get rid of them and realize that those are not the people that are clicking their ads anyway, so it's not worth fighting for space on their monitor, which will only serve to infuriate them.

Re:cry me a river

[geekoid]

naw, thye'll become less insidous and more helpfull. as many people here have pointed out, google seems to hit the nail on the head with it's advertising model.
I have found google ads to be the first that are actually usefull and helpfull.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

On occasion I have actually used google for the targeted ads rather then the search results. Particularly if I'm looking for something out of the ordinary.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot. Go read up on the definitions of capitalism and socialism.

Re:cry me a river

[rtkluttz]

Everybody always mentions just the annoying ads. What about any ad that tracks me. Advertisers have 0 right to any knowledge about me... even if it is anonymous. If they want to use passive tracking, like checking web hits, fine and good. If I pick up a newspaper they can't tell if I read an ad, why should they be able to online? They don't have a right to that knowledge and advertising is a risk. Get over it.

Re:cry me a river

[Winkhorst]

Perhaps I mean what I fucking said.

Re:cry me a river

[Winkhorst]

What's the URL? Is the quality better than the ATT voice synthesis program?

Re:cry me a river

[br0ck]

Just FYI, he mentioned in the +what_happened.txt file in the directory you linked to that he's having bandwidth issues an would like everyone to use the cached link at http://www.pierceive.com.nyud.net:8090/ especially when linking from high bandwidth sites.

Re:cry me a river

[man_of_mr_e]

True, but there seem to be a lot of people that want to get rid of ALL advertising, including Google. I think that's a bit extreme.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

or it sounds like you have no clue and he has some scripting abilities? duh

Re:cry me a river

[huge colin]

In a way, I think adblocker and the like are akin to people taking anti-biotics every time they get a sniffle. It just ends up creating new strains of antibiotic resistant germs which, eventually will not be able to be combatted.

Are you suggesting that we'll have unblockable ads at some point? I disagree. For that to happen, advertisers would have to have control over our computers at a fairly low level -- and, as they say, they can have that when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Re:cry me a river

[Jearil]

I think what the grandparent is trying to say is that a cookie is merely a small piece of text, usually with an identifying number, left in the cookie cache of your web browser with an ID linked to the URL that created it. It is a piece of text, not a program.. unable to "phone home" as it were or store any other information besides with the creator of the cookie put into it. They cannot collect information about other things and store them for later retrieval from the company.

You're computer will not get slowed down by cookies (once again, just small text files). Certain programs such as adaware will however recognize malicious cookies as being ones that are used to track your movement on the internet. The way that this works is dozens of websites participate in allowing the tracking company (such as doubleclick) to read their own cookie each time you connect to the site. So if you went to say msn's website and they were using doubleclick's tracking cookies, they would send a request to doubleclick to check for their cookie before msn sends its page info. Doubleclick would then go "ah yes, our cookie is here.. this is user ID *some ID number*. Let us update our database which has a primary key of that number to add the information that this user has visited msn at this time today".

Cookies are not all bad, they help to keep track of state (such as shopping carts or login info) across pages.. as html was designed as a static medium.

Err.. so anyway.. Cookies didn't slow down your computer. It was probably spyware/malware from p0rn sights or Gator or some shit like that.

Re:cry me a river

[Fordiman]

Additionally, Google ads are text - they're not blocked by the Ad-block extension. That's right, Double-Click! You wanna stay in business? Check out what Google does... Yes, Google... The Good Son of the interweb.

Re:cry me a river

[dynamo]

Dude, I totally agree - Fuck Him.

But.. educate yourself on what cookies do. They are no more executable than JPEGs. It's what the web servers on the other side do with them that may be objectionable.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

It's NOT a "negative vibe against advertising in general". Rather, it is the obnoxious flash-based animations and pop-ups IN PARTICULAR which have provoked people to actively block ALL advertising, and the ad-men have only themselves to blame.

I use regular expression pattern matching in the Adblock engine and derive a great deal of satisfaction from blocking the outrageous onslaught of annoying ads. Sometimes I'll pop open the Adblock window just to gloat at the red-lined attempts to get in my face.
- mikebo

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

would not exist in it's current form
a hollow shell of it's present self

"its".

Re:cry me a river

[Java Ape]

I have a hosts entry to route doubleclick (and a number of similar festering pustules) to 127.0.0.1. I also have a specific firewall rule to drop their packets into a black hole if they come from somwhere else.

Re:cry me a river

[Fordiman]

Ad-Blocker, even with its extensive list, doesn't block google ads. And smart website designers (like Piro of Megatokyo, for example) keep their site-supporting ads in non-keyword directories (the adverts for their store is in /megagear/, keeing them happily unblocked) In fact, I would go so far as to say that text ads are eventually going to be the only ones possible. And it's the fault of the advertising industry for annoying us to the point where the need for a product like Ad-Block is necessary. So fuck 'em. Even if I DO eventually have to pay for, say, slashdot, I'll pay. ESPECIALLY if there's no ads.

Re:cry me a river

[ArhcAngel]

Eventually, advertising will become so integrated with the content that you can't automatically detect and strip it out.

We're already there....sort of. Anyone watching a feature film in the last 10 or more years has seen this. The last few Bond flicks have been almost full length commercials for Mercedes/BMW/Boliva. There are too many to mention. The funniest one I remember was actually a satire on product placement in films. Anyone remember Wayne's World? They spent 5 minutes saying they would never sell out their music while doing an ad for Pepsi, Nuprin (Little, yellow, different), and Pizza Hut. Hilarious, but sadly true.

Re:cry me a river

[Winckle]

I'm glad you happened to mention the use of text based ads, I too use the "percieve" set of adblock rules. And thanks to google's adwords scheme, I purcahsed a custom build pc for a decent price from nsysonline a uk based firm, located near myself. Google understands that targeted advertising is necessary. I would not be interested in a US based firm that sold PCs, bu since nsys were based in Berkshire, the advert was actually useful. Also please let me know if you do take up that offer.

Re:cry me a river

[DocSavage64109]

Even if I DO eventually have to pay for, say, slashdot, I'll pay. ESPECIALLY if there's no ads.

Exactly. I will gladly pay a reasonable fee for services and sites that are worth a dam. I also wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fee to download TV episodes with out the commercials provided they where available as soon as they air on tv.

Re:cry me a river

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, they'll be unblockable, short of blocking the content itself. If you can't differentiate between the content and the advertising automatically, then you're stuck either avoiding the content or putting up with ads in a way that you can't automatically block.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

my thoughts exactly. if there weren't flashing breasts and viagra ads on sites I wouldn't have to block them.

I actually click-through ads that are tasteful in the hopes more ads like that will be made.

when the ads are all "shoot the celebrity" or "decapitate the monkey" with SOUND.....screw you. you made something so attrocious people are sick of it.

look at google ads.....they are tasteful and RELEVANT. I have 0 complaints about google's ads..and I even tend to click them frequently.

Re:cry me a river

[Jeff DeMaagd]

One way to strip out in-line ads is to turn off Javascript. I hate those keyword things that some sites use, only rarely do they have relevant links anyway.

I do expect more astroturfing, and we probably see a lot without expecting it. I suspect that 100% of most computer "hardware" sites are ads, even the alleged content, despite the content being only 5% to 10% of any given page, the rest being ads and menu clutter.

Re:cry me a river

[robdavy]

Why do people always bitch about Profiling (which is for Targetting of ads) yet also bitch about seeing crappy non-relevant to them ads?

If you want semi-interesting, maybe relevant ads, then allow advertisers to find out a bit about you!

Re:cry me a river

[julesh]

Exactly. Seeing large, flash animations telling me about a service I am completely uninterested in irritates me. Sometimes I click[1] on them on the basis that it will cost someone money and not give them any sales.

This idea sounds good, but unfortunately does nothing like as much good as you think it does. The problem is this: there are 3 different ways for paying for internet adverts -- per impression, per click or per successful transaction. From when I ran an advertising-paid site, I can tell you this: the really annoying ads are all paid for per impression. Why? Because they get higher click through and transaction rates, so they get a better deal buying them on per impression pricing.

Sad, but true.

Re:cry me a river

[MustardMan]

Perhaps I mean what I fucking said.

Perhaps you're an idiot. A text file cannot "phone home".

Re:cry me a river

[prell]

The consumer drives capitalism. At the coldest and most literal level, if the consumer doesn't want it, then it's tethered swimming for you! (I don't feel right!) And if it turns out the consumer is wrong, then all the better for everyone: we'll learn a lesson and something even better will come from it.

Much as there is commercial radio and public radio, you have a choice of whether to actively support what you like; or to deal with advertising. Look at the Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't need ads; it gets donations when necessary (and quite generously, from what I can tell).

Telling people what to do will never work. Watch what they do and make your best decision. Live by your own morals.

Re:cry me a river

[bwy]

Fuck you double-click!

You sure are you angry. It is suprising this got you so fired up. If I hated double click as much as you, I'd just boycott any site that does business with them.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

So you run a company who's job it is to annoy people, and you are mad because someone wants to run your out of business with their new product. Sounds like capitalism at it's best.

Annoy is too mild a word. The stuff DoubleClick
calls 'ads' would most likely not be accepted
in any major newspaper or magazine, simply because
it's bogus/misleading.

As for being the end of the free internet, well,
door-to-door salesmen hardly exist anymore, and
as a result, nobody buys anything anymore, right?

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

aha! so doublelclick should be warning
browser makers about making browsers with tabs!

Re:cry me a river

[SportSpyder.com]

It's easy to say cry me a river until you run your own site and have to maintain servers and a broadband connection among other costs. Sure I'd love to not include ads, but they pay for my overhead and give me motivation to continue to work in hopes that I can continue improve on my product as a full time job. Its pretty selfish to want to use my content and hard work for free and not at least let the ads through. It may not be the death of the internet it will surely limit whats out there. People may say they only block intrusive ads but thats bologna. Most ad blocking programs do them all in one fell swoop including google ads. Sure technology might adapt and maybe you'll see AJAX or some other method being used to make sure that you did see the ads otherwise making the site unavailable to you. Really it does boil down to you paying for sites like CNN etc

Re:cry me a river

[geekoid]

no.

The only thing I want them to know is what I am currently(as in at the moment) interested in finding.
If I go to a sight that is about cars, then there should be advertising geared towards cars.
If I do a search on 'Golf' then a few non intrusive ads about golf would be WELCOME.

But I do not want them to track me from place to place, because the ads will very quickly become irrelevant noise.
They also fail to recognize that many people may use the same computer. once again every user is targetted with ads that might be interesting to every other user on that computer. once again, it just becomes noise.

They do not need to know my gender, age, race, height, favorite color, or my dogs middle name.

Re:cry me a river

[emlprime]

I would think this had more weight if Google actually served up porn ads. They don't. In fact, I've never had any embarassing ads remotely related to my midget-viking-horse porn fetish.

Re:cry me a river

[Trigun]

The problem is how much is a bit?

Here's something for you. Have you tried the stumbleupon toolbar? You supply a username and password, sign up for categories, and when you press a button, it brings up a random webpage. They don't know too much about me, they don't profile me, and I get ads in the form of webpages from them. I like it, I give up a little bit of privacy for a little bit of gain.

Why doesn't the advertizing agency create something similar? Give up a little bit of privacy for relevant ads? It's because they don't know when to say when. They want more and more and more. They think of clever little schemes to track you and see what you do, what you like, for the sole purpose of making money off of you. If they can come up with a way to imbed an RFID chip in your skull that will broadcast itself everytime you pick up an item on a shelf and show a little bit of interest, then guess what they're going to do? They're going to give away free toothbrushes to the first six billion meat popsicles that sign up for this mostly harmless brain jewellrey. Firefox and adblock is how I give them the collective finger. Swapping my air-miles card with the person next in line at the grocery store is how I give them the finger. Taking their god awful surveys at work for a chance to be quoted in some on-line publication and give them completely ridiculous answers like "We only have one mainframe, it's an IBM thinkpad 370 running Plan 9, and everyone else is using Commodore 128's (not 64's, no horsepower in those babies) as dumb terminals", then waiting on hold while they try to figure out which item on their list matches my answers, is the way I give them the collective finger.

Everyone is predicting the end of the free Internet, and that my ilk are the ones doing it. I'm not. I'm getting rid of the worst forms of advertizing making it unprofitable, and rewarding the responsible marketers. Any of this "In your face!" bullshit simply don't wash with me. I'll cut out commercials, call businesses that air shitty commercials and let them know that their commercials are shitty, and call up companies that have good commercials and let them know. Of course, my liberal use of the word "fuck" (as noted in posts to this topic) generally gets a hangup, but calling up the local pizza place that puts out a great commercial and telling them "Brilliant! That's a fooking brilliant commercial you got yourself there" makes most people chuckle and know that they're doing something right.

The Malibu Rum commercials (the Jamaican saying "Hurry up! My fish is sick!" on the bus, and the one where the family is trying to park the boat, getting a ticket, and the lady telling the cop "Is your mother proud of you?") make me laugh out loud, to this day. And to reward them, I threw the Captain overboard, and sent their company an e-mail saying that "Well, the captain was here too, and he ain't welcome back! Malibu Rum kicked your ass in the commercials, and they just had a bunch of islanders, whereas you had models with red beards scribbled on them.

Wow, this post has gotten way too long. I'll shorten my sig to make up for it. And now, in closing, Drink Malibu Rum, eat Little Caesars pizza, and any advertizers that try that "in your face" crap, hold them down and give them crap in their face. See how they like it.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, and also the fact that here @ slashdot (which I have known was coming for YEARS in java/javascript & I won't say how) that those self-same adbanners have been shown to harbor malware/spyware/viral infestation payloads @ times besides sucking up the bandwidth you pay for. And, I have to admit, I don't LIKE being "used" like a pigeon for webpage hits only, and if you think that's crap? Some of the website masters I know PERSONALLY of huge/famous sites over time in person or online look at folks that way... simple money machines/idiots. I hate to point that out & I won't name names, but it is what I heard from one & was blatantly astounded. They're not in it for the nobility of this art/science we're into for reasons other than JUST crass cash... only money. Yes, I can see that, & this entire situations a "catch-22" but I pay for my bandwidth & am NO 'rich boy' either. I work for my coins/deadpresidents. I use custom HOSTS files to accomplish this along with PAC files &/or IP Security Policies against over 35,000 known adbanner servers & it's gotten me ousted/banned from sites, or having webmasters tell me via email they won't allow upgrades of articles I wrote on their sites (NTCompatible.com article #1 for performance and security tuning) because I teach others HOW this is done with ease and the security + speed benefits. It's not fair to me, or on my end to they, but BOTH parties have merit imo on their views. You can't really win!

APK

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me whine a little bit...

the internet was originally a static medium

Do you mean the web?
The web isn't and never has been the internet. It is just a part of it. The internet has always been a dynamic medium and most of its tools reflect that.

Ok I'm done. Thanks.

Re:cry me a river

[slaker]

Yup, actually I did sign up. Your .sig worked. :)

Re:cry me a river

[prockcore]

Doubleclick wants to get rid of the free as in beer internet

No they don't. If websites went to subscription sites, doubleclick would go bankrupt.

They make money off advertising. Subscription sites don't need to advertise (in fact, that's one of the selling points of subscribing. Don't want to see ads? Subscribe!)

Doubleclick wants to keep free-as-in-beer websites for as long as possible.

Re:cry me a river

[HiThere]

What free content sites?

Slashdot? OK. I don't block /. ads. Actually I don't block any, but I also don't have flash installed. If the ad level at a site gets too annoying, I stop going to that site, and I must say that there are a large number of sites I won't go to...though how much is due to ads I couldn't tell you. They're certainly enough to tip the balance if it's close, but they're rarely bad enough to be a deciding factor just by themselves. OTOH, they're the reason that I removed Dilbert from my daily reading, so at least sometimes it's significant.

IMO, the content of the web has gotten worse since ads became common, so the threat of DoubleClick doesn't fill me with panic. It might drive some people back to TV, in which case serves them right. A reasonable quantity of ads is one thing, the explosive overload is extortion, and SOME form of ad blocking is the only legitimate response. I chose the mild form of not installing flash. And having animated gifs cycle once, not forever.

I used to subscribe to /., but the implementation of the subscriber features never materialized properly, so I let it lapse. /. is a worth site, and I'd subscribe to it if they played fair, but getting ads as well as subscribing is "double taxation", so pfft.

Re:cry me a river

[Joe Random]

Well, what you said was that cookies were phoning home, which makes about as much sense as a text file phoning home on bootup.

Re:cry me a river

[Blakey Rat]

Maybe you should look up what a web cookie *is* before making ridiculous claims, like that they "phone home" on startup. How could a cookie possibly:

1) Be accessed at startup/login?
2) Be accessed by anything other than the website that set the cookie in the first place?
3) Contain any sort of script or code that can actually run?

If you really "mean what you fucking said" then you're an idiot. Sorry, but it's true.

Re:cry me a river

[Winckle]

cool, let me know how your website gets along, and e-mail me if you have good experience hosting, i might purchase an account myself.

Re:cry me a river

[fermion]

The deciptive ads are the problem. They promise you a computer for free, and only in the process of trying to get the computer, do you find out that a large amount of other merchandise must be aquired. These ads do not in general state that merchandise must be aquired, or at what level. Of course a reasonable person should assume that nothing is free, but that is beside the point.

A head of household,due to the high rate of deceptive content, really has no choice but to block ads. I believe that schools has an equal responsibility because most kids are not going to have the sophistication to understand they are being lied to. I believe a case be made for firms of all sizes blocking ads, as the employee should be using the internet for work, and ads will just waste employee and companies resources, not to mention putting the employees at risk.

So home, work, and school are blocked. What is left?

On TV and radio we started with paid product placements, then we were at paid ads, and now we are moving back to paid placement. On the internet we started with the lowest level of advertisement, basically direct sales, just above bartering. We then moved to a model that largely revolves around deceptive advertising. What we have no seen a lot of is the brand building advertising that traditionally has provided long term stability.

Re:cry me a river

[iced_773]

I agree that deception is one of the biggest problems, but there is also another major problem - visual accessibility.

I myself have Firefox set to override colors on web pages in favor of a white-on-black scheme, because too much light bothers my eyes. Therefore, the familiar "You have won our hourly prize," for example, with all of its colors and blinking can really make things hard to see. General movement in Flash animations along the side of the site can also be a pain. All of these obnoxious ads can make it very difficult to focus. I cannot tell my browser to block all images because there may be a diagram or something that is part of the page itself.

Some people actually need Adblock so they do not spend hours trying to discern a single paragraph! Or, why can't ads simply be small boxes saying "Try Vanilla Coke" or something?

Re:cry me a river

[Marr]

Your conclusion is valid, but I question the reasoning that leads to it. Antibiotic resistant diseases are winning the evolutionary arms race because they're better set up to evolve quickly than the human medical industry. There are parallels with the ad-wars, but I think you've confused the players.

On the one side, you have a few large corporations with last year's world-view and a big pile of cash, and on the other, millions of college students, hackers and tiny startup companies with a bit of spare time and enthusiasm.

Who's going to be best at playing the viral game?

Re:cry me a river

[SamSim]

Congratulations! You have won our hourly prize! Click OK to claim it

It always strikes me as implausible that I can do things like visit the same site twice and be the 1,000,000th hit both times. I actually made a fake ad once where the top part said in bright glowing bouncing letters "ATTENTION! If the link below is flashing then YOU HAVE WON!!!" Below that, in dull grey, was a link saying "you have lost".

Re:cry me a river

[NickFortune]

Err.. so anyway.. Cookies didn't slow down your computer.

Not at boot time, granted. However, suppose on the the first web page you access, half a hundred cookies get read by half a hundred overloaded servers. And then they all get written back again.

And suppose that you have to wait for all this before the page will start to render. And let's suppose one or two of those servers are down, and you have to wait for the timeout before you can get started.

Now imagine that happening on every new page you access. Add in a few multi megabyte javascript files that have nothing to do with your browsing experience, but which must be loaded before the page will render.

It gets slo-o-o-o-o-w. Even on broadband.

I think that's what the guy was getting at.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is completely right. We don't owe the public relations industry anything. If they want to take away their "free content", let them. The most valuable free content I've run across has never needed any advertising dollars and, in some cases, actually refuses them even when offered. This article isn't news it's a veiled threat from a small fish in a big sea of corporate BS.

I'm sure the PR industry originally fought the implementation of the "mute" button on TV remotes too but I don't see them sweating that anymore.

Just my half a cent.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as the alternative is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Re:cry me a river

[cliffski]

This is effectively already true, when you read a review of a new computer game or other product, the chances are high that the score and review is heavily tainted by the amount of PR spend at that companies disposal. Rather than spending 30k on banner ads, it makes more sense to fly some 'reviewers' off to a 'preview' of your product which for some reason *must* happen on a beach in the south of france, with free food and champagne. bingo: 90% review score and the poor schmucks reading the website think its ad-free.
In the midst of this crap, you can only really believe what friends recommend to you, or purchase stuff on the basis of an in store demo or free trial.
Totally rambling rant there, but it needed to be said :D

Re:cry me a river

[jemfinch]

Today, it's relatively easy to spot the advertising within the page to block it out. Eventually, advertising will become so integrated with the content that you can't automatically detect and strip it out.

That's already happened. It's called PR.

Jeremy

Re:cry me a river

[Dr. Evil]

They wouldn't have had this problem if they innovated and only showed ads which allowed you to click to say "I never want to see this ad or product again"

Then people would want to identify themselves to Doubleclick, and Doubleclick could feed the info back to advertisers.

Re:cry me a river

[robertjw]

Not sure it's a stupid banner ad and I've never clicked on it. Either shows up here or on isohunt. Not sure which.

Re:cry me a river

[Omnieiunium]

And bandwidth is cheap. And getting cheaper.

I agree with you 100%. I am with a hosting company that charged $4 a month for 10GB and then for some reason they had a special deal for a few weeks that raised it to 100 GB a month. The deal ended but all customers got to keep the 100GB. So basically, a 100GB of bandwidth a month for a measly $4. I don't even know what do with all the bandwidth and most of it goes to waste.

Re:cry me a river

[Baloo Ursidae]

Today, it's relatively easy to spot the advertising within the page to block it out. Eventually, advertising will become so integrated with the content that you can't automatically detect and strip it out.

You mean like how CSS was so integrated with DVD content that you couldn't watch a DVD without a cabal-blessed player, right? Oh, wait...

Re:cry me a river

[pegasustonans]

Ad-blocker is pretty damn effective. The more annoying advertising I get, the more countermeasures I take. No exceptions.

If someone is actually dumb enough to make their advertising more annoying as a result of this phenomenon, then game on! I won't be the one going out of business.

Re:cry me a river

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

How about this case: the server presents you a page of advertising before it shows you the content you crave. Then you get to complete a short quiz.

Tasty Bright makes make teeth brighter because:

1. It is so tasty!
2. Magic fairy dust
3. Secret ingredient Zobflotell

If you don't get a passing grade, you don't get to see the content. The logic is on the server side, so controlling your computer doesn't help.

Re:cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually an interesting mix of capitalism and proletarian dictatorship. Just like those tele-marketing companies complaining "it's not fair" for them notto bug us at all times with their obnoxious phone calls.

"And Atlas shrugged!"

Too bad...

[WwWonka]

...I can't make first post as a pop up!

Oh nos!

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising group says avoiding ads means the intarweb is ending! The sky is falling! News at 11!

who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

bugger 'em I say

frist post

Re:who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail it.

In other news.

[jcromartie]

In other news, burglars are urging consumers to stop using locks on their doors.

Re:In other news.

[PhilHibbs]

...and some turkeys voted against Christmas.

Good call

[Leroy_Brown242]

This brings up a good point.

If nobody is looking at ads, ads won't pay for anything.

Although, I don't know of any browser that blocks by default, as of yet, it's very easy to block images in firefox.

Other than adds, what else could fund 'free' services online?

Re:Good call

[Le Marteau]

I don't care. The ad industry has gotten so obnoxious and full of itself, I want to see it die, and I don't care what it takes with it.

I know this is probably not in my own best interest, but, like I said, I don't care. When I get this pissed off about a thing, sometimes logic goes out the window, and what will happen to the 'free internet' is secondary to my desire to see slimeballs like that double-click guy flushed down the crapper.

Re:Good call

[stecoop]

Other than adds, what else could fund 'free' services online?

I don't know but I think wiki Foundation has an answer. You could also read up on what the asterisk next to peoples name means - you'll discover many a few ways online can survive. If they're good enough, they will, if not then that is the free market speaking.

Re:Good call

[Leroy_Brown242]

Another good point that they have shot themselves in the foot. Popups, pop unders, flash adds, adds that make noise, adds that pretend to be system message . . .

The list goes on.

One part of me says "Fuck-em" but another wants there to be adds to there can still be free services online.

Re:Good call

[empaler]

Homestar Runner is completely ad-free - but they have a pretty good little niche where they can sell enough merchandise to keep it going.

Take /. for instance - let's see a raise of hands here:
How many has a /. plushie?
Well, a /. CD?
Coffee mug, then, and perhaps a t-shirt?
Oh, three.

Well, y'see, those two t-shirts and that mug ain't gonna pay the server costs - but right now, having ads will.
I know, some of you are subscribers, and that probably covers a few percent as well.
That's the entire point.

While it's really nice to have sites with NO advertising (like H*R), for most sites, it's just not an option.

As much as I hate ads and having to block all those different adservers every time a new one pops up, I have been thinking the same thing - what happens to my favourite sites when they don't get the revenue stream that they'd get from ads?

Re:Good call

[tont0r]

my problem isnt with ads in general (although they are annoying) but when im forced to have an ad in my face, its a pain. especially when it has nothing to do with the page. if it was relivant to the content, i wouldnt mind. commercials on TV follow those guidelines (watch CNN, you get investing commercials. watch ESPN, get sports commercials, etc). there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. doubleclick usually takes the wrong.

Re:Good call

[Leroy_Brown242]

Who is going to pay money to geek geocities or hotmail online?

How much more will people have to pay for those services that aren't free, when those companies' adds are not effective any more?

Re:Good call

[Anonymous Coward]

So if slashdot is able to support itself based on subscriptions/donations why are the google ads necessary? They're even part of most articles from the RSS feed as well now.

Re:Good call

[bedroll]

People wouldn't need to block ads if they weren't so obtrusive and offensive. I would imagine that if advertisement agencies stopped producing obnoxious ads that block you from viewing content, launch endless pop-ups, and are otherwise incredibly annoying then people will stop blocking them. Honestly, who adblocks google ads?

Re:Good call

[Leroy_Brown242]

Yeah, nobody is going to pay money for a hotmail T-shirt, or a geocities mug. :P

Re:Good call

[slavemowgli]

Well, there are other forms of ads that can't be blocked as easily. Text ads are a good example; while AdBlock allows you to block iframes and the like (which are used for Google's page ads, for example), you could also embed the advertising text/links directly in the (generated) HTML page, which would make blocking pretty much impossible.

The key question, which this guy is either missing or conveniently ignoring, is: why *do* people choose to block ads? And with a bit of common sense, the answer is easy: because they're often (literally) flashy, bright, blinking and similarly annoying - not to mention disruptive (for example, huge ads in the middle of a text, or "force the customer to view an ad and click another link instead of directly going to the page they wanted to" ads, like the ones that Yahoo is using on Yahoo Groups (and possibly elsewhere)). The key problem with all these is that they are made in a way that annoys the user; the advertisers probably subscribe to the "all attention is good for us" point of view.

Pop-ups and pop-unders, especially the more nefarious ones that open two more windows when you close one, are another example, as are flash ads, Java ads, ads abusing browser security holes to load spyware on your machine, ads with music/sound and ads that do attempt to get around popup restrictions etc. (typically flash-based ads, although I've also seen some CSS/Javascript floaters recently) are other examples.

The mantra of the advertising industry always has been "we only need to expose the user to the product, and they will unconsciously tend to favour it". In that sense, "all attention is positive" is true - but it only applies to things which the user is likely to encounter, anyway. If I see an ad on TV for a new laundry detergent, then the ad doesn't need to convince me that it's good; it's enough to make the product known so I'll recognize it when I'm at the supermarket the next time.

The same isn't true for most web ads, which often attempt to sell specific services or goods that are only available from the advertising company's website.

Of course, the advertising industry has realized this, too, which is why we have metrics like "click-through rate" etc. that attempt to measure the effectiveness of ads. What they have FAILED to do, though, is look at the bigger picture and draw the obvious conclusion that

a) you shouldn't annoy users and
b) you should attempt to display relevant ads.

The only exception to this I can think of is Google, which gets BOTH these things right - and which, in turn, is about the only kind of advertising that I myself at least do not attempt to block. Quite the opposite - I often find that Google's ads are actually helpful, or at least interesting.

Doubleclick, on the other hand, doesn't get it, and is now bemourning the fact that the world doesn't play the way they'd like it to. However, that's capitalism: it's adapt or die, and if you're too stupid to adapt, then, well, you die. And in the case of Doubleclick at least, I think noone will shed a tear.

Re:Good call

[Leroy_Brown242]

TV has had a long time to figure this out, and only profesionals are putting ads out.
The internet, is anyone. This is good, this is bad.

In this case, any idiot can try and sell you viagra on their NAMBLA site.

Re:Good call

[erroneus]

There are ads the bug people and ads that don't. I think that's plain and simple to me. Here's an idea for any "ad" person out there willing to give the consumer what he wants and it's based on a kind of respect.

Let's create a kind of web or internet based standard of some kind where the user can select the "obnoxious level" that he wants and the advertisers respect it. It could be something as simple as a cookie or as complex as an add-on to the browser.

Some people really don't mind ads. Some people don't mind ads if they are not too "active." Some people don't care as long as they aren't pop-ups. The advertisers can save themselves by respecting their audience more.

I work for a company whose main source of income is advertisment so I rather depend on the success of my company for my own survival. (My company doesn't do any internet advertising that I'm aware of ... and even if they did I have no control over the choices they make.)

In any case, respect your audience, advertisers, or your audience will disrespect you.

Re:Good call

[Spy der Mann]

Yes... in fact i thought about this:

Imagine you're reading a newspaper.

Suddenly a clown springs from the newspaper and begins yelling offers at you.

You suddenly flip the page to get rid of him. Then a monkey starts bothering you until you punch him. But when you do, an executive salesman comes out from the alley and tells you "Hello! You won a prize! Please sign!"

"Get away from me!" You run away, and sit in a bench. "Now, where was I?" you say, as you flip to the next page.

Then a gorgeus girl starts flirting with you, until you notice she begins to pick your pocket. You quickly flip the page.

"HELP!!" you yell. Then you hear a "psst psst" from the back of the newspaper. It's a firefox.

It comes out, and scares all those annoying people away. You feel it's friendly, so you let it rest on your shoulder.

Now you can read your newspaper in peace.

(hey can someone make an internet ad out of this idea? It's public domain)

Re:Good call

[empaler]

I did say favourite sites. Peerguardian actually blocks any attempts to visit a Geocities page, and honestly, I can't be bothered to turn it off for the few seconds it'd take to load. I just don't go there.

Re:Good call

[Malicious]

Someone from Mozilla needs to Hire Spy der Mann for an Ad Campaign. That commercial alone would be perfect for the Television. Superbowl, primetime, whenever. I know he spoiled my cup of coffee.

And yes, I see the irony of my comment suggesting advertising in this thread. Sue me.

Re:Good call

[ultranova]

Who is going to pay money to geek geocities or hotmail online?

No one. I guess it's time to start developing HTTP-over-P2P software for real. Freenet has a very primitive (only static HTML, no possibility of updates expect through absurd hacks like DBR or edition based pages) implementation of this in their "fproxy" software.

Server-based Web sites were (and still are, for money-laden individuals or organizations) fine, but a p2p network with HTTP interface has potential to be much better.

Re:Good call

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but it would be too intrusive and annoying.

Someone should just make a REALLY ANNOYING ad that basically just says: "if you were using Opera or Firefox, you would not be seeing this".

Re:Good call

[jrockway]

"Other than ADDs, what else could fund 'free' services online?"

Perhaps MULs, XORs, or maybe even NOPs.

Re:Good call

[GIL_Dude]

you are right; they out and out lie in their ads and do anything they can to trick you. They are much, much worse than used-car salesmen. If they want us to view their ads, they need to police themselves (yeah right) and not try to lie, cheat, obfuscate, etc.

You'd think that they can figure out that if they have to do all that, then the product isn't something we actually WANT to buy anyway...

Re:Good call

[stinerman]

Honestly, who adblocks google ads?

Me, but 9 out of 10 times, that is when they're smacked down right in the middle of an article I'm reading.

Re:Good call

[GIL_Dude]

Very nicely stated. I totally agree.

Re:Good call

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not in *any* way related to Bush are you ?

Re:Good call

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG!!! Whats that fucking fox doing to my shoulder?

Re:Good call

[JetTredmont]

Ummm ... basic commercial already in full rotation. Guy wakes up, reads paper, shaves, etc, to a bunch of popup ads, obtrusive salespeople, etc.

I think its either AOL or Earthlink ...

Wrong way around?

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

The end of free web content... ... or the end of (non-commerce) web content for profit?

Re:Wrong way around?

[th0mas.sixbit.org]

nope! the end of free web content.

And in other news...

[tpconcannon]

Cigarette compaines want you to smoke. Credit card companies want you to run up big debts. etc. etc. etc.

Re:And in other news...

[Frozen Void]

Of course,consumer society.compnies want you to be dependant on them.

Negative vibe, huh? Flash ads make my balls hurt.

[CyricZ]

Your Flash ads make my scrotum tingle, you cockbaiting fuckfools at DoubleClick! Oh, and they consume too much of my bandwidth. And they don't contribute to the content of the page.

And in related news...

[morgan_greywolf]

...Ford warns consumers against public transportation.

Re:And in related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not warns against, so much as buys out and drives into the ground, resulting in a regulatory slap on the wrist...

Re:And in related news...

[NardofDoom]

If doubleclick were like Ford they would have bought out Mozilla and eliminated AdBlocking, just like Ford and others did with streetcars.

Har! Har!

[jromz03]

Does he actually believe that people will believe him?

In other news!

[Jeffery]

fire ants warn against using ant killer, and deer warn against the dangers of deer season.

Product Placement

[Anonymous Coward]

We just need more product placement.

something like:

"Today an Abu Ghraib, where prisoners enjoy cold delicious coca-cola classic, investigators uncovered....."

Re:Product Placement

[zimus]

And people say we're torturing those people. HA! If we were really torturing them we'd make them drink PEPSI

This just in

[MasterOfUniverse]

CEO of a company trying to save his job by lying! details at 11!

What a hypocracy!

[Anonymous Coward]

DoubleClick's trademark infringes on the Amazon patent -- twice.

Soooo?

[RoadkillBunny]

'a negative vibe against advertising in general'
So why is this bad again?

Re:Soooo?

[avalys]

Because advertising pays for a huge amount of the content you consume. And not just the free stuff, either.

Most TV is supported by advertising. Most commercial websites (and many non-commercial ones) are as well.

If people start using TiVos and ad-blockers, the return on investment from advertising will go down, and a lot of content providers will have to resort to even more intrusive ads in order to remain afloat. Either that, or simply charge more for their content.

I'm happy being able to access the majority of Internet content for free. But, if need be, I could afford to pay for what I read. What about people who can't?

holes

[justforaday]

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were."

That's why you set it to collapse blocked elements. I don't have any holes in my Adblocked or PithHelmeted pages...I'd love for my 32 page newspaper to be the 13 or 14 (or less) pages of pure content...

Re:holes

[Tenebrious1]

.I'd love for my 32 page newspaper to be the 13 or 14 (or less) pages of pure content...

Most people would love to see a newspaper without ads. The only reason you *can't* cut holes in the paper is because there's also print on the other side. If newspapers were one-sided, nobody would mind a paper filled with holes because you're not losing any *content*.

If you think of how many people want to block ads, and think of how may people fast forward through commercials on videotaped shows, how many people wish their recorders could just skip the commercials... why would you think that newspaper readers are any different in not wanting ads?

Re:holes

[lee1026]

cost, for one thing. for example, right now I am getting 6 month of newspapers for just 10 dollars. I doubt that is enough to pay for the paper it's printed on.

end of free internet content

[Ubergrendle]

If by "free internet content" he means "obnoxious flash based advertisements" he's right.

Advertising is an important revenue stream, but its not the only revenue available nor the only viable business model. I don't see alot of people blocking Google advertisements since they're non-intrusive and context sensitive... only obnoxious flash based adverts, or banners -- Doubleclick's meal ticket.

FUD by a company executive to protect his business model. Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:end of free internet content

[snookerdoodle]

I agree - the so-called "negative vibe against advertising in general" should have said "negative vibe against advertising that is so obnoxiously intrusive that it makes it difficult to find the actual content and tiring to read the content if you can find it."

Mark

Re:end of free internet content

[trifish]

Preventing ads from being displayed, for example, on an Open Source project homepage is equal to preventing the project from receiving donations.

There are people who run great subscription-free popular websites (such as Slashdot). These sites are so popular, that no free hosting can be used due to excessive bandwidth usage and number of visits. Ads allow these sites to continue to be free. If everyone selfishly blocked the ads they display, these sites would have two options: Become subscribers-only, or shut it down.

It is like saying: Hey webmaster I like your content, but I do not want you to have an opportunity to earn some money to pay your web hosting costs.

Re:end of free internet content

[linzeal]

I block Google text ads as they have become distracting when paired with some websites. I am not a target of any advertising anyways as I do not buy things on a whim or from viewing content that distracts from the content that I intended to view.

Re:end of free internet content

[sapgau]

Agreed.
Mod up.

Hah

[kutsu119]

"'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Shouldn't abuse it then, should you?

I dont know about anyone else, but I don't mind adverts. It's just the stupid "SMACK THE MONKEY!!!1" type that means I right click, and add them to the block list.

I've no problems with websites advertising, just don't take the .... with it.

So we won't visit those sites then?

[NidStyles]

I guess I won't visit those sites. Not like I did in the first place, but I do not absolutely need to visit sites, that do not relate to my education, or work.

It's those damn zealots again

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to make internet ad-free, only low life scum like those geeky fantatics would to that.

Personally I wouldn't mind paying for content.

popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[yagu]

The analogy doesn't hold up. To compare ad-blocking with something that could do the same in newspapers doesn't even make sense. What's really going on (in my opinion) is the natural selection process. Browsers started out simple, naive, and unassuming. Then came the predators... in this case popup ads. Now most browsers offer popup ad blocking or extensions to block popups.

Popup ads are nothing like newspaper advertising -- the dynamic is quite different. For example, if there were the capability and there really was a newspaper that had advertising that actually jumped up in front of what you had started reading, or some other intrusive behavior, that paper would be likely shunned by most consumers and the paper would fail.

Popup ads today are just part of the browser experience and its evolution... but, popup ads are annoying to most, and eventually will (okay, at least should) disappear... advertisers don't like paying for something consumers will never see. Meanwhile I see normal sidebar ads as being sufficient as more people use the internet... I can only speak anecdotally, but if sidebar ads are tastefully done, and well-targeted, it is not unusual for me to click and browse/shop and maybe even purchase. It's similar to the newspaper paradigm... simple, unobtrusive, universally accepted, and usually non-offensive.

I can't imagine an internet incapable of sustaining itself without popup ads... (For the record, there's a certain mortgage/lending institution from which I would never take a loan -- that's how annoying I find their popups.)

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[unborracho]

Although you have a valid point, this dosen't apply to only popups - you are missing the full scope of this argument by Doubleclick.

I don't think that you quite understand the significance that AdBlock provides for FireFox functionality

Right now I'm browsing slashdot ad-free (No, i'm not a subscriber) because of this this tool. All you have to do is right click the image and block the entire domain (the server/directory serving the ad-images) and all of the ads on a site magically vanish.

This is very comprable to newspapers since the ad is inline with the content, not like popups where they're annoying and obtrusive. The fact is, AdBlock makes it possible to read a newspaper with the Ad's just completely gone, only the newspaper is the internet.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[spiritraveller]

Yes, and Firefox already blocks popups by default.

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[potpie]

Of those who would block all the ads they see and never see them again, how many would ever click on one at all? Therefore, is it really harmful to let them block those ads? I can't imagine somebody who sometimes buys things they see in online ads just blocking entire domains like the former person. They are two different people, and only the latter is really in the market.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Synli]

> Right now I'm browsing slashdot ad-free

I wonder what you think you gain by blocking the ads? It is like saying: 'Ok, Slashdot editors, I want to read your magazine, but I do not want to let you earn any money for running it.'

Instead of blocking the ads you should either subscribe or stop reading it. Any other behaviour is immoral (some would even call it stealing).

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[grumpyman]

For example, if there were the capability and there really was a newspaper that had advertising that actually jumped up in front of what you had started reading, or some other intrusive behavior, that paper would be likely shunned by most consumers and the paper would fail.

Those subscription/promo cards in magazines are as annoying as the pop ups. Every time I buy a magazine for reading in a flight, the first thing I do is shake the crap outta the magazine and trash them all before I start reading. Kinda like closing the pop ups. OTOH, those promo cards won't fly back into the magazines themselves, unlike popups. Still it's pretty annoying. Let's face it, if they find a way to make them fly back into the magazine and it's cheap, they'll do it.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[lurch84]

I respond to advertising online the same way I respond to salespeople in real life: the pushier (and more obtusive) they are, the more likely I'm going to go somewhere else to get what I need. Why do you think some big box stores have started pushing 'no commission' as an incentive to visit there store? If people feel comfortable in your store they're more likely to buy something.

Same thing with online advertising. If you're endlessly hounding the consumer, you're going to get the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve. I completely agree with yagu in that if I am going to buy something based on an ad I saw online, it's not going to be from some obnoxious popup.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[tourvil]

Instead of blocking the ads you should either subscribe or stop reading it. Any other behaviour is immoral (some would even call it stealing).

Out of curiosity, do you think that changing channels on the TV when a commercial comes on is immoral or stealing?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Is it immoral if I don't block the ads but simply ignore them? Is it immoral if I browse with links? Is it immoral if I go to the bathroom during a commercial?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I use Adblock to also block STUPID things websites do to promote themselves. NASCAR.com has a little video thing that plays everytime you load the page. http://www.pki.com/ also has this. I block these because I do not like to turn off sound, but I don't want to load a page and have my soundcard explode sound...especially If I am checking something at work. Sound and video at load time sucks.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[MinotaurUK]

I wonder what you think you gain by blocking the ads? It is like saying: 'Ok, Slashdot editors, I want to read your magazine, but I do not want to let you earn any money for running it.'

Does anyone know whether slashdot is paid per click or per impression? If it's the former, then blocking ads that one has no intention of clicking on in the first place is unlikely to do any harm.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Kid Zero]

I wonder what you think you gain by blocking the ads? It is like saying: 'Ok, Slashdot editors, I want to read your magazine, but I do not want to let you earn any money for running it.'

It's like all those car, computer, and gun magazines I read at the bookstore when I was a teenager. Must have read dozens a day, for years. Didn't buy a one. I don't feel guilty for not buying. Similar, I ignored every ad in those magazines. I ignore or edit out the ads here. My right, my choice.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

So eventually the image of the ad will get hosted on the site you are viewing. It is like playing whack-a-mole.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[knarfling]

I agree. When was the last time your newspaper wouldn't let you turn the page because you hadn't read the ad on that page? When was the last time you tried to throw away a newspaper and it jumped back into your hands asking if you were sure you wanted to close it without reading another ad? When was the last time you were reading a newspaper and an ad moved in front of the article, blocking it until you tore out the ad?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[MikeFM]

Fear digital paper. :p

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Steps to making $$$

1. cut out differnt shapes of cardboard.
2. sell to newspaper readers so they can block ads in newspaper
3. Profit!!

Seriously, the problem with internet ads are that the advertisers expectations are different than with tradional print ads.

With print ads, advertisers try to create a brand awareness. They dont expect everyone who sees the one ad in print to go out and buy the item, but to make an impression on them. With internet ads, they count how many times people have clicked on the ads, and expect a direct link to the number of clicks and sales.

mindless typing below.
fucking piece of shit "comfirm youre not a script and tpye the 7 letters in image". I would if i could see/load the jpg

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[ortholattice]

The analogy doesn't hold up. To compare ad-blocking with something that could do the same in newspapers doesn't even make sense.

Actually, a better analogy (although they wouldn't use it) would be those women's fashion magazines that are like 90% full-page glossy ads. Normally I don't read these, but occasionally some article mentioned on the cover of my girlfriend's magazine might catch my eye. First I have to flip through two dozen ad pages, with no page numbers, before I can find the table of contents. Of course the exact title doesn't match what's on the cover, but usually I'm able to figure it out. Once I get the page number it's on, finding it is another adventure. Most of the pages are ads with no page numbers, requiring me to flip through quite a few to find the actual article.

Heck, if I were idly rich and interested in those mags, I might even pay a "human ad blocker" to tear out all the ad pages and leave only the content.

As a man, fashion mags don't affect me much. But National Geographic (a "non-profit" corp.) is starting to suffer from this kind of ad creep. In the old days the table of contents was on the cover. Now there are several ad pages, with no page numbers, before the table of contents. Following that are dozens of pages of blurb-type features heavily mixed with ads and with no page numbers. In a recent issue, "Page 1" starts one-third of the way into the magazine! At least once the main content starts is it contiguous without ads, but who knows how long that will last.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[metamatic]

Right, and if the advertisers hadn't started making huge ads that made the page unreadable, flashing ads, and so on, nobody would ever have bothered with ad blocking.

I use AdBlock. Tasteful ads I just ignore, because it's not worth the bother of configuring it to block them. Every time there's an obnoxious ad, however, I block that ad and all others from the same source.

Face it, the advertisers are poisoning the well. Google understands this, which is why they keep such tight control over the format of Google ads.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't like any animations on sites whose primary content is text and a few still images.

I don't visit "hardware" sites anymore, one, because they really don't seem to know as much as they should, and another that the actual content is about 5% of a page, the rest split between an overly busy menu system and ads of spinning objects.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[grgyle]

To follow on with this with more analogies...

Is it also immoral to hang a "No Solicitors" sign on your door at home? Or say "No Thanks" and shut the door to the salesman?

Or do you claim that you are being immoral by robbing the company of its supposed right to force its way into your personal space?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[rsborg]

Is it immoral if I don't block the ads but simply ignore them?

The semantic difference is that the advertiser doesn't pay the site if you simply block the ad. What you make of this is up to you. For me, I block ads that are are either annoying (stupid rotating/flashing image ads) or have disturbing content. Otherwise, I live with them, or use "nuke anything" to wipe out the item after load.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[dtfinch]

I'm a subscriber, but I still see about half the ads.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[flatland_skier]

This is a bogus argument. I block pop-ups but still see the ad on the top of the page as well as the adds on the sides of the pages. I have even clicked on these looking for information. I don't remember if I've bought anything, but I have looked.

So /. has benefited from my viewing of it's content. For that matter so has their ad service!

By telling me that I am damaging a web site by not allowing them to fill my screen with windows with ads is short sighted and stupid.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[asrb]

The fact is, AdBlock makes it possible to read a newspaper with the Ad's just completely gone, only the newspaper is the internet.

Yes, it makes it possible. More accurately, it makes easy what has always been possible. DoubleClick and their ilk want to control what content is displayed to the user and how it looks. They keep forgetting or ignoring a tiny fact: This is utterly fucking impossible to do with the web.

The reason is that HTML is a SUGGESTION to the browser about how to lay something out. There is absolutely nothing in the HTML spec that mandates how a browser should display a table, execute an embedded script, load an image, or whether to do anything at all. The client is perfectly free to display it any way they want to. Granted, there are de-facto standards in web display, such that a web page using standard HTML more or less looks the same on IE, Firefox, Konqueror, etc, but there is nothing at all that mandates this per se. Obviously text-only and speech for the blind browsers handle things differently. Any browser is free to change how things are rendered, or not render them at all.

It is purely idiotic to try to use a mechanism (HTML) that was expressly designed for this flexibility, expect things will be done exactly as you want, and then bitch and moan that you don't like what people are doing on the other end of the wire.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the stories?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[David Horn]

And Slashdot has had pop-ups since when, exactly?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Dalroth]

And would you have done that in the first place if you weren't inundated with flash ads and popups?

I lived quite happily with ads until flash ads and popups started taking over. Now I block them.

If they weren't loud, obnoxious, flashing and blocking the content I was trying to read, I'd be less inclined (i.e. too lazy) to block them.

If they want people to stop blocking advertising, they have to make it less obnoxious and more usefull. Until that time, well, screw them.

Bryan

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[arose]

So what if someone makes an ad blocker that downloads all or some of the ads but does not display them?

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Travelsonic]

(some would even call it stealing).

The ones who call it stealing, like the execs who say that about skipping TV ads, are either really sespirate, don't know what the fuck "stealing" really is, or both.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[julesh]

Of those who would block all the ads they see and never see them again, how many would ever click on one at all? Therefore, is it really harmful to let them block those ads?

Adverts don't only exist to generate queries, though. There's also building brand awareness, which is the reason why most money is spent on advertising.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Phu5ion]

Out of curiosity, do you think that changing channels on the TV when a commercial comes on is immoral or stealing?

Lately it seems like TV stations are all taking commercial breaks at the same time. So if I'm trying to flip between two shows at the same time, i keep catching commercials. Anyone else noticing this, or is this just a coincidence. If so, that would prevent you from "stealing" TV.

But more to your question, if you are paying for the channel you are watching, then no it's not stealing.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[tfoss]

I agree with both your post, and the parent, but think the situation is even grayer. The parent posits that popups are too obtrusive to compare to newspapers, while you point out that adblock goes beyond popup blocking. I would argue that since (as many others have pointed out) adblock doesn't filter text ads a la google, that the situation is simply finding an appropriate compromise that website viewers find acceptable. We don't like popups, sure. But we also don't like flash ads or animated gifs, or even just garishly colored ads. Enough people have decided this that products exist to get rid of them. We have not, however, decided that google-style ads are enough of a nuisance for someone to make it easy to block them (which technically is probably trivial).

So really, Adblock makes is possible to read a newspaper with the ads that cross a certain barrier of annoyance (currently set ad banner-style ads and beyond) gone. It's really just evolution of "acceptable" advertising. Granted, this is somewhat unique in media because most forms do not allow the consumer such a level of control.

-Ted

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[raynet]

If the ads/banners are important to some website, they could host the files on their own server where all the other images are hosted. This would make blocking them more difficult. And it would be also be more like a newspaper with ads. DoubleClick (and others) don't like this idea, because it would make tracking users with cookies much harder.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Conveniently, the time it takes to race a track in most racing games is very nearly equal to the length of a typical advert break. I keep a PS1 with Wip3out running and flip to that in the ad breaks...

[sarcasm]
Personally I think it's stealing to only watch the ads half-heartedly - I always move right up close to the screen, turn up the volume, and grab my phone so I can order as much stuff as possible when the ads come on.
[/sarcasm]

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[sensei_brandon]

What I haven't seen mentioned is that newspaper ads are generally for things in the local area and often contain coupons or let you know about sales. I've gotten good deals from ads in the paper, and it helps the local economy. I would much rather look at ads that tell me what's going on at various clubs and bars I might want to go to down the street than see some flashing gif about cheap v1agr4 from haiti or somewhere.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[tourvil]

But more to your question, if you are paying for the channel you are watching, then no it's not stealing.

And what if I'm watching broadcast TV? I'm not paying for those, would you consider it stealing then? How about if I just get up and leave the room during commercials, should I feel morally obligated to sit in front of the TV until the show is over?

Personally, I don't feel I'm in any way morally or legally obligated to view an advertisement (whether on TV or the net) any more than I feel obligated to purchase the products being advertised.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Charcharodon]

I agree with you. I don't mind the side stuff, I just ignore it anyway. The only time I will tolerate being actively advertised to is when I'm the one actually out looking for goods and services such as doing web searches.

Advertise to me when I'm interested, if it's relevent and at the right price you'll be amazed at how affective your (adverts) add campaign will be.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Phu5ion]

yeah, now you are getting into a moral issue, the advertisers know that you are going to flip channels tivo through the commercials, etc, but depending on your morals and the side of the fence you are on it could be considered stealing. But the people that do "steal" are quite insignificant to those that sit and veg, don't care, or can't find the remote. At least most TV commercials aren't as annoying as some of the online flash ads.. yet.

I don't feel obligated to sit and watch every commercial either, and could care less how they feel about it. It's also not stopping them from put subliminal ads IN the show.

from this last season of 24:
No [we weren't hit]. Our Cisco system protected us!

Don't worry, in a few years the FCC will know if you get up to go to the bathroom during a commercial and you will be fined accordingly. ;)

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Popup ads are nothing like newspaper ads. Popup ads are like *magazine* ads. Stiff pieces of cardboard making it difficult to flip to the next page. Page after page of ads, none with a page number, making it almost impossible to find the continued story on p.68 because p.68 is in the middle of 30 pages of ads.

The problem is that, as ads become less effective, ad revenue drops. When the ad revenue drops the publisher puts in more ads. You can see where that's going.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[Kazoo the Clown]

Out of curiosity, do you think that changing channels on the TV when a commercial comes on is immoral or stealing?

Actually, it's now pretty irrelevant. More people use commercials to go to the fridge or take a leak than switch channels, and the advertisers have realized that. So, now they're inculcating themselves into the primary program content-- purchasing space in the show itself for their product to appear or be mentioned in the dialog. For me, that doesn't work either as modern content has gotten so crappy that I've since stopped my cable TV service, and only watch PBS on broadcast (and even that, less and less as they're milking both worlds-- ad revenue AND paid subscribers). Where I have spent my money is on DVDs which are currently at least, pretty ad-free. I have enough content in old TV shows, movies, etc., that I'd rather watch anyway, that the adverdroids have no way to get to. If in the future they start putting commercials on DVD I'll no longer pay for them and go back to reading books. On the internet, I don't use adblocker, but something at least as powerful-- I rarely see any ads-- even on Google where they have conveniently made them easy to ignore. When the forces of unsolicited advertising pollute the waters enough, I look for some kind of clearer shores, and they're there-- there are bookstores full of content I haven't read yet, and that's where I'll go if they insist on making the online or video environment a cesspool. If a TV station then doesn't get the ad revenue it needs to upgrade to HDTV gear, that's just too f**'n bad...

And the demise of the CPB will not really give these demons what they really want-- the elimination of competition from non-advertising content. In fact, they open up a whole new category of competition, which I'm looking forward to. They are no longer in control, despite the posturing and political shenanigans, though it's clear they still think they are in control. Their now magnificent irrelevance is truly awe inspiring.

Arrogant corporations seem to think they have a right to my eyeballs. If they weren't so oblivious, I'd say they had a rude awakening coming, but I doubt they'll get it and instead act the whining victim and go hide under the skirts of the only entity to which their inherently corrupt nature pales in comparison, the U.S. Congress. All their activities are only so much fiddling while Rome burns.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[j.someone]

I'm finding more and more DVDs that I've purchased are starting to put ads at the start of the main broadcast. This is especially true of anything by FOX. I'm just glad they haven't (yet) 'locked' the ads (not letting the dvd playing go straight to the title screen).

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[pegasustonans]

The thought police will be visiting you shortly, my friend. You are obviously not educated enough to realize that any time you thwart a corporate interest you are being an immoral thief. All corporate interests require our constant undivided attention as well as regular donations. This is the American way. ;)

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[pipingguy]

Popup ads are nothing like newspaper advertising -- the dynamic is quite different. For example, if there were the capability and there really was a newspaper that had advertising that actually jumped up in front of what you had started reading, or some other intrusive behavior, that paper would be likely shunned by most consumers and the paper would fail.

Another analogy might be magazine advertising.

Today I bought a copy of a car magazine and there were only two of those annoying "blow-in" (so-named for the printing press mechanical device that inserts them) ads. A couple of years ago there were up to 10 of these in each issue. [They are a pain in the ass because they tend to make a magazine flop open to/between more full-page advertising and the perforated, tear-out ones are even more frustrating - both intrusive advertiser tactics]

C&D still has something like 8 straight pages of companies advertising aftermarket wheels, but those are easy to bypass while flipping through to the story you want to actually read.

If I ever want to buy flashy aftermarket wheels, I know where to look, and I can assume that a company that has been advertising for so long is pretty reputable.

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[zsau]

There's another difference, which might really be irrelevant on the largest scale, but certainly goes some way to why I don't read Internet ads and have no problems hiding them. Newspaper ads are targetted to the local audience. Most ads on the Internet are targetted to an American audience, and a huge proportion of the remainder are targetted to an idiot audience: I don't even bother with them.

Ads on the website of The Age (the newspaper I read in print) are sometimes interesting and worth clicking. But I still block them because they have movement right in the middle of text. I came to read your content, not watch your ads!

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[drseuss9311]

I would even posit that many would even allow for pictures below a certain area (LxW) limit.

Like an ad for a car for sale or something with a mini pic of the car inline, or under ...

well maybe that's not a good idea.... maybe i'll get modded down, whatever

Re:popup ads, not the same as newspaper ads

[JetTredmont]

If I had a device which automatically sensed the start and end of commercials and skipped them as though they were never there ... well, that wouldn't be "stealing", but it certainly would be violating a public trust.

On the other hand, having to mute / fast-forward / time a bathroom break during TV commercials at least gives them a fighting chance, and I don't think any rational individual would blame you for that.

Blocking ALL internet ads, I agree, is just stupid and selfish. I agree with the others: unobtrusive, text-only or at least static ads need to be encouraged and not thrown out with the bath water.

That having been said, I block the vast majority of them selectively (on IE too) by filtering out hostnames for DoubleClick et al with my hosts file. Not as configurable as AdBlocker, but effective.

Some truth to this for smaller sites

[macklin01]

Well, there is some truth to it.

I try to unblock ads to my favorite small sites (e.g., sourceforge, slashdot, overclockers, ocforums), especially as survival is not so guaranteed for the smaller sites. -- Paul

Re:Some truth to this for smaller sites

[MynockGuano]

Ah yes, the tiny, insignificant Slashdot site. Little do they know...

Re:Some truth to this for smaller sites

[scottme]

I try to unblock ads to my favorite small sites (e.g., sourceforge, slashdot, overclockers, ocforums), especially as survival is not so guaranteed for the smaller sites.

But why? do you think you might actually read these ads and maybe click through and perhaps (shudder) buy something?

Personally, I know I'm not going to do that. Before I took to blocking most ads, I recall that only a tiny proportion of all web page ads would be of sufficient interest to cause me to click through, and not a single one of them ever convinced me to actually buy anything. So - 99.99% probability - the advertisers are not losing a nickel because of my choice to eliminate the visual clutter I would otherwise have to endure.

If I want to buy something, I go looking for it. I would never buy anything opportunistically, simply because some advertiser placed a proposition in front of me. Bottom line: I block as many ad sites as I can, even /.'s, using Firefox's built-in blocker and I freely admit it.

So sue me.

End of free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

bah

I'll just make my own internet then..

With blackjack. And hookers.. In fact.. forget the internet

all ads vs. pop-up ads

[TheSHAD0W]

I have nothing against a page putting ads up; if the ads get too voluminous to read the content I'll simply stop going to that page. But pages that pollute my desktop with pop-ups, especially ones that spawn more when I try to close them, can go to hell. If getting rid of pop-ups means the end of the world-wide web, then go 'head, pull the trigger.

And

[1967mustangman]

A computer will never need more than 64k of memory. Seriously of all the self-serving clap-trap.

negative vibe against adverts?

[zoloto]

Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'

No shit shirlock

Re:negative vibe against adverts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "No shit, Sherlock" after the famous novel detective who routinely solved convoluted crimes. The phrase is meant to be taken sarcastically, usually in response to an obvious statement.

I don't know about anyone else...

[Manchot]

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't stand AdBlock. Removing elements (such as ads) tends to mess up the flow of many web pages, and makes those pages look terrible. If I really don't want to look at an image, I'll block the images normally.

Re:I don't know about anyone else...

[zoloto]

welcome to the thread Mr. Smith.

Re:I don't know about anyone else...

[killtherat]

I've actually had more problems leaving the adds in. Especially those new 'roll over to expand' movie previews and what not. They had a tendency to be improperly formated for Mozilla, and end up covering the text that I came there to read in the first place.

Re:I don't know about anyone else...

[bigtangringo]

Tools > Adblock > Preferences

Click the radio button for "Hide ads" at the bottom left instead of "Remove ads"

Problem solved.

not true

[hodet]

It will force the lazy advertizers who cannot think beyond the Vegas "light show" method to adapt to a method that is acceptable.

It's not the adverts that bother me

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

It's the following me around and profiling with web bugs and cookies that's the real PITA

New type of pop-ups?

[ZiakII]

I'm sure we have all seen the new versions of pop-ups that get though firefox, but luckily we can use plug-ins to block them (Adblock), as long as firefox continues to grow they will only get more and more plug-ins to prevent those annoying pop-ups while IE at the same time, lacks these features, it took Micro$oft how long to develop a anti-pop up utility for there browser, it will probably take them as long to make another one for the new versions of pop-ups. That is why firefox will continue to gain market share, because its flexible and can adapt to something much easier.

FULL DISCLOSURE

[elzbal]

The article on ZDNet.com, in which DoubleClick executives bemoan the use of ad-blocking web browsers, contains DoubleClick-driven advertizing. (Thankfully, AdBlock caught it. :)

It's a dog eat dog world...

[Ithika]

I shall rest easy in my bed knowing DoubleClick are finding it difficult to make ends meet.

Yay for the end of scraper pages!

[danharan]

The type of free content that was created to carry doubleclick is mostly junk. All the other special-interest and useful (if only to some tiny fringe) content will continue to carry keyword-advertising or no advertising at all.

All the spam sites may have to fold. So sad.

Geez Louise...

[KC7GR]

This is the same industry that wants to put ads on screens above the urinals in restrooms, on electronic screens in shopping carts, and God only knows where else.

Ad blockers are simply a way for 'net users to say "No! You already have enough places to advertise, and I don't want my computer screen to be one of them."

What part of "No!" don't advertisers understand?

Re:Geez Louise...

[MikeDX]

What part of "No!" don't advertisers understand?

The 'N'...

Hey, maybe doubleclick could resell some space erm... I mean "news" on slashdot once in a while... Ads for nerds, stuff from banners.

Re:Geez Louise...

[bcmm]

In the UK we already have ads at head height above the urinals; but only in motorway service stations, which are our most disgustingly commercialised spaces anyway.

Re:Geez Louise...

[DeusExLibris]

That would be the part that says you are getting the content for free and it costs money to develop that content. Yes, I know that this is an answer that many people don't want to hear and has been repeated so many times as to border on being trite, but it is the truth, plain and simple.

As to alternative business models, many have been tried and very few have been viable for content providers.

Where we are heading with this kind of "cold-war" attitude towards advertising online is that content providers will be forced to make viewing ads and receiving cookies (a related issue beyond the scope of this thread) part of the Terms of Service for the site. Then, if you block ads, they block you.

Is this really the kind of escalation we want? True, if only a few sites did this, their traffic would simply migrate elsewhere. But what if all the major news providers in the country decided to do this?

Consumers take free access to information online for granted. Perhaps we should re-evaluate the value we are receiving and consider whether viewing a few inline banner ads (I agree that popups are obnoxious and should go away) is really too high a price to pay for ubiquitous, free and easy access to this content.

Re:Geez Louise...

[PhilHibbs]

In my local bowling alley (Star City, Birmingham) they have TV screens that you actually piss on. I can't remember what was on them, though. The experience was rather odd.

Re:Geez Louise...

[Peter Cooper]

I actually like the urinal ones. It gives you something more interesting than your own codpiece to look at (as well as your neighbouring urinators). I always appreciate it when restaurants/bars/etc have wacky stuff on the walls near the urinals.

Re:Geez Louise...

[DirePickle]

What are those funny squiggles between your quotation marks? I am confused.

Re:Geez Louise...

[bhamm]

As to alternative business models, many have been tried and very few have been viable for content providers. Where we are heading with this kind of "cold-war" attitude towards advertising online is that content providers will be forced to make viewing ads and receiving cookies (a related issue beyond the scope of this thread) part of the Terms of Service for the site. Then, if you block ads, they block you.

First of all, the internet had existed for MANY years before we were all subjected to this degree of abuse from advertisers. If that kind of behavior is in some way required to keep their 'business' running.. well, i guess that's too bad.. not my problem. Figure out how to exist without being an asshat.

Secondly.. if it becomes a requirement that i be abused in this manner simply to access the internet through a particular ISP.. well, then said ISP loses a customer

Sure, for a company to have an internet presence costs money.. get over it.. it's the cost of business. It's also far cheaper than the alternative (tv, radio, etc). Look, they're reaching a worldwide audience now AND saving more doing it.. to a greater extent than they were in the past. They can stop bitching anytime. I don't feel bad for any company who feels it necessary to treat their customers badly in order to stay in business. If they can't figure out another way, then they shouldn't be around..

Re:Geez Louise...

[AK Marc]

As to alternative business models, many have been tried and very few have been viable for content providers.

It isn't the business model that is flawed, it is the implimentation.
In the Begining, the Internet was Void. People made pages for free, and expected no revenue. Then, there was the idea that revenue was a good thing. The first advertising was a links page. You know, you had a little menu at the top and bottom of every page that had "home" - "my content" - "about me" - "contact" - "links" The "links" page was a page of links to similar things. Some of those became ads. They provided income, and everyone loved them.

Now, the ads lie "free iPod" when you have to spend at least $150 on services you don't want or join some pyramid scheme. They interfere with the content. They use sound and other annoying features. The ads were never blocked at first. No one cared. They may have been paid links, but if you were on a site about Shakespeare and you found a link to a site to buy a really good book about him, it made sense. Sure, if you bought that book from the retailer, the web page that sent you there would get some money, but it was all good.

Now it's a game to see who can make the most annoying and misleading ad. That's why all the blockers came about. They deserved it. I'm surprised the same thing hasn't happened with TV. I'd pay $50 for something that automatically muted the commercials because there is no reason for them to be louder than the show they are attached to...

Re:Geez Louise...

[pacc]

"urinals in restrooms", that would be good reading - but on slashdot I can read crap without ads.

Too bad that there is no better way than vandalism and grafitti to get rid of ads IRL, especially "community sponsored" ads on buses etc pisses me off, why do we pay tax and tickets...

Re:Geez Louise...

[KingNaught]

If you don't like the avertisments don't go to the website. If you block the ads your costing the website money without helping them recoop their costs. "This is the same industry that wants to put ads on screens above the urinals in restrooms, on electronic screens in shopping carts, and God only knows where else." Do you think maintaining a urinal costs nothing. If you want to be able to releive yourself for free someone has to pay for cleaning, water consumption, maintence. You get paid for the services you perform at work, web based commpanies need to get paid for the services they provide too.

Re:Geez Louise...

[DeusExLibris]

The problem with this argument is that you are generalizing the behavior of a small percentage of offending sites to the entire Internet. Very few of the sites I visit (/., NYTimes, a wide array of development and sys admin sites, etc) display annoying inline ads (I block pop-ups like most everyone else).

Certainly, there are sites that have no standards when it comes to the quality or accuracy of the ads they take. Avoid those sites. Go ahead and block ads from the offensive ad networks (where most of these ads originate).

The majority of sites are responsible and need you to look at their ads in order to stay in business. Don't block their ads or the scenario I described will come to pass.

As to how content developed on the Internet - were you actually around during that period? I was (since 1992) and while a few folks may have put up sites for free out of the goodness of their hearts, most of us were trying to figure out how to use this new, immature medium to protect and extend our businesses. Advertising supported was only one of the models tried, but the only one that ultimately paid the bills.

Re:Geez Louise...

[Anonymous Coward]

while a few folks may have put up sites for free out of the goodness of their hearts, most of us were trying to figure out how to use this new, immature medium to protect and extend our businesses.

You just don't get it, do you?
The internet was not developed for you
to 'protect or extend' anything. The internet was
actually useful and interesting before the bottom-feeders decided to take it over for their own money-making schemes.

Re:Geez Louise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lips say "No!", but your wallet say "Yes!"

Re:Geez Louise...

[Darby]

In my local bowling alley (Star City, Birmingham) they have TV screens that you actually piss on.

That's awesome. Hopefully they'll have beer commercials with scantily clad hotties in them for you to piss on.

Hey wait, does R Kelly own that advertising company?

Re:Geez Louise...

[AK Marc]

As to how content developed on the Internet - were you actually around during that period? I was (since 1992)

Well, I was on before that. Content was almost exclusively from educational institutions. Where did Gopher (the text-only precursor to HTTP) come from? Oh, Gopher is the mascot of U of Minnesota. How about most of the standards from that era? They were either hold-overs from the initial goernment creation, or they were made by educational institutions or unpaid students of those institutions. The content was provided by kids who formerly had BBSs that were now hosting nearly identical services on school computers. "Content" included MUDs created by students that were all free, school information, technical information, and very little commercial stuff. When the commercial stuff came on, there was little in the way of advertising. Well, other than the page was advertising for the store that put it up. There was almost nothing that was web only at that point. The first "web" retailers were all mail-order companies that saw savings in not sending out as many catalogs. Then came the stores that set up crude sites to get into mail-order when they had never done it before. It wasn't until later when advertising became a big influence.

But feel free to fill me in on all the development of the Internet. I saw it through the eyes of a user, and you apparently saw it through the eyes of a business.

Re:Geez Louise...

[scottme]

Oh you are so right.

How can there be any obligation on me, moral or otherwise, to view advertisements for products I don't have the slightest interest in, which I would never consider buying, and which are presented in a grossly intrusive way? No thank you sir.

I cannot see how blocking web site ads is in any way different to my behaviour with the junk hardcopy mail I get from Citibank and others, trying to get me to sign up for a credit card. No joke, I get at least one a week from the same organization. They go straight in the trash (well, the recycling, actually) unopened. And I feel no sense of guilt whatsoever.

Praise Bob!

[Enonu]

I can't wait for the day where the Internet is advertising free, content quality is up, and I pay for the few select services I use on a regular basis.

Re:Praise Bob!

[British]

I can't wait either. I surely don't remember any advertising when I was using Google.

One fundamental problem is, popularity comes at a price. Your website is more popular, more bandwidth gets used. More bandwidth gets used, your hosting provider charges you more.

It's not so with TV shows. The costs are the same whether 8 people or 8 billion people watch it. Of course, if you have consistently low ratings, advertisers don't want to pay you for their ads.

If internet technologies get to the point where bandwidth is maybe at a flat fee(for outbound traffic), or something of the like, perhaps advertising won't be so promiment.

But as it stands now, advertising is getting to the point where it is overshadowing original content. Now only if we had more original content instead of the same AP news stories repeated over and over. Ah crap, I just realized what website i was on. :)

Good reminder

[Anonymous Coward]

This article reminded me to install adblock on this computer. Thanks Bennie!

Annoying ads

[Xshare]

Don't know about anyone else, but I can tell you I don't adblock google ads, or any other non-intrusive ads. The ads I block are the ones with the sounds and the moving monkeys telling me to hit them to get a free ipod. I mean jesus christ, you wonder why people want to block your ads?

Re:Annoying ads

[SirNAOF]

Amen.

Ads are fine, if they aren't intrusive. Once they overtake the content of the page, its time to go.

Re:Annoying ads

[egypt_jimbob]

Seriously.

If it moves, it goes on the list.

Re:Annoying ads

[EatAtJoes]

Is it even possible to adblock google ads?

Adblock is the greatest, but I'm having to actually think (shudder) these days to figure out how to block some Yahoo ads, which are served from the same "yimg.yahoo.com" host. I did figure it out tho ... but google's adsense stuff is in the page html. how do you block that?

more importantly, though: adsense ads are not TOTALLY OBNOXIOUS. Sometimes, god forbid, they're helpful. Parent is correct: advertisers in general have no taste or shame and are trying to violently drag your eyeballs away from the content. Better ads would help (case in point: theonion.com's American Apparel ads -- just can't seem to bring myself to block those :) )

Re:Annoying ads

[QuestorTapes]

I think that's pretty typical. I use the Adblock base filters, covering doubleclick and others, but I think I've only added 2 additional items to the list since I started using it many months ago.

If it's not intrusive or offensive, it's not worth the couple of clicks to add it to the blocklist.

Judging from the other replies you got, I'd say everyone agrees that: animated ads stink, flash ads stink, and pop-ups, -overs, -unders, etc. really stink.

Who says the Internet is free in the first palce?

[Bravoc]

I pay $39.95/month!

my thoughts

[ocipio]

Before internet commercialization:
1.) content was great, pages loaded fast, although cosmetics were a little boring.
2.) no popups, no ads, no spyware

After internet commericialization:
1.) Huge websites with tons of graphics, poor content, slow loading, etc
2.) popups, ads, spyware

I look forward to going in reverse, back to the good ole days of the internet.

Tip

[tomstdenis]

Stop making your ads insulting and ineffcient and people won't block them.

In the age of dialup a simple 3KB page would have >20KB of stupid banner ads and logos.

Now we're in the age of flash popup/under/over/sideways ads that have loud "HEY BUY ME" audio samples and etc..

Yes, an ad has to be noticed. But if it's just too much of a pain in the ass people are going to actively try and ignore them.

For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks because the commercials are not only repetitive and annoying but insulting to my [and anyone over the age of seven] intelligence.

And no, RemodelAmerica, I really don't want your fucking cheap wall siding. Stop paying for EVERY AD SPOT ON THE WEEKEND....

Tom

Re:Tip

[smooth wombat]

For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks

I'm glad you said that. I was talking with my parents not too long ago and mentioned that when commercials come on I do the same thing. I usually put away some dishes if they're clean and dry or put the dirty dishes in the sink for the next commercial break where I start to clean some of them.

I might also do some stretching or finger pushups (great exercise) or even, gasp!, play with my cat who's alone all day.

I once told some folks on IRC that advertisers must hate me. I mute their commercials, I fast forward through commercials, I turn down the volume on my radio when they're on and I sort through my sunday paper and remove all the ad cruft first before I start reading.

And no Diehl Motors, I don't give a shit about your loud, obnoxious shitty car dealership. Stop paying for every other spot! (You too Comcast. I don't give a shit about your pathetic CN8 shit confiscating a 1/4 of every hour of CNN Headline News.)

Re:Tip

[tomstdenis]

Usually for me I have "tvtime" running on desktop1 and my work on 2,3,4 so I don't even "watch" the tv most of the time.

I see that you basically handle it the same way. I wonder how many others purposely do other things during station breaks... hehehe

BTW, you want an annoying commercial [outside of the pyramid schemes on tv early/late at night] try Canada's FIDO cellphone network commercials. They're significantly more painful to endure then having a nine centimeter nail driven through your lungs... hehehe

tom

Re:Tip

[Alphi1]

For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks

Better be careful, if everyone did that, then the TV channel providers (like, say, Comcast) would have to start charging us a monthly fee, instead of the free service we get now...

Er, wait...

Nevermind...

Seriously though, I know that the idea of BROADCAST stations truly *IS* free to receive.

But IMHO when I get those national stations through my paid-for cable TV, it should ALREADY have the commercials removed. After all, I'm already paying for the service. If you consider that advertisements are a form of "paying" for the service, they're double-dipping.

Of course, I've made the same argument about the commercials they now show before a movie starts a the theater.

Re:Tip

[MynockGuano]

You know, what is it about local car dealerships and advertising? Are they required by law to have television advertisements that are so horribly bad that viewers cringe when they come on? Detroit can't be the only place like this; is it the same everywhere?

Re:Tip

[pommiekiwifruit]

Not to mention if you are watching a program on late night TV, and then the ad break comes on which is twice as loud as the content, potentially waking up the neighbours and getting you evicted from your house because of that **** crazy frog, you might want to get a mute button!

Re:Tip

[linzeal]

Um, it is too late they ruined their own business model by making advertisement painfully annoying. No one I know who has gone ad-free on the Internet is going to go back to any sort of advertising whatsoever.

Re:Tip

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks because the commercials are not only repetitive and annoying but insulting to my [and anyone over the age of seven] intelligence.

Bah --- most commercials are better written, better acted, and more entertaining than any six reality shows (RemodelAmerica notwithstanding).

Re:Tip

[julesh]

Bah --- most commercials are better written, better acted, and more entertaining than any six reality shows (RemodelAmerica notwithstanding).

In order to know that, you must have watched at least six different reality shows. Why did you do it?

Re:Tip

[CommieOverlord]

double-dipping.

No, no they're not. Let's say that provide your content would cost the cable providers $100/month. Not too many people will pay $100/month for cable. So the cable company charges $50/month for access and recoups the rest for advertising. It isn't double-dipping, it's saving you upfront costs.

Re:Tip

[cgibbard]

Yeah, $100/month/customer for what? The executives all need new Chris-Craft luxury yachts because last year's model is going out of style? New artificial 3-story waterfall and helipad for the mansion?

My 3mbit Internet connection costs less than the price of cable, and provides me more service.

I block pretty much all the ads and annoyances I see on the web with Privoxy taking care of most of it, and RIP (Remove It Permanently), and Greasemonkey dealing with the rest.

As long as I keep it updated (which apt seems to do nicely), Privoxy rids me of probably 99% of the ads out there. I'm always surprised at the ridiculous number and content of ads I see when I connect from a machine which doesn't run Privoxy (or some other ad-blocking agent).

RIP and Greasemonkey help to remove any details Privoxy misses, and are particularly nice for fixing the web design mistakes of others. Even things which aren't ads can be annoying: floaty toolbars which are more distracting than useful and sidebars which combine to take up 75% of the screen so that text flows down the middle in a little nearly unreadable column.

I was on the web since before the ads were around, and I've always been annoyed with them. Why can't people learn not to be annoying? Sincere recommendations will always mean more to me (and I'd hope to most people) than paid advertisements.

Re:Tip

[tomstdenis]

Exactly. Do you know how much an episode of "Raymond" costs? Like several MILLION dollars.

That's right. A stupid 30 minute show costs MILLIONS of dollars and all they do is re-use tiring gags, sitcom bullshit and the same set over and over.

Hell, I could do that on cable access for a couple hundred a night...

That's why you have advertisements on TV. Because the execs will pay stupid amount of money for "stars". When really what it comes down to is content [or in the case of Friends, Seinfeld, Raymond and pretty much all other sitcoms, just enough face time...].

Tom

of course

[bin673-1]

adblock is a response to in your face advertising,w hich distracts users and hijacks browsers.. play nice and end users will read and enjoy your ads.. idiots

Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[CyricZ]

This is the free market at work. Firefox and AdBlock provide a service that is in high demand: the blockery of ads. Thankfully for all of us, the price is so very low enough that most of us can afford it. Indeed, DoubleClick's days are numbered because they have a very small market these days. And you can't create a market by crying in public like this. You need to buy politicians to enact copyright/patent-style legislation on your behalf.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

This is the free market at work.

Actually, free-rider situations like this are precisely where market forces don't work efficiently. Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers). And I free-ride at the expense of people who are willing to view pop-ups.

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[CyricZ]

The freerider problem only applies to public goods that are excludable and rival. The Internet is neither excludable nor rival, and therefore is not a public good. And since it is not a public good, the freerider problem does not apply to it.

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Ahman_Ra]

i still get my adds, i just block the pop-unders/ups/arounds/virual adds. I'm trying to fix my wifes computer now because a popup add had a click box and my child, who is click happy, clicked on "download" from a popup, now her computer has 5 trojans on it, due to this wonderful popup crap. I visit add boxes, i want to send virus back at the pop boxes that come out like confetti out of a gun.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[niko9]

Firefox and AdBlock provide a service that is in high demand: the blockery of ads.

I shall build you a shrubbery if you send me a copy of these things you speak of!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If I block ads, it's also true that if I didn't, I still wouldn't buy their lameass products. Me watching their brain-torturous manipulative garbage will never, ever convert to a sale.

So, let me turn off adblock, so I can watch them still wither into nothingness. I'm no longer a free-rider, they just bought something with their advertising that wasn't ever going to pay off, my eyeballs.

Some advice, I may one day buy a new car, Ford/Chevy/etc. I may not. Either way, it's totally uninfluenced by your billions of dollars a year in ad money. Keep that money, and buy something with it. More R&D, lower prices, hell, have the biggest hooker and booze party on planet earth, it matters not. This goes for people who sell laundry detergent, fast food, and video games.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Transcendent]

Firefox and AdBlock provide a service that is in high demand: the blockery of ads.

Why make the browser do it? I just filter it out on my firewall so EVERYONE at my house can't get doubleclick adds (plus others that I have become annoyed with). Even helps when using applications... say, if you use the standard AIM client.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ltbarcly]

If market forces don't work efficiently, then why will they take off the free content?

Did you even read your own post? What are you saying? How don't they work efficiently?

I'll look at ads when I have no way to avoid it. It's dopes like you that sit and stare at commercials thinking it will improve the quality of TV shows.

Idiot.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

That mindset plays along with the "It's okay to pirate software because I am not denying anyone of the software, i am just copying it." Someone put effort into this website. Someone is paying for the hosting, bandwidth, etc. If people do not subscribe or view the ads then they are getting the material totally for free. If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.

Blocking ad's will only lead to innovation in terms of people trying to circumvent the pop-ups, and other people trying to figure ways to prevent that. In the end - it is a cat and dog chase and it is a waste of our resources. I would rather see us live in harmony (as far as internet/advertising goes) and working on creating better services.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Grench]

Ni!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[PHP Addict]

You're using old diction to make an invalid point. The point is that all those sites out there that operate for free won't be able to do so because they're no longer pulling in Ad revenue. When that happens, they'll either drop off the web or start charging admission.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Viceice]

Bennie Smith is entirely WRONG.

2 Facts:

1) People will always want things free (As in paid for by ad's)

2) If the people who serve ads as we know it today die off, soemone else will come back and fill the void.

People do tolorate and to a certain extent, apreciate ads, but the reason why people block ads today is because the people serving ads are crap flooding people with annoying devices like pop-up that serve up lies, half truths and spyware.

The advertiser who learns the rule of doing it in moderation and not pissing off your audience is the one whose gonna make it, not scum like DoubleClick.

In essence, this whole mess is the advertising industries own fault, not the fault of the makers of ad blocking software.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[BLAG-blast]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

No, he's wrong, but people will stop paying for his service (which is why he cries) and do what slashdot does, disguise advertisements as real content. Users can't block those kind of ads and still get teh content they want.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, it will lead to sites that require payment but don't have ads. Fine with me, I'd rather read 5 ad-free pay sites than 50 ad-encrusted free sites.

The free rider example could be like: a big public park that's expensive to maintain, and free to enter and leave. Once you're inside you can do whatever you want.

The internet is like: a big public park with a bunch of tents. You can choose which tent to enter and leave. Some tents are free for all, but low quality. Some are supported by optional donations. Some have a fence around them and can only be entered if you have an expensive pass. And some tents require you to listen to loud annoying people screaming in your ear about X10 wireless cameras and $5/mnth dialup. You've learned to tune it out, but then they started blocking your path. The screaming people pay the tent owner for the privilege of screaming in his tent.

People are just saying they don't like that latter type of tent. Many people are wearing earplugs and carrying stun-guns when they enter those tents, just to keep the screaming people out of the way. So fewer screaming people pay, and revenue goes down.

Mr. Ad Dude says "OH NO! No more screaming people means the DEATH OF THE PUBLIC PARK!" or something. No, it just means the death of scream-supported tents. We'll manage.

Some tents do have people talking to you, but they don't scream. They just say "hey, before you go into the tent, I thought you might like to know that we sell your favorite brand of soda for a good price". They don't scream, and they tailor their message to each visitor. Some folks will still visit those tents, for instance. But as soon as they start screaming, goodbye!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

That is a very strong qualification. "The web", by its nature, makes it difficult for "content-consumers" to provide their own bandwidth (coralcache notwithstanding). So much for "the web", then. It would not be difficult to switch to another, better type of network that did not suffer from this limitation. We could even add support for it to web browsers, or web proxies. That, of course, is what coralcache does, and freenet as well.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

The freerider problem only applies to public goods that are excludable and rival. The Internet is neither excludable nor rival, and therefore is not a public good. And since it is not a public good, the freerider problem does not apply to it.

Whether or not "the Internet" is a public good (which may or may not be the case), free web content is most certainly excludable and rival. It's excludable in that access can easily be restricted and rival in that use costs the providers money to keep access available.

Forget the jargon and use some common sense. If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears, Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

Perhaps, but requiring the creation of completely new forms and models of web content hardly contradicts Smith's point, does it?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[aklix]

Well it will also lead to innovations in new types of ads. I personally don't block google ads because not only are they lightweight and unobtrusive, but many times I find relivent information. Innovations need to come from comprimises, not from force like charging to view a web page.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ScentCone]

I'll look at ads when I have no way to avoid it. It's dopes like you that sit and stare at commercials thinking it will improve the quality of TV shows.

'Quality' shows require professional creativity, equipment, talent, and distribution resources. Unless you think you can get everyone involved to entertain you for free, at their own expense, you've got to either pay for the programming directly (like cable), or let someone else pay, on their own terms. Like ads.

If no one will pay people to make a run a quality show, what will you be left with? Taxpayer-subsidized entertainment? Local access shows run by high schools?

Market forces do work efficiently, in that they don't run as a charity. If the market goes out of its way to take the revenue away from broadcasting (or webcasting), then the market will find something else to do with its capital. And there goes the incentive for NBC to make the next Seinfeld, etc.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[muszek]

The market deals with malicious ads itself. Here's a real situation:

I have a popular, community driven site. I display just one 468x60 box (google adsense, cuz it's so light on the user) and run some other graphical ads as defaults (they kick in when google has nothing to show). Once I dealt with a company that displayed malicious ad (some trojan crap). One minute after I checked a mail to see 2 different messages about it I checked it myself and removed their banners from the flow. That adrep company (similar to Double Click) lost a publisher. Fewer publishers - fewer impressions to sell. That's how market works.

Now, if I knew that most of the people use ad blockers to block adsense (I don't really care about others), I would NEVER started to make that site. It took me 3 months of constant work + sporadic work later on. It has tones of free content which would never be created if I didn't have financial benefits. So yes, the guy is 50% right. It might not be an end of free content, but surely it will stop some people (like myself) from working on free stuff.

Fortunatelly, /. has other ways of earning money...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken. In economics, Public Goods are non-excludable and non-rival by definition. Internet pages certainly are excludable (registration). So despite being backward in reasoning, your conclusion the Internet is not a private good is correct.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NitroWolf]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Are you like... new to the internet?

It existed just fine prior to the advertising, and everything was free. Is the content more rich and expansive? Yes... but that is because of a number of factors. Google AdWords seem to do just fine with advertising.

It's not the advertising that's the problem, it's the intrusive advertising that causes so much problems. Doubleclick is the king of intrusive advertising, so they need to be shut down by the market forces.

Advertising is going to have to evolve to not annoy the target audience, otherwise, the target audience is going to block the advertising. AdBlocking software isn't going to be the end of free content, it will be the end of annoying advertising and the salvation of quality companies like Google that know how to advertise.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[peragrin]

Does that mean I am a crimminal for skipping TV, radio, and published ads as well?

Tv ad comes on I change channels or leave for a moment. my roommate mutes during TV ads.

Radio Ads? change stations.

Ads in newspaper, mail, magazine? I rip and throw ou as best as possible.(ads on pages can't be ripped but can be ignored).

Adblock, Ad blocking CSS for safari.

I consider it all SPAM and useless. I have never seen a good Ad and have never once bought anythig from those idiotic things.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers).

Another point to add. Everyone reading this site is able to do so only because of people like you, and me, who create free content for it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ThosLives]

The viewing of the ads is irrelevant. What matters is that the people maintaining a [website] have enough incoming revenue to continue that activity. It is currently often the case that this revenue comes from commercial enterprises in exchange for putting certain information on the [website]. The reason these enterprices pay to put that information on the [website] is that there is empiracle evidence of correlation between the amount of "exposure" of such information and their revenue.

What is happening is that viewers of the [website] do not want the advertisement information, so they developed a tool to block it, or simply cease to visit the [website]. This supposedly reduces the "exposure" mentioned above, which would theoretically reduce ad revenue to the [website]. This means that revenue for the [website] maintainers must come from somewhere else or the [website] will cease to exist.

This is complete free-market behavior, and eventually there will arise some sort of dynamic equilibrium. However, if the [websites] have enough revenue to continue the site, the odd thing about [the internet] is that the number of people who can use it is not strongly proportional to the cost to maintain it - that is, a very small bit of revenue can provide information for a vast number of individuals. This is different than newspapers, because the cost of newspapers is much more strongly proportional to the number of newspapers.

Just like the entertainment industries, the advertising industry should have to adapt to changing market environments. The whole issue really does require a change of perspective, from "Everyone who uses [x] needs to pay me" to "As long as enough people continue to pay me enough to do [x], I will keep doing it." - It is a shift from "what can I get away with" to "what do I need."

The thing I think is funny is that commercial enterprises appear to believe they are entitled to advertise and that entitlement should be protected by the legal system.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

i want to send virus back at the pop boxes that come out like confetti out of a gun.

Confetti gun? Sounds like someones been shopping at thinkgeek.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[cellocgw]

I'll look at ads when I have no way to avoid it. It's dopes like you that sit and stare at commercials thinking it will improve the quality of TV shows.
Actually in most cases the ads are more creative, better produced, and more interesting than the shows they support. Of course, given how crappy the shows are, this isn't saying a whole lot about the ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[theurge14]

I wonder how the web existed before the first banner ad appeared.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.

Who do you think makes this site? Is it Andover.net? Or is it you and me?

I could create a free slashdot in a single day of programming: an rss feed, a thunderbird plugin, and a new Usenet group is all it would take. The only thing missing would be the users. But that's the only important thing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

If market forces don't work efficiently, then why will they take off the free content?

You have a good question buried under a lot of stupid, so let me explain...

Let's say you're willing to view ads to read this site for free, and so am I. Let's say the site can stay in business if only one of us view ads. But because we can both block ads, you do it and figure I'll view them and I block them and figure you'll view them. The site goes out of business, even though there was a more optimum alternative.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[vadim_t]

No, it won't be the end of free content.

Free content is perfectly possible to have in many places right now. For instance livejournal. It's perfectly possible to have your own webserver which serves a few pages through ADSL.

Now, it might indeed be the end of sites like Slashdot that have huge bandwidth bills if they don't figure out another way of making money, but I don't see it as a great loss. There are lots of interesting things in small sites owned by normal people. It's not like all there is to see is limited to slashdot and other big sites.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[joebok]

No - market forces are always at work. If blockage of ads decreases "free" content on the web, and there is still demand for it - then some clever person will step in and meet the demand in some way that works - until something better comes along.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[X0563511]

But at the same time, if you hadn't seen the logos on other cars, or seen at least a couple advertisements, would you even know that the Ford/Chevy exists? You may or not buy a car in the future. But you can't buy something you don't know exists. I know there is word of mouth, but that may not be enough to cover most cases.

The trick is to not annoy people with the advertisements, but still get your name in people's heads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[DeadSeaTrolls]

I have to agree.

At what point does all this crap interfere with the media it's being hawked on. Watching TV is painful. I know what McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, etc tastes like.

Instead of coming up with more annoying ways to reach me, perhaps the whole premise needs to be reevaluated at that their end.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[IANAAC]

If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears, Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

Maybe not this site, but certainly other sites can and do operate at a loss. I worked for a TV station a while back and I can tell you that the web site - as a single entity - NEVER made money and was always operating at a loss. The information provided on the site, however, effected some cost savings on the broadcast side of the business, though, which balanced things out. In other words, if a web site is the sole means of income, yeah, you probably need ads. but if it's a compliment to the overall business, they're not necessary.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

If no one will pay people to make a run a quality show, what will you be left with? Taxpayer-subsidized entertainment? Local access shows run by high schools?

If nobody is buying up all the talent anymore, who do you think will create the local access shows?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I sit and stare at commercials because that girl in the Mercury Montego ads is hot.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[monkeydo]

Well, you got that exactly backwards. A public good is by definition non-excludable and non-rivalrous. National defense, for example, is a public good because you can't defend the borders for just some people. Some parts of the Internet may be considered public goods, and therefore, free riderism is most definitly a problem.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[drix]

-5, Wrong. A public good is nonexcludable and nonrival by definition... look it up if you don't believe me. Internet sites are essentially nonrival, although the /. effect is one of the best counterexamples to that. Subscription-free sites are also nonexcludable, making them public goods and very much subject to the free rider effect. A great way to combat that would is to convert to a subscription-only model, AKA "the death of the free Internet." DoubleClick is a sleasy, slimy company indeed, but what the guy is saying is dead on from an economic standpoint.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

This is complete BS. If ad-blocking becomes standard, that will be the end of free corporate dependant content on the web. And, frankly, I don't give a crap.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

I would rather see innovation come in other ways. Instead of a cat and dog chase how about we figure out ways to make websites utilize less code, but offer more information. Unfortunately, we have to waste valuable resources on protecting ourselves...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[CommieOverlord]

Free-rider applies to public goods, which are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. If you're going to throw around economic theory at least get your definitions correct.

Non-excludable means the producer can't easily deny access to free-riders. If free-riders could easily be excluded then they wouldn't be to free-ride, right?

Non-rivalrous means that each consumer doesn't diminish the amount of the good available.

The Internet is fact both excludable and rival. Websites can easily restrict access to people, and firewalls can block out zones. Accessing websites requires bandwith and server resources, both of which are finite.

Keep up your econ studies, with a little effort you may just end up with a passing grade.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

The viewing of the ads is irrelevant. What matters is that the people maintaining a [website] have enough incoming revenue to continue that activity.

To get down to the core, what matters is actually whether they have enough (1) content and (2) bandwidth. Many sites, like Slashdot, get the content for free from the users. The bandwidth, also, could be provided by the users -- it would just require a different network client.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

Really? You think that is it?

How about this:

Bandwidth (or do you think free geocities account will do it for you). Your site will be /. with a thunderous laugh...actually without paying a high end hosting company your site will be /.'d with a quite chuckle and a "that was cute."

Then there is advertising...you want your site to be known right?

Then there is maintenance. Yea you could probably whip up something similar to /. in a day or two (though I would wager a lot more time then that for something innovative and complex) - but what about maintenance. I have a feeling a lot of these people are working on /. many hours of the day. Do you plan to quit your day job for this site?

Advertising is important - my problem is with the obtrusive ones.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ltbarcly]

Not at all. I had alot of good questions mixed in with some inyourface pointing out of stupidity.

Now, I'm not assuming anyone will view the ads. I don't care really. Now, in general: If a site goes out of business because people don't look at the ads, then there are 1000000000000 other sites ready to accept the viewers. If all 1 gillion other sites go under as well then, guess what! It's all just a bunch of mental masturbation, and I still have my library card.

If you think that any source of information on the internet (besides wikipedia and google maybe) is unique or valuable enough to care if it were gone you are an idiot.

In the case of slashdot: Slashdot's content is provided by the community. If slashdot died today, slashdot-wiki would be up tomorrow. The only cost is for equipment and bandwidth, which are problems you can work around. Slashdot's only really valuable asset is the slashdot community, so they really should be more concerned with making us happy than anything else.

If adblocking becomes common there are easy ways to prevent people blocking your ads. I won't go into those ways because I don't want to fill in any trogs that are reading this, as I hate ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[cshark]

I don't think so.

To date, I haven't seen an ad blocker that can block text ads. And you'll notice more and more sites using the Google style ads every day. I could care less what DoubleClick thinks. In fact, the statistics on Adsense demonstrate that less annoying ads do in fact work. They work just as well, or (in most cases) better than flashing banner ads.

DoubleClick's ads are annoying, and detract from the value that I receive from going to the web page that hosts them. If there's no value for me viewing this content, or reduced value because of the distractions I have to face, then tell me... why should I view these pages in the first place?

I have seen so many thousands of Banner ads that I tune them out anyway. I can't tell you the last time I clicked on a double click ad, or any other banner for that matter. Then there's their metrics systems, which I find offensive. And cookies, and data sharing, and the list goes on.

It is a free market, only in this case, the people being marketed to have the option of tuning it out if they find it offensive. That's life. If their ads didn't suck, and they didn't do things like publicly announce that they're going to build profiles on every man woman and child in the world then maybe people wouldn't mind seeing their ads.

They complain endlessly about the negative "vibes" towards advertising, yet they take no responsibility for creating these "vibes" in the first place. No one had a problem with Internet ads before DoubleClick started tracking people.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[DigitumDei]

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

Oh thats true, but you have to ask whether its actually what you really want? It will lead to several things. Innovation in ways to get advertising on you screen (something we don't want, since most of these innovations are worse than the stock standard banner ad), or generating income through merchandising.

Unless of course you know of some innovation that will allow small entertaining sites to make some money without acting like the movie business. But of course you don't actually point out any real innovations, just that they might be there in the future...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Leif_Bloomquist]

The Web worked perfectly well, with lots of free content available, for the several years before advertising appeared. What would be wrong with going back to that?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[danudwary]

Exactly. If I ever meet the dickhead who designed that "You are a WINNER!!" rainbow flashing epilepsy-inducing ad, I WILL kick him in the nuts.

If lack of ad revenue kills the internets (which is retarded and nonsensicle to anybody with half a brain) then Doubleclick will be to blame.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Deanalator]

if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

I totally disagree. The internet is a big place. If one person starts charging, then its easy enough to find someone which doesnt charge. I dont have a job right now, and same with alot of other students, who make up a large part of people who use the internet. If slashdot starts charging, Ill switch to the register, if AIM starts charging, Ill use yahoo.

Advertising is a plague to the economy, because it produces nothing. I stopped buying mad magizine when they riddled their magizine with ads, and I dont read news papers that dont have a clearly defined ads section. I never listen to the radio, and I dont listen to live streams that have ads in them. People have the right to advertise, but they just have to realize that they run the risk of offending their readers.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[jZnat]

You know what I do instead of letting ads through? I donate to sites and projects that I regularly use. I buy stocks in corporations that provide me with a lot of my goods (such as CNet and Google).

Speaking of which, Google actually hits the nail a lot harder on delivering successful advertising; people get ads about things they usually care about rather than the latest "GUESS HOW MANY PREGNANT TEENS SAID THE SAME THING!?!?!?!?!? LOLOLOLOLAWL" ad that *click.net is serving to the public.

I completely agree with the grandparents here that this is a free market at work, and just because Adblock could be running *click.net and other shitty advertisers out of business in the next few years, it will only open new innovations like Google ads or, *gasp*, donating!! Or buying their products! Or, y'know, the other successful business models that other companies do fine with.

GNU/Google for 2008!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[niiler]

If Rob blocked access because I wasn't viewing ads, I'd move on and find somewhere else to waste my time. Seems easy enough.

As for those so called "news" sites that require you to register and serve up ads, I don't have much use for them. As advertisers now have full control of the content of these news sites, it's not really news but propaganda that they spin. Check out Bill Moyer's series The Public Mind for a well presented argument of this.

Sites like Amazon.com will gain revenue from their sales. In fact, you'll note that Amazon does not use annoying popups (although they do try to track you). The rest of the site has advertisements, but as the prime purpose of the site is to sell you things, this is to be expected and is fine. If you're trying to present news and base your finances on your advertising, you've got a conflict of interest.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you believe that the web is for the people who view web pages or for the advertisers. This point was presented in the "Linux Journal" (I think...It could have been "Linux User & Developer") a couple months back. A reader in the US asked why the magazine was so expensive compared to US magazines. The editors replied that their audience was the reader and not the advertiser. Thus the reader paid the full price of production instead of the advertiser. Perhaps that will happen on the web, but then, there are enough people out there offering information or services for free that I don't see this as a real issue.

Just my 2 cents...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

Free content is perfectly possible to have in many places right now. For instance livejournal. It's perfectly possible to have your own webserver which serves a few pages through ADSL.

And it's possible to have your own webserver which serves a billion pages through ADSL, via coral cache.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NardofDoom]

I would rather see us live in harmony (as far as internet/advertising goes) and working on creating better services.

And if everyone just did their jobs and were smiling happy people, total communism would work and there'd be no war.

What you describe is impossible. The only thing we can do is make the fact that people are greedy, selfish, immature and irrational work to our advantage.

Figure that out and then get back to me.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AndersOSU]

I love my adblock, and my flashblock.

It seems to me that doubleclick.net is in trouble because they've annoyed so many people that someone else has decided to do something about it. Opening up my adblock black list, I can see that doubleclick.net is the very first entry.

What free sites need to do is find a marketing firm taht doesn't have obnoxious ads, then they'll stay in buisness, because people won't block what isn't annoying.

Case in point: Just for shits and giggles I opened up the article in IE, and what do you know there's an delightful to look at marque add promenently displayed at the top of the page (provided by doubleclick no less.)

When advertisers realise that people visit websites because of the content, not to look at ads maybe they'll place less obtrusive, non-flash ads that don't encroach on the content.

When that happens maybe I'll stop blocking ads, or maybe the damage has already been done.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ScentCone]

If nobody is buying up all the talent anymore, who do you think will create the local access shows?

OK. So you're being sarcastic, I get that. But just in case someone else doesn't: let's pretend that the talent is free anyway. These things still cost money. The whole distribution system costs money. Just complying with federal regs costs money. The local access channels only have local access because the for-profit parts of the industry have to pay for that as part of their deal with local cable charters. The whole "I want top quality entertainment for free, and Peter Jackson should be able to make a living off of selling the t-shirts" sentiment is such an intellectual pothole. And it only happens because people want to be at peace with themselves as they rip off music and films. As a Plan B, they're willing to settle for "the government" (um, taxpayers... themselves!) paying for things. Sigh.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AK Marc]

If people do not subscribe or view the ads then they are getting the material totally for free.

I think we need to hire an FBI agent to stand in everyone's home. Anyone that goes to the bathroom during a commercial break of broadcast TV will be thrown in jail for theft. After all, if they watch the content but don't click on the ads, they are stealing the content that was given to them for free.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[jZnat]

have the biggest hooker and booze party on planet earth

How'd you get that memo? ;)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Arker]

This is utter nonsense.

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

There was free content on the web long before there was Bennie Smith on the web, long before Doubleclick existed, and there will be long after both of them have shrivelled up and died.

Widespread use of ad-blocking would certainly result in the elimination of "content" that's only purpose is to fool search engines and serve ads while wasting the viewers time. But that's no loss so far as I'm concerned.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[feloneous cat]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Nah, the web will just start doing (sips his COCA-COLA) product placement (eats his DORITOS). I mean you won't notice it (as he looks through his RAY-BANS). After all, I don't notice billboards driving to work (in my CHEVY SILVERADO HD using EXXON-MOBIL fuel).

Nope, you won't notice it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

Bandwidth (or do you think free geocities account will do it for you). Your site will be /. with a thunderous laugh...actually without paying a high end hosting company your site will be /.'d with a quite chuckle and a "that was cute."

I think you must not know what Usenet is. Look it up.

Then there is maintenance. Yea you could probably whip up something similar to /. in a day or two (though I would wager a lot more time then that for something innovative and complex) - but what about maintenance. I have a feeling a lot of these people are working on /. many hours of the day. Do you plan to quit your day job for this site?

Thousands of people are working on slashdot's software every hour of every day. Linux, MySQL, Perl, gcc, Slashcode... Q: what do all of these things have in common?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, you forgot to put the "This is a Joke" tag around the text of your post... oh wait.. isn't that obvious though....!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AndersOSU]

I noticed you're not planning on buying a Kia or Deawoo, could you fill us in on why? How exactly did Ford and Chevy jump to the top of the pack? What could Suzuki do to be mentioned in the same phrase? If not advertising then what?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[CarrionBird]

My response to Bennie Smith would be:

"The internet was doing just fine before you jerks showed up, and look at it now. Therefore kindy open a vein or find another calling, whatever it takes. Just leave us alone, thank you."

I think that sums it up.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Fordiman]

Actually, no one gets money for having the ads viewed. Just clicked. I'll click an ad that interests me - when I'm in IE. When I'm in Firefox, my world is blissfully ad-free.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[LifesABeach]

It looks like Bennie Smith is more concerned with Bennie Smith, than an ananlysis of the internet. Given:

1. The internet existed long before "Popup Ads".

2. Clients pay to use the internet; this existed long before "Popup Ads".

3. Server Sites pay to use the internet; this existed long before "Popup Ads".

4. The people that advertize Popup Ads on the net do so because of the cost per address is far cheaper than junk mail.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is a fascinating new dynamic showing up in modern economics: market advertisment saturation.

Consider it: Telemarketing grew so big and so annoying that people were pushed to the "not-taking-this-anymore" state. Now there is the national "do-not-call" registry forced through congress by popular demand.

Now it appears web advertising is hitting the same level of annoyance. If I were an advertiser, I would say it is too bad there is no coordination between advertisers to keep the annoyance level at an acceptable level for consumers.

You can only stack so much weight on a table before it busts.

my $0.02

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[millert]

Or it may simply lead to the replacement of micropayments from advertising agencies like doubleclick to micropayments directly from the reader/consumer.

One way or another, once ad blocking attains critical mass there will have to be a sea changing in the way advertising is done. The same holds true for television advertising (all the major cable/satellite companies offer DVR boxes for low monthly fees).

Is it the end of advertising as we know it? I tend to doubt it but I think we'll see a gradual shift to different ad revenue models as time goes on. DoubleClick can adapt or die...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[mugnyte]

Actually, there is a huge difference:

The internet is not a magazine stand, where people belly up, pay 0.50 and get a paper. It's a medium, and for the largest period of it's lifetime, it was noncommercial. That is, the dollars used to fund the bandwidth were collected off-line.

Even today, "making money" with the exchange of information is a slowly losing game. There's an effect going on everywhere:

- The internet platform's complexity in delivering content for money keeps the general user in a pay-per-play system.

- Tools are written to bypass such complexity. They are "hacks" that keep to the fringe for a while.

- The general populace becomes more educated about the platform + the tools become more commoditized.

- Finally, the exchange of information no longer requires the pay-per-play system, as a free rebust tool exists to do the same thing.

- Let me add: The tool is enhanced and grown to push the market in ways nobody expected. A collaborative beauty appears.

Let me point out a few examples:

- Online publishing of any digital media whatsoever. Video, Music, Text, Instructional content, directions, games, etc.

- Protocols/Forums to facilitate user-to-user communication and user-to-user file transfers.

- News copy, opinion, debate and mediums for assigning authenticity to information sources are growing in the public sphere.

So, this guy's clinging to said pay-to-play system is only going to push the public domain further, faster to bypass and envelope the content he is delivering. I wish there was more than Adblock, but a site that collected the busniess that have contracted DoubleClick, so that people could boycott the.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

That's a good point. But if operation of free sites with significant readership were to be limited to people who can subsidize them out of pocket or out of some other revenue stream, I'd call that a pretty serious change in the nature of web content, no?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Mr. Kellner.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[pottymouth]

Here here! Well said!

I often have to wonder what some of these advertisers could be smoking to think that their annoying and obnoxious ads are going to get someone to buy their product. If anything they make me want to boycott them. The advertiser that manages to create informative and persuasive ads that are delivered in a way that doesn't bother potential customers will be the winner in this war.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux, MySQL, Perl, gcc, Slashcode... Q: what do all of these things have in common?

They all have advertisements on their websites?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[LionKimbro]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Um, bullshit?

Points of evidence:

• I won't be taking down any web pages of my own.
• The bloggers probably won't shut up.
• Wikipedia will probably keep on chugging.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.... perhaps it is time for peer to peer web content hosting. wow, innovation is so difficult! Also, what do you think standardizes bandwidth cost? Energy? Material? Work forces? To be bluntly honest, i am baffled at the idea of bandwidth pricing as every lower tier isp and their users are paying head over heels for internet access, yet whom do the top tier isps/backbone providers pay? The current internet financial structure reminds me of a pyramid scam where the top tier almost always get the most income from the whole system and at the same time DO NOT reintroduce the wealth back into their systems. The system itself cannot be self sufficient as a whole. (In here, self sufficiency is reguarded as external introduced cash flow. Not the conventional meaning of not reliant on other people)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not even close to correct. Here's a simple check to tell whether he would be right. Did free content exist before ads existed on the internet? yes? I thought so...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello you. Yes, you. You are now oblidged to send me E 10,- . No, no but's or why's. I offered this message and you read it. To make sure I will be able to write messages in the future you will have to pay me. *Now*.

Oh, by the way : *don't* start complaining about "but you offered it, and I had no chance to say no" or "But you have not given me anything I asked for or could use." That does not matter. You read, so you have to pay. .... or do you think that maybe :
1) the asked "payment" must be balanced to the offered goods. That means no pages with only a few lines of (possible) "info", surrounded by multiple (flashy and such) advertisements.
2) An "No thanks" possibility must be offered *before* someone is met (ambushed !) by multiple "payments"
3) a site is *not allowed* to squander my *personal data* (to the likes of double-click) before they have my written permission (which probably means : never)

In short : Give me a choice and I will (most probably) honor the consequences (and won't try to access possible information beyond that point). Create a "shrink wrap" agreement and you get what you deserve. Your (I mean "the sites") choice. And you know what ? That choice is more than most of those sites give me/us.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FireFury03]

Maybe not this site, but certainly other sites can and do operate at a loss.

Ok, lets pick a site that practically everyone uses - Google. How exactly are they going to provide free services without the financial support of their advertising systems? Or are you going to give them your creditcard number every time you search?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Ahnteis]

Which is why Google adwords are less likely to be blocked then annoying flash ads that drift over the page obscuring content, or pop-up/under ads.

If your only source of revenue is ads, you better make sure that your ads aren't driving away your audience (or making them find ways to block your ads).

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[hyfe]

Forget the jargon and use some common sense. If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears, Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

Of course they would, they're not stupid, nor do they lack common sense.

Going exclusive paid content will trap some of your userbase, however the site will turn from a mass-market into an elitist one. This in itself might be ok, but it's not what the original userbase signed up for, so you're risking another mass-exodus of members.

Lastly, it's extremely hard to attract new members on exclusivly paid sites. Going pure pay would be suicide.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[azbrdhntr]

I for one will never block google ads why.. they nonobtrusive and related the the subject matter.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Fordiman]

mrrr?

You're funny.

You know, I maintain a site that dynamically builds Linux ISOs based on the Damn Small Linux distribution. It costs me $10 a month at heavy-bandwidth times.

And guess what. It contains no advertising aside from the "Make a Donation" button at the end of the directions. That pays for the site by itself.

Free content can exist with relatively low expense. The reason there's "Ad-supported" sites that work is because out of the millions of readers of a site like Slashdot, a few click on the ads. Now, I'm sure Slashdot pays more than $10 a month for bandwidth, but they still gotta be gettin' it on the cheap to pay for the volume of readership. And Slashdot, being the super-savvy types they are, use TEXT ads.

In the end, Ad-block won't mean the end of free internet. It'll mean more sites will move to non-blockable elements for their ads, like Google's or Slashdot's text ads. It'll mean website designers will be forced to go back to saving their pennies by saving their bytes (fatware webpages annoy me on principle). It'll mean higher content to page ratios.

And Bessie Smith of DoubleClick, if you're listening? Follow Google's example. Stop using every latest technology out there to annoy those you want as customers. You waste manhours in your "innovation", and you, in the end, will simply be blackballed from the internet - at the user level.

And it takes a LOT to get users, in general, to all do the same thing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FooBarWidget]

"I think you must not know what Usenet is. Look it up."

You expect everybody to use a newsgroup reader to view your content? Are you serious?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

The only thing I disagree with you about is that you only donate to sites you regularly use. What about the site you went to, utilized their information and then never returned. Is that fair that you are utilizing their data (they worked to put on there), you utilized their bandwidth (isn't /.ers always the ones who complain "this advertisement is using my bandwidth"). If a site is trying to generate money - then we have a responsibility to pay for the service we are using. Anyhow, I am sure someone will disagree with me -

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

You're missing the point -- I'm not saying anything about "criminal", or even "wrong", necessarily. It's simply a question of money. Sites that depend on ad revenue won't be able to provide free content in the absence of revenue. Your or my personal righteousness has nothing to do with it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Travelsonic]

Ekki Ekki Ekki Ekki Pinkang Zoop Boing!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[blogeasy]

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

It wouldn't take much to get around the ad-blockers. Advertisers could use a caching mechanism where the ads are downloads to the sites that will display them and integrated directly into the site's pages. It would appear as if the text and images were part of the site and loaded from the site itself. The images and text could also vary which would make it tough for ad-blockers to discern which content is advertisements and which content is the actual site content.

I'm sure the response to this would be an evolution of the ad-blocker to act much like the spam-blockers do with email. They will have to filter on a various keywords and other criteria which will never be 100% accurate.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Some advice, I may one day buy a new car, Ford/Chevy/etc. I may not. Either way, it's totally uninfluenced by your billions of dollars a year in ad money.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that buddy. The fact that you even know what "Ford" and "Chevy" mean is proof that the ads have indeed worked.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Rurouni Joe]

Maybe this will show us that text-ads (like google) really is the way to go

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bheer]

> Firefox and AdBlock provide a service that is in high demand: the blockery of ads.

*Bletch* *urgh* How many years of school did you have to unlearn to come up with inanery like this?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[joeldg]

heh...
actually I *pay* each and every month for my network connection...
if sites go belly up from not being able to sell ads, then I am soooo happy to help in that. We need less websites... Remember why you started using google in the beginning, because they had no ads or junk.. that was the big draw.. now, google is looking more and more like old altavista with the garbage in the index... Yahoo is no longer only manual additions... It is just sad...
Get rid of the ads, sell an actual service if you want money... Seeing adsense ads on blogs that drop words just to get the most money per click is just ridiculous...
Everyone and their mother is doing adsense now...

saying you want to talk about how you are "supporting" sites by viewing the garbage parts of the site... it is stupid, why would you do that? when was the last time you clicked on an advertisement online? most are scams anyway...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[I_can_not_believe_I_]

As has been pointed out in parent and elsewhere, websites cost money to run and maintain, which requires revenue. I'm more than willing to have a reasonable number of banner/text ads on free sites I read, and even click through if it looks interesting (if it appeals to me, why not learn more?). As things get worse with the banner/text ad business (AdBlock, hired click-throughs, whatever else), its value is going to drop as advertisers see less and less return, and people will have to look elsewhere to generate revenue for their sites. You know what this probably means? Pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials, and ever more annoying forms of advertising designed to catch your attention. I personally would rather avoid the great cat and mouse game between advertisers and ad-blockers, and stick with something nice and simple that works for both sides without irritating the crap out of me. You don't want the ads? Don't visit the site, or chip in and help the site run with less/no ad revenue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

You were making an argument and basing it on emulating /. If you plan on doing that, then do not give me such answer as "i think you must not know what Usenet is."

Also, many people will not go near usenet - your site will be less popular.

While all those software programs are free - the time to make the code is not free. The maintenance is not free. The bandwidth you propose on using (to emulate something like /.) is insane. So what do all of these things have in common----they cost MONEY!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[InvalidError]

Free-riding spares people's bandwidth... I never purchased anything from banner ads before adopting ad-blockers and am extremely unlikely to ever do. By free-riding, I am sparing the advertiser/host's bandwidth along with my own.

When advertisers started using Flash animations with SOUND, I snapped and decided to go on a quest for absolute free-loading. The only ads I am willing to tolerate are google-style text-only ads and static images.

Advertisers are going too far and I see freeloading as one way of protesting... and definitely a necessary thing for dial-ups.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Problems with your great plan:

- Someone still has to pay for the bandwidth for your hosting of the thunderbird plugin and RSS feed.
- Who the hell wants to download a plugin to view your moderated discussion group? Web accessible is way more popular and convenient.
- How does the plugin work? It seems easy in theory but it has to do a lot more than you think (hint: more than a couple of days even for your uber self)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

OK. So you're being sarcastic, I get that. But just in case someone else doesn't: let's pretend that the talent is free anyway. These things still cost money.

They do cost money. But if nobody was willing to pay, they wouldn't cost anything. All it really takes to make a TV show, other than the talent, is a camera and bittorrent seed. Radio broadcasting also costs nothing: HAMs broadcast video all the time. The expense is only an artifact of the system in place. And the talent, the people with the message, want it out. Take away the money, and the quality of the product will go up, not down, because the people with something to say will stay, and the rest will go.

If nobody could make money publishing, Tom Clancy might stop writing, but Gore Vidal would not. Britney Spears would surely stop singing, but the only thing most musicians really require to perform is an audience.

Now, I'm not saying those of truly valuable talent should have to work a 9-5, or live in poverty, or both, but I'm absolutely confident that, where necessary, they do, and that it injures art only in the slightest. On the other hand, advertising and copyright have a terrible effect: the former ruins everything it touches, at least in television, because it requires everything to have mass appeal; the latter does not affect quality so much as quantity, by reducing the size of audiences, which defeats the purpose of creating the content in the first place.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[shmlco]

Going pure pay would be suicide, and no ads mean no ad revenue, which would kill the site just as dead.

Unless you think someone ELSE is going to pay out of their own pocket for all of this pontification...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[OldeTimeGeek]

Q: what do all of these things have in common?

A: Nothing that has anything to do with your point. Am I close?

Forgive me, but I don't quite see your point. Are you saying that, because these tools are 'free' as in they don't cost you anything, anything that is created with them should be free too? How about the people that use them? Should they not expect to be paid for their work? How about the systems that host the applications created with them? Free too?

Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean that the costs for that thing go away.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Spirckle]

if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Not necessarily. The way it works is that companies whose BM depends on ad revenue will not be able to provide free content using that BM. Companies who use a perhaps different BM (CraigsList and many many free content servers that use non-obtrusive/non-annoying ads) will not be affected, will still provide free content and will still make it non-viable to charge for content except in very specialized markets.

The price of free content should not have to be annoying your customers. The sooner these freaky-deeks realize that, the better for both them and us.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Loconut1389]

ill take banner ads and text flowing around ads any day, but once you start having one popup or worse take control of my browser and give me enough popups to crash my system, ill ad block until the end of time. I'm all for ads paying for content, just dont make them such a pain in the ass. You can't have it both ways, either your site has to have ads in it (inline) or youll have to get money elsewhere, but content providers want their pages to look ad-free, almost like the popups arent coming because of them. IMHO, doubleclick is doomed, but ads on pages arent, just obtrusive popovers and popunders.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[praedictus]

Indeed, If the advertiser's own sites get blocked, either by adblock, or modified hosts files, an easy solution would be to put the ads directly on the sponsored site rather than being externally linked. A little more work, perhaps, and possibly open to abuse, but potentially very difficult to block.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll keep this in mind the next time I create a large company designed to sell you products.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

The bandwidth you propose on using (to emulate something like /.) is insane.

Usenet could provide the bandwidth easily. It would be a tiny blip on the graph.

Also, many people will not go near usenet - your site will be less popular. Slashdot is only big for a web site.

I already said it wouldn't be popular. That's the whole point.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

umm maybe the fact that kia, daewoo and suzuki (aside from their bikes) are garbage?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

And who's paying for the hosting cost? Moron.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Buran]

Ah, so you must want to beam content straight into peoples' brains, as here we all are using a specialized application to read your comment ...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[shmlco]

You don't understand. There is a direct correlation between "annoying and obnoxious" and ad effectiveness.

Plain, boring, and unobtrusive gets you unseen and unwatched...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

I might be wrong, but as I understood it adblock still downloads banner ads, but doesn't display them. This shouldn't have an effect on ad-viewing counts. Now click-throughs are another matter, but that doesn't happen too often even for the people viewing ads. Popups are probably a different story, as the window to load them is never displayed.

Feel free to correct my assumption. I know that CSS style rules in Firefox will download but not display content, and I'm pretty sure adblock just overlays info onto those userContent.css rules, but I'm too lazy to look into it further.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

Just because you are upset about advertisements (and I am also) does not make it right to mooch. I totally understand blocking the obtrusive ones - but not the non-obtrusive ones.

Just because you can do it, does not make you right.

Also, pop-up blockers does not spare anybody any bandwidth...the data is still sent - just blocked at the client browser level.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Buran]

Exactly... advertisers whining that no one looks at their crap strikes me as ludicrous. If you make your message intrusive so that I can't do what I came around to do, then yes, you are going to get blocked. Don't whine at me about it -- you pushed too far.

Cut back on the annoyance factor and we'll look at you again, capisce?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

People going to the bathroom is factored into the price of TV ads. People with blocking software is factored into the price of online ads. The point being made here is that if blocking software nears 100%, then the price of online ads nears $0. When that happens many websites lose the only source of funding which currently pays for their hosting and bandwidth. Those websites might find a new revenue stream, but many will just go away.

Much as with filesharing, a lot of people just don't seem to be willing to compromise. I block pop-ups, but not inline ads. That is the compromise I strike, since I don't find inline ads too offensive. Google ads are actually useful, even. Many people, though, block any and all ads, without giving them an option to be non-offensive. It's your choice, but, as this article points out, you are likely to have less of a free web to look at if that behavior becomes common.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

I already said it wouldn't be popular. That's the whole point.
Then there is ZERO point to your example or your "point"

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[timeOday]

People use newsgroup readers to view each others' content every day.

Maybe the centralized nature of the Web is the problem here - one server for millions of clients. Let's replace the Web with something like usenet, where the clients are existing web browsers but the servers are a modern p2p network, autoconfiguring and highly distributed.

Just reducing the need for advertising alone would probably cut total bandwidth requirements by half.

I guess the big issue is how to prevent leeching - I don't think what bittorrent does would work for small files.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[pla]

...and rival in that use costs the providers money to keep access available. Forget the jargon and use some common sense. If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears, Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

1) Content costs money to serve, even if provided basically for free (as with Slashdot, where the audience equals the authors, for the most part).

2) Ads cost money to serve - In many (most?) cases, more than the actual content does (a single 27Kb ad vs 4k of text and 9k of "real" images, for example... And how often do you see just one ad on a page that uses them?).

3) I will not ever, EVER, EVER buy something based on advertising. I buy products based on needing something, doing research to find the best widget, and then use a site like Pricewatch to find the best price on that widget (granted, you could call Pricewatch a form of advertising in itself, but I hope anyone reading this has the capacity to appreciate the difference). At no step does advertising enter that process, with one exception - I will deliberately not buy something or from a store who has annoyed me with overly obnoxious ads.


So... Would you say Rob (or any site owner) would do better to let me block ads, thereby dropping the bandwidth per page roughly in half (in the case of Slashdot)...

... Or should they force me to double their bandwidth, with a literally less than zero chance of my clicking on their ads?


As for the whole free-ride / piracy / stealing / depriving-whomever-of-whatever arguments... I really just do not care anymore. I can actually thank the **AA for performing exactly one service for me - They have helped me get rid of all sense of guilt regarding how I use or abuse any intangible "goods". If I can get to it, I consider it "mine" to do with as a please - Only both the threat and likelyhood of incarceration in the nation with the single largest per-capita prison population limits how I use such information. While the threat may always exist, the likelyhood (unless I do something glaringly stupid) simply doesn't exist.

I'll still buy CDs, books, and what-have you from my favorite artists - I do so out of a desire to reward them for providing me pleasure, and as an incentive to make more. But the idea of an "obligation" to fork over something of mine, just to do a taste test of what amounts to pickled dog shit - Nope. Not even a little.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[eyeye]

If people arent willing to pay for things either by ads or by micropayments (for example) then we should question the value of sites like that.

As mentioned micropayments may become much more widespread once we can finally rid the internet of the menace of advertising.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[strikethree]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

no no no no! It will be the end of free corporate content. By writing your comment, you have made content. By replying, I have made content. There are thousands of websites out there that are put up by people who just want to share stuff that they created. Slashdot even started out that way. Even if all of the corporate sponsored content went away, the internet would still be highly useful.

strike

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bnenning]

Just because you can do it, does not make you right.

It doesn't make it wrong either. There is no agreement between me and Slashdot or NBC that I will view their ads. Both of them supply the ads and *hope* that I will watch them. In the same way, my credit card company hopes I won't pay my balance in full, and Best Buy hopes I'll buy more than their loss-leader free-after-rebate spindle of CDs. But in no case does such a business model impose any obligation on me to do what they would prefer that I do.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Chosen Reject]

We could just switch to a p2p kind of network instead of a single host kind of network. I like slashdot, you like slashdot, we both have parts of slashdot. When someone else wants to see slashdot, they get parts of it from me and you.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[eyeye]

He is right the only thing a decent software developer couldnt knock up in a few days of development would be the user base. Its the comments that make this place a little bit better than an out of date news aggregator.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[buddachile]

...if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Or perhaps advertisers will be forced to stop placing the types of ads that annoy users, like popups and those wild flash adverts.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

then we should question the value of sites like that.

LOL thats funny. Thats like saying we should question the value of a TV set because some guy decided to steal it instead of paying the cost of the TV.

People will, invariably, try and get things for as cheap as possible....free if they can. Hell people would prefer that when they take the product (be it soft or hard) they get paid for doing the producers of the product a "favor"

Sorry your not selling me on that poor reasoning.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[peragrin]

And if 1 in 10,000 visitors click on the ad anyway is that cost effective advertising?

How does a company judge whether or not they are getting a return on their advertising?

Example the company I work for once ran a print ad in the local paper. It had a 25% off coupon on anything you bought.

We got zero of them back. We spent $1,000 for zero dollars of return. Website advertising does that for companies. They get little to no benifit yet it costs them money that could be used to boldter employee's.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[eyeye]

no he is saying that nobody has to quit their day job to do it as said by the person he was replying to. where are the ruby on rails lot they will probably say you can produce a functional replacement for this system in an hour or something :-)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[timeOday]

Someone is paying for the hosting, bandwidth, etc.

And most of that bandwidth is consumed by... you guessed it, the ads.

DoubleClick's pop-up graphical banner ads are like a tanker truck that burns 100 gallons of gas to deliver 50 - inefficient.

Google's more conservative ads are cheaper to deliver and not coincidentally less often blocked.

That's doubleclick's problem - they think of the web as advertising, because that's all they do. They don't even offer a real service like google does. Maybe their bloated, annoying ads will go the way of the dinosaur. You know what? The web will survive.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[The Snowman]

Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers).

This is the key -- subscribers. I choose to pay money to use this site in lieu of viewing advertisements. This is the real issue for companies such as doubleclick. I block them at the firewall level because of their annoying crap. I don't mind advertisements, e.g. the ones on Google. I mind popups, popunders, flashing banners, etc. and am willing to pay money to support a site just so I can get the piece of mind of not having that junk.

Of course, I need to get value for my money, and this is Slashdot... ;-)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

- Someone still has to pay for the bandwidth for your hosting of the thunderbird plugin and RSS feed.

This is actually on point, congratulations. First let me point out that free hosting for mozilla plugins is already available; if it were not, though, there are thousands of sites that host free software for free; and if there were not, there are peer-to-peer networks like coral cache and gnutella.

- Who the hell wants to download a plugin to view your moderated discussion group? Web accessible is way more popular and convenient.

This is not on point, since as I said it would have everything but the users.

- How does the plugin work? It seems easy in theory but it has to do a lot more than you think (hint: more than a couple of days even for your uber self)

Whether I could really do it in a day is not on point. If complete duplication of slashdot features was required, I concede it would take longer, but the point is that the primary functionality is already provided in thunderbird.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there is ZERO point to your example or your "point"

HIS point was that the only thing difficult to replciate about Slashdot is the user base.

Now, do you have a point to make too or are you just being obnoxious? If you do then actually say what it is.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Lovesquid]

Then let them adapt... Right now we are being inundated with ads of all kinds in all mediums. You literally cannot turn your head without being exposed to an ad for something, whether on a billboard, radio, tv, the net, city bus, your friend's t-shirt, etc. etc.

Some of these methods deserve to be kicked to the curb, like the newest trends of advertising inside of video games that I've paid to play, and before movies that I've paid to see.

According to doubleclick's logic, if I turn my head away from a billboard, I'm stealing money from the advertisers' pockets, with is utter BS. Cutting out ads in the online service that I pay for each month is my right. If these companies cannot make a buck any other way, then let them charge for their crappy content and see how much revenue they make. I'll either decide that the value of their service is worth the headache of the ads, or I won't, but it's my decision to make and mine alone. I may be taking away a potential (very lower percentage) sale from the advertiser, but it's the utter uselessness of the medium they are using that is to blame if the company loses money. Give me useful ads that make me aware of things that pertain specifically to me that I might actually want to buy, and I'll buy the products.

The advertisers should be forced to evolve in the ways they get their messages out, and the users should be able to choose the eradication of certain methods that they find annoying without interference. They use this same "we've lost a potential sale" logic to justify DRM, as well as the elimination of the commericial-skipping buttons from DVRs, when the fact is that the consumers hold the power to determine whether to listen to ads or not, just as they hold the power to buy or not to buy. It's corporate BS.

Make these companies cater to us, not the other way around. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

There may not be a binding reason (though there could be in their terms of service agreement) - but you know, I know, and everyone here on /. knows whwy the ads are there. To generate revenue. So by circumventing it you are essentially sending a message to the makers of the site "I don't really give a shit about you or your desires. Thanks for the free stuff SUCKERS". A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Cro Magnon]

That may be better than the alternative. I recently received some snail-mail spam for something I might have considered. I recognized them as someone who made some VERY annoying commercials and tossed it in the round file without even looking at it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Actually, I only pulled out the most glaringly obvious examples. They're good ones, on american television, ford/chevy/chrysler ads are at least 60% . Maybe more. Might buy a Kia, or even Deawoo, maybe even something lesser known, supposing I ever have enough money to buy a new car someday.

Go ahead though, pick apart every example I give, and miss the entire point.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[romeo_in_blk_jeans]

Under normal circumatances. It seems that the pendulum has swung the other way.

Now, annoying and obnoxious gets you blocked.

Only "plain, boring, and unobtrusive" will remain unblocked -- making it the only ad in town. ..sucks to be "annoying and obnoxious", eh?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[xoboots]

I don't think it wise to use Slashdot as an example. Rob (nor slashdot) provide content -- they provide access and service. Minimal amounts of content are aggregated/linked from other sources but the majority is provided by the very people who must view the ads.

So what if a some sites can't face the ad-blocked model and will wither and die? No ought be gauranteed existence based on my eyeballs being available. It is reasonable to assume that some content will therefore become locked up but there is absolutely no reason to assume that all of it will be or that there will not be any free content available. We should also talk about the side-effect of this: without easy dollars to be made, there is much reason to assume that quality will increase.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[lonb]

Most text-based ads are from javascript sources, served from remote ad-content servers. These can be blocked by AdBlock as easily as image or flash ads.

- Lon

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Usenet could provide the bandwidth easily. It would be a tiny blip on the graph.

And of course no one has to pay for Usenet, right?
Idiot.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffft. Whatever. My site/contect will always be free - and free of ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Queer Boy]

if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

If that's the case, how did the internet exist before there were ads? Oh, right right. Freedom finds a way.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Ok, lets pick a site that practically everyone uses - Google. How exactly are they going to provide free services without the financial support of their advertising systems?

Who blocks google ads? We don't block ads because we hate the advertisers, we do it because the ads are obnoxious and intrusive. The advertisers responded by making their ads more obnoxious, intrusive and sneaky. They need to get a clue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[KeithIrwin]

Well, except that advertising, like all goods, has its value determined by supply and demand.

Specifically, there are two markets going on here: 1) advertisers are selling advertising to places which want to advertise (which we'll call advertising consumers)
2) advertisers are buying advertising from users (which we'll call advertising users)

The problem is that the first and second markets can quickly get out of sync. In the first market, the supply is the number of advertisements available. In the second market, it is the amount of attention available. The supply in the second market is not quite constant, but very limited, so it is approximately constant. The supply in the first market, however, is limitted only by the ability of advertisers to cram advertising in everywhere that they can.

So what happens is that the natural forces of competition between advertisers in the first market to maximize their own profits results in an increase in supply in the first market. This can happen more easily in advertising since advertising is not primarily a physical good, so its production is not significantly constrained by cost. More advertising becomes available. Except that this increase in the supply in the first market is not coupled with any increase in supply in the second market.

So the demand rises in the second market, but the supply does not.
What happens is that the advertisers wind up either paying a higher price in the second market or delivers less of the second market product to each consumer in the first market, i.e. delivers less consumer attention per advertisement. If the latter, then what will happen is that the value that the advertising customers derive from the advertising will drop, which will generally lead them to demand more advertising for the same price, creating more downwards pressure on advertising prices.

So, logically, the only way out of an ever increasing downward spiral of more advertising at lower and lower prices is to increase the price paid per customer attention. One way that this is happening is that customers are making it harder to get advertising to them. The advertising firm has to spend more time and effort getting an advertisement in front of someone who is attempting to block it.

Making advertisements less intrusive or less frequent is another way to increase the costs paid per customer, but that is generally going to decrease the supply of advertising available to a given advertiser in the first market, so most firms are reluctant to do that since it would be bad for them in the short-term.

So anyway, the basic problem is that advertisers, for market reasons, want to push more and more advertising on users, while users want increased compensation for that advertising if they are going to see more ads. When users see more ads without an increase in the value of the content they are receiving for seeing those ads, they feel ripped off and respond by doing a form of social contract renegotiation technologically available to them. Of course, the result of this is that they take the content without paying the cost, but then advertising has always been an unenforcable contract, and that's a natural risk of the advertising market.

Anyway, my overall point is this:

All of this is caused by market forces. If the advertisers want this changed, they need to find a way to adjust to the market forces. Simply scolding users for not being happy with the price that the advertisers want for their goods is not going to have any effect what-so-ever. Talk is cheap and scolding users is doubly so.

Keith Irwin

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[gbulmash]

Usenet could provide the bandwidth easily.

Usenet isn't a company, nor does it provide bandwidth. It is a distributed architecture based on the NNTP protocol. But for you to access Usenet, someone has to provide an NNTP server/gateway from which you can download the content.

My last few ISPs have tossed their NNTP servers and subcontracted out Usenet services to companies which give you X amount of bandwidth, then you have to pay if you want more. I currently pay an extra $6 a month to double my Usenet bandwidth "allowance".

Where's the "free" in that? Given, I could do most of my Usenet browsing on Google if I didn't want access to binary groups (like alt.humor.binaries.skewed) but then I'd have to look at ads.

- Greg

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[TikiTDO]

There are plenty of sites that operate without resorting to advertisement. People want to get the information out there, regardless of if they get paid or not. These days you can get quite a decent chunk of bandwidth from your run of the mill hosting provider. Enough to host a rather decent site for under $10 US a month. The one I use for my site gives 80GB/month for $8. Of course if your site reaches the magnitude of /. or other high traffic sites the cost may start to be prohibitive, but at that time your site would be popular enough to sell the service it provides and actually have people pay for it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Reziac]

Exactly. As to the comparison with newspapers -- well, the newspaper ads don't make the rest of the paper stick together and refuse to let me turn a page until I've read the current ad, which is what internet advertising tries to do, with invasive popups and the like.

And I'm completely free to ignore newspaper ads. But online advertising often doesn't give up until you've done something proactive, even if that's just chase down and close the damned popup (or block it entirely).

If online advertising were billboards, they would be planted in the middle of the road like a roadblock, and refuse to let you drive on until you'd paid a toll.

If they'd stuck to text and small graphics (akin to the majority of newspaper ads), no one would mind the presence of online ads, and might even find them useful. Such as having an ad section geared toward people who want to buy a car, but that everyone else is free to bypass -- EXACTLY as in a newspaper.

So, yes indeed, let's make online advertising MORE like newspaper ads!!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[hhawk]

I would rather that all sites who want to make direct economic profit from their site, charge for it.. and if I don't want to pay, they could give me a choice to allow ads in exchange for my viewing those ads. IMHO, I would, should I take that option, be seeing less ads more targeted to my own interests and I would either perfer that or to simply pay.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[reverse flow reactor]

Actually, I would bet you are influenced by ads. When you thought about what kind of your you might buy someday, you came up with a list of Ford and Chevy. You didn't think of VM, BMW, Kia, Toyota, Mazda, Renault, Opel, Jaguar, Honda or any of the others. Perhaps you thought of Ford and Chevy first because the ads from those dealers are more prevalent near you.

And I think I am also influenced by ads, as my list is by no means complete. And I came up with the first names a bit faster than the last few names...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[vhogemann]

No, he isn't.

I don't see anyone blocking Google's textAds. They're non-intrusive, and often even usefull.

If isn't annoying and intrusive, people won't block it.

Goodbye DoubleClick, nobody will miss you.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Or it could be that I drive the interstate every day, seeing thousands (literally) of their suckass ugly SUVs. Or that I grew up going to school, and learning about Ford in history class. The fucking unabomber himself couldn't have hid from the things very easily, up in his mountain shack. If you're going to pull out this stale, tired argument, then please please please pick another product where the average person could possible not know what they are.

Oh wait, those products are generally so cool, that we see articles about them even here on slashdot, talking about how they defy all known business models with their word-of-mouth campaigns.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

A: Nothing that has anything to do with your point. Am I close?

I thought you didn't see my point.

The poster before me was suggesting that Slashdot-like software could not be created without advertising money. But, in fact, all of the software Slashdot uses is free software, and nobody needs advertising money, or any money, to use it. The point is, in general, that free software, however far-fetched it sounds to someone who has never heard of it, actually does exist, and nobody needs to pay people to make it (even though many years after it existed some people started to get payed for it some of the time).

Forgive me, but I don't quite see your point. Are you saying that, because these tools are 'free' as in they don't cost you anything, anything that is created with them should be free too?

No.

How about the people that use them? Should they not expect to be paid for their work?

If someone offered to pay them for their work, and they completed their work, they should expect to be payed.

Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean that the costs for that thing go away.

I wasn't saying anything should be free. I was saying that a free slashdot, a slashdot without revenue, created and provided for entirely by its users, is technologically possible, and not at all far-fetched. I was saying that it is possible to make the costs go away, or anyway to distribute them among the users, and so make them negligible.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Or possibly, I just didn't want to post a list of the world's top 250 automakers. Want me to? It's like a google search away....

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[badasscat]

Innovations need to come from comprimises, not from force like charging to view a web page.

First of all, let's can the idealism and be a little realistic here. You're a web site publisher with little ad revenue left. What do you do? Your training is not in marketing, it's maybe in business development. Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money. They don't care about compromise and even if they did, they wouldn't know where to even start coming up with new revenue streams.

I think this is what gets lost in these discussions. You can call it short-sighted, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact is the owners of most web sites are not innovators and never claimed to be. All they want to do is put out a product and make money doing it. If they have exhausted one method, they will simply move on to the next rather than trying to come up with something entirely new. And there's not even anything wrong with this; this is the way small businesses in this country have always worked. It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sl3xd]

that will be the end of free content on the web.

Well, at least free for-profit media, like ZDNet and CNN Online. Most blogs, etc are run at the cost of the blogger. Microsoft pays for their own site, and doesn't resort advertising as a means of funding the website. (Sure, they have ads for their own products/services, but since they are paying themselves to put their own ad on their own site, the money never leaves the company.)

The NY Times has a for-fee service. So do many, many other publications.

And I already pay to receive Slashdot without ads. (As well as to support ./) I don't have to donate to Slashdot; I choose to support SlashDot.

The fact of the matter is that there is a large (and growing) market where people are willing to pay more for a product and/or service just to avoid advertisements.

And the advertising world is reeling in horror to find that more and more people are actually paying the publishers to keep advertising out of their product. They simply cannot understand that the public does not want to receive 'exciting new offers' from 'partner compnaies'. They are at the receiving end of a very public slap in the face, as an increasing number of consumers tell them their presence is neither desired, appreciated, or even tolerated.

The market is working fine -- people are paying to have ads removed, which is exactly what the advertising agencies dissaprove of. What makes things even worse is that many informed individuals are removing the ads without paying the publisher. -- And, of course, they spread FUD that it's the beginning of the end of the 'free' internet, something that isn't going to happen -- the fact is that the internet 'media' market itself is going to change, and the 'for-profit' news media may no longer be 'free', but I imagine it will lead to the adoption of blogging as a source of the kind of information that the traditional 'for-profit' agencies currently hold.

And the transition is already currently underway. The fact is that the consumer is voting with their pocketbooks; they are voting against advertising, and media megacorporations.

So the advertisers are doing what they know how to do-- spread disinformation that is a partial-truth at best, while making every effor to ignore/distract from any fact that doesn't mesh with their carefully-crafted propaganda.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Lord Raze]

When we signed up for our ISPs, many of us were given a "free 10 megs of web space" or what have you that we never use.

I predict that this unused web space will become a tradable commodity.

Additionally, people will switch to ISPs that don't meter throughput and host their own sites.

Free content is here to stay.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Andrew Cady]

Usenet content is free in the same sense of "free" that anything online can be free. You still need to pay for access to the infrastructure.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[s20451]

I don't understand ... you're saying that you are not influenced at all by advertising, but when you decided to name two brands of vehicle "at random", you chose two that (by your own admission) get most of the advertising coverage in the USA?

The point that you are missing is that the advertising model is not as simple as a person hearing "Buy Acme Widgets" and then buying an acme widget. Why do you think companies spend millions just to get their logos in sporting events where people can see them? Almost all of advertising is awareness, not sales.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Queer Boy]

other sites can and do operate at a loss.

Advertising (which some websites are just big ads for a product) is always a loss. It has no effect on the actual product and cannot be measured directly. Conjecture and assumptions are the only way to track how or if advertising works and the effectiveness of it. It is not like money is being spent to better the product, streamline the production.

We live in a mass market era, between TiVO, ad blockers and the like it's becoming clear that advertising does not work anymore, marketers are just refusing to accept that. It does not work because people are not interested in it, that's proof it's becoming a failed way of getting information out about the product, and threats are not going to make pewople more interested.

Certain companies do little to no advertising and are outrageously successful, Abercrombie & Fitch is the first company to spring to mind. The trick is to get your product into your focus group. A&F does this by hiring the type of people they want to wear their clothes. Other companies could do it by instead of spending all that money on advertising, actually giving their products away to specific individuals (as designers do), or making them cheaper.

With a connected world, a company's opinion about their own product is worthless.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ip_vjl]

There's one point to consider. The first web ads were NOT of the 'pop up' and 'pop under' varieties. Banner ads were first, and pop ups and pop unders started appearing BEFORE any mass accepted ad blockers were out there - not because the ad purveyors were competing with ad blockers, but because they are competing with EACH OTHER.

Even if we all stopped blocking ads and lived in the default IE (non XP SP2) world of allowing every and any ad on the system, they'll still get more obnoxious over time because they'll want to be the first to offer the new type of ad to their customers.

Q) Why advertise with 'Quadruple-click'?

A) Only Quadruple-Click offers you the patented "kick them in the balls and scream at them when they're down" technology. Most other services only offer banner ads, interstitials, and pop up advertising. Be sure your message is heard.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the part where he said he never clicks on ads? If he never clicked on ads before, he was alread a free-rider. Are you saying that it's your moral obligation to CLICK ON BANNERS of any site you go to?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FictionPimp]

Your shared hosting wont have the server power to serve out 80GB/month. Its called overselling. They offer you more bandwith then they know you can use. They know their servers couldn't handle that load, they have a few hundred websites on them. This is a standard hosting tactic. When I was doing some reseller hosting for a friend, his account had 30 gig of bandwith, but we sold 30 gigs of bandwith to each customer. You know how much bandwith we used a month? about 8 -12 gigs. We had just over 100 sites.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ZZ-Type]

If the ad companies don't want their product blocked, it is their duty to come up with promotional materials that I will not block. If their material is compelling enough and unobtrusive enough, I will not block it.

The answer to ad blocking is not to come up with bigger, more obtrusive, forcible ad viewing. The answer is to come up with ads that I won't mind viewing.

Another reader mentions Google ads as less-obtrusive and sometimes useful. I concur.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[danrees]

Sorry to be a pedant, but a public good is actually one which is non-rivalrous (and possibly non-excludable, although this is not essential). In other words, the opposite of what you suggest. Web data is a public good because once an article has been provided to one individual, it can be provided to any number of individuals at negligible cost. In this case, it is necessary that some people view advertisements in order that the firm covers its costs, but once it has done so it does not matter if other people block advertisements (free-ride), since this does not impose a marginal cost on the firm.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[denissmith]

Actually, though the free rider problem is implicated, the analysis is wrong. Free content will end when someone finds a way to make people pay for the information. (And i mean MAKE not allow). This will happen regardless of whether or not ads are blocked. Currently, there is no compelling reason to pay for informaton on the web. And remember, slashdot didn't start out with ads all over the place. And slashdot would most likely have carried on without ads if they had to, but would have subtle changes. Which we wouldn't know about. Once there is a compelling reason to pay for content, and a mechanism to enforce it, free content will end. More likely, however Ad blocking will change the way ads and advertising work on the web - which could be a good thing. But it probably won't be, because advertising tends to skew and sort of corrupt information over time.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

Why is it their responsibility? You are going to their site. You want their product/service. You just don't want to pay for it. If you do not like their advertisements how about you compel yourself to not go to their site?

Great we understand that everyone loves google and their ads...it works for google and probably a few others (though i do not know of any)....but that is their choice.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sbenj]

There have been surveys that show that most people believe they aren't influenced by ads, and yet ads are still bought, and directly correlate with peoples perceptions and purchases. Advertising is bought because it works. Ask yourself if you're that much savvier than your fellow citizens, most of whom believe they are savvier than you. We all know it's bull, but it still works.

Ask yourself, for example, when you go to buy that car, what your internal image is of, and what you think of, when you see the words:
FORD
CHEVY
MERCEDES
ASTON-MARTIN
Objectively, I'll claim, you probably don't have enough real personal direct knowledge to truly know the difference in quality, performance, etc, etc between, say, audi and chevy. Maybe you've read trade articles, the writers who themselves are filtering their perception. The very fact that those brand names triggered a flood of connections in your brain (quality, expensive, classy, cheap, populist, hard-working, ...)
I'd argue that way, way in the back of your brain you've got concepts and feelings attached to those brand names, along with preconceptions on everything from pepsi to victoria's secret. When you go to buy your car, that little storehouse of unexamined beliefs in the back of your brain will be consulted. And that is what advertising buys.

It's always funny to look at old advertisements from, say, 100 , 50, or even 25 years ago, they look so hopelessly naive. It's a constant arms race between the cynical lies of advertisers and our increasing cynicism about their cynical lies.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[risforrocket]

Ad blocking won't kill content -- technologies that kill them will simply encourage content providers better ways to monetize their online offerings. Pop ups are simply annoying. They interrupt the user experience, and often have nothing to do with the content on the page that they appear. Contextual advertising will definatley grow in new an unexpected ways.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web."

Content on the web is not, nor has it ever been, free. Someone has had to pay to acquire it, place it on a server, offer a pipe to the server for access.
What has happened recently is that server admins have decided that they are no longer going to be the one to pay for the content's availabliity. They want to push this cost to those seeking to view the content.
If the people looking for the content don't waht to pay for it, Mr. Server Admin wants to make money off of them anyway by forcing them to view ads while browsing this content.
What adblocker will do is force this admin to find another form of income from his content, or remove it entirely, or make it "free".

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I'm sorry then, I didn't realize you'd be so fucking picky. Advertising or not, I have right here at my fingertips, the tools that will A) let me know every car manufacturer still in existence here on planet earth B) those that are accessible to me in any reasonable way and C) more than I'd ever want to know about each and every single fucking model I might ever consider, supposing I win the lottery and can afford one.

Keeping all this in mind, and also considering that it was a semi-sarcastic example anyway since I'm not, nor likely ever will be, in the market for a new car, you might want to consider that yes, in particular, of all the advertising I think ridiculous, automobile advertising is both particularly worthless and particularly obnoxious.

Advertising used to be a company that can't make something I'd ever want, trying to sell it to me anyway. Now it's companies that I might buy from anyway, but they're retarded and think they have to compete, so they'll advertise anyway. Maybe they decide they need 15% annual growth even in a mature market, or some psycholo-quacktologist has them believing they have a new subliminal technique. Besides, more to the topic, if the free web dies, we'll just pirate that too. Fuck them.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Viceice]

Plain, boring, and unobtrusive gets you unseen and unwatched...

That's where you have a problem. The correct formula is Exciting, Enticing and Unobtrusive.

Ever wondered why people are hell bent on skipping Ads on their TIVO, but places like FunnyPlaces.org that serve up TV ads on demand exist?

You have to make ads that people WANT to watch, not ads that you have to FORCE on people.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[assassinator42]

I agree. Which is why I use adblock in the first place. There's come stuff you can add to your usercontent.css that automatically blocks pretty much all ads. But with adblock, you need to add the urls manually. I block that ads that annoy me. Of course, I block all ads from that server when I do that. So don't run annoying ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[B'Trey]

Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

If charging for the use of your site were an option, lots more people would do it. Only a few special purpose sites are able to succesfully charge for access. For the rest of the sites, charging is equivalent to putting a padlock on the door. Admission fees don't work if no one is willing to pay to come in.

You can call it short-sighted, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact is the owners of most web sites are not innovators and never claimed to be.

Funny, all those non-innovators are trying to make money on the web, which was itself a brand new innovation little more than a decade ago. Every web site doesn't have to innovate. They simply have to follow along behind those that do.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Forbman]

And there's not even anything wrong with this; this is the way small businesses in this country have always worked. It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.

Yet, *somebody* in that pool *WILL* innovate, and the ones who want to continue the fight will learn from the innovation(s) and apply them.

Think of farmer's markets and other direct marketing efforts for small farmers, because either they cannot get into the commodity market or can't make money doing so. So they innovate.

Farmer's markets and other DMA efforts like CSAs (Community-Supported Agrigulture, i.e., customers "subscribe" to the farm to get periodic product from the farmers. Some veggie growers here in PDX are able to supply veggies 10-12 months out of the year. So you're not getting tomatoes and lettuce in December and winter squash and turnips instead, so it requires some flexibility on the customer as well) allow the farmers to work directly with their customers, and sell at a mutually beneficial level - farmer gets more profit, customer gets better product.

$3.00/dz for farm eggs might be too much for you. But at least I can unequivocally state what has, and more importantly, has NOT, gone into those eggs.

For everyone else, there's a WalMart Supercenter near by.

Small business owners, if they're not innovators, they are imitators. There's nothing wrong with that, unless every little small business in an area starts looking a little bit the same.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ArcticFlood]

Some sites do this already and store them in an Ads/ directory. This will prevent them from being blocked before you get there, but once you see the pattern, they can be easily gone.

What we really have to watch out for is putting them among normal images with no clues on the difference between a good image and an ad.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[TGK]

Lets continue your analysis (acutaly, this would be a good Slashpole -- Editors? Catch that?) -- Who blocks Google Ads? Really?

I don't. I have Adblocker installed, I have it configured to display Slashdot's ads because I typicaly click on them on accident if I don't. I have doubleclick blacklisted because their ads are irritating.

In fact, no one I know blocks Google ads. They're unobtrusive, helpful, and direct me towards the products and services I'm allready looking for. Why would I block them? They're like a yellow pages for the internet.

So really, its the people that sell advertising space to herbal viagra vendors on their Disney fan site that are going to suffer, not people like Google.

Build ads that don't piss me off. I have never blocked an ad that didn't piss me off.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[thparker]

You know what I do instead of letting ads through? I donate to sites and projects that I regularly use. I buy stocks in corporations that provide me with a lot of my goods (such as CNet and Google).

Not to nitpick, but you do realize that buying stock in corporations that you like doesn't support the corporation in any way, right? You understand that after the public offering, the corporation receives no benefit from the subsequent transactions?

Not being critical. It's cool if you want to own stock in companies you buy stuff from or interact with. I just wanted to be sure you knew that doing so doesn't help those companies. (You probably do, but ignorance of financial markets can run pretty high in the general population.)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Ah, so it does work, and they are illegally and unethically brainwashing me. Taking that into consideration, how much damage can I do them for the longest period of time while either remaining uncaught, or using borderline legal tactics? And what methods would I use to do this damage?

Bah, don't answer that. I'm still working on a project to steal as much long distance revenue away from phone companies as is possible. I can only fight one war at a time.

I'm feeling charitable though. Here's what came to mind.

FORD Overpriced piece of shit made by lazy union workers, with too much emphasis on their higher-margin SUVs.
CHEVY Overpriced piece of shit made by lazy union workers, with too much emphasis on their higher-margin SUVs.
MERCEDES Overpriced piece of german shit made by lazy europeans primarily sold as a status symbol to the upper middle class who've never worked a day in their lives.
ASTON-MARTIN Overpriced piece of british shit primarily sold as a status symbol to the rich upper class so they can get pussy.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[EggyToast]

I liken it to Google's success in the ad world. Little text ads that are based on the page content. And they've had great success.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ZZ-Type]

I used to work in advertising. Our job was to come up with materials that made people like or desire the product. Generally, hitting them on the head with a dead fish didn't work. We had to come up with something better. That was our job.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather see innovation come in other ways.

Well, you won't get it unless you stop playing this game of annoying people as much as possible for a fast buck. I have no abligation to watch your ads what-so-ever. Look for other, less obnoxious ways of making your money.

Unfortunately, we have to waste valuable resources on protecting ourselves...

No you don't. You(editorial) just have to stop being such a prick. If you want to keep your content to yourself because you can't "force" people to watch your crap, great. We won't want it anyway, or we will find less selfish people who will put it up anyway...without the stupid ads. In other words, Screw you! Keep your Flash laden garbage to yourself and off the net!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[d34thm0nk3y]

Or it could be that I drive the interstate every day, seeing thousands (literally) of their suckass ugly SUVs.

And the Ford logo on every single one of those SUV's is not advertising? Would you even recognize them as Ford SUV's without any form of advertising? Yeah frickin' right.

Anyway, relax. All I am pointing out is that companies advertise because it works, whether you want to admit it or not.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Nogami_Saeko]

Ah, bingo. You've hit the nail on the head.

I only block stuff that's obtrusive to me:

-If it moves, flashes, animates or makes noise, it's gone
-If they try a popup/popunder, it's gone

Static ads don't annoy me (much like the newspaper he was mentioning), and I don't block them.

Oh, and I also block additional ads on any sites I pay to access - if I'm already paying their subscription fee, I deserve an advertising-free environment.

N.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AussieVamp2]

Yep. I am sure I remember using the internet with NO web at all. Definitely read a lot of stuff then, and zero web ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't take much to get around the ad-blockers. Advertisers could use a caching mechanism where the ads are downloads to the sites that will display them and integrated directly into the site's pages.

They can't do that because they can't trust the sites! They pay the sites to show the ads, and they have to have some mechanism to verify how many ads have been served. The temptation for a site owner with these cached ads to pad their statistics would be irresistible. So the ads have to be referred to Doubleclick et al by the site so they can verify that they were actually sent. No way round it: if you can get money by just claiming you served ads, people will fake the stats. The only way to be sure is to serve them yourself. They could get through the blockers by this mechanism, but they'd be ripped off right left and centre by "client" sites. Catch-22 in action. only way they can be certain the site is showing ads is to have the site referrals...Otehrwise tha site would just forge their serving stats.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NickFortune]

I think you're missing the point a little. The reason that popular sites incur punitive bandwidth charges is because the architecture of the web doesn't scale well.

The problem would go away if more people would use proxies, but then proxy servers have privacy issues for a lot of people, and require configuration to use, which rules out another block of users

Of course, torrent based apps scale very well indeed. Currently torrents are only really used as an FTP replacement, but the underlying tech could be generalised to any sort of web app.

All it needs is something to drive adoption. The end of the free web could well be that impetus. We're probably way overdue for a rething of the web infrastructure anyway.

The work isn't going to be a problem - that's how the web got started with enthusiasts doing stuff for free because they wanted to.

For that matter, even USENET might see a resurgence of popularity if the free web dies. Complete with improved spam filters. heh.

Really, the impending death of doubleclick holds no terrors for me :)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[yomahz]

If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears, Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

And whose problem is that? Should I worry about how companies make their profit from me?

That's all find and dandy if /. and other free content sites on the web want to start charging for content. If what they have is worth paying for, they should do well. Myself and others will pay good money for a good product. If not, they will sink into the abyss with all the other companies who are trying to push a product that's not worth paying for. How is it my responsibility to make their business model work for them? If that's not a free market at work, I don't know what is.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[l3v1]

I use adblock, quite a lot. But, I only block sites and addresses from which I only get maddening bullcrap ads, which I'd never click on anyway. Still, what is best for a "free" ad-full site: if I visit them, but block the crap ads, or if I stop visiting them (this is not a hypothetical situation, it happened a few times) because of the obtrusive and infuriating ads.

I almost never watch ads, anyway. In tv, if ads are coming I turn down the volume and listen to music, or switch to another channel. With ads on web sites, I can do the latter, but I can't do the former. There are _very_ few sites that offer really relevant ads and that in a non-faceblowing high volume flashbang. On those, I don't block. The rest... farewell.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[gauchopuro]

Which is why Google adwords are less likely to be blocked then annoying flash ads

I personally can't stand animated ads - I find them extremely distracting. For that reason, I run AdBlock. I'd say I have a pretty low threshold for ad-induced pain.

The Google ads are a different matter. Plain text just is not annoying like animations are. In general, I never click a banner ad. I use Gmail, and I'm surprised at how often their targeted ads are worthy of a click.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[iminplaya]

It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times...

Yeah, well, if the baker starts to shout about his "special prices" into my ear every time I walk in, I'm going to wear ear plugs.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

If you can make your ad memorable (even if people hate it) then you did your job well. When people are at the store they won't think "Oh look XYZ product, man their commercial sucked." They will think "Oh look XYZ product, I've been hearing alot about it...must be good." Also, people will do things like "DId you see that horrible XYZ commercial." -- they just spread the word. People have fickle memories (sadly). Bad advertising is just as good as good advertising as long as its memorable.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ArsenneLupin]

HIS point was that the only thing difficult to replciate about Slashdot is the user base.

Indeed. And this also has the convenient consequence of making all the other points moot: hosting costs, how to prevent the site from slashdotting itself, maintenance ...

However, once his point IS addressed (... somehow the original Slashdot vanishes, and word magically gets around that there is now a replacement (... and a single replacement...), and everybody flocks to it...), the other points become relevant again.

Just making it rely on Usenet won't cut it, because Usenet news propagation is too damn slow to support Slashdot-style rapid-fire discussions. On Slashdot, after 2 days, a story is dead (no new comments), whereas on Usenet, threads can drag on for weeks, months, years...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Absent another example, where they don't advertise, it's impossible to know whether it works or not. They might stop tomorrow, and continue to sell cars. If that were the case, maybe its not working.

Supposing it does work though, then the mechanism does bother you, does it not? I mean, extortion and hostage-taking work too. Suppose they send out thugs that threaten to rape your wife and dog, and murder the kids unless you buy a new Chevy Suburban... that'd work, wouldn't it? Some idiot would try to call the bluff, but out of thousands, more would concede than not. Hell, I bet it works better than advertising. Why not do that?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sbenj]

It's a good thing you're not a cynic.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Foolomon]

Yeah, I know. There was absolutely no free content on the Internet available until Yahoo conceived of selling advertising space on their website, thus spawning the whole e-advertising devolution.

Please check your history first.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FooBarWidget]

"People use newsgroup readers to view each others' content every day."

But do mom, dad and grandma use it? That's the whole point!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[mrnukem]

Is "blockery" a word? Sounds like a Bushism..

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AShuvalov]

It will open the new opportunity for the market of non-blockable ads :-)

The very annoing flash-anymated ads will die first. Very small text-based ads spread all-over your webpage will win.

Does Adblock block text-based "Ads by Goooogle" now?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[driftwolf]

When sites like this and other decide that ads that distract from the page (flashing, moving, loud, obnoxious, waving all over the place in my peripheral vision all the bloody time) are what are driving people like me to Adblock and Pithhelmet, then we might see some sanity.

I click on reasonably worded text ads that tell me what I need to know. Many sites have these, and for me they work. I utterly refuse to have my session hijacked by some numbnuts who thinks that a wildly active flash animation is a good way to get my attention. The same type of encyphalitic moron who used to think blink tags were a good idea. Until sites who want advertising revenue learn that less is more there will be a market for ad blockers, and I'll be at the head of the line. "Freeloader"? No. "Able to distinguish between idiotic tricks and true marketing"? I like to think so.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[InvalidError]

Looks like you skipped the paragraph about "the only advertisements I still tolerate are google-style text-only ads and static images".

Filtering the ads is my way of telling advertisers and websites that abusive ads are unwanted. Freeloading might not be right but neither is the audio-visual abuse many advertisers use.

Example 1: a flash ad with sound popping up at 04h00 when the 100Wx2 (RMS) amplifier plugged to my PC is still on. This happened to me once and I scrapped Flash to make sure it would never happen again. (Until I learned about the likes of flashblock.)

Example 2: High-contrast, high-motion/jumpy Flash or animated GIF in or around an article make reading fairly painful - until I discovered FlashBlock&co, I used to either resize the browser and scroll to hide these or move a window on top of these ads.

Both cases are absolutely unacceptable. Silent static ads, preferably text-only, are the only ones I will tolerate - they're discrete, quiet and trying to filter them would have many undesirable side-effects.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Cromac]

Of course if your site reaches the magnitude of /. or other high traffic sites the cost may start to be prohibitive, but at that time your site would be popular enough to sell the service it provides and actually have people pay for it.

But if you switch to a subscription service you can expect to lose 80-90% of your viewers which would take care of the bandwidth problem. There is very little online that isn't duplicated somewhere else and the majority of people will go where it's free rather than pay even if the pay site is better. Not all, but the majority.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[iminplaya]

Advertising is important - my problem is with the obtrusive ones.

I believe that's what most people here are saying. It's the obtrusive ads that created the need for ad blockers in the first place, in case you haven't noticed. That includes the huge graphics that take forever to download on dial-up. I hope you're not one of those people who think we shouldn't be allowed to go to the kitcken or bathroom during the commercial or use the fast forward button.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Chris Burke]

They complain endlessly about the negative "vibes" towards advertising, yet they take no responsibility for creating these "vibes" in the first place. No one had a problem with Internet ads before DoubleClick started tracking people.

This can't be emphasized enough: Doubleclick is the one at fault. Any problem they perceive with ad blocking is a direct consequence of their own actions. They are the ones that made online advertising annoying, intrusive, and invasive of privacy. They are the ones that made everyone hate internet advertising. How many of us first learned how to use /etc/hosts to block doubleclick.net?

It is exactly like them to say it is our fault for not wanting to be annoyed with pop-ups, pop-unders, mouse-dodging javascript widows that pop up fifteen new windows when you manage to close them while simultaneously tracking every single site we ever visit. We all know about Google ads -- ads I've actually clicked on in order to buy product, not just a fake click to throw a website a click-through's worth of revenue. Good behavior gets rewarded. But Doubleclick thinks it is our behavior that needs to change. We should just accept whatever crap they want to foist on us, apparently. Why won't we just bend over?

And as far as "a negative vibe against advertising in general" -- he's goddamn right! Because most advertisers are just like Doubleclick. Advertising is everywhere, and designed to be as obnoxious as possible. Like with television ads, which can be severely annoying and thus causes people to hit the mute -- or record the show and then skip the ads. Just like with those bastards at Doubleclick, Television advertisers have only come up with two ideas on how to fix this:

1) Make the ads even -more- obnoxious and hard to avoid.

2) Chastise us for not wanting to be annoyed.

If you read the TFA, you'll see that he really believes he has purchased our eyeballs. No, you fool, you payed a website to put your ad on their page. I'm under no obligation to look at the thing. You might think I owe you my eyeballs, but I never agreed to be given a headache by a flashing ad that pops up when I leave that page.

Bennie is right about one thing, though: His company's behavior is going to kill internet advertising that tries to grab eyeballs through irritation. I doubt the 'free' internet will end, because Google already has shown how you can make money off advertising and not piss people off. But even if he is right and a substantial portion of the internet is incapable of adapting to a world where the people are in control of what they see, I have only one thing to say:

Good. I hope they die off as quickly as possible. I want some serious Darwin shit to go on here, and I want it to be clear that the ones that will survive are the ones that can make money without pissing me off.

Doubleclick and every advertiser like them needs to die. We will make them an evolutionary dead end. And despite all their screaming, once they are gone, buried, and slowly turning into some future generation's gas we'll find out that we never needed them at all.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[chadbailey]

Well, I block them. Should I thank you for viewing them for me? lol

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Dolda2000]

If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.

Indeed. However, when those people have decided on publishing their content over a protocol like HTTP, which explicitly allows for public and, in particular, selective fetching of information from their content, they have but themselves to blame.

If they want to force people to view their ads, then they should use a medium where the audience is forced to view the ads, like a physical magazine. Putting an ad-driven site online with HTTP is like publishing free magazines in two seperate stacks -- one with the magazines, and the other with the ads -- and trust people to pick the ads along with the magazines.

But then again, who says the day isn't here soon when we'll be able to buy glasses with built-in AdBlock. :-)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[griffjon]

Well said! Doubleclick is telling us that the sky's falling, when it's only some acorns.

Sure, hugh cost-to-run/maintain sites like our beloved /. will have to find some way to stay afloat, but it's not the (spooky echo voice) END OF FREE CONTENT (end voice). You might recall that Ads are 'new' to the Internet -- they've been around for less than a third of its lifetime.

Also -- why do people use pop-up and ad blockers? Because of spyware, annoying ad systems, and bandwidth. If you're on dialup or some painfully slow connection, hopefully you'll be surfing with some serious ad-blocking or even images and js off; everyone but Google and their copycats looses that (tiny) crowd.

Half of the crappy banners try and trick you to click on them, using dubiously legally defensible lies to do so, and installing spyware on your system if you bite (I think. I run firefox with some heavy duty filters, so I haven't seen any ads since I started using PortableFirefox from my USB if I happened to be at a computer without a safe browser.)

Also, seriously guys, just try harder. It's a cat and mouse game with filters, and advertisers are being stupid and/or lazy. Of course doubleclick is 127.0.0.1 for me, but ads served by the actual web site I'm viewing are at least marginally harder to block (thanks for everyone clearly serving them from their /ads/ directory!)

Basically, advertisers should stop whining and adjust their business model -- don't piss your consumers off so much that you begin to present negative value to the products being advertised, pick your sites and target to the normal customer of said site (/. does well there, as does Google) and don't try and fool me with javascript post-page-load hyperlinking to ad sites, prevent me from getting to my content (interstitials) or anny the fuck out of me (flash overlays), and certainly don't install software on my system that slows it down at the same time as selling all my personal data, no matter how "anonymous"

not that I'm bitter or anything. Currently, ads, like the lottery, are a tax on the stupid. There's LOTS of stupid people out there, so it's not a by definition poor business model, until (as the case seems to be) the ads get so horrible and detrimental to the user experience that even IE is doing pop-up blocking by default.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Citizen of Earth]

if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

This is just a continuation of an arms race. Advertisers will still find ways to get their messages through. For starters, Adblock works based on URL patterns, so if the messages were delivered through the same URL patterns as the useful content, then Adblock wouldn't be able to blcok it. They could also try in-line advertising woven into the content. Enjoy a refreshing Nestea Natural-Lemon Iced Tea. The arms race will continue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

The advertiser who learns the rule of doing it in moderation and not pissing off your audience is the one whose gonna make it

In the short term, the advertiser to "make it" is the one who serves his ads from randomly-generated throwaway domains. Then there'll be blacklists for known ad servers, and finally heuristic filters which look at images and block everything with stark contrasts, exclamation marks and swimsuits. Only at some undefined point after that may the scum finally whither away.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ZephyrXero]

This is why I use Flashblock, but not adblock. It let's advertisers know that we won't put up with unreasonable advertising like "Eye blasters" and such, but still allows plain old image and text advertisements which are worth their while for free content. Bandwidth costs money people, but it doesn't mean we have to put up with everything...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FLEB]

Bakeries and stationery stores don't have to retool their business models, because their business models aren't broken. (Although, those suffering from WalMartization might be forced to, just as ad companies suffering from blocking are forced to change.) The advert model in its current form is, appearantly, broken.

If the content draws enough people, and the owner wants it to persist, it (generally) will. A free/paid mix of content can be set up. The provider can monetize in different ways, such as audience data mining, affiliate plans, or swag sales. They can set up a "tip jar". They can network with other similar sites to make a network and take advantage of numbers. They can minimize costs by taking advantage of things like mirroring or BitTorrent. They can take advantage of their community by putting out a call for mirrorers. They can offload the content to a mailing list to relax web bandwidth needs. The can open-license the content and let it prosper in fansites.

Or, there's always failure. Not all ideas are good, and not all should be treated like they are.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

"First of all, let's can the idealism and be a little realistic here."

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[MoneyT]

Odly enough, they just might. There's a web comic out there called Underpower. I'm not going to link because he has a hard enough time paying for his site as is. He has no ads. Not one. His monthly hosting expenses are about $200 a month. He has a pay pal donation link, and an adress to send checks to. That's it. His user base is not particularly large, the forums indicated about 86 users, so maybe twice that. And yet, every month, his readers manage to provide him with enough or almost enough money to cover his hosting charges.

Now, if he can manage this for a web comic that barely updates twice a week, don't you think slashdot can manage with x thousand users? And if not, then is slashdot really worth it to keep arround?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[trenton]

Forget the jargon

Dude, it's not jargon. These are concepts in Economics, an established science. People have done lots of research and it does work this way.

You kinda sound like someone saying "gravity, schmavity -- the bigger rock will fall faster."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[TuringTest]

Bandwidth (or do you think free geocities account will do it for you).

You forget that all slashdot readers have already paid por their bandwith. The problem of slashdotting is because the HTTP protocol for accessing WWW is unbalanced and doesn't put all that bandwith to a good use.

The blocking of advertisement will not destroy free content, though it will force the use of distributed bittorrent-like protocols for Web content.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[tkrotchko]

"DoubleClick's pop-up graphical banner ads are like a tanker truck that burns 100 gallons of gas to deliver 50 - inefficient."

Not from slashdot's point of view; its the consumer/viewer who pays the bandwidth. Slashdot only has the link, so from their viewpoint, its pretty efficient.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

When i think of cars, i think of the good ol' DAF that was made in the netherlands. And that car has not been around for the last 20 years.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[MoneyT]

and annoying and obnoxious gets you unseen and unwatched because you're blocked.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[MrLint]

The free market issue only goes so far. And this is why, if this was really free market, then the advertisers wouldn't keep raising the stakes of increasingly annoying ads. They wouldn't make more and more invasive ads. They wouldn't spew dozen's of 3rd party cookies to track your viewing. Instead of making ads likely to entice purchases, in actual marketing to potential customers, they just are doing virtual weapons of ad distraction.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[mattspammail]

With this statement is the assumption that most people would adopt the latest popular browsers. Remember that outside of this pro-Firefox/Opera slashdot world we live in, there are still millions of AOLdiots who will be served countless banner ads to keep certain sites free for us. Ditto with IE users who never change their homepages from the default (msn.com) site. At least AOL partners and MSN partners will be free. The other side of that is that MSN and AOL will continue to exist. Which is worse? Paying for content you want, or putting up with the companies who only advertise through AOL and MSN?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[nahdude812]

Actually, my site is successfully driven purely by user donations, no advertising at all, and I push about 2 million page views a day.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[MyHair]

The Web worked perfectly well, with lots of free content available, for the several years before advertising appeared. What would be wrong with going back to that?

What? You mean go back to when there were no AOL'ers, no "me too"s and no spam? That would be terrible.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Jebediah21]

It very well might stay free since some of the stories seem to be little more than links to other whores who get banner revenue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[DavidTC]

It was swinging the other way anyway.

We've got a generation of people who are growing up with constantly more annoying ads.

Within two decades, to get 20 year-olds to pay attention to ads, they're going to have to show people raping dogs and sawing off other people's arms with chainsaws.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[trime]

The question which no one seems to have asked so far is this: Supposing that you block annoying flashing pop up advertisements. Is it really fair to say that you're costing the site money? Do people actually click on such ads, except by mistake when they pop up where you're about to click? If you weren't going to click on the link, does it matter if the image banner is broken?

Advertising is a double edged sword - you have to promote your product to people who might want to buy it while at the same time not making them hate you for needlessly intruding in to their lives. I believe there's a popular search engine which does quite nicely out of unobtrusive advertising, and no one seems to be making plugins to eliminate their ads...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Otter]

Dude, it's not jargon. These are concepts in Economics, an established science. People have done lots of research and it does work this way.

Of course it works that way -- as I said, web sites are both excludable and rival, which is why there's a free-rider problem.

The guy to whom I responded used both the terminology and the theory inappropriately, which is why I proposed stepping outside the jargon and just thinking through a simple example.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[DrWhizBang]

Even if it doesn't move, flash, etc. - it is taking up some of my 1310720 precious pixels. I have already maxed out my desktop (i.e. wooden desktop) space, and even if I could afford more pixels I'm not sure I have the physical space for a larger monitor.

This makes me scroll more, and have to shuffle windows more, which makes me less effeficient. Maybe I should send Doubleclick a bill?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NickFortune]

Oh thats true, but you have to ask whether its actually what you really want? It will lead to several things. Innovation in ways to get advertising on you screen (something we don't want, since most of these innovations are worse than the stock standard banner ad), or generating income through merchandising.

Oh come on!

Do you seriously believe that development of ad delivery technologies will stop if we just stop ad blocking? Or that it could get any worse than it was circa 2001 without adblock software? Without making the net unusable, that is?

They'll do it anyway. And in addition to the crap we already have to put up with.

Unless of course you know of some innovation that will allow small entertaining sites to make some money without acting like the movie business. So if I know of a way to let small sites make money that'll make the new advertising methods magically harmless? Sorry, but you're presenting a different argument as if it followed logically from the previous one here.

But to address your point, small sites can make money through advertising. The death of doubleclick doesn't mean the death of online advertising. In fact, if the rest of the ad houses take a lesson and stop being needlessly annoying, it may only be the death of doubleclick. I'd call that a result.

More importantly, small sites aren't the problem. Small sites are reasonably cheap to run, and a lot of small webmasters operate out of the free webspace which many ISPs bundle with the connection. The problem is for large websites, where the bandwidth charges increase faster than the revenue from advertising.

And for that, the technologies do already exists. proxy servers for one, distributed architechtures for another. Bit torrent springs is the obvious one - but I've read about podcasting using torrent ideas, and certainly we could apply that to web page distribution. And then there are always mirrors and autoforwarding; those are well understood...

So I don't see permitting advertising as holding back the next wave of dirty tricks, I don't see a problem for small sites, and there are ready made technologies to handle the bandwidth problem for large sites just waiting for the impetus needed to drive adoption.

Really, I can't see the problem.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do your mom, dad, or grandma visit this site regularly? Is your grandma kitted out in ThinkGeek apparel? Thought not ...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Swamii]

The Web worked perfectly well, with lots of free content available, for the several years before advertising appeared. What would be wrong with going back to that?

No one would make any money.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[nahdude812]

Actually, what's more likely to happen is that advertisers will get more slick, by providing server side scripts / plugins to serve their advertising. A few ideas:

• Text-based ads within the content of an article (insepparable in HTML from the surrounding content, only distinguishable by our ability to parse the information displayed in it).
• Site content which cannot be viewed until a Flash based ad sets an arbitrarily named cookie (only after the full ad has been viewed) and refreshes the page.
• Ad scripts which are downloaded with other scripts that are required for the site to function

There's too much money at stake in advertising, and too much desire for you to *see* advertising on the part of those buying the advertising for it to die. There'll always be a new form, and very likely, it'll actually only become more and more annoying. As long as you're accepting information from a party that wants to serve you ads, there'll be a way for them to BUY SOYLENT BRAND SOAP TODAY -- ONLY SOYLENT SOAP PROVIDES ESSENTIAL SOYLENT NUTRIENTS! insert the ads into that information.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[JaseOne]

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money. They don't care about compromise and even if they did, they wouldn't know where to even start coming up with new revenue streams.

Ah yes but the reality is that most website owners that are only in it for the money aren't contributing anything worthwhile paying for any way.

Can anyone else remember the days back when everything was informational and then all the good sites ended up getting bought off by large corporations? That was when a lot of things went down hill with the internet.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[doublem]

Does adblock get rid of Google ads as well?

I like google ads. They don't annoy me and they're often relevant to the site's content. I actually click those.

Banner ads? Feh.

A free market analysis makes sense to me if it means the annoying banner ads are being killed off in favor of context based text ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AzureLunatic]

It is for this reason that I make a point of only blocking banner ads that actively offend me.

(Bad spelling and that *&@#$*%& Jamster frog actively offend me.)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bobbyjack]

Ever noticed how the sites that tend to shove flashing adverts down your throat (OK, the current one is not a great example ...) also tend to follow it down with mindless amounts of 'data': pointless detailed images, inefficient HTML, the blinking adverts themselves!? Any idea how you might be able to reduce 90% of your bandwidth costs with a few presses of the delete key?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bnenning]

A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.

Why? They're not (typically) providing the service out of the goodness of their hearts; they're trying to maximize their gain, the same as I am. Consider my previous examples. Am I obligated to not pay off my credit card balance every month? Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a store's loss-leaders?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Geek of Tech]

Because we know that before popups, every website charged users to view them... Uh huh.... Right.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[numbski]

Please note, that when the option is available to pay for a subscription as opposed to viewing ads, I will pay for the subscription. I do this for both /. and This Week in Tech.

Most sites don't offer the option. I wish they would. I also wish /. would follow the example of TWiT and set up revolving subscriptions so that when your subscription is about to expire, it automatically attempts to renew (have this set to "off" by default of course, but at least offer the option!)

It is downright annoying to have to manually re-subscribe every time my /. subscription expires, and $5 is never going to put a hole in my finances. :\

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising used to be a company that can't make something I'd ever want, trying to sell it to me anyway. Now it's companies that I might buy from anyway, but they're retarded and think they have to compete, so they'll advertise anyway.

Sorry, but it's time for you to wake up and realize that you alone are *not* the *entire* world market. You are not even representative of the vast majority of consumers. You are an outlier at best, assuming that you are as impervious to ads as you claim (which I doubt).

These companies are not retarded; they do indeed have to compete. Not for your business, though. They couldn't care less about you. But they do care about the billions of other consumers who are actually influenced (directly or indirectly) by advertising.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

Really I am not missing the point. Using our current model, or any model - the people who own the site's want to charge. They may not want to charge the end user by demanding cash, but they will charge by demanding you view their advertisements and in return you get unfettered access. That is a fair trade. Why would you prefer a site that you have to pay for....imagine if 80% of the websites on the net were pay only. I prefer the ad method - i just hate those obtrusive, annoying, violent ads (one pop-up i can deal with...non-ending pops are a different story)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[WhiteBandit]

Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers). And I free-ride at the expense of people who are willing to view pop-ups.

If I recall how all this web advertising works (correct me if I'm wrong), many of these companies pay based on click throughs.

If you're simply viewing the ads and not clicking through, you're technically "as evil" as someone who uses ad-block since the website still isn't receiving money because of you.

It's also personal preference for me. I've intentionally clicked on perhaps one advertisement on the internet in my whole lifie. Even then, I didn't buy anything as a result of it. So whether I use ad-block or not, these companies are still not receiving a dime from me. (Actually, I've clicked through quite a few text ads at K5. Those are fairly unobtrusive)

Also, Ad-Block still technically loads up the advertisements and then hides them. Thus, impressions are still being created showing that these advertisements are shown (since there are some companies out there that pay based on impressions I believe?). Again, I wouldn't have clicked on the ad if it was there anyway.

It's just an issue of convienence with me. Like television, I find commercials obnoxious, so they are either muted, I walk away or find something else to do in the meantime (which can sometimes result in me forgetting what I was watching as I do something else completely).

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm just a greedy, selfish user. But you know what, I have no problem admitting that. If/When the "free internet" does die (whatever), then I'll adapt and find something else to do I suppose.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

Most people here are saying all ads. They are saying that if the site is worth something it should be a pay site (with micropayments). Someone said he only tolerates static ads - 1) how is his pop-up blocker going to know the difference between a static gif and a motion gif? 2) who is he to determine the ad method of a site that does not belong to him but he is utilizing. That is my point.

My answer - do not frequent abusive sites. Do not buy from abusive sites...it seems much more fair that way. The net is big enough, that if I need some piece of information - there are tons of options.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Cecil]

The "end" is a pretty big word to use.

For any ad-supported piece of software you can find, there is very likely to be an ad-free, cost-free program that does something similar. Even if it is somewhat clumsier to use and uglier and less featureful, it still exists.

Why would the web be any different? There was a web before ads. It was less flashy and more cumbersome to find things, and had slightly less content, yes, but it was still there and it was still usable and useful too.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Lemmy Caution]

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

I think that's a little naive. It is reducing free content on the web already. I see 2 types of content which will prosper:

1. content which people are really willing to produce for free, without expecting revenue from advertisers. No one posting on this site now expects a red cent. There's a lot of that on the content side: funding the hosting is another question. It may end up being content that people are will to pay to have read: the old "eyeballs as commodity" model.

2. content that people pay for, up front, in one way or another, other than in the added cost of goods to pay for the costs of advertising. I'll throw out a guess that I have maybe a 100 to 200 dollar per year threshold of what I'm willing to pay for content, max, if it's top-flight, well-written, interesting, and doesn't piss me off too much.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

most web site owners are only in it for the money

Indeed. Which is why I long for 1997, when most web site operators WEREN'T in it for the money.

If web based advertising dies and takes out the 90% of web sites that are only in it for the money, I say good riddance.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[JahToasted]

Thank you. I knew there was something wrong in his definition, you just saved me the time to look it up myself.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

they have but themselves to blame.

This statement is really oversimpistic, and childish. There is nothing wrong with the HTTP medium. Why is it the fault of the web site makers - why can't you share in some of the blame?

If they want to force people to view their ads, then they should use a medium where the audience is forced to view the ads, like a physical magazine

Why is it ok for someone to force you to see their ad in a hard medium, but not in a soft medium? I do not see your relevance other then you inadvertantly bashing the value. of soft medium content.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[hikerhat]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Right. If I'm remembering my early days on the internet correctly, there were all these adds all over, and no content at all. Then, slowly, content emerged. First there was just a little content at the top of the page. Then the content would pop-up over the ads. Then there was flash based content. Now there's content floating around on top of the ads. So you're right there couldn't be any free content without ads.

Oh, wait. I might have something backward, but I can't put my finger on it...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[thegamerformelyknown]

Indeed. I use Adblock, and block everything BUT Google ads. Everyone I know that uses Adblock does this as well.

As a matt of fact, most of the time it's impossible to get rid of their ads, since it's
a> Not an iframe
b> Not an image

Basically, non-intrusive ads like google's = good. They are less imposing, and while this draws less attention to them, they are _targeted_, which is, in my opinion the highlight of Google Ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bobbyjack]

Spammers earn huge amounts of money. They spend significant capital - pay for bandwidth, equipment, etc. - yet still make a healthy profit. Almost everyone filters, ignores, or deletes spam. The proportion of the 'target audience' that repays any outlay is minute. Slashdot is probably garnering more hits each day than the number of mailboxes the average individual piece of spam reaches. Slashdot advertises products that are highly targeted to its user base.

My theory: the percentage of users, blocking ALL adverts, that it would take to reduce slashdot's earnings to a level below its expenditure is as near to 100% as to render it pointless discussing anymore.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NickFortune]

Hear! Hear!

Beautifuly expressed! Bravo!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[HairyCanary]

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money.

Hope is not required -- as a web site owner, you will innovate, or you will be out of business. Just because you are "only in it for the money" does not grant you immunity from this fact. There are more than enough people in this world who will figure out more creative ways to part consumers from their money, we are not in any danger of running out of choice. Dave

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[a whoabot]

No no, you can't! No one is allowed to create free content in the market! If they do, it's not even worth looking at! Price always equals level of quality! Market!

No exceptions! If you like something that's free more than something that's not, you're an infringment of nature! Criminal!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

They probably make a profit from these ads, and the more obtrusive the ads the more the profit (i.e. "we will put a static banner for $10, and put a Flash banner for $20")

While you may conveniently say it is "mindless amounts of 'data'" - someone apparantly finds it very valuable because someone is constantly going back to the site to get the information it provides.

Let me state - in case you do not realize this. If you think a website is worthless - you do not visit it (duh) so you don't have to deal with their advertising (double-duh)....if you go to the website to view its content you apparantly think it is worth something . even if that something is a good laugh...but when you block it you are denying them revenue.
When you go to someones site, you should respect their wishes. I can understnad if you were hi-jacked there - but otherwise..it was your choice. And we can all reasonably expect that sites want some kind of revenue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[m00nun1t]

I just laugh when I see stuff like this. I've spent years working in marketing, much of it working on systems that track that measure marketing campaign results (and I've worked on quite a number of software developer campaigns). Trust me, the majority of them work.

If you think marketing is simply "Oh, I just saw an ad for car X, I will now go and buy car X" then you have a lot to learn about marketing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Kazoo the Clown]

Actually, free-rider situations like this are precisely where market forces don't work efficiently. Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers). And I free-ride at the expense of people who are willing to view pop-ups.

Unsolicited advertising now has a name-- SPAM. Whether via apyware, stealthware, cookie tracking, email or site supported popup or adspace, it's still SPAM and its days are numbered. Those who's livelihood depends on it are going to have to go out and find real jobs within a few years. You forget that noone controls the web, it is a cooperative. If the users won't cooperate with your business plan, it's time to find a new one. The whole POINT of the internet is it gives individual users control-- if they don't have it they'll go elsewhere-- and since the web is not dependent on centralized services that are controlled by a few, whiner marketdroids who claim the sky is falling are really only talking about the free ride they've been getting on our eyeballs. They are the ones that are going to have to pay to get our eyeballs, and pay us directly, not through content-riding, as the users will no longer put up with it. Most of the content on the internet is NOT supported by advertising dollars, just some of the content provided by the market-protecting dinosaurs who can't get used to the idea that they are no longer in control.

If you want to put your spam in front of MY eyeballs, you are going to have to cough up some hard cold cash and send it directly to ME, not to Google, Yahoo or some other intermediary. And I will only agree to look, but not to buy, even if you do. Get used to it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Loser. So what if people decide not to see ads? Some people turn off the TV once ads start. Who cares? Marketing isn't about forcing people to see the ad but to know a prodect or service exists. Libertarians are the new Goatse nowdays.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely). With that argument, I am going to the car dealership and take that ferrari without paying for it. I mean, come on, they are trying to maximize their gain here - so why should i pay for it.

When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price. Taking advantage is going to someone and saying "hey i know you are desperate for $5 so you can feed your baby tonight...so i am going to give you $5 and in return you will give me your car"

Stores typically use loss-leaders to bring people into the store. Staples had a $8 for 100 pack spindle of 16x DVD +R's. Why? Because these don't sell? no...because staples is going out of business? no... because it brings people in and hopefully some of them will buy something else. The $8 covered their cost.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who offers something for free on my web site, I don't agree with you at all. I went through the expense to set up a web site for my company, and we have stuff that is completely free. We don't have any advertising on our site. We do sell products, and we hope for people to download them, try them out, and purchase them, but we will happily help users download the free stuff knowing full-well that they won't buy anything. We can do this because we have a product people want, and when they come to our site, enough of them decide to purchase a product, that hosting the free stuff is approximately free for us. If you have to run ads to keep your site alive, your business is iffy at best.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay fifteen bucks a year each for my sites. And extra fifteen bucks if Iwant to double my web space from 5 to 10 megs, and 5 megs held all of five years worth of content at my old site.

It was an FPS site, which never got slashdoted but often got "Blued" (Blue's News, the gamibg equivalent of the nerd /.) I saw other, more expensive sites go down under a link from Blue, but had no problem with my site.

I think most webmasters are getting ripped off by their hosts.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[iminplaya]

If ad blockers keep the net from getting as bad as the TV, then that is what we must use. Ads don't fund the content as much as they fund the trashy glitz around it. It's the glitz that's eating up bandwith and requiring all the maintenance. All this PHP, CSS, flash, java, full fldged, fat databases...what a bunch of garbage. Just load the hotmail page on dial-up and you know what I mean. If using ad blockers causes everybody to go back to plain old, fast loading HTML, then I'm for it. I use ad free pages when possible. When it's not, I will block the pop-ups. Ads aren't giving us content. They're giving us "pretty".

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

So, you're one of the fucks I wouldn't mind murdering, supposing I could get away with it. Go to hell.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the internet is both excludable and rival. Just about everyone who reads this website knows this, ever heard of a website being Slashdotted? Bandwidth is a limited resource and enough free riders (Slashdot readers) can cause other readers to be unable to access the resource.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[telecsan]

Thats like saying we should question the value of a TV set because some guy decided to steal it instead of paying the cost of the TV.

The grandparent wasn't talking about an isolated incident. If consumers in general are not willing to pay enough for said TV's to cover the costs of production, the value of the TV's comes into question. In the case of many ads, this 'payment' is in the form of annoyance (closing pop-up/pop-under, clicking through 'intro' ads, etc.)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[tolkienfan]

Except that it only takes one innovator to create a method that works to generate revenue.

It doesn't take everyone to develop "the car" for us all to have one available.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[HiThere]

He's got points, but they don't add up the way he's claiming. The current system is designed to extort time from viewers before they know what they are paying it for. The time extorted is much more valuable to those from whom it is extorted than it is to those who "recieve the benefit". This is a highly frictional condition. Also there is little feedback from those paying to those charging, so the prices tend to increase unreasonably.

This naturally evokes responses designed to cut the price of the goods on the part of the consumer. The supplier doesn't have a good feedback channel to the consumer, so he can't bargain well.

The result is that the attempted offering price escalates out of control, and the attempted acquisition price decreases in a similar manner. This is nearly the antithesis of a good market. It already happens frequently that the attempted offer price exceeds the worth to the recipient. When the recipient notices this, steps are taken. Some people just stop coming, others take independant initiative to cut their prices (adblocker, etc.). Nobody would have bothered if the prices had been reasonable.

The fact that the goods in question are nonexcludable and nonrival doesn't prevent this explosive cycle. The cycle is caused by the poor negotiation over prices. Everybody feels they are being cheated, and, due to the difference in value, they are all correct.

In the ideal system the item being exchanged would be of MORE value to the recipient than to the reciever, and this is (presumable) true of the bait (the web page). It's not true, however, of the hook (the ads). As a result many are willing to offer the bait without hooks, or with only trivial ones. But there is neither negotiation nor agreement over the value of the time spent with the ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[JahToasted]

I remember reading somewhere that advertising is a prisoner's dilemma. If no one advertised, everyone is better off (they all save the money). But if one company in an industry advertises, and no one else does, they will get a big increase in business. But if everyone advertises, no one loses customers, but they all lose a little bit because they have to pay for the ads.

So you don't advertise to get customers, you advertise so you don't lose them to your competition. Your competition advertises so they don't lose their customers to you.

So he is right, it is a big waste of money, but its one of those quirks of the free market.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bobbyjack]

"And we can all reasonably expect that sites want some kind of revenue."

I can accept that SOME sites want some kind of revenue. I didn't mean to imply that I am against all advertising, as such. What I am for is valuable, useful, high quality content and, yes, I am even prepared to pay for that. More so, than I am prepared to pay to download huge images or flash files of no interest to me whatsoever.

I would certainly pay to access some of the sites I visit, incuding those I only visit once or twice. I would only be prepared to spend 'micropayments'; that is all it would take for such sites to pay for themselves several times over. These are the real challenges: how we can develop websites that offer real value for little money to many people. I believe we're close, and I also believe that aim is far more creative and worthwhile than current mainstream advertising. Google revolutionized that already ... and they just used text!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[cynyr]

Ahh but last i checked even with the adblock extention i still download the ads... so as far the sites concerned i loaded them, in my case i would almost never click on it anyway, i have clicked on a few here on /. for thinkgeek and the like.. but by and large i almost never click on them, so explain to me how me still getting the ad, but not seeing it is any different than what currently happens?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[nbritton]

-And if you defeat the Firefox pop-up blocker I will block EVERYTHING.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[tolkienfan]

I block the cookies.

I don't like the way ad companies can get a complete profile of your surfing by having ads on a bunch of websites.

In some cases they can even get search terms and other queries included in the url. If the site owner allows it, they could even get subscriber names or other personal data.

I don't find advertising per se annoying. It's intrusive ads, and companies that collect data that I find objectionable.

I use privoxy and squid, and I recently added tor into the mix.

The way this government is throwing out freedoms, it's the only way you'll be able to communicate.

You'll know it's the end of freedom when tor and freenet, etc. are outlawed.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[protovirus]

No, it will be the end of free CORPORATE content on the web. GOOD.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[horace]

A small quibble: It will be the end of commercial provision of free content that cannot find another advertising model or technology. ads served by the site won't be blocked.

There was a web before there was any commercial content and blogs are mostly not advert powered.

There will also be tools for

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Brandybuck]

Actually, free-rider situations like this are precisely where market forces don't work efficiently.

But at least market forces are several magnitudes more efficient than bureaucratic fumblings in the economy. The free market may not be perfect, but no one else has yet managed to come up with anything better.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[2ms]

The ad-blockers rose up because of demand by consumers for relief from incredibly crude and annoying to the point of severely impeding usefulness of internet form of advertising. The market was ripe for system of dealing with a terrible system of advertising.

Now market is ripe for someone to come up with better system of advertising. Someone will make a ton of money meeting this need. Who said anything about individual operators of sites needing to come up with new business models or advertising system?

Dont try to say that popups were necessary for internet to be what it is - if anything you'll hear the quality of sites was better before the days of popups. Popups are crude abuse of a browser feature that certainly would have been designed differently had the architects anticipated what would happen with them.

Obviously anyone would agree that internet advertising serves important purpose but it's absurd to imagine "popups" are The Way to advertise and that blocking them is somehow blocking advertising.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[JGski]

You are falsely equating copyright violation with ad-blocking. Not even remotely similar. Ads are an information commodity being "sold" at the price of viewer attention. Unlike information commodities like music advertising is "meta information" about other commodities. Nonetheless, an economic value/decision process applies.

Advertiser have no more right to force their "product" on me any more that record companies have a right to force me to buy Britney Spears or any other talentless commodity they think I *should* buy to help their profits. Britney is, of course, an exceptionally efficient commodity given the production and marketing processes used to create her. But all the efficiency in the world doesn't matter if the buyer doesn't assess sufficient value to make the transaction hurdle.

You can claim implied contract but guess what: "free" content does not create any enforceable contract in common law legal systems. I can stand on a corner in a big city and play guitar with the case open for remuneration - if someone doesn't want to "pay up" despite benefiting from my "free content" I don't have the right or expectation to shakedown passersby for cash or reward (such as taking and reading my playbill for a paying concert or partner's product, if you want to keep the analogy going). I don't even have the right to shoo them away for repeatedly partaking in my free content!

If making content freely available proves to become economically unviable, that means one and only thing: the content you are offering simply isn't valued (by the market you serve) as highly as YOU WISH it were. In the street musician example, the musician may live in the fantasy that his music is God's Gift to Humanity, but if others don't agree he may have to get another job to make ends meet or quit playing. So be it. That's exactly how it should work.

Thus blocking ad's will only lead to the demise of businesses that not fundamentally sustainable in the first place. A business in the US only has a right to participant in the market, but never a right or guarantee to its healthy financial or organizational existence.

IT'S ONLY FREERIDERS WHO INSIST OTHERWISE! Advertiser are complaining about "freeriders" abusing them when it is they who are the freeriders if ad-blocking is somehow barred or banned. They are advocating that they should be allowed to FREERIDE . They want monopoly power to force people to buy their information commodity (advertising) at the price of viewers' scarce commodity (attention/time)!

I'm keeping my ad-blocking full-up, thank very much, and I know I'm on the ethical and legal high ground! The same can't be said for self-serving propaganda as Double-Click is pushing here.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ciscoguy01]

Adblock? I hadn't heard of that! Thanks for the tip Doubleclick/slashdot! I'm installing it now.

Like about 150,000 others, I would bet.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[FLEB]

Wow. I need synonyms for "advantage". You get the idea.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[electrofreak]

I don't block Google ads either because of their quality program. They know what they are doing and I really like having them around. As someone said... Annoying ads are definately gone.

However, it is possible that blocking ads will kill the internet (per an article that was on /. a while back). If companies can't make money off advertisements, they may start charging to view the site, which after some time will indeed kill the internet because I would absolutely hate having to pay to view almost every site.

Adblocking will infact eventually turn out new ways to display an ad and making it impossible to figure out exactly how to block the darn thing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel the same way. The problem is that advertisers don't understand that video style ads don't mix well with print. Who wants a strobing ad flashing at them while their trying to read? Static ads don't bother me.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point.
Ever wonder how much is actually made on ads?
When I was working in internet marketing, I remember we were extremely excited when a banner ad was able to net 1% of all the eye balls that it came in contact with. For exposures, we paid pennies by the thousand and the ads ended up on sites nobody's ever heard of, but that apparently get visited.

Regardless as to the ad used, we were lucky if we generated two to three sales per campaign of 100,000 impressions. Think about that. After 40,000 people have generated 100,000 page loads on whatever site it is that you're advertising on. At an average cost of .75 cents CPM x 100 / 2, you're looking at a minimum $35 per sale, or higher depending on what the ad company or web site owner wants to charge on any given day. At 2.00 CPM x 100 /2 your cost per sale goes up to $100 per sale. Even at 2.00 dollars CPM x 100 /3, you're still looking at $66 per sale. If you're lucky. In fact, it's entirely possible that you as the advertiser might receive nothing more than the eye balls which you're paying for. Hundreds of thousands of uninterested, eye balls.

So who is the one person in this equation who always makes money?

Is it the web site owner who's trying to fund their site?
Doubtful, if nobody clicks on the ad, they generally don't make any money. That's the racket people like DoubleClick have going.

Is it you, the advertiser?
No. If no one clicks, you make no money. In fact, you're less likely to make any return on investment with a banner ad than any other form of Internet advertising. Even Popups have higher ROI than banners.

That leaves DoubleClick and companies like them.
Do they make money when someone clicks your ad? No, of course not. In most cases, they actually lose money because that's the only time they ever have to pay out. They make money fleecing you on impressions per thousand, and helping you design irritating ads that nobody is EVER going to want to click on. Many of these companies won't even let you design your own ads because they know better. A good ad, is a costly ad, which is why people are so sick of seeing them.

I for example am so sick of seeing "kill the [insert gimmick of the day here], and win a prize" ads that I'm about ready to kill the guy who came up with the idea. It's brand recognition alright, but it's not the kind you want for your company. In my experience, if the first thing people think when they hear your company name is anything like "what a bunch of assholes," you're screwed.

Now, by contrast, take Google's system.
It's fair. You pick a keyword, bid on it, and go. You only pay when someone actually clicks on the ad. Impressions are free, because charging for them is stupid. Suddenly, your cost per sale goes from the $35-66 range, down to the much more manageable $5-7 range. Site owners still make their money, and advertisers get less angry e-mail. The only people that suffer are the dinosaurs like DoubleClick who refuse to adapt.

They're positioned to become the world leaders in Google style ads. Will they do it? I seriously doubt it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AndersOSU]

I don't think we're being petty, I think it is you who are missing my point, rather than the otherway around.

Regardless of wheather or not you're ever going to buy a new car or not, at some point you're very likely to buy a car. Say your choices are a '99 Chevy Malibu, a '99 Toyota Camry, or a '99 Hundai Elantra (all with 65,000 miles) all for $5,500. (disclaimer: I made these numbers up for the sake of argument they are likely not acurate market values) I don't know about you but I'm not buying the Hundai. This increases the value of the car for the original owner, so he's more likely to spend more when he bought it the first time. Guess what advertising worked.

I the point is whether or not you think you are being affected by advertising you are. You want stuff, some of that stuff you probably don't need. How are you supposed to know what stuff you want, but don't need if not for advertising? Say Sony decided it was just going to go ahead and release the PSP without any advertising campaigns or fanfair. How many units would it have moved?

Hate to break it to you, but advertising has always been both crap you probably don't want to buy, and that stuff you might buy anyway. Like another poster said, its not just about making a sale, its about brand awareness. No mater how good your product is if you don't get your name out your buisness will fail.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[romka1]

When will people like you realise that if not for ads webmaster won't make any profit and there won't any drive for them to work...

If everybody could watch tv without any commercials how much you think will be your cable bill?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bnenning]

You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely).

No. I'm saying they're not the victims you're trying to portray them as. They've chosen a business model that relies on customers doing something they have no legal (or in my view moral) requirement to do.

When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price.

And when I go to a website with ads I also pay their requested price of $0. In both cases the requested price is insufficient for them to profit, so they have to hope that I voluntarily engage in activities that are more beneficial to them (buyinging stuff with high markups, clicking on ads). In both cases I fail to see why I'm under any sort of obligation to do so.

The $8 covered their cost.

If it did, it wouldn't be a loss-leader. But to make it even more clear, consider the common "free after rebate" deals. Is it unethical to send the rebate form in? After all, that lets you get something for nothing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[zranger]

Where did you learn economics? Public goods are by definition non-rival and non-excludable. The Internet is neither excludable nor rival, is a public good, and is therefore subject to the freerider problem.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[squallbsr]

Thank Zeus that there will be an end to all those "free" blogs that everybody and their mother, brother and hampster have been putting up - wasting my time. I have a blog, but its more of a personal diary of what I think and what I am doing. Not commenting on the latest articles, trying to get other people to view it and basically just a huge heaping load of crap...

</wishes the end of crappy blogs>

Most likely, these blogs will be the last "free" thing left on the internet, so my dreams are mis founded anyway...

<on topic>
If a site cannot handle free traffic anymore and have to start charging for access, I personally believe that *IF* people actually subscribe - it *MIGHT* actually be worth it...
</on topic>

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so extraordinarily, completely and absolutely brain-dead that it makes my hair hurt. The blocking of ads by default (assuming that Mozilla suddenly displaces M$ as the #1 browser on the planet, which is at best wishful thinking) simply changes the paradigm by which sites are financed. It's pretty clear that people aren't going to be willing to pay much for the content, so it's unlikely that charging for it will succeed. In addition, people don't really seem to dislike ads all that much - google, with its myriad of text ads, seems to be doing ok, thank you. Google's free services, such as gmail (which make it difficult to block ads, btw), don't get complained about left and right. Why is that? What people complain about are the doubleclick-type ads. So the theoretical progression would be away from doubleclick-style ads and toward google-style ads by both advertisers, who don't want to completely piss off the target audience, and the average consumer, who doesn't want to experience doubleclick-type ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

I never said it was unethical to get something for free. If the people want it to be truely free then so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to pay money so be it...if they want the cost to be you have to view advertisements so be it. if you do not like any of their terms, leave the website and never return. But that is not what happens - people go back to the site, constantly blocking it. They have the ads in hope that you will view it, and sometimes click-through it. You know this, I know this. So to circumvent them is immoral and they are a victim.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nobody expect or will force them to change. If they can't find the right place in these new times, others that can will come and life will go on. That's the way it was and always will be.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[cybercobra]

Well, considering the ludicrously low percent of ads I click on purpose, I'm technically costing the ad agency/website money for the cost of downloading from them an ad I'll probably never click on.
So technically, if I were to block ads, I would be saving the company money most of the time. Of course, I suppose advertising lives off that small percentage of people who do click and I'd be denying the rare company whose ads I click some revenue.
So if I blocked only ads not concerning my areas of interest, I'm tehcnically saving them money. Targetted ads are definitely the future.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[hviezda14]

If a site is trying to generate money - then we have a responsibility to pay for the service we are using.
According to me, this is a nonsense. If a site is trying to generate money, it's their bussines to let me pay for their service. Anyway, can you send me some money? I have a site and I want some profit, it's your responsibility to help me achieve profit ;-)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

You forget that all slashdot readers have already paid por their bandwith

Actually, you paid for YOUR bandwidth - which allows you to access websites. Now when you visit someones website you did not pay THEIR bandwidth costs. It's like saying "I paid for my car which got me to your store, so now i get to take products from your store...remember i paid for my car to get here"

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Rich0]

Somehow I doubt that reading slashdot will have much of an impact on your usenet bandwidth limit.

Maybe if you're downloading binaries it is an issue, but no human being can read enough text to exceed just about any reasonable quota...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, put the entire website content, including ads, as a huge image!

Block that easily.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[jejones]

I have a feeling a lot of these people are working on /. many hours of the day.

If they were, wouldn't /. be using clean CSS-based HTML by now?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[localzuk]

You lack simple business knowledge. If you have no marketting background then you either pay for someone to do it for you, or you learn yourself (or fail as a business). Companies WILL become innovative in ways of advertising - otherwise they will go bust. It is as simple as that. They will not make enough revenue from pay as you go users, as not many will do this (how many people *sign up* to free content sites?). You cannot blame the end user for not liking a part of a service. The world is customer led. If the customer says jump, the companies should say how high... People channel hop during ads on tv, so they brought out product placement in TV shows and movies etc...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

paying a high end hosting company

Bandwith is no different than any other commodity -- its price depends on demand. If advertising revenue is lost, and customers can no longer afford the price desired by their bandwidth provider, they will just switch to a lower-priced competitor. The internet lives on.

maintenance

as an outsider, you'd probably be surpised to learn how easy it is to maintain a high-volume website. With all the wonderful open software out there, for PHP and the like, managing big websites is really plain easy. No big deal. It doesn't take a village.

Do you plan to quit your day job for this site?

With no prospect for adervisting revenue, that probably would be a foolish descision for me, because I need the income from my daytime job more than I need to provide an online discussion forum to a bunch of nerds. And at night I like to sit on my ass. But I guess somebody else might.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Kent Recal]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

That statement is so wrong, it makes me angry.
Most (>99%) quality content on the net is free, has always been free and will always be free.

'nuff said.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Log from Blammo]

But there is no such thing as a free rider "problem" for a public good. Once the good is paid for, it exists, and everyone benefits. The "problem" exists in the mentality of the payers--they cannot abide someone enjoying for free that which they have paid money for. They want their costs spread out to everyone, even though many of the free riders would not have chosen to purchase the public good if it did cost something.

As an example, the town of Podunk wishes to launch a weather control satellite. The satellite will cause light rains at 2 am, make the days partly cloudy, with puffy cumulus clouds, and the nights clear. The winds will always be perfect for kite-flying. The cost of building and launching the thing is exactly $10 million, with $100000 a year to operate it. Now, there are two ways to finance the thing: worry about a free rider problem and levy a $10000 tax on the town's 1000 residents and 50 small businesses; or let FarmerBrownCo chip in $2 million for better crops, Mr. and Mrs. Idlerich $4 million for better poolside cocktails, and the Podunk.edu astronomy department $4 million for guaranteed telescope times. Only the second method will actually get the can into space, because there is no way in Hell to get 1000 people to agree on anything that will cost them each $10000.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[thorkummer]

> if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

How much did you earn for providing this content?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AndersOSU]

I don't have a problem with ads. I have a problem with obtrusive ads that disrupt the content.

If no one can develop a buisness model that will make money without annoying the hall out of me then I won't be sad to see the internet go.

If my daily print paper made buzzing noises when I opened it and urged me to swat the fly when I opened it I would stop subscribing to that as well.

If ads didn't annoy the hell out of people no one would dounload adblock

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Romeozulu]

Actually, yes, a lot of people do click on those. There are hundreds of millions of people that surf the web that are not a part of the techno-elite that you, I, and the rest of slashdot readers are. They click on that stuff in droves. I watch my parents do it all the time.

These people are also not savvy enough to install adblock, but if it came by default with a good set of rules, then the ads would just vanish. They would not care on way or another, but they would stop clicking.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Sporkinum]

How, exactly, does adblock work? How does the site know you didn't view their ad? If the advertiser sends that data, does that not count as a view? What happens when I block most non site-related cookies?

So many questions...

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Deliveranc3]

And if it becomes standard on everything?

Filtered TV sets.


No the Advertising genie is out of the bag, but as long as one person looks at the ads their price can only go up, the current price is somehting like what .002c a view? And .05c a click? .05 for steering a potential custom who wasn't thinking about buying a product your direction? That's absurd the real value to the company is somewhere around $4-5 and eventually the market will have to respect that true value a little more closely.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Java Pimp]

It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.

Actually, it is. If a guy running a bakery has problems selling his bread he certainly can't stand outside his shop with a bat forcing patrons in. He absolutely should be thinking of ways to improve his business model, wether it's specials, new recipes, contests, whatever... I'm not saying he should convert to selling cars but if what he's doing isn't working it's his responsibility to fix it. And I would absolutely expect him to fix it and not cry about how unfair it is that people just don't except his business model for what it is.

This is the same attitude the MP/RIAA have by crying to the government in an attempt at forcing people to support their broken system rather than embracing the change in consumer demand.

In the beginning content was free on the net and it still can be. The content I search for and am mainly interested has been around since the beginning of time in places like usenet, educational institutions, government, etc... eComerce sites, news portals, and the like are relatively new in the scheme of things, and while they are very useful and convenient, I won't miss them if they start charging for service. Just because comercial corporations are the dominating presence on the internet does not mean we need to bow to their will. They can conform or die.

Amazon makes money from me by selling me books not advertizements. If nytimes.com wants to charge me a subscription for their service, if I find value in it, I will pay for it, if not, believe me, I can do without.

If website owners are only in it for the money and they go belly up because they don't offer a service people want, I don't feel sorry for them.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sapgau]

In a free market anybody is allowed to find inefficiencies and profit from them (legalities aside).

I pay for cable TV and on top of that I have to watch adds on 99% of the channels. Nothing stops me from recording my favorite show and playing it back later. I can fast forward on the adds as I see fit.
An inefficiency arose on automating that process and now Tivos are a succesful product.

AdBlock caters to users by eliminating popup adds and adverts AND by offering it for free. But you can donate money to the AdBlock team if you wish. This model might be working since AdBlock is still around, pages are available, files are hosted for download, etc.

Now, if I were a competitor deeply affected by this new product I would either develop a better alternative or try to form an alliance.

All this is what I beleive drives the "market".

My $0.02

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Giggles Of Doom]

Ah, no, it means they'll have to come up with a different solution and adapt. Embedded links, textual ads, etc. I highly, highly doubt that free content will vanish. We may see a rise in pay-to-view sites, and in sites that offer premium content for a fee.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Twinbee]

I never would keep that kind of advertising on my website, but I have to admit - the popups and popunders don't really bother me too much, not even two or three of them, unless I visit that site very often. I just close them as soon as they start to load.

If it did come to the point where "mouse-dodging javascript widows that pop up fifteen new windows when you manage to close them" started appearing quite often, I would then start to complain a lot more.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sapgau]

Please!

At least the thruth will finally come out! Hosting a web site is not a perfect business plan, or is it?

/Nothing's Free

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Zphbeeblbrox]

Exactly, Doubleclick gets blocked because they are so intrusive and annoying. Google is experiencing growth in the ad revenue stream precisely because they found the right niche market. even the slashdot ads aren't as intrusive as some sites. They stay at the top in that banner and there are some text ads on the side. They don't distract from the websites purpose so they fit. Many website advertisements do the exact opposite of this. They make the website unuseable. Thus spawning the market for adblocking software. This may mean the end of Doublclick style ads but it's not the end of internet advertising.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Give yourself a cookie gimp. You pay for somethig thosands of kids do every day and pay for out of their own pocket... blogging.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh?

Or you could display Google's ads, participating in the adsense program, and make money.

Sheesh. Do I have to spell it out for you?

As for great grandparent's post in re copying, copying does foster innovation, because only *new* content or better/more conventient collelctions of content ever have any significant value, the value of older things dropping rapidly to zero.

It may not be legal, and there are plenty of people screaming for even more draconian laws concerning infringement, but I didn't even argue here that it should be legal, only that it actually fosters innovation. Constitution aside, there's almost nothing in law that contemplates that motive any longer.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Omnieiunium]

I think I know why.

Look at how many people use the internet today.
Now look at how many people use the internet a few years ago.
You can see the problem, with an increased number of people using the internet and more people visiting your site which results in more bandwidth which means it could cost you some money to maintain the site.

I think that flash-ads and other crappy ads like that are here to stay, at least for a while. How many /.'s still use IE? Most use something else. Adblock for Firefox is avaliable for Mozilla and Firefox which have something like that 10%? of the market share. There is still another 90% of the marketshare which is held by IE which, at least I am not aware of, has a good way to block ads. So until the average consumer starts switching to an alternative browser which can block ads, or someone creates a plugin for IE, the ads are here to stay.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[crimson30]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that buddy. The fact that you even know what "Ford" and "Chevy" mean is proof that the ads have indeed worked.

If by 'worked' you mean that I "now shudder to think of owning domestic vehicles" then you are indeed correct, the ads have worked as planned.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[SoSueMe]

This statement is simplistic, but not overly so.
The medium is not the same as the traditional business model, as in the print medium.
The same rules do not apply.
Thinking that you can apply the same rules is what is childish.
A decade ago, the medium was the same as it is now.
The content was free and, in most cases, more useful (hampsterdance.com excluded).
Most of the information was just that, information.
DARPANet was never intended to be supported by ads. When it expanded to a broader userbase, it was populated by people who had a message and wanted to get that message out.
The modern "web" is transitioning from information to info-tainment (or less).
It has only been a relatively short time since the "advertisers" used to publish whitepapers which actually had hard factual material (think IBM, SUN, Novell, Banyan, Microsoft, etc...) transitioned to "That Guy" style flash ads which annoy the hell out of the average web user.

I, for one, long for the days where corporate interests are no longer seen as the primary purpose of the internet.

How many hardware/ software hacks have you seen here on sites supported by ads?

In case you don't remember those days, it was when SlashDot was not in need of a moderation system for those who wanted information and an little intellectual indulgence.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[tshak]

Both cases are absolutely unacceptable.
Than don't visit the sites in question. If you don't like their adverstising, don't leech their content.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[RogerWiclo]

I agree with the above post. I also don't block Google ads and for the same reasons. If print ads are as non-obtrusive I don't have a problem with them. I am in charge the web campaign for a company, and I've decided that Googles ads and Yahoo's similar targeted ads are the only ones worth paying for.

From the article:

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

He is not comparing apples to apples. With a newspaper everything is the same color and stays in one place. I block the flashing "smash the monkey" advertisements, or the advertisements that lay over the content of the page (ie morningstar.com). As long as an ad doesn't interrupt my reading I don't mind it being there, and I might even look at it. A good example of annoying ads in print is the Readers Digest. The first thing I do when it arrives in the mail is rip out all the mail-in-cards and throw them away because they interfere with my reading. As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same thing as online ad-blocking.

Unfortunately annoying your customers really does sell, or nobody would do it. But in my opinion it's a cheap trick used by simple minds. For example, people can use Tivo or their VCR to skip commercials. So, Coke and other companies pay to have their products right in the TV shows. They get their "impressions" and we are less annoyed.

Hopefully ad-blocking will bring more innovative and less annoying ads to the web. Everybody will benefit I think.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

So then maybe those business men who are just after money should go somewhere and make money. The internet is a method of expression that serves a public function. Currently ads are like those billboards that sprang up and ruined all the scenic routes along US highways. It was a lot nicer before all the billboards blocked the view. Now they are regulated. Like many others, I don't block google ads. I don't even block slashdot ads. I do block every obnoxious ad I come across, and then I block the whole domain. Does this mean that if everybody blocked ads, the pimples on the face of the net would be cured? Is it really that simple? Hell yes, then, lets all block ads and burn those ugly billboards to the ground, in the name of beautification!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ankarbass]

Your analogy is absurd. I pay for my car to get to and from the store, similarly, I pay for upload and download bandwidth. The elephant in the room is that content is business and hence requires a profit. I don't come here to look at ads, I come here to discuss techy news with geeks. The "news" stories, well the good ones, are submitted by users. Those same stories could as easily be submitted to a peer to peer oriented system. No ads would be necessary as the only bandwidth consumed would be that which we are already paying for. With few exceptions, those submitting the stories are interested in sharing and discussing, not running a business. I block ALL ads, hell, I even block the slashdot sony image because it says sony and I don't want to look at it. Now, I am in the process of buying some voip equipment which I found out about on slashdot. Without slashdot as a forum I wouldn't be buying those products. Perhaps slashdot, and hence others, should negotiate some micropayment scheme with businesses to obtain some ad revenue everytime a product name is mentioned. You can whine ALL you want, I don't care. The price for my eyes to read your stories about products is that I do it without looking at ads. When it is no longer profitable for you to do that, then innovation will take your place and provide another forum where it is possible.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Baloo Ursidae]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

This falsely implies that information does not want to be free, and that the audience does not demand freedom of information, and people don't do things for the sake of doing something or in the public interest. Seeing the shilling and commercialism and the same-shit-different-site-looking-for-ad-revenue homogeny out there, you seem to have made the best argument in favor of ad blocking yet.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[10101001 10101001]

It's not up to every guy who runs a bakery or a stationary store or whatever to come up with entirely new business models whenever they hit hard times, and nobody expects them to - yet for some reason, people do expect that when it comes to the web.

The web, if you hadn't noticed, started off being primarily a hobby. Later sites spawned based on ad revenue. Except for buying physical or virtual goods for products, users were and are used to get everything free. To that end, if ads as a revenue stream really are running out, then it's hardly surprising that searching for a new business model is the way to go.

The problem is that most people don't think it's readily, if at all, possible to get everyone to switch over to a for-pay system. Further, your analogy really falls on its face. The sort of "hard times" a bakery or stationary store would have to fall into to compare would be something like hyperinflation--the fact that the ad->money conversion has shifted so much is proof of how it's a pretty apt analogy.

In the circumstance of hyper-inflation, bakeries would likely revert to a barter system in a more stable medium. To that end, the end of ads very well might mean the reversion of the internet back into a hobby network (the barter system there is time and energy). But perhaps the internet can "move forward" to charging money. Or the internet might breed an entirely new form of revenue stream. In any case, there's a lot more reason to believe that the internet, if it's to survive in nearly at nearly the size it is now, must come up with an entirely new revenue stream. Bread has been made for thousands of years and no amount of economic hard times on baked is likely to end or shrink bakeries in the long run. But, once ad revenue starts drying up from the internet, it might be the case that most of the internet will dry up along with it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Oh-hey-wait. You have an idea. Maybe if the Web where built on a P2P protocol. We can call the system Archie, and call the meta-search tool Veronica. Like the comic book.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Lost Race]

You have to realize that very few people understand what "The Internet" is. When dumbass marketeers like this doubleclick guy say "Internet" they are referring only to that small fraction of the WWW that comprises marketable, profitable, branded websites.

Killing the banner-ad business might very well lead to the end of free access to that small fraction of the WWW, just as he claims. On the other hand, it might not. Providers might find some value in providing "free" access to information without third-party advertisements.

None of my little hobby websites have any advertising on them, and they will continue to be free (gratis) as long as they continue to promote my interests. If the WWW consisted only of websites like mine, I wouldn't mind too much.

On the other hand.... Perhaps some people believe that the actual Internet itself, in particular the core routers and long haul fibre, are subsidised at least in part by big "content providers" who are in turn funded by third-party advertising. This seems unlikely to me. I believe that even without online advertising revenue and ad-supported free content, individuals and businesses would continue to pay for Internet connections -- the inherently "free" services such as email, peer-to-peer services, online shopping, and nerdy little websites like mine, as well as availability of subscription-based websites, would be worth the relatively small cost of Internet service.

Even among the ad-supported websites, how many of those exist only to make advertising profit? Would we miss them? Could the others come up with some way of providing the same (or similar) content and availability at lower cost (e.g. distributed peer hosting, a la BitTorrent)?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll repeat, does that mean that you are obligated to click on banners and buy something? If you just ignore them, how is that different from blocking? Either way they're never making a sale. You STILL haven't answered.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[fire-eyes]

Your fault for having flash.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[rsynnott]

Sorry, without ad revenue, what precisely WILL pay for free content on the web? The magic pixies? It'll be a barren commercialised wastelands of porn sites and the BBC.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sandwiches]

This reminds me of the media evil masterminds wanting bitching about the 30-seconds-skip buttons in tivos and other such devices. Will those 30-second-skip buttons make free TV collapse?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[sosume]

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money

Usually, that's a sign that it's time for a bubble burst. It's time for the 'we want to earn cash' people to leave and for the 'we want to make good content' people to stay. Free market. The customer ultimately wins.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[woztheproblem]

Of course there can be free rider problems for public goods. The problem is often precisely in paying for it - both creation, and maintenance.

Your example demonstrates the problem perfectly. Let's say the only benefit of the satellite is to farmers, and the satellite costs $100/year to maintain. Assume there are 100 farmers, and the benefit of the satellite is $3/year to each farmer. It is possible to form a farmer's association that brings together 50 farmers each paying $2 to keep the satellite in orbit. However, if there were ever more than fifty members, each of the members would have the incentive to leave the association and still retain the benefit of the satellite.

Even if there are exactly 50 members, each member still has the incentive to defect if he believes that the association will be able to recruit a new member if other farmers realize that their public good is about to go away if no one else joins.

This is the freerider problem, for the association may be forced to dissolve if everyone attempts to freeride by leaving the association. The problem becomes even more difficult when people benefit differently from the good, and the exact amount of the benefit cannot easily be ascertained by others, making it difficult to charge the correct fee.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Snaller]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.


No it won't. It may kill some of the commercial crap. But there will always be something (perhaps especially in europe where bandwith seems to be less expensive)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[rsynnott]

This makes a good bit of sense, and it's the wy the market is going anyway; Google AdSense and similar are replacing the horrible popups.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Thaelon]

People will never, ever shift away from "what I can get away with" to "what I need".

This is the reason we have laws, because if there isn't something stopping us we'll take what we can get for as little as possible.

Somewhat tangentially, read Adiamante by L.E. Modesitt Jr. if you want to know more about "the true knowledge" as he calls it. Modesitt is brilliant. He should be deciding government policy, not writing sci-fi novels.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[checkyoulater]

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

You're kidding, right? Because as we all know, bandwidth is free. As is access to the internet itself.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[linatux]

Someone put effort into this website. Someone is paying for the hosting, bandwidth, etc.

I am paying for my access, my bandwidth. That money doesn't go directly to Slashdot of course, but some of it must eventually end up there. Of course, statistically - most of it ends up in Bill's pocket, even though I don't buy M$.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Snaller]

Forget the jargon and use some common sense. If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads and their ad revenue disappears,

Well since we don't click on them, we can just tell them we viewed them - ok?


Rob will or will not keep offering free access?

Get somewhere with cheaper bandwith rates.

Perhaps, but requiring the creation of completely new forms and models of web content hardly contradicts Smith's point, does it?


If it means there is free content - yes it would seem to contradict him.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Snaller]

First of all, let's can the idealism and be a little realistic here. You're a web site publisher with little ad revenue left. What do you do? Your training is not in marketing, it's maybe in business development. Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

Going out of business a week later because people don't want to pay for it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

" the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money."

that's the problem right there.
getting rid without those type of site owners would solve alot of the things that are wrong with the internet now.

maybe when information is put out to the internet without worrying about profit, the internet will become a much better place.
websites that actually offer worthwhile services will get support from people who feel it's worth it.
websites that contain mostly information on a givin topic will be run by people who care more about getting the information out there then making money.

I'm starting to like the idea more and more

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Snaller]

Which browser do you use?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[checkyoulater]

The only ads I am willing to tolerate are google-style text-only ads and static images.

Yeah, because once Google-style ads are the only ones in existence you will have won. Congratulations.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[fupeg]

Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

You don't have to. You can use Google's ads. They have this thing called AdSense. You see they have offered a service -- highly targeted, non-obtrusive ads -- that are not only effective already, but as people become more sophisticated in blocking undesired content, will become even more effective because they are more desirable to the consumer. Google wins, Doubleclick loses because Google does not bother the consumers who will click on ads, buy goods, etc.

Now if all this means that Doubleclick folds and that some websites also fold because their business models depend on the Doubleclick style of advertising, so what? Seriously, who cares? There is no mandate that we must maintain the current level of free content on the web. There is no need to regulate this. Maybe it goes up, maybe it goes down. Search engines are also a force that can decrease the amount of total content, becuase they tend to identify the "better" content on certain subjects. Does that mean we should get rid of search engines so that all content providers have a more equal chance of getting visitors and thus an equal chance of getting ad revenue? Of course not.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NickFortune]

Really I am not missing the point. Using our current model, or any model - the people who own the site's want to charge.

Which people, precisely? Which site? There's a lot of quality content out there that is supplied free of profit motive. Some of it because the webmasters want to perform a public service; some of it because running a website is their hobby and they enjoy it. Sometimes it's because the webmaster would have cheerfully killed to get published in some way, that the web provivdes a legal, nonviolent avenue of self expression. Even if you take the Ayn Rand view and say that all these people are getting some sort of benefit from waht they do, the motive is not profit.

Once upon a time, all the web was thus. Commercialisation has not necessarily improved it.

They may not want to charge the end user by demanding cash, but they will charge by demanding you view their advertisements and in return you get unfettered access.

Which is true enough, but only if we assuming they do want to charge. This is not universally true. My own site, way overdue for an overhaul though it may be has not a single advert on it, nor do I expect it to yeild revenue.

That is a fair trade.

Is it? Adverts waste my time. Not placid static silent banner ads, perhaps. But the popups, and the flash animations, and the floaters, and every other foul distraction doubleclick and their ilk ever devised. They all waste my time.

Now my time is worth money. There comes a point where the value of time they waste exceeds the value of the information gained. At this point the trade ceases to be fair by any measure.

To make matters worse, I have no way to judge the intensity of advertising before I visit a site. In fact, if the advertiser has embedded frames on the client page, the intensity of those ads may change from week to week unpredictably and without notice. This makes it impossible to make an informed descision about wether or not to visit a site in the first place. At least for a subscription site, you know in advance what resources will be consumed. Assuming the subscription site doesn't decide to boost its profit margins by advertising anyway, that is...

So I can't tell how much of my time will be wasted before I visit a site. Too much and my visit costs me money. Factor in the time and money consumed by removing malware uploaded by ad frames and you will see that paid-by-advertising sites are not necessarily "free" and can often be very expensive.

I don't call that "fair".

Why would you prefer a site that you have to pay for....imagine if 80% of the websites on the net were pay only.

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. For a start, you assume that there is an either/or realtionship between paid-by-advertising and subscription. That's a false dichotomy. I can think of a couple of sites that fund themselves, at least partly, by donation. And for small sites free, as in neither-adverts-nor-subscription, is still an option. The problem only starts with the bandwith charges for high volume sites, and we've discussed that already.

I prefer the ad method - i just hate those obtrusive, annoying, violent ads (one pop-up i can deal with...non-ending pops are a different story)

That's a valid viewpoint, up to a point.

However, it's a lot harder to write blockers that block all popups after the first one, and since I don't hear any commitment from doubleclick to play even remotely nice, it's reasonable to assume they'll carry on abusing their position. So saying "one is ok" is functionally equivalent to saying "oh hell, pop 'em as much as you like".

I also think that, based upon what you've said so far, your tolerance level is a lot higher than mine. If I'm not going to block an advert, it has to be silent, still, unoffensice, unobtrusive, and must neither attempt to deceive, nor to abuse my computer. Popups are always unaccpetable.

Don't fall for the

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[thegrassyknowl]

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

Blocking ads might even lead to improved content instead of the pages and pages of mindless drivel that we see.

Blocking ads should lead to me being able to view a specific hardware vendor's web page for information without being bombarded with ads and tracked. People who's sole business is to make a profit from selling things on webpages shouldn't need to employ the service of people like doubleclick. It's like getting paid twice for the same job (even though ad revenue is likely low per visitor).

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[krazikamikaze]

The freerider problem only applies to public goods that are excludable and rival. The Internet is neither excludable nor rival, and therefore is not a public good. And since it is not a public good, the freerider problem does not apply to it.

You've got it backwards. Public goods are non-excludable and non-rival, hence their ability to be consumed by everyone. Therefore you agree that the internet is a public good and the freerider problem exists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Tom]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

He's quite incorrect. It will not be the end of free content. It will be the end of paid for by ads content.

There's lots of really, actually, truly free content out there.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, because not everybody time shifts all their programs, but it might hurt the salaries of a few MLB, NFL, and NHL players when the owners are forced to accept less lucrative TV contracts due to lower ad revenues. The Olympic Games might have a harder time breaking even too.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's *great*. Companies. What about Joe's homepage with some useful embroidery info, and has a couple banner ads on the page to partially offset the cost of running the site? He's SOL. Sure, some community sites will band together for survival, and take up donations to keep the site running. Heck, I frequent a couple places like that already that are run ad-free and doing well, but only on the generosity of a few dedicated supporters who really like the site and want to keep it alive. Not everyone can afford to do that, it's a delicate balance between having a small enough userbase to make a few donations cover costs, while still having enough useful content that they care about it.
Businesses can fend for themselves, sure, but they aren't going the be hit the hardest if small-time advertising goes bust.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[HeLLFiRe1151]

Maybe they can invoke DCMA andd sue mozilla.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[j3110]

It requires adaptation to the market, not the other way around.
There are a few options.
1) Obvious as other people have stated, use ads that don't annoy people to the point that they want to block them. (Adaptation of ad providers.)
2) Reduce the cost of content through distributed systems instead a centralized database like /. (IE, the cost is evened out amongst everyone that wants the content because they host and produce it... Adaptation of end users.)
3) Create a business model for content that works. One example may be online publishing firms that pay you by the click for your content and charge subscription fees to users... IE and extra 5$ a month for high quality content would go a very long way. (Adaptation of content providers.)
4) Legislation... The desperate man's last hope. (Adapt the rules in fear of change.)

You get the point. As long as someone wants to publish, someone wants to read, and someone wants to advertise, all three will find a place. The internet is in no danger.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[edxwelch]

You said it.
I can't concentrate on reading a web page if there are a dozen flashing images all over the place, so I use adblock. I don't bother with static images. So, basically the marketers themselves are to blame for the popularity of adblockers, because they don't give a f**k about making the page easy to read. If they really want people to stop blocking maybe they should think about making their adverts less annoying.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[StikyPad]

3) I will not ever, EVER, EVER buy something based on advertising.

Maybe not directly, but it's all about product awareness. If you notice your floor is dirty, and decide to go out and buy some floor cleaner, you're either going to buy a brand you've heard of, or the cheapest one you can find. So you might be at the store, and you'll say, "Well there's this, and this, and this, and oh, PineSol.. I think I'll try that."

Even if it's not a small purchase, but one you decide to research beforehand, you're more likely to research a product you've heard of vice zero chance of intentionally looking for a product you've never heard of. You'd never think to check out Slashdot x86 processors, because.. who knew they made them? Whereas if you've heard claims of 30% faster versus Intel's latest offering, you're going to make damn sure you find out if it's true.

It's easy to say, "Sure, I never see an ad and decide to run out and buy the product," because most people don't do that either.. but the truth is that advertising does affect our consciousness, however much we may dislike that idea. I even do like learning about new products from advertising.. just not repeatedly, day after day, hour after hour.

That said, I do block most ads at work because I never know when an inappropriate ad might appear. Most ad sites are blocked by our proxy server anyway, so the page just looks broken without the Adblock plugin. At home I block most flash ads, or ads that distract me from what I'm trying to read.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Alsee]

Also, pop-up blockers does not spare anybody any bandwidth...the data is still sent - just blocked at the client browser level.

While there are different methods of adblocking, you are in general wrong. Host file blocking blocks the inital request for the ad. The request is not sent out and the ad is never transmitted. I'm almost certain Proximitron blocking is the same, and I believe Firefox Adblock as well.

Why would blocking software want to waste time and bandwith receiving the ad at all?

-

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Registered Coward v2]

The freerider problem only applies to public goods that are excludable and rival. The Internet is neither excludable nor rival, and therefore is not a public good. And since it is not a public good, the freerider problem does not apply to it.

Actually, the case yo u define - the web as having jointness of supply (i.e.) anyone's consumtion does not limit the others, and non-excludability are exactly the case of public goods where the freerider problem exists.

If the marginal cost of the next page view is zero then the price should go to zero, but no one will provide the good at the price. Ads provide the payment for views, if that goes away the incentive to produce the good vanishes as well.

In addition, since teh web is not excludable free riders are difficult to exclude - since you cannot reliably identify who will view as and who will not.

therefore, free riders are a very real issue in terms of keeping web content "free" to end users.

Blocking ads won't end free content on the Web. It will lead to innovation and new opportunities.

Unfortunately, history has shown it is difficult to get people to innovate and produce goods if they are forced to provide them for free.

It may lead to new ways to serve up content - such as embedding text in graphics with ads so that you have to serve up teh graphic in order to read the text; spammers already try that to avoid pattern recognition on text messages; or plasing the desired content in pop-ups so taht if you block pop-ups you get neither ads nor content.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to block the server http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/*, or something like that. I don't remember exactly, since it's been a while since I did it. Pull up the list of all blockable items on some page that has them, and it'll be obvious.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Dolda2000]

This statement is really oversimpistic, and childish. There is nothing wrong with the HTTP medium. Why is it the fault of the web site makers - why can't you share in some of the blame?

It's neither simplistic nor childish. It's merely a statement of facts. Did you pay any attention to my analogy of distruting a free magazine with the ads on the side? Would you "blame" anyone for not taking the ad brochure while taking a copy of the magazine?

It's exactly the same with HTTP. If they publish the content as one resource and the ads as another resource, then they are just that -- two different resources. They have put the content up their for anyone to fetch without restriction -- how can you then blame anyone for doing just that?

Also, I never pretended there to be anything "wrong" with the HTTP medium. It works perfectly. But it doesn't force the ads on anyone.

Why is it ok for someone to force you to see their ad in a hard medium, but not in a soft medium?

I neither said that it was OK nor that it wasn't. I wasn't making any moral judgement on it at all. The thing is -- when you publish something over HTTP, you effectively aren't forcing anyone to fetch the ad resources. It's not a moral issue; it's a fact.

In a hard medium, on the contrary, you are forcing anyone reading it to see the ads as well. That isn't a moral issue either, but just as well another fact. The difference is that the content and the ads are one and the same resource. Over HTTP, they are different resources, which can be fetched selectively.

Therefore, it's not a matter of it being OK. They have put the content on the web for anyone to fetch -- and that's exactly what people are doing.

If they want to force the ads on you, they'd better make it part of the HTML resource, so that the content and the ads, as in a hard medium, are in fact one and the same resource. Then the readers are forced to see the ads as well as the content.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Alsee]

Than don't visit the sites in question. If you don't like their adverstising, don't leech their content.

I agree. That is why I carefully analize every link on every webpage befor I click it, and check it against a list I've been keeping of sites with annoying ads before clicking on it.

Oh wait, no I don't. Every time I come across a flashing jumping beeping singing popunder popover browser-hijacking ad I just add the marketing host server to by block list so they don't unexpectely send my browser into epileptic spasms every time I click some unknown link sending me to some website I've never seen before that just so happens to be a crapfest.

Which incidentally means that when I go so some new website I generally never even know it was designed to throw up 6 popunders and load dancing and singing teddybears and eyekilling lime-on-pink flashing pink-on-lime text.

So in general even if I *did* want to "not visit the sites in question" and "not leech their content", I couldn't anyway. I don't know it's going to be there before I click the link, and there's no fricking way in hell I'm going to instruct MY computer to display that crap after I click the link, so I wouldn't even know it was there after I click it.

Peopel can put up websites or not as they wish, but they have absolutely no reason to expect that *my* computer is programmed to display it in any particular way. Maybe I'm blind and my browser only displays text in braile. Maybe I only speak Swahili and my computer autotranslates the language. Or maybe I filter out all naughty wrods like "fuck" and "shit" for my kid's surfing. Or maybe I have a redhed fetish and I programmed by computer to change every word "blonde" and "brunette" into "redhead" before displaying it. Or maybe I feel like telling my computer to display the word "Microsoft" as "Micro$oft" (or not display that word at all).

Someone puting up a website has no right to expect anything about how I've programmed my computer to display it.

If I want to hire someone to eliminate the sports section and the fasion section and and move teh siceince section to the front and clip the ads out of a newspaper before I read it, well once they gave me that newspaper that copy is my property and I can hire someone to do as I like with it. My computer is my property and I have a fundamental right to program my computer to display information you sent me in any way I wish. Just because you dislike one particular kind of modification - the ads - does not change the fact that it is fundamentally the same thing as modifing it to display in braile or Swahili or to filter obscene language.

-

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[InvalidError]

How am I supposed to know in advance what kind of ads will be served by the ad servers? A given advertisement feed might contain only a few unreasonable ads but it takes only one to cause major inconvenience... and these feeds are usually dynamic, with some ads being retired and new ones inserted all the time. The only "safe" thing to do is to block them all.

To me, this is not significantly different from 30s/commercial skip on a VCR/TiVo/etc. With all the banner and pop-up training I had in the 90s, my mind can already blank off all but the most annoying ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[paulsomm]

And like any smart business person, upon seeing that ad revenue from traditional means is not working, new means should be explored.

aka Google's AdSense.

Or, yes, charge for subscriptions. some sites already do a hybrid of ad-laden content-light versions and ad-free, in-depth subscription versions (salon.com).

Whining about market force doesn't alter it.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[wowolfol]

You are horribly misinformed. Redirect that energy to the advertising industry, meaning those agencies and marketers who cherish your eyeballs, not Doubleclick. Only then is your first paragraph remotely accurate. While Doubleclick builds the technology that enables advertising, they are not pulling the levers. They do not throw pop-ups in your face, they do not install spyware, and they certainly don't track you across sites. To assume they do is foolish on your part...do your research and read all about the privacy obligations they must adhere to. I know this because I use their technology to run advertising on my site. Here's something else for you to chew on. Companies spent over $9 billion on online advertising last year. Take a look at Doubleclick's SEC filings and their 300M or so in revenue. Sounds like they aren't the main culprit you are making them out to be. It's easy to blame the company whose name you see on the ad tags and cookies, but look behind the curtain and know that they are filling a market need...enabling people like me to monetize the content we provide.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.?

Wasn't there free content on the web before ads ever appeared? The web has become such a rich source of information, if the ads were to disappear, free content would continue to exist. Also, if most people are like me, they are mostly interested in blocking the annoying pop up or pop under ads. I never buy from companies that annoy me with them.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect everybody to use a web broswer to view your content? Are you serious?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[bnenning]

if you do not like any of their terms, leave the website and never return

Fine. Now show me where I agreed to view or click on the ads.

They have the ads in hope that you will view it, and sometimes click-through it.

And as I've said, their hope imposes no obligation on me. The seller of a free-after-rebate product hopes that I won't send the rebate in. So what?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a risk they take that comes with the business and ability to make profit. It's simply not right to just force ads onto people who have no wish to see them. I can't believe how far commercialism has gone to push themselves into our lives and we accept it because there is no other choice (mostly). I say it is wrong to expose people to advertisements in the first place, but if people have a way of blocking it then it's good for them, these companies should find other ways to make money maybe and stop whining when profits go down.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[toddestan]

Certain companies do little to no advertising and are outrageously successful, Abercrombie & Fitch is the first company to spring to mind.

Actually, A&F get a lot of advertising out of the people who buy their clothes with their logo on them, and wear them like a big banner ad accross their chest. I've never figured out why people fall for that.

Also, there was that stupid song from a few years back.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money.

I'm not sure that's true at all. I have never run a commercial web site, though I have been in charge of several others, from a home page with a few articles to help people with similar interests to me, up to a few sites providing information about clubs I belong to for members and those interested in joining/visiting.

In fact, I could quite happily live without most money-making web sites in existence. Of the remainder, all are either something where I pay money anyway (electronic shops of some description) or something I'd be prepared to pay a reasonable to continue using if they couldn't support themselves through ads (e-zines that have genuinely interesting articles, forums I enjoy such as Slashdot, etc.).

Besides which, if we're being realistic, usability studies have consistently shown that untargeted banner ads are blanked by most users without even noticing them these days, and click-through rates are generally terrible. The model is already ineffective, regardless of whether the ads are knocked off the screen visibly or not. Alternatives, from Google's clever use of relevant advertising that people do read up to micro-payment systems so everyone can contribute to content they value without the hassle, are going to dominate more and more over the next few years, without a doubt.

You can call it short-sighted, you can call it whatever you want, but the fact is the owners of most web sites are not innovators and never claimed to be. All they want to do is put out a product and make money doing it.

Well, if they're providing a product for money, they don't need banner ads, do they? And if they're not providing a product and they're not providing any other sort of innovative service, why would I visit their web site and view any ads they host anyway...?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe since it costs to put stuff online, and people are no longer getting so much money from advertising, maybe just maybe, we'll start getting rid of all the crap online.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Randseed]

Indeed. At the top of my screen right now, as I type this, is a stupid ad for tigerdirect.com. I'm never going to buy anything from tigerdirect.com, at least not in any way based on that ad. In well over a decade of using the net, I have yet to actually click on a damned banner ad intentionally, and I've never bought anything based on one. I find the ads annoying. In fact, given that advertisers are usually bullshit artists, I'm more likely to not buy from a company because they have a stupid ad. Am I costing Slashdot money? Well, maybe, since I'm using their bandwidth, and maybe they get paid per ad display. But am I costing the company hosting that ad or the company advertising money? No. I'm chosing not to send my business there, and I'm not swayed by their annoying ad. Ironically, I'm causing the ad hosting company and the company advertised to not waste money on something that is totally ineffective when targetted towards me. Slashdot loses because they have a flawed business model by relying on ads. The advertising hosting company loses because they have a flawed business model based on relaying ads. The advertised company loses nothing. Over the last few months, I've gotten literally about a hundred envelopes marked things like "IMPORTANT STUDENT LOAN INFORMATION -- TIME SENSITIVE -- DO NOT DISCARD!!!" They were all ads. Every one of them. As a result of the fradulent business practice and the fact that it's horribly annoying, I won't do business with them either. When I'm driving in my car and they go into a block of advertising, I change the channel. If all the channels I flip through have ads on at the same time, I switch bands (AM to FM, or visa versa). If that happens, I usually turn the damned radio off for a few minutes. I have a Tivo. I use it to time-shift programs. If the program has 40 minutes of content and 20 minutes of ads (i.e., all of them except for "premium" cable like HBO), I 30-second-skip through the ads. Yes, I guess I'm mooching off the poor television station. But I'm not going to buy the crap they're shovelling anyway! How many ads for feminine hygene products, Viagra, Plavix, car dealerships, and community service announcements must I sit through? When I want to buy something, I'll go look in the paper, or go to the store, or open an advertising rag, or do a web search. At that point, and only at that point, might the ads be effective. Americans are in total and utter ad overload. The ads are for many people, like me, completely ineffective because we just ignore the damned things. Since they aren't effective, they are losing absolutely nothing by me skipping the things. Frankly, I've half a mind to start sorting through my U.S. Mail and cramming the worthless junk crap that's without even the slightest interest to me back in the box after obliterating the recipient's address (mine) and writing "return to sender." Not that it would accomplish anything except saving me from cluttering my trashcan. Add to all this those advertisements that have no effect but to piss me off because they're bullshit, filled with bad logic, are mind-numbingly stupid, are literally insulting (e.g., ads painting all men as buffoons), or are just out-and-out annoying, and it's simpler for me to simply stop listening to them. Want to fix it? Target ads somehow. Don't make annoying ads. Don't make offensive ads. Don't make utterly stupid ads. Don't make ads with complete non-sequitors like "The year is coming to and end, so COME OUT AND GET A NEW DEAL ON A BRAND NEW CAR!" Advertisers abused an effective thing. (Yes, spammers also did wonders on this front.) The business models that depend on a fundamentally flawed model of being advertiser-supported in the ways outlined are going to fail too unless they figure out another way to deal with it. As for why I haven't subscribed to Slashdot? Do micropayments and charge me $1 a month or something, and I might pay. Get rid of the dumb "per page" subscription model.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Not at all.

It might be the end of content that's paid for by ads.

But you can't leap to the conclusion that it will be end of all free content.

A very common model now is to provide lower-tier content for free, and to charge money for upper-tier content. Blocking ads will have zero effect on this model.

Some people provide free content just for the love of it (bloggers, etc.).

Some content is free simply because it's defined to be free (example: wikipedia).

Some content is free because it's already been paid for in another way (examples: the CIA's atlas; a professor's course notes.)

And sometimes the content itself is a form of advertising. For example, New York Times articles are provided in part so they can get the opportunity to expose your eyeballs to the brand name "New York Times".

None of these reasons for providing free content will be affected by a drop in ad revenues. Your conclusion is about as wrong as any conclusion could be on this topic.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[purplepaste]

The web site publishers who do use a little innovation are going to reap the benefits. I think Salon.com is an excellent example. They use a click through model where you view one large, slightly obtrusive ad, and then you have access to the entire site for the rest of the day. And because Salon only has one major sponsor per day, the ads are generally higher quality (that is to say, more tasteful and less annoying) and part of a larger campaign (as opposed to "hit the monkey" style ads). They are also more memorable. I can't remember most of the ads I see in a given day, but I do remember that I saw an Absolut vodka ad on Salon a couple of days ago, because it was a well done ad that I had to spend a few seconds viewing before I clicked through to the content.

To address your second point, people expect innovation on the web because it is still in its infancy... new developments are made every day that are pushing the web in new directions. Bakeries and stationary shops have around long enough to have proven models that work, but to expect that a content publisher on the web will be doing business in the same manner ten years from now is a bit rediculous.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can hope all you want that people will innovate; the reality is most web site owners are only in it for the money. They don't care about compromise and even if they did, they wouldn't know where to even start coming up with new revenue streams.

you'd think by now these people would have learnt a thing or two from the bubble. going on the web and expecting to make money without some form of innovative marketing method is equivalent to trying to pilot a ship without understanding the ocean.

you can whine all you want about how ad blockers are doing injustice to 'free content', but what exactly is free content? Free content is something we can choose to watch, not something we are forced to watch simply because some webmaster somewhere with a business development degree is hoping to make some money out of.

The fact is that if you don't got it, you might as well quit. Not sit around and expect the rest of the world to act in your favor.

Wake up and smell the reality already.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[ekhben]

"... or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?"

And go out of business. Until there are no free sites offering the same thing, or none that are easily accessible, this is a doomed business model.

Perhaps the day will come when advertising is no longer paying at all. I hardly think it will be the death of the "free Internet." It will be the death of the advertising supported Internet.

The sites that are largely supported by advertising are generally news sites, or free hosting sites: places that don't create anything themselves, merely host it, such as Slashdot. Other sites tend to have alternate revenue: online comics have merchandising, for instance.

So let's look at a hypothetical in which Slashdot had to shut down. Where would I get my gold bricking fix?

The answer there, I feel, lies in better tools for filtering content from a wide array of sources. More metadata in blogs, aggregator software that can use that metadata to sensibly filter, and so on. It can only get better!

And doubleclick can die the death those evil rat bastards so richly deserve. Noone should make a living by intentionally disrupting someone else's life.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[InvalidError]

The simplest form of ad-blocking is to simply disable third-party objects. Since most ads are served by off-site (advertiser) servers - most webmasters do not want to serve >500KB worth of ads per page from their own servers at their own cost - disabling third-party objects already kills most ads and "spyware" tracking cookies.

AdBlock itself is somewhat like a glorified old-school host list - it can be used to block hosts or anything else that can be defined as a regular expression.

Since simply disabling third-party objects already kills the vast majority of annoying ads (at least for me), I have not really bothered setting up AdBlock but I have it installed just in case.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Firethorn]

While people do indeed click on them, just like people fall for pyramid schemes and fraud all the time. Tt's generally the 'new to the internet' crowd, and those who deliberatly stay that way.

The percentage though, has been dropping, and is already very low. I have a policy of never clicking on a popup. They aren't getting any benefit from showing me a pop-up ad, because I'm actually less likely to buy anything from them. That's the very reason that I'd never buy X10 stuff.

Do your parents buy anything from those sites? Do they even buy anything from the internet? Because if they don't, ultimately they're just as worthless to the business model as I am. At least I'm marked as a non very quickly.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Double Click made so much money off me HATING ALL THEIR ADS AND BOYCOTTING THEIR ADVERTISERS that they're worried that they're going to lose money because because in addition to not responding to their annoying popups I block them altogether?

It's like the TV exec that said that people shouldn't be allowed to move away from the TV when ads come on. Yeh, right.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[serutan]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

In other words, the web as it existed in 1995 did not actually exist. Brilliant.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[falconwolf]

A good example of annoying ads in print is the Readers Digest. The first thing I do when it arrives in the mail is rip out all the mail-in-cards and throw them away because they interfere with my reading.

Reminds me of the print edition of "Wired" magazine. I let my subscription to it lapse a few years ago because I was sink and tired of leafing through a couple of dozen pages of ads to get to the table of contents, then having to find munbered pages for an article I wanted to read. On the other hand, if "Byte magazine" still issued a print version I'd be more than happy to subscribe. I was sad to see they stopped printing it, I started reading it shortly after it came out back in 1976-7.

Falcon

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

2 Facts:

Oh, you want facts. Well, there you go:

1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

Source: realultimatepower.net

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, someone explain to me how letting through ads that I will refuse to look at (much less read) and will NEVER click on, ever, somehow benefits advertisers, whereas being honest and flat out blocking crap that I want nothing to do with does not?

I can see how the ad-delivery service -- Doubleclick -- cares, because they are paid per delivered ad. But blocking the ads is better feedback to the advertisers, and lets them know that they need to take a different approach, one that people blocking the annoying, intrusive ads will be willing to at least tolerate.

The notion that there are only two choices -- view the annoying ads or expect paid-only web sites -- is false. The correct evolution of this will be to advertising/marketing models that don't piss off people.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[PsiPsiStar]

>>If the people who make this site are losing money (and they are not wealthy enough to keep it going) the site will be lost.Blocking ad's will only lead to innovation in terms of people trying to circumvent the pop-ups, and other people trying to figure ways to prevent that. In the end - it is a cat and dog chase and it is a waste of our resources.

I see a more ominous outcome, the increasing integration of ads and content (like posting movie hype as a story on slashdot... for a fee.)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[melikamp]

Dude, you rock.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Clansman]

That assumes that you are covering all the costs and profit required just using your subscription. If the sub is just /part/ of a revenue stream then you are just getting away with like everyone else.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[RKBA]

that will be the end of free content on the web.

Not so, the content on my website will always be free. ;-)

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Murasaki Skies]

That's funny, because I've often seen an ad appear and then near-instantly be AdBlocked. Also, if those instances were just mirages, or only happen infrequently, why do sites that contain lots of ads and basically nothing else but text still take far longer (noticeable with my cable modem) than they would if they only sent a few KiB (max) of text? I believe the answer is, like pop-ups, YOU don't make the request; when you click on a link, IT decides what it will send YOU, which usually includes ads.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Trejkaz]

You're a web site publisher with little ad revenue left. What do you do? Your training is not in marketing, it's maybe in business development. Are you going to sit there and try to invent a new form of advertising that isn't patented by Google, or are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

I suppose if the site were actually popular, you'd use Google's ads yourself. No point stressing about patents by making a fake, when you can just use the real thing.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Trejkaz]

I know what you mean. I'm pissed off that we pay over $50/month for cable TV, and those assholes still have the nerve to display ads. Where is AdBlock for our TV set? And I don't mean Tivo... Tivo can only do it after the fact. :-/

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[a8o]

Pipes are now faster, bandwidth is now cheaper.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no trouble with inline ads, but I'd like to terminate the slime that do pop-up and pop-under ads.

No-one is denied anything when music, software, movies, etc are copied. It is a fact that those that would buy will pay for originals of what they like and can afford. People with more money, like myself, have no place pointing fingers just because we can afford to buy.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Decker-Mage]

Actually I've been blocking everything since the '90's. When I visit a site, unless I choose otherwise, I'm in full stealth mode. No pop-ups (Javascript blocking), cookies, referrer, browser identification, ads, zip, nada, nothing. Look in your web logs and all you see is a date/time stamp and an IP address which may, or more probably not, match where I'm actually connecting from. This was done from a security standpoint and paid off handsomely when someone was spreading a worm via ads from one ad serving company sometime back. It also pays when I go spelunking the cracking boards to track what the kiddies/crackers are up to these days.

As you observed, we are seeing a paradigm shift and not just in online advertising. Google (which is completely unblocked here) showed that people will put up with unobtrusive newspaper style ads. Where Double-Click fails to get the demonstrated usability factors is that they believe that their advertising is a positive factor in the user experience. Now Double-Click is watching their revenue go down the tubes while Google is set to surpass the total advertising revenues spent on all of broadcast TV in the United States combined. Correlation does not always imply causation but I think there is a related set of variables here.

As for the TiVo factor cited in the replies below, I have noticed a trend in television advertising today for more engaging commercials. It used to be just when you watched the SuperBowl that you actually had engaging commercials. Now the trend seems to be towards having them year round. Furthermore, as someone points out, advertisers are actually getting their products incorporated into the show materials.

The innovation is there, but it is on the providers of material (internet or other media) to engage the audience in a useful manner without offending. Offend the audience and be not surprised when the tune out using various devices. Whatever happened to the consumer is always right?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[greydmiyu]

For the record adzapper blocks google ads by default.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Decker-Mage]

The major flaw in your analysis is that you are assuming (never ass-u-me) that the site is going to generate a click-through on that sole pass. Click-throughs are the only way to get paid these days. The days of ad impressions generating revenue are long gone (unless you are AOL as I recall). Another flaw is that a useful site is only going to get visited once. Sorry, but if the site is useful, not only will I be back, but surprise surprise, I unblock it here if it has tasteful ads (SlashDot, Google, BBC, all are on the unblock list here).

However, that is *my* choice. With other media I can leave the room, turn the page, use various technologies, but somehow on the 'net it becomes my responsibility/duty (!!) to receive/view these ads? I don't think so.

This is a two-way street here. As a consumer I am paying for my bandwidth and I should be able to dictate how that bandwidth is used. As a provider, and I do have a hosting service myself (80 GB/mo), depending on the ever unpredictable ad stream from click-throughs is sheer lunacy, IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion).

Strangely the sites I care about most are donation driven sites for the most part, or have ads I can live with, but they don't depend on ads as a revenue source. Time and again in the various webmaster journals/newsletters I receive here, the overriding theme is "Content is King". Good content and amazingly you see contributions. Or perhaps not so amazing at all. Depending on anything else for your revenue steram is setting yourself up for a business failure.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Decker-Mage]

Finally! Someone gets it right about which way the freerider effect works. Thank you!

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[kapes]

Instead of black and white approach to ADs, i.e. either you "see" it or you "Block".. We need a third option.. to download-AD-but-don't-display on my browser.. thus.. the webmaster gets his HIT as the AD is downloaded and since it is not shown.. USER saves his eyes... both WIN-WIN So there should be third option in AdBlock which will allow unix like redirection ADs > nul I know many advertisers, now-a-days don't count AD display as HIT.. but this is better then completely blocking the AD.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[pbhj]

>>> "If I want to hire someone to eliminate the sports section and the fasion section and and move teh siceince section to the front and clip the ads out of a newspaper before I read it, well once they gave me that newspaper that copy is my property and I can hire someone to do as I like with it."

Not true. Under (c)opyright law you can't modify the work without the (c)opyright owners consent. Snipping ads amounts to modification. If you hire someone then its commercial and they at least would be sued.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[fabiopetz]

come on ... people are creative there are better ways to fund content let the best ones survive

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Alsee]

Ah yes, and anyone who clips a coupon out of the newspaper is a criminal too! Chuckle.

I certainly hope you were trying to make a joke with that post. Yes copyright law has the derivative works restriction (at least here under US law), however it does not prohibit cutting up your own copy of a newspaper (at least not here under US law).

I realize some countries are technically even more anal about copyright than the US is, but under US Fair Use it is perfectly legal to create a derivative work converting a song from CD to MP3 and to put that NEW and derivative copy onto your iPod. In fact under *some circumstances* you can even create a derivative work and create and sell a million copies of it for profit and still be within Fair Use. And just in case you don't believe it, I'll save time and include the link to proove it right now.

Fair Use and de minimis and statutory exemptions obviously do not permit "anything and everything", but they do allow quite a bit. Whether it is language translation or adblocking or a different color scheme, you are not commiting copyright infringment by displaying a website in any way you like on your private screen.

-

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[jZnat]

This is why I usually stick with sites I use regularly such as Wikipedia (and its affiliates), GameFAQs, Slashdot, Google, SourceForge, ImageShack, deviantART, and some others. I either donate, buy a subscription, or both. Besides, I know how to properly cite something, so those sites I might nab a bit of info from get properly credited, and others who read what it is I wrote, if interested in the topic, might check out the sites and sources I used, thus generating more customers.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[AviLazar]

If you support such sites (via payments) regularly that is great. For paying to access a site (assuming you are making a reasonable donations) they probably offer ad-free login. You are playing by their rules. If they are not offering ad-free login even after you pay, that is their rules.

In the end, what I am really trying to get at is - If you go to a site voluntarily then you should respect their desires. If I go to your home - wouldn't you want me to respect your rules?

As for getting information from their site and reprinting it somewhere. Just make sure they are OK with this. They may have restrictions about reusing their information w/o explicity getting permission from them. Even if you cite them as a source, this may not be good enough. Just to note, I do not know the restrictions for these sites, but just keep that in mind. Citing a source does not give you the right to copy and reprint their data (educational purposes i believe are exempt from this though).

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[jp10558]

Well, the other thing I like about salon.com is that I can watch one 30 second video ad to pay for a whole day of (to me) ad free content.

I think I'd be willing to watch up to a minute of video each day to use a site, especially if that got rid of the ads on the rest of the site. No idea if that's more valuable, but if set up like salon, they can mostly garuntee that you actually looked at the ad rather than blocking it.

I do think new paradigms are going to come up - salon's and googles are some examples.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[cshark]

You really need to be more careful about throwing words around recklessly like that. Just because someone does not agree with you, or they have done more research than you on a given subject does not make them foolish.

You said

"they certainly don't track you across sites"

They've been investigated by the Attorney General and the FTC over it.

According to DoubleClick's own web site (the source):

"DoubleClick does not use your name, address, email address, or phone number to deliver Internet ads. DoubleClick does use information about your browser and Web surfing to determine which ads to show your browser. "

Therein lies the problem with DoubleClick, and the level of community anger towards them. They do track people, they have been doing it for years, and the scope has been increasing gradually. While I'll concede that I haven't heard of them installing spyware, I can't say I would put it past them.

You also said:

"Take a look at Doubleclick's SEC filings and their 300M or so in revenue."

Aside from the fact that you're off on the numbers, why would I? They're a private company?

Oh, and last one:

" They do not throw pop-ups in your face"

Not only do they throw pop ups in your face, they help people get around your popup blockers. Great guys you're defending here.

I think it's important to point out that your defending DoubleClick as though they were the only option. They're not. There are other companies out there that behave ethically and haven't even been investigated once by the FTC or the Attorney General. There are at least three I can think of off the top of my head that are not compiling illegal databases designed to profile the spending habits of every man woman and child on earth. You can choose to work with a company that will be honest, and adhere to their privacy policies, and not exploit you or your visitors without consent. There are lots of companies out there that do will pay you as much or more than DoubleClick does for your space. Or you could do what I do with Microsoft. Nothing. If it works, why would you care how they behave or what they do? Who cares about business practices.. right? C'mon, apathy is actually a nice place to be, but it doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[hyfe]

I'm willing to bet their income from subcripers far supersede their ad-revenue.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[wowolfol]

Allow me to retort. Firstly, they are still public, the deal hasn't closed yet (or at least I haven't see the SEC filing indicating the shareholder vote. Secondly, you are ignoring the fact that Doubleclick doesn't operate the ads. The advertising agencies and marketers do. I loathe popups like anyone, but lest we not forget that web sites, including myself, could have a policy to ban popups. Lastly, and I have my Doubleclick legal contract in front of me, they do not own any data! I do! If I choose to use another ad server, guess what. All that data is mine, as governed by my privacy policy, not Doubleclick. You are basically jumping to your own conclusion about that privacy statement. It is explicit that they cannot capture and contrast any data that occurs on my website with another website. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending them per se. I'm defending the concept that most people are blaming the mail man for delivering junk mail when it's the companies who buy your data and market to you that's to blame.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Advertising (which some websites are just big ads for a product) is always a loss. It has no effect on the actual product and cannot be measured directly."

You my friend are an idiot, and obviously have never had any actual experience with advertising.

As someone in the industry, let me explain:
Advertising is always a loss, except when it brings in a lot of business....and if it brings in more revenue than it cost to advertise, then that advertising was profitable.

And if you weren't able to track advertising, it wouldn't be as big a business as it is. In fact, there is a whole sub-industry that has sprung up just to track advertising. Ever here of Nielsen? Even aside from them, most forms of advertising out there are ridiculously easy to track in a wide variety of measurements.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[pbhj]

>>> "Ah yes, and anyone who clips a coupon out of the newspaper is a criminal too!"

In the UK I expect so! No, whilst there is probably an implied license from the copyright holder to remove a coupon I don't think there's a problem doing it for _yourself_.

However, the parent referred to paying someone else to do it. This wouldn't fall under most interpretations of "fair use" as it's a commercial activity. Most "fair use" exceptions refer to personal, educational or reporting/reviewing. And you rightly mention artistic uses that are derived but not considered copying.

So there :0p>

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[The One and Only]

Because it's illegal? Also, were you trying to make a point? Also, what kind of sick bastard rapes a dog?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Since when has legality ever gotten in the way of a marketing droid?

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[The One and Only]

Apparently the last few times they decided not to rape your dog. By the way, you have some really bizarre fears and insecurities.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[darksider415]

I disagree. The number of people using Firefox with Adblock is relatively low compared to the number of people using browsers, such as Microsoft's Internet Explorer, that do not have this functionality.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[nlhowell]

Actually, you inverted the definition of a public good. Public goods are non-rival and non-excludable (ECON 100 this summer).

Because the internet is (sortof) non-rival and non-excludable, it is a public good.

Although, to an extent, nothing is a pure public good: the internet technically is rival (bandwidth is rival, and the internet involves bandwidth consumption).

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

and therefore is not a public good.

I agree with the point you were trying to make, but that conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. The conclusion that applies is that the freerider problem does not apply to the internet. The internet can still be a public good and fit your premise.

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work.

[Log from Blammo]

Let's distill your example down a little further. You are a farmer. If you give me $1, I will give you $3. You would take the deal, right?

Ok, now what if I'm a sloppy accountant? I give $3 to every farmer, whether he has paid or not, as long as I got $100 from somewhere. If I don't get $100 total, you just get your money back. Now you have some choices. You could pay $1, and hope no one "forgets" to pay. You could pay $2, to cover one freeloader, and still come out ahead. You could even pay $2.99, assured that you can still come out ahead.

But real life seldom has farmland parceled out in equally-sized checkerboard squares. Not all farmers will yield equal benefit from a public good. Farmer Bigranch might stand to gain $80 a year, while Farmer Smallpotatoes might only get an extra $1. Bigranch would be willing to pay $50, and let Smallpotatoes ride for free. He is getting an extra $30, after all, even if other people are getting a little out of it without paying. Smallpotatoes is not likely to agree to a $1/farm tax, which would pay for the satellite, but would not benefit him at all.

The people who want something the most are willing to pay higher prices, and the highest price moves the goods first.

No sympathy at all

[MynockGuano]

If you advertisers hadn't infested the Internet with pop-up, flashing, animated advertisements that dwarfed the actual content, you'd not be in this position. Newspaper ads are given no priority over the content; that's the difference. You can look at one or the other, just as easily. Not so with the crap you put on the Internet.

I have no sympathy at all; you abused your customers, and now they have a "negative vibe." Deal with it.

Re:No sympathy at all

[whitefael]

I think we're all missing an important point: yes, the ads are annoying with all the Flash, etc., but it's the web sites that we are visiting that are allowing the ads to be displayed. We should really be pissed at the web sites for allowing the Flash and pop-ups to be used on their sites!

Re:No sympathy at all

[MynockGuano]

While this is true in many respects, you'll find that many websites have a space which is fed dynamic content by the ad server. I recall a rant recently on reallifecomics.com where he went off on the ad provider he was using when it started putting ads up that he specifically requested NOT to see on his site. I can't get to the site right now (possibly being updated), but I'll paste it here when I find it.

Re:No sympathy at all

[rhendershot]

mod parent up. Newspapers also know where to put resources. They keep the classifieds in easily recognizable columnar listings. News in easily segregated sections. Yes there are adds interspersed, but generally they're easily recognizable and unobtrusive. (OT: this is something that really bugs me about Wired magazine)

But now the commercial advertising interests have all but taken over the internet. Searches for information come back with tons of crap that are just blatant adds or regurgitated summaries of real information propogated through mass-media conglomerates.

the end is truly near, but it has little to do with our miniscule attempts at sanitizing our online environment.

The Internet Just another way for strangers to invade your privacy

Re:No sympathy at all

[http]

Newspaper ads are given no priority over the content; that's the difference.

Look at the top right corner of page 3 of your newspaper. If your newspaper has had any contact with 'modern' marketing techniques, you'll see an ad.
BTW, I agree with Bill Hicks on this: if you are a marketer, stop researching demographics and kill yourself now.

Re:No sympathy at all

[greydmiyu]

Here's Greg's rant. Personally I dropped Google's ads from the one site I had been running them on. They kept getting hung up on calendar ads because in my layout the word calendar appears on every page (as a link to, y'know, a calendar!). If it wasn't calendars it was computer/PHP security stuff because I had a link to, ya know, phpbb. And if it wasn't that it was, get this, the good ol' "free ipod" scams. All of that for a City of Heroes supergroup site. You'd think if these ads were targetted it would be pointing to something comic book related? Maybe? Nope. Pah!

Re:No sympathy at all

[MynockGuano]

Ha! I was just heading over to the site to dig it up. Thanks for saving me the effort! >8)

Re:No sympathy at all

[rhendershot]

see, here's the thing. As an example, I'm searching for a leather wallet with some kind of digital display of pictures. Probably not yet available. All the searches on 'wallet' bring up this lugubrious assault of internet and PDA, so-called wallet, results.

They're synonyms and marketing and commercial-internet versions of a physical thing I want to buy!

Crap!

Going too far...

[fostware]

It's also to do with the advertising sites building sneakier pop-ups, pop-unders, iframes, dialog-like messages, and annoying flashy backgrounds.

And let me be the first to castrate the moron who put the Crazy Frog on flash banners, so they play automatically >:(
Nothing like surfing quietly, and forgetting the speakers were turned up, and jumping when I hear DING-a-ding-ding-ding!

Re:Going too far...

[Pxtl]

Yep, I forget who said it first, but I've always remembered this line:

"If I wanted my web browser to make noise, I'd lick my finger and rub it across the screen - it would sound better."

or something similar.

Re:Going too far...

[millermj]

I just want to nix the epilepsy-enducing flashing ads, the popunders and popups that launch a site when they are closed, the ads that install spyware when they display, and the sound/video ads and I'll leave them turned on. I think everyone understands that content isn't free and someone has to pay the bills, but making an ad annoying raises brand awareness and negative connotations toward that brand.

There's also the opposite extreme: There's an ad at the top of my screen right now about porting a Solaris application to Linux on Power. It's non-intrusive and I can click on it if I want to, but it doesn't get my attention. I'll leave that turned on but its ineffective.

There are many ways for the advertising industry to continue to fund sites like Slashdot. Ads can be effective without being annoying.

There are also ways to make money from a web site without advertisements. Here are three:
* Merchandising
* content so good that people don't mind paying for it
* Sale of devices that enhance the usability of the web site

They do have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising is the only form of revenue for many useful small sites. If users start blocking reasonably placed static ads, there's nothing to turn to. The sites will close shop or fight back. That is a fight which the users will lose, and there will be lots of collateral damage regarding all sorts of comfort and standards. If you are interested in a free web, you have to try and find a reasonable middle ground instead of blocking each and every ad. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for blocking popups, flashing or audible ads and other major distractions, but you have to realize that many of the services which we take for granted are far beyond what a web of hobbyists could sustain without financial incentives.

oh no

[tont0r]

if a site is there to have useful information, then i really dont mind clicking an ad for them (IE: here). because they are providing me a service for free and im happy with it. however, when i go to some other sites (fileplanet, IGN, anything else like that) where im pounded in the face by ads, im going to block all of them. saying blocking ads = end of free stuff is insane. thats like saying tivo is the end of cable because you can get around the commercials. besides, there are ways to generate revenue other than ads. or better yet, try by starting with having relivant ads to the page? like when i check my hotmail, i dont care about a online dating service.

Or perhaps...

[Mithrandir86]

...it will only mean the end to resource-heavy flash ads that his company makes. The only reason I use adblock is because it is difficult for me to go to certain sites without shutting down my browser.

Ads are not that bad

[ShaggyB]

Ads are fine. Nothing wrong with them as long as they arent intrusive or annoying. Annoy me and I will block you. Simple as that.

Boo hoo.

[ip_fired]

If you want people to stop blocking all of your incredibly annoying ads, make them inobtrusive and useful.

Google has the right idea, ads based on the content of the page, taking up just a little space, no animation to draw your attention from the real content on the page. With that method, if I want to find someone who is selling what I just read about, I know where to look!

Actually it wasn't the Ads that ticked us off.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really it was all the popups, not the ads. I'd prefer not to be offered Viagra in a popup that calls up another ad for P0rn, which calls another V1agla ad, and around we go.

Perhaps if he had some limit and control on his content people wouldn't dis on his company so much.

Besides why use popup block on double click, when you can use a route to loopback.

d

Free?

[SightlessMind]

I don't know about you guys, but I pay for my cable modem at home and for my hosted space. So where's this free internet that DoubleClick has been serving up for me?

Oh no!

[Dancin_Santa]

It's kind of funny that none of the ads on that page loaded, nor do any doubleclick website IPs load.

I surf in good faith. Good faith that my browser won't be hijacked by full-page ads, good faith that any advertisements won't chew up unnecessary CPU time, and good faith that advertisements will typically be for things I am interested in.

Doubleclick's ads fail every single of those points. So they can go cry in their soup. As should any site losing advertising revenue because they use the Doubleclick scum.

Stupid...

[lordbyron]

I have used adblock for a while and currently I do not block all ads. As an example I keep the context non obtrusive ads from say google it is the annoying pop-ups and big ads that have no relevance or take up to many cycles on my machine. Plus if you block all the ads it messes the page layout up on several sites so why would I want to block them all. Wyly http://www.wylywade.com/blog/ www.wylywade.com/blog

Blocking ads...

[aeric67]

Didn't they say this when people started blocking popups? That was like 5 years ago, wasn't it?

Not all ads are bad

[alvinrod]

I hardly notice the ads that google puts on the side of their search results, or the few odd ones placed on a page to generate a little extra revenue. Hell, I don't even mind the occasionaly banner ad at the top of some sites.

However, there are ads that bother the hell out of me and make me want to block them or stop visiting the page that hosts them. These usually include flash banner ads (shoot the monkey, sink a basket, hit the target, etc.) or animated .gifs or anything else that's more bandwidth intensive than my 56k connection at home can handle in a few seconds. Additionally, ads about products that I don't want or ads that look like scams or phishing attempts really bug me.

It's not the ads that are bad, it's the type, placement, and content of those ads that gets to me.

Don't be underhanded.

[kevin_conaway]

I don't mind be advertised to. People have to make their money somehow, and if I want to get content for free, the publisher should be able to show me advertisements in order to make money for his/her content.

This advertising space is limited to the page I am viewing. I consider it unacceptable to:

- Show popups.
- Show popunders.
- Spam me.
- Install spyware / adware.

Basically if you advertise in any way that is not confined to the page/window I am viewing, all bets are off when it comes to blocking your advertisements.

Re:Don't be underhanded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, but I also say
- Show flash advertisements

Blocked. Too many annowing flash adverts.
In particular, I hate those by Tru, showing
off a woman's body.

Re:Don't be underhanded.

[cdavis4000]

This is a good balanced view. I enjoy free content and I've been working now for two years. The money has to come from somewhere.

Re:Don't be underhanded.

[Khelder]

I agree, except I also object to animated ads. I use Flashblock in Firefox because flash is nearly always animated ads. And I disable images from sites that serve animated image ads.

Re:Don't be underhanded.

[deadtree9]

Mod Parent Up! I completely agree. While we all hate pop-ups/unders, and spyware should be plain illegal (d@mn you congress for being so easily bought out!!!), we must realize that advertisements are a necessary part of "free" content. For instance, take the newspaper industry. Do you really think that your 50 cents is enough to even pay for the printing of a single daily newspaper? Absolutely not! The journalist's salaries are paid through advertisement money. And that's why when you open a newspaper, you'll see plenty of ads. Otherwise a newspaper would cost probably $10 a copy. Now who is going to spend $280 a month on a newpaper? Ah, but you say, I get my news online! Why kill a tree if we can avoid it! Well, the Journalists, webmaster, photographers etc. still need paid, right? None of us are going to quit our jobs and work for free to report the news. So if the LA times or Baltimore Sun or CNN has ads on their website to pay for their costs, so be it. However, just like when you open a newspaper you don't have some hairy Quiznos (what the @#$% was that???) thing jump out and start singing, I don't want that to happen when I open a website. But so long as the advertisements are blatently offensive , annoying or invasive, I have no problem with them. "Free" is better than paying $10 for my news! And I'm glad I don't have to pay for /.

I have nothing against advertising...

[Anonymous Coward]

... except when it's everywhere on the site, detracting from the content. Some hardware review sites (unnamed) I used to go to had put nearly hundreds of ads on the same page, in between sentences, on the top, bottom, side, and even with one of those annoying Javascript windows that go right in the middle of the screen, not letting you close it until it's let you stare at it for up to thirty seconds or more.

On top of that, DoubleClick tracks online browsing usage and sells it to the highest bidder, so they can better advertise to your browing demograph

I seriously double DoubleClick is having any financial troubles at this point with a browser at 10% having a popup-block feature. Most users at home (was it 40% now?) don't even know what adblocking is, and probably have loads of spyware ((c) Gator/Clarica Inc.) installed.

Stop trying to guilt-trip the users into seeing your page-mutilating advertising. I understand a server costs a lot to maintain (up to $200 or more a month), but webmasters should only invest in a server that large if they can support it or have a certain paid-for feature than nullifies advertising.

Go cry me a river DoubleClick.

This Newspaper, Why, It's Like Swiss Cheese!

[TPIRman]

Worst. Analogy. Ever. From TFA:

"He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers. 'You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were. You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value,' he said."

What if you went to a baseball game, and there were only open space -- holes, that is -- where the billboards usually were, and your beer cup had a hole where the "Budweiser" logo goes, and the peanuts were generic (with holes in them), and there were dogs with holes in their mouth and when they bark they shoot holes at you? I say, you'd somehow feel you didn't get a good value!

Re:This Newspaper, Why, It's Like Swiss Cheese!

[poot_rootbeer]

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

Yes, but in the case of internet ad-blocking, the tool has been not only ACCEPTED but DEMANDED by consumers.

Check out the marketing for any Internet Service Provider. All the major providers and many of the smaller ones now advertise "popup blockers" as features of their service. People demanded that something be done about the decrease in usability caused by intrusive advertising, and the ISPs responded.

DoubleCock has no one to blame for the proliferation of ad blocking besides the proliferation of annoying ads, and they themselves pioneered that field.

Re:This Newspaper, Why, It's Like Swiss Cheese!

[crimson30]

"He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers. 'You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were. You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value,' he said."

Instead of advertisements, I get small blocks of my web site front page all over the place since I localhost so many ad sites through my hosts file. It's more like, instead of holes in the newspaper, I see MY writings in the newspaper where ads would be. Now that's a newspaper I'd like to see!

Pr0n!!!!!!

[tsbiscaro]

It's simple: banners with naked women.

then stop....

[rwven]

When they stop making internet adds obtuse, gaudy and annoying, i'll stop using adblock. Google banners are nice, plain and don't attempt to infiltrate your browsing experience. It's the huge flash adds the blink and give you seizures that annoy the hades out of me.

Also, i've NEVER clicked on an add since i started using the internet. If they're not going to get a click-through on the add anyway, why does it hurt if i just block it? Never have, never will click the things...

IMO, most adds are just as annoying as popups. Mr. doubleclick up there needs to reform the way advertising is done instead of flaming people for getting rid of his ridiculous garbage...

Call it a flamebait or troll, but i'm sick of how stupid online advertisers have become...

'Negative vibe' goes way back

[Allen Varney]

I only wish the 'negative vibe' against advertising would prompt a wider examination of its toxic effects on society. For some inexplicable reason Adbbusters and No Logo don't get a lot of exposure on commercial TV networks, wonder why?

We have lost, almost completely, the concept of pandering as harmful. In the Divine Comedy, Dante put the panders in the sixth circle of Hell, lower (and hence worse than) than the murderers. Someday a lot of DoubleClick guys will join them...

Re:'Negative vibe' goes way back

[freeradica1]

For some inexplicable reason Adbbusters and No Logo don't get a lot of exposure on commercial TV networks, wonder why? Maybe the reason they don't is because commercial TV networks rely on ads to make a profit (keeping it "free", just like the internet). Considering that ads support the radio and tv industry, as well as a large portion of the webs, perhaps ads should be considered a necessary evil. Also, a brief look at the No Logo site offers a few hints as to why they don't get TV coverage. Naomi Klein has always been anticapitalist rather than an anticorportatist.

Re:'Negative vibe' goes way back

[Allen Varney]

I guess the irony I intended in my remark was way too subtle.

Oh, right, so all the iframe-injected spyware...

[ArielMT]

Oh, right, so all the iframe-injected spyware I remove day in and day out from my clients' computers don't come from ads that ad blockers block. Right? Ri-i-i-i-i-ight.

Online advertizing has failed, the reasons why are widespread and well documented, and DoubleClick itself helped to ensure its failure.

Hey, DoubleClick! Welcome to irrelevancy! If you had actually stopped to listen to your critics, your ad network might not have become the bane of Internet users everywhere.

Bite Me, Bennie!

[Anonymous Coward]

On second thought, don't - I'm allergic to rabies serum.

I hope stock analysts take this opportunity to note how popup-blockers reduce the value of DoubleClick's stock and that DoubleClick has no future.

This guy thinks he's the world...

[Thud457]

Something's not really free if carries a advertising payload.

There are like a gazillion bamillion kajillion websites out there that are created by people who just want to share for love of whatever they're doing. I guess they're all just inconsequental stupid SUCKERS .

I really don't give a flying fuck if you can't turn the web into another avenue to shove advermatizing down our throats. Too bad Congress wants to give support to companies like the weather channel rather than public services like NOAA. Silly Asses.

I HATE spam!

[bornyesterday]

1. The ad immediately below the article featured John Cleese 2. John Cleese reminded me of Monty Python 3. Monty Python reminded me of the Spam skit 4. Spam is related to ads 5. Ads lead to...PROFIT!

Stop being annoying

[StonedRat]

If the banners weren't annoying flash or animated gifs then i wouldn't be so inclined to block them. Some of them now have sounds effects and huge popups when you mouse over them. Also I have never clicked a banner on perpose anyway, I doubt many adblock users would click banners either.

Give FOX some time.

[CyricZ]

Give FOX News some time. They'll eventually stoop to that level, but will take it a step further by only advertising Republican-owned corporations.

Warning!

[arose]

Your free internet content is in danger.

[ OK ]

My advice to DoubleClick, et alia

[QuietLagoon]

Stop annoying me with grossly intrusive ads.

Stop tracking my whereabouts on the web, and then selling that data to others without my knowledge or consent.

Maybe then I might start letting your ads through my ad-blocking proxy.

A Negative Vibe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean I'm supposed to feel warm and friendly when I visit a site that opens fifty pop ups in my face, covers the main page with a large, loud, disruptive flash advertisement, and then has half a dozen spyware/adware programs installed behind my back?

The reason why things like Adblock exist is because a good number of assholes decided to cripple web content for a bit of ad revenue.

So, now that Doubleclick didn't meet its expected revenue this quarter, the end is near? I'll be sure to uninstall Firefox right this second, then.

Bill Hicks

[jbridge21]

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!
Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"

DoubleClick still exists?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dropped most of their domains into hosts years ago, and when I get the time, the router will block them too. The browser doesn't even get a chance to block them, but it sounds like a darned good idea--just in case.

Ads are fine...

[scolby]

...as long as there aren't thirty of them popping up whenever I travel to a website. Unobtrusive ads on the side or bottom of a page that don't flash or blink or make stupid noises don't bother most people. It's not that we don't like advertising, it's that we don't like ANNOYING advertising. Ad filters were created to remove the aggravating stuff; the rest of it just kind of gets caught in the crossfire. I realize that the number one rule of advertising is to do as much as you can to catch the eye of potential customers. But there need to be limits. And if the ad agencies and the pages hosting them aren't going to regulate that, we'll do it ourselves.

In other news, burglars complain about police

[Chairboy]

PODUNK, NH - John "The Weasel" Gibbons complained that active policing was putting a cramp on his style.

"Youz all needs burglars, see?" said Gibbons in an interview from his cell. "We're keeping the economy running, you shoulds be thanking us!"

Arguing that product theft spurred economic activity by forcing consumers to purchase more, Gibbons estimates that if burglary drops by a mere 15% nationally, the effects could be felt in the form of hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs as demand for replacement products wane.

"It's like this," he said as he preened his whiskers. "Them cops, they're always sniffing around where they ain't welcome, but instead of helping the economy by buying donuts like theys do in the movies, they're out busting honest, hard working economic invigorators like myself!"

His tail whipping back and forth in a frenzy, Gibbons then launched into a tirade against the specific officers that had arrested him earlier that afternoon for cutting a stereo out of a parked car.

Finally, he closed the interview with this prediction: "If yous all don't hold in the reins on Magruff over there, industries are gonna topple! Let me and my friends free, for the sake of our country!" He then scampered to his nest at the back of the cell.

Idiots

[GreatDrok]

These people need to get the message. We don't like advertising. It was reasonably acceptable when it was a little here and there but as it has become more and more in your face it has become some people's mission (mine included) to block it as much as possible.

This isn't to say that I don't appreciate adverts when they are clever and targetted but this is very rare compared with the huge amount of dross that hits our door mats, or spews from every screen or the pages of magazines and poster boards. TiVO, Pithhelmet/adblock and registering with the likes of the Telephone Preference Service etc do make a big difference. I am generally indifferent to advertising these days as a result except when someone really goes out of their way to get to me and that really doesn't make me particularly inclined to listen to their sales pitch.

I find it particularly funny when people say that Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc do not render web pages properly when compared to IE and yet when I use Safari or Firefox and filter out all the ads the pages look so much better than they do when using IE so frankly I don't care. And with the move to IE7 do we really think that MS will allow anyone to have something like Pithhelmet/Adblock? Doubtful. In which case I don't think the alternative browsers have anything to worry about for some time.

So, the message for advertisers? Learn the art of subtlety and grow a brain.

Re:Idiots

[strikethree]

These people need to get the message. We don't like advertising. It was reasonably acceptable when it was a little here and there but as it has become more and more in your face it has become some people's mission (mine included) to block it as much as possible.

I concur. I used to read The Register because I liked the news that they covered and I thought their spin was entertaining. Their advertising model became unbearable and I no longer visit their website. These "over the top" advertisers are killing websites.

On the other hand, I am quite happy to use the internet without any corporate sponsored content being available. Most of what I do and most of what I use on the internet does not involve corporations selling things at all. The internet is about communication. Corporate communications are not central to my life.

strike

Re:Idiots

[JimB]

First of all, my replying HERE is not a reflection on 'GreatDrok' ! It's just a good place to stick my 2 cents.
In the OLD days, a shingle and word of mouth were 'advertizing'. Then came newspapers & 'fliers'. With the advent of electronics (Radio), they had a 'Good Idea' and said "lets get help paying for our entertainment, let's sell air time to companies with products".
So, since the early 1900's, this seemed like a good idea. THEN someone demonstrated that this time could be used to sell something 'new'. Something that people could not know they 'wanted'. [Creating a need, as it were.]
The problem (IMHO) is that 'thinking outside the box' is another marketing ploy. VERY few can to it. Advertizing has become a RIGHT, not a METHOD (see: Canter & Seigel). Those fine folks demonstrated that you could NOT stop (then) forced advertizing. THAT too has, somehow, become a RIGHT.
I agree with the folks here that say "block the ads, let it run it's course". Unfortunately, the people who agree with me (us) are VERY VERY few. Remember, most folks are WindBlows users, and while some don't LIKE the ads, they probably don't know there is an option. I think that 'evolution', from the viewpoint of the 'soon-to-be-extinct' probably looks like a conspiracy rather than what it is.
We will all have to endure an era of 'high discomfort' while evolution takes us past this 'forced advertizing' era. UNLESS, of course, they use their AD money and buy the legislation they need. As has been said before, "The common man won't STAND for that !". But they WILL sit for it. [The T-Rex couldn't 'buy-off' the asteroid !!]

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would IE7 prevent Ad blocking? Later versions of IE 6 already come with popup blocking turned on by default.

And the browser you use is irrelevent to Adblockers like WebWasher.

Adblock Blocklist

[indy_Muad'Dib]

http://www.pierceive.com/

Re:Adblock Blocklist

[glpierce]

Please use the Coral CDN: http://www.pierceive.com.nyud.net:8090/

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[rwven]

yaknow, i was about to post the same thing myself and noticed you had... i myself pay 45 a month.... maybe websites should syphon off what comcast overcharges me for...

I remember when the web was free...

[Anonymous Coward]

The best things in life (internet) are free...

The BBC
Wikipedia
Google (almost)

No, the difference is that in the offline world

[the_skywise]

Doubleclick's animated ads don't walk across the content I'm trying to read and play annoying music.

In the offline world, my newspaper isn't locked up with a push button that, when pushed forces me to watch an ad before it will allow me to open the paper.

In the offline world, my newspaper doesn't try to steal my identity.

In the offline world, my newspaper doesn't inject me with a virus that records everything else I read and displays ads when I'm trying to read important things like traffic signs or other documents.

Your Ads Are Annoying

[CPIMatt]

DoubleClick's ads are NOT the same as ads in a newspaper. The ads, at least in my newspaper, are not animated, don't play a tune, and are not on the front page. Plus, the more elaborate that ads on a page are, the longer it takes to download an render.

I block ads that are obtrusive and distracting. Especially ones that are animated and play sounds. Plus, the more elaborate the ads on a page are, the longer it takes to download and render. I don't block Google ads. Can you guess why?

-Matt

AdBlock: reserving the right...

[CdBee]

..to control what I see on my screen. Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content.

I do not wish to be advertised at, so I generally refuse to use sites which require me to sign in to use non-commercial services.

I wouldn't be too sad to see the end of commercial websites funded by advertising.... the internet managed long enough before the days of spam and aggressive advertising.

I remember surfing the web with IE5 on Windows 98 and finding advretising totally unobtrusive, with just a banner ad on every page. Then in the space of about 6 months, I started seeing pop-ups, ads with sound, javascript tricks, etc

So now I block all advertising regardless of its nature. Had quite enough of that. And them.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[jdavidb]

Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content.

Thank you! That one sentence alone is the most important response in this entire thread!

If all advertising supported content went away tomorrow, I wouldn't care. I doubt it will go away.

Yes, slashdot is advertising supported, but it's also community supported. It could survive. Or something better could come around.

I'm now blocking all ads. I was being nice about it; for awhile I only blocked ads on sites that showed me images my wife didn't want me to see. But then folks found a way around Firefox's popup blocking, and I declared fullscale war, installing Adblock and using Filterset.G.

Now, just this morning, I've installed Noscript, to get rid of annoying Javascript. (Some of which was actually preventing sites from loading.) I just visited a USA today article that had 23 script tags! What is up with this non-value-adding web crap?

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[Anonymous Coward]

". Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content."

This is simply false. Many sites DO exist that are funded largely by ad revenue. Things have dramatically improved in the last few years.

Finally, your argument about there always be someone else willing to provide free content is largely bullshit. If quality is any consideration, it's not easy to find truly free (that is, no ads) content on the web.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[CdBee]

"it's not easy to find truly free (that is, no ads) content on the web." isn't it? I'm sure someone who doesn't have his boss standing a few feet away will shortly provide a list of examples. I would if I thought he wouldn't notice....

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[FreshlyShornBalls]

Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content.

Yeah....Radio and Television isn't a very big business at all.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[shagymoe]

That is funny because I am a few months away from implementing a KICK ASS site that will make thousands of open source users and programmers VERY happy and all for free.....which was to be supported by advertising. Just because some people have extra time to spend providing free content, it doesn't mean that everyone should have to give everything away. I understand the open source philosophy well and I am trying to contribute something which I think is ground breaking to the users for only the price of having to view some well place, non obtrusive, non pop-up ads.

After reading a lot of the comments here (and I consider a large portion of the slashdot crowd my target market) I think I need to re-evaluate my plan. Perhaps I would be better off going with a subscription service (yeah, those work well) or just selling the site software for individuals and businesses to use and make it closed source...At least that way I could profit (yes, I know it is an evil word to many here) from my Y E A R S of effort on this project.

For those bitching about having to view ANY ads, please elaborate on all of the free content you have contributed to the web. Also, even if you have contributed, have you noticed that our favorite little site here has advertising? So, maybe you can use a program to block the ad images and such, but all you are doing is killing the site you love so much just a little. If everyone did this to all sites, many quality sites would simply disappear.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[dmaxwell]

As others have said, I don't bother blocking Google's ads. Quite a few other people don't either. They are relatively unobtrusive and most importantly don't:

BLINK AT ME
FLASH AT ME
PLAY FART NOISES AT ME
SPAWN POPUPS FROM THE EGGCASE OF HELL
MARCH ACROSS MY SCREEN LIKE THE WEHRMACHT
DIDDLE BROWSER CONTROLS
STEAL WINDOW FOCUS
TRACK MY EVERY MOVE
INSTALL MALWARE

Whew! I had to get that off my chest. If your "KICKASS" site will be using ads more in line with Google's then you'll be fine. If the ads in question are to be an assault on the senses or innocent webclients then your site isn't so "KICKASS" after all. Ultra obnoxious advertising is enough all by itself to make an otherwise nice site something to be utterly ignored. I'll also point out that my brain is equipped with quite the adblocker as well. And no DoubleClick, you aren't allowed to install implants to circumvent it.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[Winkhorst]

Baloney.

Just a little history. The internet as it now stands is simply a high tech version of two mail-based phenomena that existed for ages before its arrival, mailorder shopping and the small/amateur/fan magazine. Neither of these made money through advertizing. The mailorder businesses made money by selling stuff. I bought a lot of stuff by mailorder. The selection was better and I didn't have to go out and get the stuff. The small mags weren't in business to make money. They were simply trying to have their voice heard by a larger audience. Anyone who wanted to make money publishing created a real magazine sold at newsstands. These also have their analogue on the web. They are the pay-for sites that live or die on the quality of their content. Yes, there is now a middle ground where "free" sites try to survive by taking advertising, but these too have their analogue in the real world. They are the free city papers and advertising rags that survive through their advertising. The web advertisers should take a clue from these.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[jdavidb]

Same old troll.

Point 1: put up or shut up. All you can say is that it's kickass and would make us all happy. This is just as bad as marketroid buzzwords. Instead of "fully-enabled-proactive" crap, we get "kickass" crap. What are you implementing? Let the public decide if they agree that it's great. Your probably one of those people who still can't figure out why Flash is not the be-all and end-all for web USERS (since you think it is for the web DEVELOPERS).

Point 2: if you want to support your site with ads, great. Where did you get the idea that I said you shouldn't be allowed to put ads on your site? (Now, whether or not I want to view them is my decision.)

Point 3: if it's really so great, ask for user donations. Set up a paypal tip jar. If you don't think that can handle it, what the heck kind of bandwidth costs are you expecting? And, referencing point 1, do you think you might be overestimating.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[jdavidb]

For those bitching about having to view ANY ads, please elaborate on all of the free content you have contributed to the web.

As of now, 1358 comments to slashdot.

I run a user-donation-supported web forum.

Two or three small open source programs.

My presence. :)

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[jdavidb]

have you noticed that our favorite little site here has advertising?

Not in a while.

So, maybe you can use a program to block the ad images and such, but all you are doing is killing the site you love so much just a little.

Oh, I see. You didn't even read my post.

You know, the biggest fallacy in your troll post is the idea that you need ads to give open source software away. Once it's released and under the license, anyone can redistribute it. Remember? Or you can put it up on sourceforge. Remind me again why you need ads?

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[DogDude]

Advertising to fund content is not a sustainable business model as too many people are willing to provide genuinely free content.

Free content? Oh sure, there will always be useless blogs and more shopping sites. But what about sites that add value, like Salon.com. How are they supposed to pay their reporters and writers without ads? One answer: subscription. So be careful what you call "free content". Even on the Net, you generally get what you pay for.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[shagymoe]

I'm not distributing an open source application so you really don't know what it is the site is for and I am not going to tell you because I don't want to say for the time being. This is part of marketing strategy that you probably don't understand or think is evil and it is called "first to market".

How can you say slashdot hasn't had advertising in a while unless you are blocking it...I see it just fine.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[jdavidb]

I understand the marketing concept just fine and have used it myself on occasion. But I'm saying that most stuff of the type you spewed is just hoopla. And I'm betting there's better than even odds yours is, too. Like I said, you probably think Flash is cool.

BTW, if you're not distributing an open source application, why is it that your original post mentioned closed source as an alternative?

How can you say slashdot hasn't had advertising in a while unless you are blocking it...I see it just fine.

Wake up, pay attention, and try to follow, okay?

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there will only be a handful of blogs left. Those blog hosts are mainly making money off advertising. 90% of the useful/interesting content on the Internet is either directly supported by ads or feed content by an ad supported site.

The problem is people seem to think the Internet is free, but it's not. Every single item on the internet cost someone money somehow. Good bandwidth is amazingly expensive. Stable hard drive space is expensive. Servers are 4-5 times more expensive then a desktop computer of the same power.

Most people would be shocked by how expensive it is to run /. and it is a low bandwidth site. There is such a thing as excessive advertising, but the ads on /. are perfectly fine. The people blocking these kinds of ads are the same people who will be bitching when their favorite site turns subscription or closes down. They are also the reason advertisers have had to make insanly annoying ads.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[Anonymous Coward]

The limited bandwidth in the broadcast spectrum and obscene costs of getting on cable make them monopolies. They're big businesses because they have a monopoly on an (artificially) small pie. On the other hand, the internet is scalable and the current model does not have a way for two companies to dominate the internet.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[shagymoe]

In regard to point 1, you are completely right, and trust me, I will "put up" when the time is right. Until then, my lips are sealed. Yes, "kick ass" is lame and I understand why it sounds like a marketroid buzzwors, but the fact is that this is how I feel about it.

No, I'm not one of those people who love flash etc... In fact, I think the best sites are plain jane...slashdot, paypal, craigslist, apple..the list goes on.

In regard to point 2, if everyone chooses not to view them the site will fail. So, let's just assume for a moment that the marketroid crap is true and the site is great. In this case something of value is lost and everyone would bitch and moan about it but it is because they weren't willing to "put up" or "shut up" with their support.

In regard to point 3, I will ask for user donations, but I've done research on how well this works and the answer is not very. I have donated to open source apps but I think the vast overwhelming majority don't. Funny that you mention bandwidth because I anticipate users will be downloading at least 1.6 GB per day by the end of the first month. Yes, I might be overestimating, but I am one of those "I don't give a crap what the negative people say, this is fantastic and I will work to make it happen." kind of people.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[shagymoe]

I agree that for now what I spew is hoopla. The proof is in the pudding. You are right about that.

BTW, if you're not distributing an open source application, why is it that your original post mentioned closed source as an alternative?

My choices are to let the community use the software free from my site or to close it and sell it. It helps if you know what it does, but you don't.

Yes, I knew you were blocking...the point was that you are freeloading.

Re:AdBlock: reserving the right...

[DavidTC]

Salon doesn't have ads, at least not of kind that's being talked about here.

There are two kinds of access. One via subscription, and one via a 'day pass' where you sit and watch a real ad, and then there are no more ads for the rest of the day.

Which is annoying, but infinitely better than dancing crap on every page. They say, up front, here's the cost: You watch an ad to purchase the current 'issue'. You want tomorrow's 'issue', you watch another ad then.

You could adblock those, but what would be the point? You'd still have to go to that page and get the cookie anyway. It's more like TV ads instead of web ads. Adblocking doesn't hurt Salon in the least.

That's Fine...

[awhelan]

This is how the free market is supposed to work. Customers are showing that they will not tolerate intrusive advertisments and DoubleClick, one of the worst offenders, is responding. If they had chosen to advertise responsibly (see the success of adsense) insted of insulting users with "You won a billion Ipods!!!!! Click HERE!!" ads, they wouldn't have this problem. Also, 10% of internet users using firefox, and realisticly 1% of them using AdBlock correctly. Firefox growth is slowing down because it's very hard to reach into the percentage of people that don't even know what a browser is and think the "E" on their desktop is the internet. Those are the people that will be clicking his ads anyway... and they will be using IE well into the Longhorn years. Is this really a threat to him at all?

Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[helioquake]

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default

Then let it end. I'm fed up with the business model of running intrusive advertizing that means nothing but annoying to the viewers.

I'd pay some extra $$$ for better content and service. I know many slashdot readers (read students) are too used to getting many things for free. But that business model CAN'T work for long, as the providers of information need to make some profit somehow. Either you yield to the advertiser's demand or stand against it.

Well the choice is yours. I am to choose against annoying flashy ads and pop-ups (not that I'm getting any of these with Firefox).

Re: Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[Black Parrot]

> > The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default

> Then let it end. I'm fed up with the business model of running intrusive advertizing that means nothing but annoying to the viewers.

Does web advertising actually work? It seems more and more sites are wanting you to buy a paid subscription anymore.

Re:Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not be the end of "Free Internet Content".

However, it could be the end of free _corporate_ internet content, at least until they come up with another (viable) business model.

Individuals will always be willing to sacrifice time to post data, but unless there is a clear and understood way to make money, companies will not be able to play.

Which is usually ok with me. I'd rather read a page written by someone who cares about what they're writing than something churned out for the explicit sake of increasing page views.

But that's just me.

Re:Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[GIL_Dude]

You're right. Agreed. However on the Firefox comment - I do get a popup when visiting www.dilbert.com - IN FIREFOX. It shows that it blocked a popup, but one comes up anyway - typically from tribalfusion (which I block so the popup is just blank), but is a real, honest popup window. Funny how IE blocks that one fine, but not firefox. Annoying, since that's my favorite comic, and Firefox is my browser of choice...

Re:Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[sqlrob]

Get adblock and put tribalfusion in as a filter. (casalemedia is another good one)

The "unblockable" pop-ups for me have come from flash ads.

Re:Let it end the era of intrusive advertizing

[OreoCookie]

Then let it end. I'm fed up with the business model of running intrusive advertizing that means nothing but annoying to the viewers.

Abso-friggin-lutely! Any website that can't survive without the likes of DoubleClick needs to die. The quicker the better. It won't be anything you care about.

Content Should Be Free

[Anonymous Coward]

Let them perish. Content should be free anyways! I don't think anyone will be willing to pay the ISP and a bunch of shwag websites pimpin content. We pay for enough as it is...much of which used to be or should be free. Plus most of the content isn't even edited. Must be using the Microsoft spell checker or something...

Anyhoo..

Use ad-blockers and make e-street pimp free!

Re:Content Should Be Free

[ParticleMan911]

That's a great idea. Who wants to earn a profit for their hard work on a website? Heck, who even wants to break even for their hosting bill? Sites like Google should be a charity service to all the people of the world, taking no profit from text ads and paying the millions of dollars in server bills out of their pocket.

But would you be willing to pay more?

[CyricZ]

Would you be willing to pay far more for the adless, condensed newspaper? Indeed, ads subsidize newspapers so that they cost a reasonable amount per unit.

Re:But would you be willing to pay more?

[justforaday]

If it were a paper that contained decent articles/writing, then yes, I would.

Re:But would you be willing to pay more?

[Mr. Slippery]

Would you be willing to pay far more for the adless, condensed newspaper?

In return for paying less for everything else? Maybe. Especially if I get to only buy the newspaper sections I want.

You don't get that newspaper subsidy for free, you know. It's paid for with a few extra pennies from that Coke, a few bucks from that pair of Levis, and so on.

Re:But would you be willing to pay more?

[awhelan]

If given the choice, I would pick the current newspaper with ads and the lower price. That's because the content of the paper is definately worth having to look at the ads. In fact, newspaper ads are often informative, or have cupons I might actually use. However, the second the Boston Globe starts placing ads on the front page, over the content I'm trying to read that move around, blink, play a store's jingle and tell me that it knows my newspaper's IP address... you can bet I will stop reading it.

- Andy (happy newspaper reader and adblock user)

Re:But would you be willing to pay more?

[QuestorTapes]

> In fact, newspaper ads are often informative, or have cupons I might actually use.

Very true. A fair number of the ads in our local papers are notices about upcoming events, various sales, local government offers, etc.

In a given week there are ads covering nature walks, free and inexpensive concerts and fairs, seasonal sales at local retailers, etc.

I find out a about lot of good stuff that way.

Sunday papers are a traditional excellent example. A lot of people buy the Sunday papers largely -because- of the greater amount of advertising.

But you can skim it, and disregard the crap. Doubleclick, et al, want to remove the ability to rapidly get away from crap.

> However, the second the Boston Globe starts placing ads on the front page, over the content
> I'm trying to read that move around, blink, play a store's jingle and tell me that it knows my
> newspaper's IP address... you can bet I will stop reading it.

Absolutely. The newspapers have largely settled in to a comfortable arrangment. Not too intrusive. TV still wants more than their fair share of the viewers attention, and the flexibility of the Internet means advertisers there can try to be ridiculously aggressive.

Re:But would you be willing to pay more?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your analogy is particularly good. Yes, certainly, newspapers are supported by advertising, which is fine to me. But the advertsiing is not very intrusive, which is very much unlike many internet ads. I think its the fact that internet ads are very irritating thats the problem, not that they exist at all.

Just makes me sick . . . . .

[aneeshm]

If some developement makes your business model unviable, adapt to it . That is how the free market works ( or at least is supposed to work ) .

Don't whine , or you'll get crushed by your competitors . A lot of the current system of copyright and patents ( software patents , DMCA , etc ) , are perversions , and do not fit in a capitalist model the USA adheres to ( or is at least supposed to adhere to ) .

This whining unnerves me - can they try to legislate away adblock , too ? Or any generic ad-blocking hack in any medium they want to control ? This is just not the way things are supposed to be .

I get sick of these idiots thinking that just because something might obsolete/destroy their business model , they have a right to some sort of protective legislation against that thing . These are the people who are really the enemies of free-market capitalism .

Could he say that again

[Scrameustache]

But with people jumping up and down around him yelling about the things they have to sell and waving their arms franticly in front of his face?

I'd like to see how HE likes it.

Honestly...

[jglazer75]

...I have no problem with advertisements. In general they stay out of my way. However, I do mind when the advertisement attempts to take over my viewing experience. When I open up a newspaper, it's not a pop-up book of advertisements; it does not urge me to punch a monkey; a weird creature does not go scurrying across the page and block the text I want to read; it does not spawn child newspapers whose only task is show me advertising; and it does not take a picture of me and sell my personal data (like whether I bought a newspaper yesterday and which articles I read) to the highest bidder so they can inundate me with more advertising.

I believe he is confused:

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he is confused:
It will not lead to the end of free content. It will instead lead to the end of DoubleClick's business.

Can't say I'd miss 'em either.

Unobtrusive ads

[f0rtytw0]

There wouldn't be a need for all the add blocking software if the ads were less obtrusive. Ok there would still be demand for the adblocking software but you wouldn't need it to surf the web. I think Google does a good job with their adds. They are text, clearly labeled, and not in my way.

Web Advertising

[ParticleMan911]

If a highly trafficked site doesn't directly sell a product, it is essential that it brings in revenue from some advertising souce. If browsers put an end to banner advertising, sites will have no choice but to move to more intrusive, and annoying methods. Moving flash ads, forced full page ads, audio ads, etc. For every ad medium that is blocked, a newer, more annoying medium will be introduced.

Google Ads positive example

[elliam]

Completely inoffensive, they don't load a Java interpreter, flash/jiggle/move at all, etc other nasty things (I'm tired). They should serve as an example of what web advertising should be like.

Re:Google Ads positive example

[Hallow]

damn skippy.

Agreed...

[avalys]

Quite frankly, I agree with him.

Most free content on the web is supported by advertising. The advertiser pays the website publisher to display ads on their site, in the hope that they will catch someone's eye. If enough people run ad-blocking software, this will no longer be a viable business model, and most free content on the web will need to find another method of funding.

It's the same issue with TV commercials and TiVo.

You can whine all you want about how evil and annoying the companies are, and say "So what if they're not making any money? Greedy bastards, it serves them right!". But keep in mind, they can always take their toys and go home, and where will that leave you?

Personally, I don't mind putting up with ads. I tune the majority out mentally, and I even occasionally click on an interesting one.

Re:Agreed...

[jdavidb]

But keep in mind, they can always take their toys and go home, and where will that leave you?

Playing with the better toys that never used this model, in a cleaner room.

Re:Agreed...

[NardofDoom]

You mean *gasp* we'll be paying for the things we watch directly?

The horror!

Re:Agreed...

[LionKimbro]

When they pack up their toys and go home, I will still be reading Wikipedia.

Greedy bastards, it serves them right!

Re:Agreed...

[crabpeople]

"But keep in mind, they can always take their toys and go home, and where will that leave you?"

browsing to another site?

i remmeber before their were banner ads. just because you jumped on teh internets bandwagon late doesnt mean thats how it was and always will be. do you remmeber newsgroups? BBS? message boards? IRC? FTP? theres so many ways to get information on the internet. as long as someone has a connection and a computer there will be stuff out there.

Not all ads are equal.

[dpbsmith]

I don't have "a negative vibe against advertising IN GENERAL." I sometimes buy hobby-related magazines specifically for the advertising--to see what's new, who's offering what interesting things, and so forth.

I've never been bothered by Google's sponsored links.

I LIKE honest salesmanship.

What I don't like is people trying to force stuff in my face when they have absolutely no reason to believe I have any interest in it, and a good deal of reason to believe I have no interest in it.

I have a negative attitude toward SOME kinds of advertising IN PARTICULAR. Dishonest, pushy, obnoxious advertising.

I don't mind ads- once.

[millia]

I realize that somebody somewhere has to pay for bandwidth & resources. Not wanting to pay an internet tax, I don't mind ads. Once. If I've seen it, I block it.

I've clicked on ads off slashdot. I've even bought stuff. Ads can work.

But there's a way to do it responsibly.

1) Don't use incomprehensible strings that make blocking impossible. If you do, I will block the whole ad domain. I'm willing to give them some leeway- slash, I just have to block after the ad ID#.

2) Minimize blinking. This wouldn't be a big deal if I knew a way to halt gifs in their cycle. It used to be possible to do this in your browser; somewhere along the way, pressing stop didn't do this anymore. I wouldn't block if I could just do this, actually.

3) Minimize flash usage.

4) Minimize flash usage. (They didn't believe me the first time.)

Ads are here. They serve a purpose. Ads in the paper don't blink, burble, or me, however. Emulate the paper, advertisers.

Well, I agree...

[AnObfuscator]

I used to use adblock. in fact, it was the "killer app" of Firefox that made me switch from Safari.

However, the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. After all, Free Content isn't free. Let's use Slashdot as an example. It's servers handle a *lot* of load -- what is it, 500,000 unique visitors a day? The content is Free, yes... but it costs to serve that. So slashdot has banner ads. only a few, but they bring revenue in and allow Slashdot to fund itself.

This is good.

however, by blocking these ads, we lower the value of the advertisement to Slashdot; if there are less views of the ad, there is less clickthrough, and thus less value to both Slashdot *and* the advertiser... this lower's Slashdot's revenue, and *if* this reaches a critical mass, slashdot would be unable to fund itself, and have to shut down...

This would be the same problem for Google, Yahoo, arstechnica, or any other great service we have come to love...

So I no longer use adblock, because even though I still hate banner ads, I realize their importance to Free Information, and that's something I wish to support.

On a related note...

[jdavidb]

My company is now blocking BugMeNot. The SmartFilter category is "Criminal Skills."

Doubleclick may die, but online advertising won't

[DeadSea]

Doubleclick relies on the technical ability of the web browser to fetch ad content (scripts, iframes, and images) in separate request. Furthermore, those requests are for content on central servers managed by doubleclick.

Doubleclick may die because it is so easy to shut down the browsers ability to request content specific external sites.

Sites that ad content from urls on their own server (rather than external doubleclick urls) need to have site specific rules added to adblock (as long don't use obvious words like 'ad' in the url).

Sites that embed text ads directly into their html source code (without external javascript) are not effected by adblock at all. To block those sorts of ads you need to install grease monkey and write scripts. The average user can't do that, and even when a script is available it is almost always site specific.

To survive, doubleclick should:

1. Offer a simple perl proxy server script to all sites that have double click ads. The webmaster would rename the proxy script to something unique and ads would get served through their servers. For examlpe the ads on example.com might come from the url http://example.com/box.pl
2. Research server side technology that will make it super easy for webmasters to embed text ads directly in their pages

Otherwise doubleclick will be replaced by much more tech-savvy ad companies. There is no way that online advertising is going to die tohugh.

So this Adblock...

[Alkaiser]

Works well enough to annoy the guys at Doubleclick? Thanks for telling me, Mr. CEO.

*Downloads Adblock*

AdBlock will be GOOD for the advertising industry

[BandwidthHog]

Yeah, a lot of AdBlock users aggressively block all ads, period. But a good many of us don't. I block iFrame ads, I block blinky, seizure inducing ads, I block anything that interferes with my ability to *read* the content I'm seeking out. Other than that, I leave 'em in (although I don't load ads from any domain containing the string 'doubleclick,' but I don't think I'm alone there).

What am I getting at here, other than wasting time that could better be spent tweaking queries? Darwinism, selective adaptation, survival of the fittest (or at least the least obnoxious), call it what you will. But if *more* people used AdBlock, and used it selectively, advertisers would quickly learn that people go out of their way to avoid seeing things bouncing around and strobing at 15hz while trying to read the news.

And Flash-based ads... I do a lot of browsing on a laptop. A CPU intensive ad is not only demanding screen real estate, but it is directly limiting my browsing time by using an obscene amount of battery power. I feel *no* guilt at all in using Flash Click To Play to filter *all* those ads, no matter how obnoxious they are or aren't, and no matter how much I may wanna support the site they're on.

Adapt or die. Those advertisers that grep their server logs properly will improve and therefor prosper. The rest? Fuck 'em.

Already happening...

[onethumb]

Some of the best sites on the net are both high quality and pay. And one of the reasons people flock to them? No ads!

We're seeing it ourselves at smugmug. It's been a core "feature" and selling point since Day 1. Why? Because I hate ads and I'm willing to pay not to see them.

We've seen this sort of thing over and over. "No one will pay for HBO!" ... "No one will ever buy bottled water!" ... Well, it turns out, people DO pay when they can get something of higher quality/value/less pain.

Viva pay internet!

As this is prooved...

[ratta]

In a study sponsorized by microsoft.

heheh...

[Shads]

... i enjoyed that quote:

"Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

Duh, ads suck for a multitude of reasons... the one that annoys me the most is the fact that most load off another server... which half the time acts like its on a 56k modem being slashdotted, thus preventing the page from loading correctly.

Not to mention the annoying flash and flashing animated gifs and stuff are enough to make anyone buggy. I long for the days of simple banner ads and lack of advertising which takes up 2/3rds of the page.

Integrate the advertising into the content

[qbzzt]

It's very easy to make a Web page and just display advertising. However, this makes for useless advertising that people will naturally want to block. Given the flexibility of general purpose computers, somebody will figure out a way to do it.

If you want advertising that people won't block, you need to use one of two options:

1. Make it unobtrusive. I really don't mind that above the comment posting form I'm currently using I see the icons for Google and Intel. It's part of the editorial content, but it could have been an ad - as long as it wasn't animated and annoying. Of course, I consciously tune this content out, but it probably helps reinforce the relevant brands.

2. Integrate the advertising into the content. If it's part of the useful content I'm reading, then it won't be a problem for me - as long as it doesn't render the content useless. Of course, we come to the problem of editorial integrity here - but that's always a problem, because writers always have agendas.

Of course, doing #2 is genuinely hard and would make DoubleClick's business a lot less profitable. Tough for them.

so, if I'm watching TV

[Anonymous Coward]

so, if I'm watching TV and I change the channel when a comercial comes on, I'm going to kill television? Cool, I've been wanting to do that for years now :)

Yes

[cavemanf16]

He's so very right about what he talks about in the ad because as all of us have seen the advent of free software is quickly bringing about the downright crash of Microsoft, IBM, HP, and many many other companies that produce software that costs money!

P.S. Maybe someone should clue him in to the fact that my blog, and Microsoft's website are two entirely different sites that MAKE UP THE INTERNET, and are run completely ad-free. In the one case, Microsoft is paying to put up there much more widely used, larger, and more useful part of the Internet to support the millions of customers they have, while my site just exists because I want it to exist. The Internet, unlike BSD, is not dying.

Don't annoy the readers!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't use so many flashing ads less people would be using adblock.

I don't block plain text ads (like google ads), but those annoying animations in flash just scream "BLOCK ME!".

Yippie, back to the old times...

[dominiv]

In my opinion it went all wrong with the internet when the corporates discovered it as YACC (yet another commercial channel), somewhere in the second half of the 90ies.

Granted, websites look more flashy and interactive than in the old days, but I have the impression that the content has really deteriorated. All they wanne do nowadays is sell you viagra, city trips, ipods, ...

Well, just the 0.02 cents of a 30something

I don't think so...

[Provos]

The internet won't die because of adblocking. Just like TV didn't (and likely won't) die from Tivo, nor will the postal service not die if I throw away all the direct marketing mail I get. Radio won't die if I switch to NPR or commercial-free satellite radio and Movies won't go away if I come in 15 minutes late to skip all of the commercials before the trailers.

Still, let me cry in shock and horror that the revenue of the advertising industry might slightly decline.

Oh, boo hoo, boo hoo.

Carved in stone?

[Iriel]

The internet will evolve. I realize that po(o)p-ups are still present in the modern internet browsing experience, but the form of ads have changed throughout the years, and when pop-ups become obsolete, change will continue.

When the primative JavaScript pop-ups of yesteryear started to phase out, email signature ads became more popular. Now we see Google adwords on almost half the blogs you can imagine today. And someday, we may find a way to kill the pop-up for good, but maybe they'll make a smarter pop-up.

I'm sure the bloodsucking fiends in marketing will think of something. They always do ;)

Newspaper Ads

[jonoid]

""You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were. "You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said." I would personally love to have newspapers with giant blank spaces in place of ads. If only I read newspapers in the first place, and didn't rely on Slashdot and Fark for my news.

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Bravoc]

Seems to me this isn't about "paing for" the INternet, it is about PROFITING from the Internet - big difference.

AdBlock? So that's what it's called.

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Thanks for the info, I'll install it right away. Never though of installing an ad blocker, but since it's apperently working very well I will now do so.

DoubleClick? Give me a break.

[mpontes]

Of all the advertising companies out there, there's no one more evil than DoubleClick. I mean, you really can't get more evil than DoubleClick. IF being annoying was an F1 race, DoubleClick would be Ferrari. Its ads are really annoying, with all the Flash crap, sounds, pop-ups, tracking cookies and shady Javascript code. How the hell does this guy expect people *not* to block DoubleClick?

Hint: Change your company's ways of advertising to something reasonable and maybe people will stop binding your domains to 127.0.0.1 in the hosts file. If the way you make money is unethical (legal != ethical), don't be surprised when people boycott your company. This is like the Italian Mafia Godfather complaining that people protect their stores with alarms.

Blocking ads versus not clicking on them

[Schezar]

These ad companies seem to think that, by not viewing their advertisement, you're somehow stealing from them.

What if I don't block them, but I conciously refuse to ever click on one? Is that any different? How about if I make a point of never buying any product I see an ad for online? How about if I just ignore ads?

How is blocking them any different?

I'm not going to get a mortgage from some online bank. I'm not going to buy a car just because I saw an ad for one. No amount of advertising will change that.

I block ads because it's convenient to do so. Were this somehow impossible, no one would get any more revenue out of me than they do currently.

So basically, I don't see what the issue here is. (And don't give my any bullshit about "branding." That's a load of crap.)

Re:Blocking ads versus not clicking on them

[Politburo]

(And don't give my any bullshit about "branding." That's a load of crap.)

Sure is easy to be right when you exclude the alternatives, isn't it?

Branding is real. You can deny its existence if you want, but you're only fooling yourself.

Re:Blocking ads versus not clicking on them

[prionic6]

Exacly what I wanted to say - People that block Ads are the people who aren't interested in it anyway. Noone looses a click because of it and ads are pay-per-klick nowadays. I don't think branding is strong with a Webad. They are too annonig. Maybe it works for already big brands but it does nothing for the small online bank. At least I think so. Ads always annoyed me, esp. the argument about free content (TV and Internet). Ads are paid for by makers of products. We as consumers buy the products. Therefore we pay for the ads. Without advertizing, products would be cheaper so we would have plenty of money to pay for TV and Internet. I know this is naive, but not without truth.

Don't block all ads

[FidelCatsro]

Just ones from companies such as Double-click , which are consistently shoddy , irritating , Eye catching in all the wrong ways and deceptive.
Text ads are fine and dandy , after all many sites are commercial ventures and need support. However if you want me or many others to pay attention to your ads , you may consider making them less contrary to my browsing .
Slashdot is terrible for having horrible SWF ads , which basically means i never browse the site with flash enabled , I honestly want to support the site , but if you have ads like this that subtract from my browsing experience i am unable to do that .
Sure i could get a subscription to remove the ads and most likely i will , however i am unable to do that right now .

Microsoft Warns Against Open Source Software

[ehaggis]

McDonalds Warns against healthy eating. Hugo Chavez warns against capitalism. Roaches warn against bug spray. Dinosaurs warn against extinction. Jedi warns against dark side. Sith warn against online advertisements.

Would they click the ad anyway?

[geekguy]

Shouldn't they assume that if you block ads then you arn't one of the people that click them anyway. If the ads weren't so annoying in the first place I wouldn't be blocking them, I have seen plugins to block google ads but I don't use them because the google ads arn't intrusive.

That's funny.

[RasputinAXP]

'a negative vibe against advertising in general'

In other news, the sky is blue, grass is green and Microsoft sux, linux r00ls.

Future Slashdot article ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft warns against using Linux.
Exxon warns against using public transportation.
RIAA/MPAA warns against P2P.
Edison warns against using solar/wind power.

the message not the messenger

[goombah99]

His message is a valid concern not just for himself but for everyone. The fact that he runs a company getting his revenues form it does not invalidate the message, indeed it might qualify his as an expert, but of course one needs to think skeptically in such circumstances.

The idea that capitalism or money taints the process is a bit childishly applied here. Yes money is the root of evil but it is often the mechanism we use to do good. in this case its the method we arbitrage crying public need--free content.

Free content is a public good that we pay for with ads. people who refuse the ads but not the content are free-riding.

Dont well off people who dont pay their subway fairs bother you? Thsoe same people probably complain about the dirt in the subway not realizing where the money to clean it up comes from. They probably moralize that the whole place is such a mess they dont want to support it or some shit.

Well one solution woul dbe balring in your face ads posted all over the subway, with perhaps loud informercials blasted into the cars. then every one could ride for free. Or they can pay. but either way you cant have a free subway without paying for it somehow either by ads or by money.

So accept the ads as a valid bussiness model and realize if your peers block them the days of free content are numbered. I mean who the heck would run a free blog site for people to freely express their views without some sort of way to pay the bills. It's your loss.

the messenger is probably right in this case.

Re:the message not the messenger

[superpulpsicle]

IF what you say is true, then network companies running the hubs should be the ultimate beneficiary of the Ads, not Advertisement companies.

They are the ones providing the NETWORK! Which is the ultimate freebie on top of their overated free sites.

Re:the message not the messenger

[EastCoastSurfer]

Or to sum it up with a classic bumper sitcker...

"Gas, grass, or ass-no one rides for free"

thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Useful information -- I just installed Adblock 5.7

thanks doubleclick

Donations

[buro9]

"Other than adds, what else could fund 'free' services online?"

I know not many people get donations to work, but with a good level of transparency some people who care deeply about a site or service will pay for it.

The assumption people make is that the service is part of a company offering, that it's being paid for implicitly when other products or services are purchased. People assume that *someone* must be paying for it.

By giving transparency, and translating the accounts into what it means for the users, I've found on the forum I run that users have been willing to fund our server fully, with enough money in the kitty for the next 6 months.

In return we publish a full record to all of our members of every transaction that is made, and commit ourselves to only using donations to fund the service offering.

We did this because adverts never raised enough money for our medium-sized site anyway... and the cashflow was far too erratic (Adsense clickthrough revenues can vary quite wildly). Most users became de-sensitised to adverts and we spent a lot of time tweaking the adverts so that they would remain in the consciousness of the users.

It was dire.

Donations have worked for us though. So much so that we now have an abudance of bandwidth, CPU and RAM, so are looking to start an online radio service too :)

You can see the accounts that we publish on our front page here: http://www.bowlie.com/forum/ and registered members can view our entire cashflow over the years here: http://www.bowlie.com/accounts/

In essence, users aren't stupid and do appreciate the need for the site to have a revenue stream. If you respect the users, and are up front with them about the costs, cashflow, etc... and can communicate that X amount of money = Y amount of time in existence, then the part of your audience who value what you do will step in and help fund you.

However, this puts a pressure on making sure that what you do has value. Generic low value sites without rich content of their own, will likely not find that the above model works for them. Some users have to really be passionate for it to work.

Re:Donations

[Bahumat]

A question is though, is it paying for your own time? Are you on salary? Do you disclose that salary to your readership. How about the government?

Companies have to pay their employees, and taxes. Donations are fine for covering base costs, but whereas many internet users don't balk at helping to chip in $10k for a fancy new webserver, most will bitch and whine at the idea of their donations having to pay your salary.

Adblock

[Morosoph]

I have taken to using Adblock, but I only use it to block advertisers who actively annoy me. Pop-ups always result in me blocking the advertising firm. Otherwise, I tolerate advertisers that do not cross my threshold since I do generally wish to support sites that I visit.

Re:Adblock

[CaptnMArk]

Seconded.

I tolerate banners and even click on the sometimes.

But popups and some annoying flash ads (that zoom over content and can't be closed) will get blocked without mercy. Same goes for CPU wasting ads.

Re:Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear ye, Hear ye

I too, am in agreement.

I actually click banners sometimes but when there is an annoying flashing ad or Flash ad that is unbearable to look at BOOM! ADBLOCKED!

Re:Adblock

[gmack]

I run flashblock and whitelist the sites I want flash content on. After that I only block ads that are overly annoying or consistantly slow down browsing. I don't mind ads either. I've bought things from advertisers. I just hate being overly annoyed.

Re:Adblock

[Winkhorst]

Actually, it's much more efficient to block the *source* IP of the blinky ads. My time is valuable. I'm not going to waste it sorting out *which* blinky ads I want to watch. They all die. When the advertisers learn this lesson, I may reconsider. It's funny, but I click on more Google search page ads in a month than I have ever clicked on at a website in my life. You'd think these idiots would get the picture.

Re:Adblock

[slackwaresupport]

i block everything i dont want. its their right to put em up, its my right to not see em. when a commercial comes on tv or the radio, you dont have to see it or listen, you can change it. same principle.

Re:Adblock

[Rudeboy777]

I'll put intellitxt forward as the most annoying offender, even worse than pop-unders or flash blocking the page. It's one of the only items on my adblock list.

Re:Adblock

[julesh]

The next thing we'll see is sites that don't work if you block the popups. Here's how it would work:

Original site:

Page A links to page B, page B has javascript to display popup when it loads.

New site:

Page A has a link which loads a popup; when the popup is fully loaded the popup uses opener.location to load page B into the parent window.

We don't stand a chance.

Re:Adblock

[Maxo-Texas]

I block pop-ups, flash ads, fast moving jerky/jittery ads.

For the most part, other ads I leave alone but I also do not see at a concious level.

Re:Adblock

[Guppy06]

Same here, but I think I have a differnet threshold of "annoyance" than most people. Ads that pertain to the site and the intended audience of the site (unless the ad is particularly heinous), do not get blocked. For example, I don't block game ads on penny-arcade.com

However, ads that were placed by advertisers who pay absolutely no attention to the sites their ads are appearing on get blocked. "Hit the monkey" gets blocked, no matter where it apepars or how benign the ad format is.

By this rule, I'm sorely tempted to block all those Microsoft ads here, since someone wasn't running on all cylinders when they thought putting them on a rabidly anti-Microsoft website was a good idea. What next, ads for RealPlayer?

Re:Adblock

[Agent_9191]

Agreed. Pop-ups are an automatic block. Same goes for annoying Flash ads. Especially if it makes noise. Also the bright, quickly rotating GIFs/images. Text ads are fine with me (can easily ignore them, as do so many others). Plain images also work as great advertisements. None of this "reach out and bash the viewer over the head to look at the ad" type advertising, that's overly distracting. When I see things like that I will either go into over-Adblock mode or I'll never visit that site again.

Re:Adblock

[algf2004]

The next thing we'll see is sites that don't work if you block the popups.

Then I just don't go back to those sites. I've already encountered some of those, but I can't tell you which ones because I found the info I wanted elsewhere.

You forget that WE are the customers. If they make it too difficult to read an article they lose viewers (and potential sales from ads). A website that doesn't display is the same as Wal-Mart leaving it's doors locked all day.

It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[Xugumad]

I only installed AdBlock after the Crazy Frog advert. I'm sitting there, surfing away, and suddenly there's this ABOMINATION coming through my speakers.

It may be the most popular ringtone in the world, but it makes me WANT TO KILL PEOPLE.

*twitch*

So, how about this; if you make the ads just a little less ANNOYING, not only will I stop blocking them so much, I will not come after the advertising executives WITH A BLUNT, RUSTY SPOON!

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't a sharpened spoon be more effective? Or better yet, a knife -- they make those pretty sharp. ;-)

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[CoderBob]

Personally, I would recommend a blunt, rusty, grapefruit spoon or a rusty olive fork over just an everyday spoon. More fun that way.

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[dbc]

I thought he meant "spoon" in the veterinary medicine context -- a "spoon" is a specialized knife used to neuter male animals. A dull, rusty spoon seems quite in order to me.

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[iainl]

You liar. I know no-one has killed the fuckers yet. Why can't they? I'm perfectly prepared to put up with a few thousand deaths as collateral damage, if that's what it takes to remove it.

WHY WON'T ANYONE KILL THEM???

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention Crazy Frog. M, a Norwegian cartoon, had a stripe sharing your view in todays newspaper.

Translation:
Left bubble: "Honey, what's for dinner?"
Right bubble: "Chicken..."

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[julesh]

It may be the most popular ringtone in the world, but it makes me WANT TO KILL PEOPLE.

Does anyone know where I can get hold of the 3D model for that damned thing? I'm going to release a game that consists of you wandering around, picking up different weapons and destroying it, time after time, but in a different way each time. It'll be the most popular game in the world.

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not quite the same, but somebody beat you to it:

http://crazyfrog.yourebustingmyballs.com/hatethatf rog/index.asp?q=Ringtones

Re:It's the crazy frog, y'know...

[Twinbee]

Here's your tonic:
http://www.cecimoz.co.uk/content/flash.htm

Google Text Ads

[diamondsw]

Doubleclick and other advertisers need to learn that "grabbing your attention" generally equates to "annoying as hell". People hate animated ads, flash ads, and their ilk. However, Google has done a very good job with its simple text-based ads, and I've supported those by clicking them. They're unobtrusive and more relevant to the topic I'm reading about (well, usually).

People don't block ads. People block annoyances. Witness the "click to play" Flash plugins as well.

Re:Google Text Ads

[diamondsw]

Moderated funny? I don't know whether that's good or bad - good because more people read Slashdot for the funny comments, or bad because there's nothing funny there.

Bad comparison

[vortexf5]

From TFA...

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

That might be true if ads in the newspaper and those online were even remotely similar. Funny, I don't remember an ad for a dating service in the newspaper covering up a story I wanted to read until I acknowledged it. Nor have I ever finished the paper, laid it down, and then found an ad laying in my lap underneath it!

Re:Bad comparison

[AeroIllini]

Nor have I ever finished the paper, laid it down, and then found an ad laying in my lap underneath it!

This does, however, happen with magazines. Every time I pick up a magazine, half a dozen of those 3"x5" subcription cards fall out. Although, to be fair, none of those cards have asked me to punch a monkey.

Right idea, wrong victim

[peter1]

So the guy who makes his money by forcing these ads on us is complaning that the Internet will perish if ads are blocked? Riiiight. I think he meant his business will perish when more people discover the ability to permanently kill annoying ads...

I personally do not even believe that content on the 'net will dry up if ad revenue goes away. For one there will always be some sort of ads, maybe even embedded into the story/data/whatever similar to the way movies and TV shows have various product placements, but more importantly as the web gains in influence people will find other ways to generate revenue.

The only difference I expect to see if DoubleClick dies out is that my firewall's rulebase becomes a few lines shorter! Peter

They are actually right

[trifish]

Ads are similar to the situation where people donate money to open source projects. Preventing ads from being displayed is like forbidding donating money to a Free project. Although they may sound greedy, they are actually right. When I see for instance Google ads on a site, I do not actually pay anything. But the webmaster earns money from the ads and can continue to devote his free time to working on the website.

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Bravoc]

Yea - Seems to me this isn't about "paying for" the Internet, I/we already do that. It's about profiting from it. I don't remember seeing where that was in the requirements doc.

cry me a river?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what Slashdot's daily hosting costs are. Do you think Taco could keep /. up without advertising?

But how much more?

[CyricZ]

Would you be willing to purchase a $15/day newspaper, even if it was condensed and adless?

Just use a hosts file to block ads.

[PantyChewer]

here is a good one: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

Found the list again: http://www.pierceive.com/

[FerretFrottage]

It use to be hosted on geocities, but I guess there was too much traffic.

Re:Found the list again: http://www.pierceive.com/

[boarder8925]

That's Filterset.G, which blocks Google Ads as well. I do use it, but I'm one of the many who find Google Ads a quite acceptable form of advertising. Does anyone know a list as comprehensive as Filterset.G that doesn't block Google [text] Ads?

Re:Found the list again: http://www.pierceive.com/

[glpierce]

Just get Adblock Plus and add a whitelist element after installing.

why are you so special?

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet was around before you were, and it will remain after you are gone. Mabye you should focus your efforts on creating a service that customers want, just like any other bussiness.

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[blackomegax]

got a neighbor with wifi? ;)

end of free content

[vortigern00]

"The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default"

oh yeah, remember how expensive it was to get content on the internet before people started advertizing? I mean... ftping to wuarchive could set you back a day's pay.

oh, wait.

Newspapers

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers. "You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

No we would have full page but with empty spaces there and it would be accepted by the customers...

Data mining and cheesey ads

[gabacho]

Perhaps if the data collected by cookies were declared never available to anyone else and if the ads did not resemble a flashing neon sign at a cheap motel, users, such as myself, might not block the ads and cookies.

Translation:

[mshiltonj]

The end of my company's revenue stream will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned.

In deffense of Ad-Supported sites

[StreetFire.net]

My company httpwww.vidiac.com creates ad-supported Video portals for website owners. For example http://videos.streetfire.net/ is one of our ~12 Video portals. We're streaming close to 300,000 videos a day to close to 100,000 people and have only been in operation for 4 months. The *only* way we have covered our cost is in advertising, and even then, just barely. None of the founders of the company has yet to take a nickle out of the company because we're allways scrounging to support our 1Gbps Internet feed that averages over 120Mbps. (FWIW Right now we're averaging more than $1,000/month a piece out of our own pockets to cover the success of the site)

I understand that nobody wants to see a Viagra banner ad, but I also understand we are growing by 30% per week as people watch free videos online. If our site was subscription supported, pay per view or otherwise, we would never have attained this level of popularity. Reading the responses here, I can see that a lot of people feel entitled to free content online. This content has to be subsidized in some way. If anyone has a suggestion on how we can continue to offer 300K videos a day to 100K users, while covering the 100+ hours a week the owners of the company are spending on this site I would love to hear it.

PS we have allready looked into pay-per-view, and it was categoricly rejected by users.

-Adam

Re:In deffense of Ad-Supported sites

[dresgarcia]

I think the real problem people have with ad supported sites is the popups. Most people don't mind advertisements. . . I mean no one really likes a banner, but at least it doesn't pop over your text or start playing music (usually). If you aren't using pop ups then there shouoldn't be a real issue to defend. Google doesn't use pop ups. . . and almost everything that comes in there is advertising money.
Pop up ads make me not want to surf the web. . . and I do less surfing as a result of the multitude of cookies (there is NO reason I should have to set 5 cookies when I visit 1 page at least not on these page 1 is from the originator 4 from ads), pop ups, annoying flash animations, sudden playing of music or loud quotes, and im sure I could pull out a couple more reason. . . and most of these stem from advertising,

Re:In deffense of Ad-Supported sites

[StreetFire.net]

I agree with you. There is a difference between being an "ad-Whore" and subsidizing your business. That said We make about $0.25 CPM (Cost per thousand impressions) for Google Ads, and $0.75 CPM for traditional animated 468x60 banners. IF we were to "go to the darkside" and go with pop-ups, we've allready been offered (and turned down) $8.00 CPM. It's a matter of economics to a web publisher like ourselves. That said I'm very obsessed with the brand image, and do not want to ruin people's experience so I am willing to take 1/16th less money for a more succesfull less annoying site.

Re:In deffense of Ad-Supported sites

[QuestorTapes]

> It's a matter of economics to a web publisher like ourselves. That said I'm very obsessed with the
> brand image, and do not want to ruin people's experience so I am willing to take 1/16th less money
> for a more succesfull less annoying site.

And that's both the more responsible and the more effective (long-term) view. Yeah, the money -today- from the evil ads is tempting, but it -will- cost those who take it in the long run.

If they are to grow a name for themselves. There are some who plan to take the money and run, and they will go to the dark side without a second thought.

Hmmm...

[plungermonkey]

I see our little fuzzy buddy failed Economics 101. I love it when his type starts to whined about his product not being accepted by the public. It shows that the collective "we" are winning. Oh well, maybe he should entertain the thought of pursuing a career in used car sales... he'd probably be more accepted.

Death of the Internets predicted! Film at 11!

[Anonymous Coward]

*snort* and how many times has the death of the Internet been predicted? with how many causes?

All this guy is really doing is providing another
example of how grossly retarded most advertising
people are.

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Bravoc]

I live in the country - I'm lucky do get DSL! The cable company says my property doesn't exist. I asked if they would pass that info on the the County Tax Assesor (they didn't find that funny)

More like the end of obnoxious advertising

[MattW]

I've used different things to block ads from time to time... Speaking of doubleclick, I've blocked their images and cookies on so many browsers I've lost track. People are tired of obnoxious advertising. Is it any wonder people block ads when they get deceptive windows that say, "Your computer may be infected with spyware, click here to scan for threats." in windows that look like system windows, but are really ads?

How about when you go to look up something technical at work and there's suddenly some obnoxious voice coming out of your speakers going, "Are you stuck in the mundane world of the boooring sedan?", coming from some irritating flash ad?

Meanwhile, I've never been bothered by google ads. Certainly not on Google's pages, and typically not by pages I visited that displayed google ads. Why?

(1) They're visible, but unobtrusive. They're relatively small, they're easy to see, they're clear on what they're advertising (usually), and they never blink, flash, popover, popunder, make noise, or otherwise irritate me.

(2) They're generally contextual. If I'm interested in something of commercial significance - say, I search for 'nvidia geforce 6800' - then they'll have ads that show up related to that. This means I won't get ads for FREE ALL NEW EMOTICONS (<fineprint>laden with spyware<fineprint>) when I'm looking for video cards, and I appreciate not being bothered.

(3) They're easy on my system. I don't find myself loading massive cpu-sucking flash apps or such all of the sudden.

There will always be ads, and I don't think I'd wish them away. But ads will become helpful, or they will be eliminated by ads consumers prefer more. The advertising industry should have learned this when they started pop-unders. At the time, they said: We get a much better click through rate; people may hate them, but they work. And now you have the result: it doesn't matter if its effective; if people hate your ads, sooner or later they will dispense with them. The solution is to create ads that consumers want.

End of DoubleClick

[Weezul]

If DoubleClick is to go out of buisness, it should exploit its remaining time by focusing on penis enlargment. I mean someone must be making money of on those ads, and I know double click can do a much better ad: No popup/under, just a big slowly growing penis eventually filling & obscuring the page and inspiring millions of men and women to buy their system.

Re:End of DoubleClick

[tehshen]

DoubleDick?

Your business model

[Schezar]

Your failed business model is not my problem.

If ads don't work, or aren't viable, then you have to change or die.

Re:Your business model

[StreetFire.net]

My "Failed" business model is the same business model as Google. Provide a popular service supported by advertising.

PS I wouldn't say "we've failed" at all, rather we're still in start up mode and I have yet to see a start up profitable 4 months out of gate, much less covering as much operational costs as we are so early in the game.

Re:Your business model

[tomstdenis]

Yeah seriously. He's saying he's popular because of the ads and the content is otherwise free..

Hmm... no shit.

Where do these people come from? Before you even vest one dollar in your company you have to know where your eventual money will come from. Relying solely on ads for a paycheque is idiotic.

Tom

Re:Your business model

[StreetFire.net]

"...Relying solely on ads for a paycheque is idiotic...."

Any yet Google and Yahoo continue to be profitable in their "idiotic" business models. *roll eyes*

Re:Your business model

[tomstdenis]

Yahoo is a mystery.

Google makes money off ads, they also license off their tech [e.g. google-box].

But keep in mind google provides more than just bandwidth for some grainy videos. They provide a service which essentially "makes the net usable". We can live without some random assortment of videos.

Can you honestly say the net would be the same tommorow if google dropped off the face of the earth? I use it myself a dozen times a day to find odd references for things.

Tom

"negative vibe"

[Damek]

...said the popularity of tools like Adblock [...] was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Um, yeah. And your point would be...?

Add bollocking!

[SpaghettiPattern]

blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'
Bollocks!!

Intrusive adds have bad vibes written all over them. I allow Googl's non-intrusive adds because they don't bother me. Hell, I might even click on them out of actual interest. I despise pop-ups or the patented pop-downs.

Obnoxiousness

[Anonymous Coward]

I use AdBlock. However, the only time when I am bothered to add a block rule is when the advertising is obnoxious. I don't add block rules for static text or image ads, unless they're really in the way. I'll add them for animated GIFs if they are very flashy, but if it's not particularly annoying then it stays. Flash gets AdBlocked a lot, mainly because it slows down page scrolling and eats processor.

I think there's a lesson to be learned...

Topics like this...

[ratta]

are food for the trolls... 100+ replies in about 2 minutes :-)

Important distinction needs to be made.

[OrinNYC]

We, the general people (slashdot readers, web browsers, content readers) are NOT these peoples customers.

We're the target audience for their customers.

They owe us nothing, they think nothing of us, they have ZERO loyalty towards, they could give a shit if we don't like their advertising. It works on at least a small amount of people right now, much to my disdain, much like SPAM emails.
Same concept, as long as there's some jackass out there willing to click and buy whatever's put forth in front of him, this form of advertising will still be around. They're going to find a way to get past popup and adblocking, just give them time.
It's not a conspiracy, it's business.

Advertising can lower prices of goods.

[CyricZ]

Indeed, it is will known to anyone with an university-level economics background that advertising often has the effect of lowering prices. So while removing ads from television and radio would be enjoyable to many, it would have profound economic consequences. Prices of many goods would skyrocket without advertising.

Pop-ups are like...

[DimGeo]

... advertising on the very first page of newspapers - where the large-lettered editorial is usially found - no newspaper editor in their right mind would approve of such a thing, and neither would the readers.

The end of free "commercial" content, they mean?

[thesandtiger]

Because, surely, the millions of sites out there that are put up by individuals not looking to make a profit aren't going to suddenly vanish.

Really, advertisers have themselves to blame. They make the ads so annoying that people feel it's worth the time to develop tools to block the ads. Then the advertisers make even more annoying ads that get around the first generation of tools, and more tools are developed etc. And what's funny is that the advertisers are not generating goodwill - they're pissing people off!

I've seen pop-ups for things that I would have considered buying, but, because they were advertised via pop-up, I chose not to. In some cases, I've sent email to the people selling the product in question explaining exactly this.

Google has been managing to make *billions* with non-annoying, minimally invasive text ads. You'd think that the marketeers would take a look at what actually works on the internet and go with that, rather than just pissing people off because they have some completely out-of-touch idea that if they just scream loud enough, people will pay attention.

Heck, I *enjoy* Google's advertising. Some friends and I get a kick out of mentioning strange things in gmail conversations and seeing what ads are displayed alongside.

I know people do answer spam and they do click on pop-ups - but there are other models that work as well if not better. Given that there's a classy and a classless way to advertise (and both work), why would anyone want their product/service associated with the classless technique?

right..

[Nivoset]

you know, ad's i dont mind, what i mind is the:
*Flashing
*Noisy
*pop up/under
*ones now that grow if you go near them and cover buttons
*ones that just bug you in other ways to go lookie me!!) (yes, im thinking of you poperazzi add)

i dont mind banners, specially if they have something cool to them, im mad at the more and more annoying things they do with these ad's

...Parrallel Universe...

[mustangsal66]

Genericaly sounds like the RIAA...or SCO...or...

"Our business model doesn't work any more, we're mad! Here's some FUD"

One simple rule...

[gowen]

I block any adverts that distract me from the text I'm trying to read. That means, flashing, animations, pop-ups and pop-unders get blocked.

Anything non-distracting doesn't get blocked. It probably doesn't get read, either, but not even DoubleClick are suggesting making that profitable.

Note to DoubleClick : The web existed before you, and will long after you've gone the way of the Dodo.

Adblock Improvement

[eyrieowl]

I love adblock. I am also aware that it might be taking some revenues from sites I actually would like to support.... What I'd *really* like to see is an adblock that loads all the content from the web (yeah, bandwidth schmandwith...) but still removes it from the page. I simply don't want to see it, but I'd be fine if the browser downloaded it so the site got credit for my visiting.... 'Course, I'm not motivated enough to develop that on my own, but if *I* had a website that was supported by ad revenue, I'd be right there releasing the new adblock which does just that.... Hell, I'd even make it load random links from the ads in the background so I could get some click-throughs for my site....

I agree with the rest of the folks...there would be a lot less demand for adblock if doubleclick wasn't pushing ads on us that talk and cover up the page you are trying to look at when you accidentally mouse over them.... And those nifty floating ads that float around on top of the page you're trying to look at? Yeah, I love those too.... Banner ads these days remind me of the AOL commercial on TV these days... "Click here and you're a winner! Click here and [blah blah blah blah...]!"

Re:Adblock Improvement

[cr3ative]

Tools > Adblock > Preferences Select "hide" rather than "remove"

Re:Adblock Improvement

[eyrieowl]

mmm, well, yes, but then i have to give up the all the nice screen real-estate that "remove" frees up. I'm guessing changing it to do what I want wouldn't be *too* difficult...

You don't want us to block ads? Then. . .

[heller]

. . .don't make us want to block them. I thought that was pretty simple.

meh!

[wild_berry]

First, I don't click adverts. Ever. So I haven't missed them using Adblock, FlashBlock or Firefox's PopUp Blocker. And this means that noone has lost any click-through revenue from me. I will tolerate arguments that the page-impression revenue is impacted, but counter them with the fact that simple page-impression revenue hasn't been much since 1999.

Second, I'm saving myself bandwidth by not downloading unnecessary information from the sites I browse. And saving the Ad companies or the site hosts from paying for unnecessary bandwidth.

Third, DoubleClick want to monitor market trends, in so doing they would rid of the anonymity of my browsing. This would enable them to pitch at me exactly what the PR people want me to hear. This impinges the objectivity of purchasing decisions and intrudes on my Internet experience. If I want to go shopping, then I can go and look at products I want in an online store.

However, the integration of advertorial into what used to be enthusiasts' information sites, as has been criticised among the Tech sites in the last few months, is a greater concern to my shopping habits because unbiased information from research informs my shopping habits. I welcome a prejudice-free online catalogue of stuff to buy, like Froogle, but would like more information from such a catlogue than is presently supplied by Froogle and would miss impartiality from the enthusiast sites should they become advertorial.

Oh well

[steveyT]

Perhaps if they run pure advertisements rather than tracking which sites I visit how often etc. People would be less inclined to block them. I for one welcome the day when companies like doubleclick die off and the aggressive marketeers learn their lesson.

It still winds me up that these companies are based around a nasty hack where they send information as querystrings on single pixel images.

Did it to themselves

[snwcrash]

Advertising in general has become excessive. I no longer watch live TV, everything get's queued by Tivo so I can blast through commercials. Why? Because they feed me about 20-30 ads an hour, typically for products I don't care about.

Until they learn that less is more I'm going to try and minimize the number of ads I view. I remember back in the day doubleclick was going to be targeting the advertising to my interests, still all I see are online casinos and mortgages, which I'm not in the market for.

THIEF! EVERYONE IS A THIEF! YOU! THIEF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least according to Jamie Kellner (chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting between 2001-2003)

clicky (#4 keeps this post on topic)

NOT Television

[Anonymous Coward]

I block google ads and everything else.
I wrote my own ad blocker 6 years ago
and have not looked back since.

The internet is not television. It does
not need advertising to sustain itself.

Propaganda

[ehaggis]

at its worst

So the internet never existed before online ads?

[cwgmpls]

In my opinion, the quality of the internet and with WWW was much better before the proliferation of online ads. Sure, the number of sites would be significantly less without online ads, but the quality would be far better than the majority of junk that currently fills the internet.

Quality content is produced by websites that either 1) have some sort of subscription model 2) have a source of funding, whether public or private, that does not rely on online revenue to fund the content or 3) has an author that is so motivated to publish and share their work that profit is not a consideration.

Online ads may drive much current internet content, but the vast majority of it is content that the internet would be better without.

A-fucking-men! (Mod that guy up!)

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Why in hell a fluid medium like the internet has to bring out the lowliest behavior of the lowliest scum on earth just baffles me. But then again, maybe it's because I take pride in earning an honest buck, unlike so many internet scumbags who come up with scummy ways to scam people out of a dollar. I wish I could attach a nice case of scabies to a few dollar bills and mail them to every internet scam artist on the planet. A pox on them!

How will we ever solve this crap and clean up the internet? Suggestions?

Ads Intrusive, Dangerous, Must Go!

[micromuncher]

From TFA
"In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.

Apples and Oranges bud. In a paper, the ad doesn't redirect you to a [potentially rogue] site. How many users get linked to a Flash or JavaScript heavy ad with pop-ups? These ads are the bane of users everywhere, in particular those with slow connections.

I absolutely HATE a js or flash ad that I can't get rid of, that prevents me from seeing page content, or slows/hangs my machine.

Besides, click-through ads do NOT work as a form of advertising. 90% of internet users do not click through intentionally. Read: dot-crash, not a revenue model.

Given the opportunity to NOT download that 500k jpg... I'd take the opportunity.

Re:Ads Intrusive, Dangerous, Must Go!

[julesh]

Besides, click-through ads do NOT work as a form of advertising. 90% of internet users do not click through intentionally. Read: dot-crash, not a revenue model.

But that's fine, because the number of viewers is high enough and the cost of the ads low enough that they're still effective.

Also, a click through isn't necessarily what the advertiser is after. They might just want you to see their brandname and short marketing message -- after all, they pay for newspaper and magazine adverts, and you don't click through on those, either, do you?

Re:Ads Intrusive, Dangerous, Must Go!

[micromuncher]

But the newspaper doesn't have a monkey dancing around I get to swat with a club! Just moments ago I got one of those Spank the Monkey flash ads to win a new iPod. After it loaded, the page content didn't come up. The result? After clicking stop, refresh, and getting a different flash add that seemed to stop everything, I gave up. I'll never visit the site again. And its not their fault per se... its DoubleClick... but they use DoubleClick therefore are guilty by association. There was no branding. No information. Just dancing monkies and end-user frustration. Is it really cost effective to piss off your potential clients?

Re:Ads Intrusive, Dangerous, Must Go!

[julesh]

No, but that isn't the business method's fault -- it's the idiots designing the adverts who are to blame for that.

hoist by their own petard

[The Great Alonzo]

His last comment is telling, "The 25 cent newspaper would cost $5 without advertising".

And who would buy it at that price ??

If that's their analog it's a damn poor one.

Delusional

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

Yeah, because I bought the paper to look at someone else's revenue stream.

Smith is oblivious

[Todd Knarr]

Smith is obviously oblivious. He's talking as if the kind of intrusive, evasive ads his company does are the only kinds out there. To counter that, I'd point to Google. Google runs plenty of ads. They make lots of money off their ads. And nobody's up in arms about their ads, nor do you see anything being added to browsers to block them. That's because Google's ads are, as in a newspaper, clearly distinct from the content and don't interfere with the user getting at the actual content they're there for. And the ads are, gods help me, actually useful. More often than not, if I'm looking to buy what I'm searching for I find myself clicking through Google's ad links because I've found I'm likely to be able to buy what I was looking for. Smith simply isn't getting the hint, and if he doesn't he and the marketers like him will naturally go the way of the dinosaurs.

As for free content disappearing, I doubt it. Content supported soley by intrusive ads will disappear, but there's a lot of content out there that won't be affected:

• Search-engine results where the advertising on the pages follows the Google model.
• Content that's actually worth paying for access to. Yes, it actually exists.
• Content where profit isn't the principal motivation of the person putting it up. I hate to tell Smith this, but most of the good content isn't put up by his precious corporate patrons, it's put up by hobbyists and amateurs simply because they want it up.

Re:Smith is oblivious

[Anonymous Coward]

"[Google] make lots of money off their ads. And nobody's up in arms about their ads, nor do you see anything being added to browsers to block them."

Adblock works just fine against Google ads. And frankly, Google advertising gets me "up in arms" more than most. Does anyone else find it weird that slashdotters seem to instinctively despise "spyware," but they have no problem with a company reading ALL THEIR EMAIL and using it to sell them stuff?

Re:Smith is oblivious

[Anonymous Coward]

Though for the most part I agree with you about Google ads, it's obvious you have never run a successful website. Google ads and doubleclick (or most of the "annoying" ad networks) don't have the same payment model. Google ads are CPC while doubleclick is CPM.

The CPC model is flawed because not all content has a marketable product attached to it. If you run a general purpose site (like slashdot to some extent) there are no related items to sell through google, so the only ads you see are for other sites offering similar content. These clicks pay next to nothing and you don't WANT a high click-thru because it means that people are going to a different site for your content. Most major sites cannot survive on Google Ads alone.

As for free content disappearing, most of it will. Your examples really don't work.

>>Search-engine results where the advertising on the pages follows the Google model.
This has no effect on websites at all. They may advertise here, but it will only take revenue, not provide it unless they have ads on their sites (and you click on one).

>>Content that's actually worth paying for access to. Yes, it actually exists.
So... paid content. Not much to say about this.

>>Content where profit isn't the principal motivation of the person putting it up. I hate to tell Smith this, but most of the good content isn't put up by his precious corporate patrons, it's put up by hobbyists and amateurs simply because they want it up.
I hate to tell you this, but the web is not some magical place where anyone can put up a website with no costs. Bandwidth costs money, servers cost money, support costs money. Even if they never make a profit it costs money to run a website, which you either pay for through ads or out of your pocket. There will be no more free hosts because they are all ad supported by annoying ads.

Ads are annoying and some are extemely intrusive, but it is naive to think that the web can continue to function as it is (mostly free) without them.

Also, why does everyone compare websites to newspapers. They don't even remotely compare. If we throw out the idea that websites provide significantly more content, you have to PAY for a newspaper, they have other income streams like classifieds and they still have ads. Plus, if they could find a way to do it, you know they would be printing dynamic, moving ads in a second.

Re:Smith is oblivious

[All_Star25]

As a paradigm of your third example, the website run by Maddox is an excellent example. He does not run any ads on his website, and he gains more hits than many corporate websites, according to one article of his. With over 100,000,000 hits, his bandwidth bill certainly can not be cheap, yet he still manages to keep the site going entirely by donations and his own money.

Re:Smith is oblivious

[Todd Knarr]

You're confusing GMail with the Google search engine. I use the Google search engine all the time, but I don't use GMail and I assure you Google has no access to my e-mail just because I run a search on them.

Re:Smith is oblivious

[pipingguy]

Smith simply isn't getting the hint, and if he doesn't he and the marketers like him will naturally go the way of the dinosaurs.

Perhaps it is time to modify the last part of the old adage; "Those who can't, teach" to "Those who can't, get into advertising".

Re:Smith is oblivious

[pipingguy]

I hate to tell Smith this, but most of the good content isn't put up by his precious corporate patrons, it's put up by hobbyists and amateurs simply because they want it up.

I've really commented too much on this story already, but the above is exactly right (or at least I agree - I don't claim to be right).

Blocking pop up is one thing....

[ID000001]

but blocking ad that are in the website, simply blanking out the ad that would have been sitting there beside the news are a little excessive. I personaally use Firefox full time, and I don't see any need to actually strips out some of the content the website is presenting to you. For one, ad might actually be interesting, and secondly, you are technically modifying their original work and the way they wish to present the story to you. I understand that some ad are pretty annoying, but most of them in major website are smart enough not to include any sound and excessively flashy graphic. Protesting as a adverisment company might not do much, but the community have a lot to think about when they are overriding the webmaster code by automatically modifying the original content. Doing so is a little selfish in my opinion, if you do not think it is fair to read content on the website without adveristment. You should simply not visit that site.
Using adblock will only force company to find way around it, increasing the circle and the annoyance of Adveristment. In turns, nobody wins.

Re:Blocking pop up is one thing....

[ratboy666]

Modifying the way they wish to present the stoy to you?

And this is bad - why?

The point of HTML was to allow it to be rendered on a variety of devices. If I look at a page with (say) lynx, I DON'T see the GIF graphics, the JPEG graphics, the TABLES, and don't here the sound; and I can forget about Flash, pop-ups/overs/unders floaters, etc.

Lynx, however, is a web browser. Your claim is that I shouldn't use it with a terminal because that renders the content in a way the author didn't intend?

Extend that to curl, wget, etc. Also, I use a TEXT-ONLY browser on my Palm with the same limitations. As well as a very small screen. I shouldn't be doing that either, I suppose.

I haven't even gotten around to adblock yet...

I guess I'll stop browsing the web then - NOT!

Ratboy.

Incidentally...

[helioquake]

By slashdot linking to that ZD article, IE users are helping increase hit counts on the doubleclick advertisements.

I don't know if you guys find that sort of amusing...

Self-evidently FALSE

[istartedi]

The free internet pre-dates the advertiser driven internet. Premium and subscription services don't require ads. Followed by... has doubleclick "warned" Microsoft about the popub blocking features in IE? :)

End of commercial content at worst...

[AtlanticCarbon]

Of course, my favorite net content tends to not be commercial.

No bounds to how wrong someone can be!!!

[TampaDeveloper]

I'm sorry, its a new world. Big companies are outsourcing jobs. The workers are left fighting for fewer jobs and are turning to small business ownership as a means of survival. The internet levels the playing field. Its the only domain where a company of 1 can compete with a company of 1 million. You can bet that these companies will do everything in their power, including but not limited to offering free content to entice people to come to their site.

What it WILL end is the reign of businesses which model their business STRICTLY off the profitability of hosting third party advertisements. It came crashing down with the dot-com collapse, and is being mortally wounded by a public that simply doesn't like that paradigm.

stay free

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it'll stay free as long as there is SPAM.

What's Doubleclick?

[ciscoguy01]

What's Doubleclick?

Oh, there they are, in my hosts file for the last 5 years. Heh.

How much does paper cost in your world?

[khasim]

$15 for a few sheets smacked with movable type-set?

What's that $15 paying for?

Why can I buy a whole paperback book that took at least a few months to write for less than that?

Re:How much does paper cost in your world?

[CyricZ]

Remember, a newspaper isn't just "a few sheets smacked with movable type-set". They have to pay the editors. They have to pay the journalists. They have to pay the reporters. They have to pay all of the printing costs. They have to pay for the delivery of the paper to your front door.

Sure, the newspaper itself appears to be very little, but it is the cumulation of much work by many people. That costs money. Lots of money.

Mmmmm noooooooooo....

[kahei]

The end of free internet content that is provided in order to make money might possibly come if all ads are blocked.

Free internet content that is funded by donation or by T-shirt sales or by publically-funded entities or requires no funding will be just fine.

Note to Bennie: Be Less OBNOXIOUS

[fanatic]

I don't maind a static image. It's the popup windows or animated GIFs or FLash crapoloa that keeps flashing, flashing, flashing that I will not tolerate and will do everything possible to block. If he doesn't like that, he did it to himself. fuck him.

Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdotters,

Please put your money where your mouth is.
If you don't want advertising, please frequent the advertising-free sites where you pay a subscription.

I run a couple of sites that charge a small subscription, and getting people to pay is like squeezing blood from a stone. It is turining me into a cynical old bastard.

None of us like (most) online advertising. Please stop just complaining about it, and DO something!

Doubleclick

[Anonymous Coward]

Popup ads lead to more adware. I'm not just saying ads, I'm saying adware installs more adware and viruses on your computer, period. I see it every day all day on my job.

Even if that were not the case, which it is, nothing would hinder ads on the internet. Ads are imbedded into web pages all the time. There's no need to pop them up in front of you or under your browser. That's stupid to say that the delivery method must be a pop up ad, when embedding ads in web pages seems to be going just as strong and typically doesn't require adware products to be installed to deliver them.

Adware products are NOT supporting the internet at this time, period. To say otherwise is reprehensible. It's outright fraudulent.

Ads are not required to fund the internet. Businesses pay their fees for services, such as web hosting, etc. People appreciate a business's presence on the web because they can learn about them, get details about their products and prices. It is stupidity to think that the free web will disappear because adware is blocked on customer's computers.

Adware is mostly illegitimate. The reason it is is because it is extremely difficult to remove. For instance, often these products bring other products down. When you scan your computer (not with one adware/spyware removal tool, but with a cadre of them) you find often 10-50 or more products. When you go to remove them they often have no uninstaller and if they do they can take you to a web site that attempts to force you to install another browser helper object (BHO).

If you are a user looking to beautify your computer by adding all sorts of fancy toolbars and screen savers and you agree to adware that company should permit you to easily remove their adware (and the other product) and they should remove themselves completely. None of them do. Almost 100% of them leave residual entries and files laying around on your computer.

But not having that fancy toolbar or that pretty screensaver isn't going to bring the free internet down.

The guy making those types of comments are using slight of words to try to get some people to believe them when in reality there's no basis for any of the words.

Free internet is what exactly? Free access to the internet? NO, you pay for that. Websites that provide information? No, the website owner pays for that. Free software? Well, that's easily disputed because the FOSS movement does it every day without needing to include adware in their product.

I pay for my products when I like them. I pay for Opera, Cedega, Divx, cdburning software and I pay for the updates. I don't have a problem with rewarding the authors/company for their work by paying for the products.

Why would this lead to the fall of the free internet? Because we don't have ads popping up every page we enter?

I have a 13 year old girls computer in my shop. She has the most infected computer I have ever seen in my years of working on these problems. She has xxx toolbar products, products claiming to be adware removal products that are adware themselves, toolbars for every occassion, not to mention the large number of viruses and trojans which are extremely difficult to get rid of.

This poor 13 year old girl just wants to use her computer. It got so bad that you couldn't do anything. Every page she clicked on would bring up 3-5 ads. If she clicked to close and ad 3 more would pop up. She didn't know how to remove them and essentially gave up saying her computer was unuseable.

When I got it, it was unuseable. It has taken hours and hours to get rid of the ads. Some of the product went in and altered the policies on her computer and it is even impossible to enable the service pack 2 firewall. There's a virus that no virus scanner detects that keeps coming back over and over re-adding known viruses to her computer. Get rid of those viruses and some undetectable trojan adds them back.

The point is, how is an adware company going to even remotely a

Ads are okay, obnoxious ads aren't okay

[Teckla]

I use Mozilla and Firefox and regularly block ads, but I only block ads that prance, dance, blink, flash, bounce, jiggle, and otherwise annoy the crap out of me.

Those kinds of ads are not acceptable, because they're really distracting when you're trying to read and comprehend the real content of the web page.

I never bother to block normal ads, because they don't annoy me. Sometimes, they even look interesting, and I click on them.

Perhaps if advertisers would stop making obnoxious ads, there wouldn't be as much demand for ad blockers. But they've already shown themselves to have incredibly poor taste in ad design. Recall the living hell the web was before pop-up blockers became popular?

I suspect this is one of those areas where advertisers will just plain never get it, doing their best to make their ads stand out as much as possible...which is synonymous with making them obnoxious.

He's kind of right...

[GrayCalx]

I didn't RTFA so i apologize. But as far as the headline goes, he is correct in some aspects.

Some sites depend on ad-based revenue to pay for servers/bandwidth. If people use ad-blocking software, those sites make less revenue. Less revenue means they may not be able to keep their content free, and would then go under or start charging for use of their site.

Understand, I use ad-block, though I am aware that my actions might lead to sites charging for their content.

Are They Immutable?

[robbway]

Advertisements never get squelched completely. Like the rest of us, they have to change their ways. Does that mean that Double-click is so entrenched in their business model that they can't evolve into an advertising method that is pleasing to the customer? I doubt they're afraid for us.

Every pop-up/under that results indirectly from visiting a web site needs to be closed or blocked immediately and without prejudice. The ad makers aren't learning. Hitting someone every time they don't buy your product is the reason you can't get as many customers as you want.

(TFA was slashdotted)

Call his bluff

[Yekrats]

If that's the case, I wonder what he thinks about us blocking friggin' Doubleclick and his crapware cronies with a HOSTS file.

There are good ways of doing ads that I don't mind (nice little textads that I even occasionally click on) and then there are stupid ads that try to pop up, fake themselves as Windows alert-boxes, and punch-the-monkey type ads. Guess which kind of advertising Doubleclick uses?

But I'd be willing to call his bluff. If the obnoxious advertisers go away, will there still be a web to surf? The web was there before the obnoxious advertisers moved in. I tend to think that it will stay around after they are bankrupt.

Something I've been saying all along

[Anonymous Coward]

Continue to use adblocking extensions and web sites will have no choice but to either charge for content or force you to watch an ad before showing the content to you (some sites already do this).

People love things that are free, however not every company is here to be a charity.

Overloards!

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new AdBlocking overloards!

this wouldn't have happened...

[bicho]

if they hadn't abused it in the first place, what with popups and others that get in the way of the content.

It's as if...

[Mad Ogre]

Advertisers feel that they have some enherent rights to advertise anything everywhere they want. Its a wonder that they are not tacking up bulletin boards on the redwoods in california. Every night I have to look at the moon to make sure that someone hasn't scrimshawed a logo onto it.

Re:It's as if...

[KD5YPT]

They point they're making is that advertisements are what's paying for the free content on the web (at least, a substantial portion). I'm all against them plastering ads all over the place, but some webmaster do depend on advertisements as a source of income to fund the bandwidth they need to host a webpage.

Agreed...??? NOT

[ratboy666]

MOST free content on the web is supported by advertising?

Come on, that's... (charitably) WRONG.

MOST of the content on the web is on the edge; supplied by individuals. And that's where the growth is, too.

Just look at how much BitTorrent traffic is carried.

Ratboy

Re:Agreed...??? NOT

[avalys]

Oh, give me a break. I'm talking about the web (i.e., websites over HTTP), not the Internet as a whole.

And don't tell me about how much bloggers are contributing. It's a rare blog that has something on it that actually deserves to be called "content", and doesn't run ads to pay for the cost (if only in time) of producing it.

Re:Agreed...??? NOT

[jdavidb]

Weird. I read a lot of stuff I enjoy on weblogs, none of which are supported by advertisements. Those and other sites leapt immediately to mind the minute I read your question about what would we do if the advertising supported sites went away.

Is there like an objective definition of what deserves to be "content" out there? Or is it only those who actually think of advertising as a good thing who are allowed to say?

Maybe you think there's nothing of value on the web, but maybe not everyone thinks like you?/p

This wouldn't be a problem if...

[AviLazar]

we didn't have people maliciously putting in code. Code that causes viruses/worms, code that opens multiple/non-ending pop-ups, code that didn't direct someone to porn sites when the person entered www.kidsbooks.com (example).

Since advertisments have become obtrusive. Since advertisements contain malware. Since advertisments redirect you to other sites you didn't intend or even conceive of to go to... I say

Tough shit to double-click who is one of the biggest offenders
There will still be sites who offer free services, and will have non-obstrusive advertisments. There will be sites who are supported by the products/services they sell. The Internet will not go down because of pop-up blockers...with luck Double-click will.

Just Like TIVO is Ganna Nuke Television.

[jdmce2002]

Ad blocking software is not gonna nix the net. The advertisers will accomodate, all to the benefit of the users. Regarding TIVO, I wonder if its any coincidence, but TV ads are increasingly entertaining. Humm, wonder why?

Anybody notice...

[personman21]

the doubleclick ad at the top of zdnets page?

Well if they weren't so...

[Anonymous Coward]

damn annoying, I wouldn't be blocking ads now would I! I found it funny that I was blcoking doubleclick ads while reading this article. You're trying to read and you have something next to the next jumping, flashing, and bouncying around. HOw fucking annoying is that! And this fuckwad has to question why I get adblocking? Note to this moron, I don't block google ads because they're not annoying. I have even clicked on these google ads and have even purchased soemthing from it!

Loser.

hosts

[Nom du Keyboard]

127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.com

On behalf of the internet user community:

[presarioD]

Fuck you doubleclick!

Ahhhh I got it out of my system! Next thing should be open sourced phone carrier services where real call prevention/blocking of solicitors can be implemented. So in a few years we can all say:

Fuck you 1-888 numbers, and fuck you corrupt politicians for supporting them!

Sorry, I needed this therapy...

Block adblock using any browser

[thinkliberty]

Ad the list below to your hosts file
Windows host file
C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
C:\wi nnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Unix like: /etc/hosts

The comment filter blocks me from listing them all..
http://web.archive.org/web/20040602203242/someonew hocares.org/hosts/

is a link to a host file that will block all doublecraps ads ;)

Re:Block adblock using any browser

[Biff Stu]

This looks useful. I just might take it for a spin. However, it appears that it hasn't been updated for a year. It might be getting a bit out of date.

Re:Block adblock using any browser

[thinkliberty]

It's an archive.org link so the site does not get slashdotted... There are tons of hosts files for this purpose. use google to find one you like.

http://www.google.com/search?biw=1003&hl=en&q=ads+ hosts+file&btnG=Google+Search

Re:Block adblock using any browser

[MynockGuano]

If you don't use the webarchive.org version, the guy's site is current. The hosts file there was updated as recently as today.

Not sure why he linked an old copy, when the current site is perfectly functional.

Text-based Ads

[nebulus4]

I have nothing against Google or any other text-based ads. So, quit whining and choose a better business model! That's all I'm going to say.

The end of commercial internet?

[Andrew Cady]

Good riddance. The real value of the internet has never been, will never be, and is only hindered by, commercial content. Slashdot, for example, provides value exclusively through its user base -- and this is a microcosm of the entire network. If slashdot could not find funding, its users would go elsewhere; and if nobody could find funding, user-bases would organize themselves to create the same value, without anyone (but the ISPs) making money off it. That is how Usenet works.

The internet is a peer-to-peer network. What the commercial internet provides is broadcast, the ability for one person to speak to many, and we can do that anyway with netnews, freenet, bittorrent, coralcache, etc. -- without a middle-man providing the bandwidth.

To say the middle-man is required because he is ubiquitous is faulty logic. It's (slightly) easier to rely on existing ad-based services than to create peer-to-peer services ourselves -- so while they exist, they will be more popular. But that does not make them necessary, and if they went away, making alternatives necessary, free software implementing peer-to-peer content distribution would step in.

This would create a far better internet than we have, or rather would make the better subset of the internet that already exists a much larger one. If anything, the end of the commercial internet is a reason to use AdBlock, not to refrain.

only blocking OBTRUSIVE ads by default

[Saeger]

People are mostly blocking the obtrusive in-your-face ads, not the Google-style text-ads, and that's our right (and always will be as long "Trusted Computing" doesn't lock us out). Filtering the annoying ads saves time, aggravation, and bandwidth.

Even *if* EVERYONE was automatically filtering out the traditional (BIG-annoying-BLINKBLINK-CLICKMENOW!) ads by default, it wouldn't be the "end of free internet content". For one thing, the cost of hosting has dropped dramatically since the Adfree-early-90's, but more importantly, money isn't the incentive that gets the best content online.

And about the complaint against Firefox:
1) Firefox's Adblock extension isn't installed by default, and very few people install extensions.
2) The Adblock extension doesn't come with a prepopulated blocklist - you have to create your own as you go or download one. 3) Far more adblocking is probably done by corporate proxies to pinch pennies.

Adware

[ducttapekz]

So if banner ads are like newspaper ads, then adware is like the newspaper writing on my hand with permanent marker.

Such a recent evention.

[Blnky]

I see... so apparently the Internet didn't exist much before 1995? I guess Microsoft invented it when they put a "The Internet" button on the desktop in Windows 95. Wow, the CIA/NSA/FBI/MIB/Illuminati are really getting good in mind control. I could have sworn I was on it constantly before that, along with a whole slew of other researchers, chatters, and gamers. Why don't they just brainwash me into thinking that: a) the Internet only exists in the form of the web, b) I go on the web to see the advertisements and it is everything else I want to block? :P

Back to the roots!

[hexed_2050]

I have been on the Internet way before the big boom in the mid 1990s.

Back then, the information was still free, and the general newsgroup guppie was extremely more knowledgable and willing to help other people much more than what we have today.

I'm not trying to say that the Internet was better in its younger days; but what I am saying is that even though the Internet was available and used by a select few when in constrast to the number of people that it access it on a daily basis today, we still had extremely good quality information at our disposal. There were no ads then (well, very very few,) and there doesn't need to be now.

If companies only want to be on the Internet and update their content because it will increase their capital, well, I say goodbye to that. Companies need to start enbracing the Internet for what is it: an extremely powerful and quick way to deliver information to a massive amount of people, but don't try to get rich on PPC and ad impressions. If you really want to get rich, provide a product that people will want to buy instead constantly trying to sell ice to eskimos. Don't get me wrong, I understand advertising is the key to selling your product, but I think it's taken too far. I also understand the mantras of advertsing, one being that if there isn't a "want" for your product, create one; thus in other words, market your product where people aren't looking for your product. But enough is enough! If people want to find your product, they will search in special directories or on search engines. This is where you need to concentrate your ads, not on flashing banners while I'm trying to find information on why my son is sick.

Who's with me on this?

Re:Back to the roots!

[brwski]

hexed_2050 writes: I'm not trying to say that the Internet was better in its younger days

Oh, but it was. Amazingly so.

Most of that had to do with size; it was quite possible to know most of the idiots by name, even and up until 1993 or so, and simply avoid them. It's like a small town --- you can shun the local jerk, and everyone (except the jerk) is happier for it. But now that we're all living in Mexico City, Tokyo, or some other monstrously large city, that simply does not and can not work.

The only real way to find happiness is to build your own gated community, and only go out for groceries now and then. But that doesn't work either --- either insularity and parochialism take over, or it is the equivalent of living in a pre-industrial village. Interesting neighbors, but you've heard all their stories before, plus they smell and their pets are nuisances.

I miss the old days. But I'd also miss what I have access to today if I found myself back in 1989. Excellent point, sir.

brwski

Blocking ads doesn't necessarily need adblock ext

[Anonymous Coward]

On my system about 90000 sites are blocked at system level (/etc/hosts). Some of them are blocked by IP address. You can easily ask for IP address ranges from domain registries. In this case you can block every IP address of such companies. After forwarding such addresses to localhost it's impossible to resolve them.

Very good examples of such hosts files are available at several places within the Internet such as http://remember.mine.nu/

I think he forgot something

[shiznit4172]

Is it just me or are marketer's suffer from the following: 1) Completely unable to restrain themselves. Ad blocking only got popular when web ads began taking over the content and making it hard to get quality information. 2) Completely out of touch with consumers. Would you really feel cheated if you bought a paper and it had all the ads cut out? Is that even comparing apples to apples? 3) Completely unaware that since marketers are so competitive about getting their ads seen they resort to unethical tactics such as pop ups or installing spyware on pc's which just annoys users and pushes them further towards spyware removers and ad blockers. This guy completely forgets that his Doubleclick company is part of the problem that is driving the demand for ad blocking software. Users are not cheating marketing people. Users are leveling the playfield so they can get at the content they want easily and without having to kill 200 pop up windows.

Online ads - what I hate the most

[franknagy]

1. Pop-up ads should just die, die, die

2. Web pages that are so full of ads that finding
the content is nearly impossible (think RealPlayer).

3. Web pages slow to load because the ads are servered off slow/overloaded machines.

Pretty much otherwise I don't mind the ads and sometimes find them useful.

DoubleClick is more a pain than anything else.

WWW's existence not dependent on ad-based revenue

[vorpal22]

I know that many people here are claiming that large sites offering free content will collapse and die if the trend to block advertising continues, but I'd like to point at LiveJournal as a site that has millions and millions of hits daily and is doing just fine in spite of the fact that they're completely free and have never had to stoop to depending on ad-based revenue. The feature set they offer to paying customers and their merchandise seem to entirely cover their operating expenses.

Personally, as an aside, I also don't think it's fair to compare web-based ads to newspaper ads. My city offers a free daily newspaper, supported by ads, which I'm happy to take. The ads may be bright and colourful, but I find it easy to psychologically blot most of them out, and I also find that given that the ads are concerning local businesses, occasionally one that is relevant to me will catch my eye. Ads on the web, because we've grown so accustomed to ignoring banner ads and what have you, have become so bloody intrusive that without my extensive use of AdBlock on a daily basis, I find the web virtually unusable. I have no opposition to static ad images that are tastefully placed on a page, but when you get into large animated gifs, Java applets, and Flash scripts incessantly trying to catch my attention and completely and constantly deterring my focus from the contents of the page, I refuse to waste my bandwidth and time on such irritating nonsense.

Exactly right

[HangingChad]

I have no problem with Google ads. They don't take over your screen or blink annoyingly and don't turn a 2 second page load into a 30 second bandwidth hog.

Doubleclick is their own worst enemy. It's not just the trashy ads, but their spyware cookies and other means of tracking internet users. Here's a clue for those bastards: We're not here for your convenience. We pay for our bandwidth and that doesn't mean you're entitled to it. If your customer sites want to find a different way to make money, have at it. Another site will find a less obtrusive way to get their advertising in front of consumers by offering the same content. That's the way the free market works. They win, you lose. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving company.

Re:Exactly right

[robdavy]

You want relevant ads, but won't let DoubleClick maintain a profile of what sites you go to and what ads you clicked on, so they can work out what ads might be relevant to you?

You can't have it all, except on sites that like Google where you specifically tell them what you're looking for. How should the front page of Yahoo know?

Re:Exactly right

[bhadreshl]

If you're so pissed off at doubleclick, just wget -r their site overnight and make *THEM* waste bandwidth :P

Re:Exactly right

[Blakey Rat]

So you like targetted ads, but you *don't* like Doubleclick collecting information on what you're interested in?

Can't have it both ways.

Re:Exactly right

[tecmec]

WHAT? Who said that they have to collect info for targeted ads? All they have to do is make the ad relivant to the page...google does it with adsence.

Meh. Doubleclick is buyout target

[whovian]

Market value = $1 billion. Now compare to Google and Yahoo: $81 billion, $52 billion. There is plenty of momentum behind free general content, regardless. And still, if Doubleclick relegated itself to registration=only sites, then the users could go somewhere else.

Annoy me with 'hit the monkey' and you get blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has it right; context-sensitve ads placed in text boxes that are clearly not content.

I have no pitty for DoubleClick. They are one of the main reasons why I use Platypus & Greasemonkey.

I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, double click! If I ever meet your CEO out on the street, I'm going to sock him right in the stomach, then crazy glue an ad for "Wireless Cam! 99.99!" to his eyeballs, SO THAT HIS VIEW OF THE WORLD LOOKS LIKE MINE.

you mean

[geekoid]

Google is floundering?

dude, YOu can get TV for free, Radio for free and as I understand it, those industries make a dollar or two.

Google type ads is what the future will bring.

Re:you mean

[helioquake]

Google is floundering?

Do you consider Google's ads intrusive?

I think not. On contrary I agree wholeheartedly that the Google's business model may be the way of the future.

Re:you mean

[sqlrob]

I would agree with you until just recently. I didn't block the Google ads. Now I do.

"Get your free PS3"
"Download Episode 3"

The ads aren't screened or reputable, therefore they get blocked.

Free to Improve

[Doc Ruby]

No, it's an end to easy money for DoubleClick. Now they'll have to reinvest some of their annoyingly-gotten gain into producing ads that people don't go to lengths to block. Like ads for products people want to know about, without destroying their multimedia experience. Otherwise, DoubleClick will just keep reinvesting in whining about losing their right to annoy you.

I don't normally block ads, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

meet my new HOSTS file additions (from mvps.org):

# [Doubleclick][Tracking Service][Restricted Zone site]
127.0.0.1 dclk.net
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
etc...

I Wish I Could & My Content

[Nom du Keyboard]

Here's a two'fer

1: I wish I could start a company, and then threaten that everybody had to use my product -- or else!

2: The end of the Free Internet -- what a joke. My content is free, and will remain so. Many people publish content for reasons other than ad clicks. And if this drives some of the comerical sites off the Internet, well a lot of us didn't like it when they arrived in the first place. I expect retail sites to remain because they make money by selling things. I visit them when I want to buy things. But if DoubleClick disappeared tomorrow I would not miss them at all.

Get rid of flash too !!

[up2ng]

...with Firefox, use Flashblock
It won't automatically play the flash animation, you have to click on it first.

Everyone with Firefox should have AdBlock, Flashblock, Spoofstick and BugMeNot. Your surfing experience will be ALOT better and faster.
When I set up machines for anyone now I install Firefox (with the above extentions, remove access to IE and install a nice rounded hosts file with all the baddies blocked, I really don't have "can you fix this for me" or "Damn the computer is slow today" calls anymore!!

You know what?

[maynard]

If I get to choose between paying for content or having advertising shoved down my throat, I'll just pay for the content. Unfortunately, the last time we were offered this choice - the emergence of cable TV - we got the shaft and wound up both paying for the content and having advertising shoved into our faces to boot. Guess what. It's my computer; it's my TV; it's my magazine; they're my eyes. I don't have view these ads if I choose not to. That simple. JMO. --M

Re:You know what?

[strikethree]

Why pay for content? Create your own content and share it or participate with others who share their content... kind of like you are doing right now with Slashdot. Corporations are welcome to come and play on the internet... but they need to realize that they are not the only game in town. We (I) do not need their content.

strike

Re:You know what?

[Omnieiunium]

I have known on many occasions I have been willing to pay the extra $10 a month to recieve commerical-free shows. It is just so much easier to watch a show with commericals then it is to watch it with commericals. In Italy, they threw in 5 minutes of commericals in the first five minutes and left the next 25 minutes commerical free (maybe with a one minute ad in the center) but it worked fine. Just tune in 5 minute later and you got a commerical free show.

Clearly, Google is succeeding with their model

[contrapuntalmindset]

Google seems to have developed a successful advertising model that is a lot harder to block, is not annoying or obtrusive, and is relevent. I think instead it is the end of doubleclick - and I'm thankful for that!

It's right and it's wrong....

[enrico_suave]

The main concept that if everyone blocks ads, *some* sites will go away is correct.

BUT, there's more than just profit motive for creating web content AND there's more than one way to generate revenue (if there is a profit motive).

Example: Jason Kottke's micro-patron experiment his site is ad free. He did a fairly un-agressive (although getting boingboinged certainly helps) pledge campaign to raise enough ducats to live on for a year with a suggested donation of 30 beans. some gave more, some gave less...

In anycase, if everyone blocks ads the model will change. Now if it's for the better or for the worse, that would be remain to be seen. Obviously if you're doubleclick it would probably be for the worse.

I'd be up crap's creek myself if everyone blocked ads, but I sorta understand the mentality (I'm Mr. FFwd through commercials on his PC PVR, after all.. ) :)

e.

Mark my words

[ScreamCity]

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default.

The new start of free Internet content will come when Web advertisers start using less obstructive methods of advertisement.

Quick, somebody call the WAAAAAAAAaambulance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cry me a river. Poor, picked-on doubleclick. Oh, how tragic, how sad.

Here's the key to effective advertising:

DO NOT ANNOY THE CUSTOMER!

Do I block Google's ads? Nope. They don't annoy me. Do I block DoubleClick? YES! Their ads are insanely bothersome, irksome, and also the 'A' word.

Will free web content continue and even be profitable? Indeed! But the sites that succeed won't have ads that are annoying. Period.

Negative Vibes!

[chudgoo]

We must be harshin' his buzz, man!

The end result of ad-blocking

[FooHentai]

If he's to be beleived and ad-blocking is hurting web revenue so much, the following will happen:
1. Companies who require financial returns for their web content will cease or reduce distribution of web content
2. Those who do not require revenue from their online publishing (read: avg. joe geek) will attract more attention with their material.

So, a partial return to the time when the Internet was primarily filled with private web pages written by people in their spare time, as opposed to advert laden corporate publishments.

I'm mortified!

Yes - bright, young exec

[motorsabbath]

Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, said the popularity of tools like Adblock -- an extension to the Mozilla Firefox browser -- which makes blocking online ads simple was tied to 'a negative vibe against advertising in general'."

Leave it to an advertising exec to take that long to figure it out. The only people who lke advertising are people who work in advertising.

O, Off course ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Noone will create free content for the web, so we should all see annoying popups.
The same way that noone will create Free Software, so we should all let M$ conquer the world. It's not like there is a Free Operating System or anything .. oh ... wait ..

Sounds like Tivo

[Anonymous Coward]

They said the same doom and gloom crap about
Tivo and how it would make free television broadcasting go away. Now 6 years later, tv still seems to be doing fine.

Uh, yes ...

[Frit Mock]

Indeed, adblocking is about one thing ... end this anoying ads buisiness ... in personal short term or in general long term, doesn't matter.

If one thing is for sure, annoying advertisers are the first ones to go down to the ground. If free content will go down too, is pure speculation ... let's see if there is enough innovation left, to keep these services alive, without annoyances!

The more headlines like this a DUH.com

[Anonymous Coward]

fna

Poor coparison

[geekoid]

"It's not so with TV shows. The costs are the same whether 8 people or 8 billion people watch it. "

if you paid the cost to your ISP for the bandwidth for 8 billion people to view your website. your cost would stay the same wether 8 people or 8 billion people viewed it.

Did you miss the book reference?

[khasim]

I can buy a whole paperback book for less than what you claim the cost of a paper would be.

They have to pay all of the printing costs.

Yep. So does the book publisher.

They have to pay the journalists. They have to pay the reporters.

Not much difference between the two. And the book publisher has to pay the author.

They have to pay the editors.

Again, the same as in the paperback book world.

They have to pay for the delivery of the paper to your front door.

Yeah, I'm sure the paperboy is raking in $50K+ a year.

So, the cash difference between your $15 paper and the paperback book I buy is ... the amount paid to the paperboy.

I really don't think so.

Sure, the newspaper itself appears to be very little, but it is the cumulation of much work by many people. That costs money. Lots of money.

Again, you must have, somehow, missed the point of my paperback book question. Equivalent jobs are held there AND it takes longer to get an edition out but the cost is so much less.

AND the paperback book company would STILL be paying for advertising. With books, ads are an expense. With newspapers, ads are revenue.

Re:Did you miss the book reference?

[CyricZ]

A cheapo paperback novel is not comparable to a newspaper. Your nonsense about "equivalent jobs" does not hold true.

Your typical, cheapo paperback will have been written by ONE author, at and most two editors. A typical daily newspaper, on the other hand, will have portions written by literally hundreds of reporters/journalists, with several editors and fact-checkers being involved as well. Plus the royalties paid to photographers. The costs add up significantly. Novels just don't incur the same expenses.

Indeed, look at the price of any book with actual photos and content. Like a textbook, or computer-related books. They'll run you upwards of $30, if not well more than $70 for better quality books.

Re:Did you miss the book reference?

[linzeal]

You are forgetting the fact that a book can take years of work to complete and a newspaper story has to be relevently current. A book is handled by sometimes as many as a dozen people esp. if it is non-fiction.

Newspapers are over-rated anyways as I can delve into virtually any subject on an RSS feed without getting any ink on my hand. When RSS has a mainstream equivelent like NNTP->forums than even news.google.com will feel the pinch.

Re:Did you miss the book reference?

[SatanicPuppy]

Trust me, it costs a mint. Subscriptions and single copy sales don't cover the cost of printing, more less all the salaries and production equipment involved.

The reason you can get away with it with a paperback is that a) they cost a hell of a lot more, and b) it takes only a handful of people to put one together.

When was the last time you saw a paperback, or hell, even a hardcover, that was printed even partly in color? Only the covers are colored, and you know what? A lot of those covers are printed by newspapers, whose equipment costs so much to operate that it absolutely has to be working all the time.

A printed paperback is revised maybe once or twice a decade. Newspapers often print multiple editions on the same day. A book is generally written by one or two people, and edited by maybe two more; even a small newspaper is written by dozens of people, filled with photos by a staff of photographers, illustrated by a staff of graphic artists, overseen by dozens of editors, and copy editors.

If a book sold a million copies in a year, it'd be a best seller. If a newspaper sold a million copies in a year, it'd 1/4 the size of the paper I ran in COLLEGE, serving a town containing fewer people than most highschool basketball stadiums.

If you bought a paperback a week, you'd spend more than ten times as much as a newspaper subscription would cost, but the amount of content would be at least equal, just in terms of pure text, without counting pictures or ads.

You so clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Opposite effect

[Craig Maloney]

Did it ever occur to this guy that this little diatribe might have the opposite effect, and might encourage people who might otherwise not know how effective AdBlock and Firefox are at blocking annoying ads? He probably drove up the download figures for both just by mentioning them.

Thanks, pal... you're making the world a better place by bitching!

correction

[psbrogna]

doesn't it just mean the end of DoubleClick? Won't that be a shame.

End of the free internet? It's past time.

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Frankly, I've never understood why people think the internet should be free (as in root beer). That's just absurd. SOMEONE has to pay for it. I'd far rather pay for it myself. And in fact I always have. I've paid for internet services for almost 20 years. Including web space. It's let me do whatever I want (within resason and the law) without having ads screw up my pages or email.

(It hacks me off to have all these ads in my face when I'm already paying!)

Anyway, sure, in China and Cuba, I'd expect free internet. They're the workers' paraadises, after all. And in some more socialist countries, I'd expect free internet. But I bet those places don't have ads. Well, maybe government ads, but in China and Cuba at least, that's a part of life. But in the USA, there's no reason to expct free internet services.

And frankly, I'd be a lot happier without it. The people who really have something to say will generally find a way to say it, The people who really need the net will get it. If the government is worried enough about the digital divid eto provide free or reduced cost internet to certain individuals, I can live with that. BBut most of us should expect to pay for the internet just like we do for electricity or phones.

What about TV, you might ask? I don't even own one. Haven't for years. As advertisements took over more and more of the time, and the programming got worse (driven more by ad bucks than consumer interest) it just wasn't worth it.

I might get one now, but it would be for paid chanels, not for the crap with the ads. I'd rather watch paint dry than most of that. Your mileage probably varies.

The Circle of Life, Internet version:

[H_Fisher]

In t3h beginning, there was the Web. And it was good.

Now, we've got an age of popups, popunders, sliding layers, things that flash in our faces, things that try to install spyware, ads that incessantly try to place cookies on our machines, etc. People are fed up.

So, the next step will be even tougher ad-blocking. Forget simple (and ever-less-effective) popup-blocking, I'm waiting for the version of Firefox, or the plugin, that offers Proxomitron-style dynamic recoding / blocking of selected content, not to mention more privacy-protecting features. Here's a for-instance: on-the-fly recoding of cookies. Doubleclick.net wants to set a cookie? Replace it with a standard "junk" cookies, so that millions of machines suddenly report that they belong to Johndoe@doubleclick.net ... making their tracking data less than useless.

It'll happen. And sure, we'll see some of the big-name providers start to use more intrusive ads and charge for some services. People will adapt. The Onion used to have free content and few ads. Now they have annoying pre-mercials and they charge for archive access. I rarely visit The Onion anymore.

And I'm sure the New York Times and other news providers will likely start charging for premium content; the "free reg required" will give way to something like $12 a year, then $4 or $5 a month, and then it'll grow from there. That's the way of things.

There's a South Park episode where the citizens kill Wal-Mart and shop at the small-town drugstore, which then becomes a supermegastore the same as Wal-Mart and then has to be killed ... and the cycle continues. Thus with the Internet. If the current news sites start charging monthy subscription rates, free ones will appear; if Yahoo and Gmail started charging for their services, more free e-mail would appear.

Doubleclick, just like the RIAA/MPAA and Microsoft and everyone else, is just a cog in the machine. And just like a part in a machine, it seems the whining and grinding often gets louder just before the part wears out for good.

I Prefer to Block Ads At The Host File

[uncleroot]

Add these to your hosts file: # doubleclick 127.0.0.1 3ad.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.3au.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.au.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.be.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.br.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.ca.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.de.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.es.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.fi.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.fr.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.it.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.jp.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.n2434.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.nl.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.no.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.pl.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.se.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.sg.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.ve.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad.za.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.com 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.de 127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net From http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

Re:I Prefer to Block Ads At The Host File

[Anonymous Coward]

geez, when will you stupid idiots stop abusing the host file. install a proxy and block .*\.doubleclick\.(de|net|whatever)$

some kiddie discovers teh h0sts file and thinks it's a proper solution to block ads...

Re:I Prefer to Block Ads At The Host File

[cpghost]

You could do this, but a simple *.doubleclick.net in Adblock would be easier in this case. Plus /etc/hosts is not the right place for URLS like [randomgeneratedhostname].advertiser.example.com where advertiser.example.com would use a custom DNS server. Here again, Adblock's *.advertiser.example.com is much more powerful.

The Internet did just fine without DoubleClick and

[Anonymous Coward]

If DoubleClick and their megaclients believe they can dupe folks into believing providing internet content costs alot of money, and therefore requires revenue, they're in for a rude awakening.

The AdBlock Revolution is just in its infancy, and it's going to completely change the ways websites are designed and operated. The advertising-driven web busniess model is DYING.

Good riddance.

Gopher, you're welcome back anytime you please.

Here we go again... and again... and again...

[hacker]

From TFA
"In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.

I'm sorry, content providers pay for the content, advertisers do not.

Advertisers can offset that cost, but it shouldn't be the primary funding resource for the content. If it is, your business model is broken, not the client's browser.

Besides, how do you expect blind users and people using WAP, clipping, cell, PDA, and text-mode browsers to read your content if you don't support them.

We'll go elsewhere in either case. If you litter your pages with advertisements, or make it impossible to read it with a standard browser (which includes text-mode browsers), your "audience" will just find somewhere else to read it.

Fix your business model and stop pointing fingers at your target audience and passing the buck on to them. If you can't afford to present the content on your own, then don't.

Almost - 2 more qualifiers

[Anonymous Coward]

So you run a company who's job it is to annoy people, and you are mad because someone wants to run your out of business with their new product. Sounds like capitalism at it's best.

Capitalism at its best requires two more steps:

3) Successfully lobby government to pass law that supports your efforts to annoy people
4) (Drum roll please and I'm sorry for this) Profit

There is one site I let advertise to me

[Canonical AC]

There is one site I let advertise to me - http://www.salon.com/

Why? I find the content worthwhile....

Worthwhile content? Now there's an idea....perhaps if more sites had some, people would not mind advertising so much.

(I'm looking at you, every two-bit "review site" on the internet!)

Business models

[nuggz]

I doubt it, they'll just have to adjust to a new business model.

The free + advertising model is only one of them. When done correctly it works, done poorly it doesn't.

Look at the google ads and a newspaper. If you're in the auto section you see car ads, this is potentially useful to the consumer, and better for the advertiser.

AdBlock? How about /etc/hosts?

[kyoko21]

I don't use adblock. I just have all my web content filtered through squid with a custom built realtime content filtering and a fairly decent amount of blacklisted hosts through my host file.

Thanx for Reminding me Doubleclick

[tarawa]

I forgot I had temporarily disabled Adblock to view something and had forgotten to turn it back on.

*click click*

There, all fixed. Thanx Doubleclick. :)

I didn't even used to block banners...

[SvnLyrBrto]

When internet ads were just a banner across the top of the page I never blocked them. Animated GIFs? I never had a problem with them. Google's ads? As you say, fine by me. The little OSDN/OSTG as at the top of slashdot is fine. And so are K5's ads on the side of the content. It was *AGES* before I started blocking any ads at all. Bandwidth is stupidly cheap, after all. And I never used to mind letting even banner ads load, so as to help pay for the content I was reading.

But stick a big old obnoxious ad in the MIDDLE of the actual content? Spy on me with cookies? Pop up/under new windows or move or resize the ones I already have? Uselessly chew up system resources with flash or java in your ads? Worst of all, try to circumvent my having ads blocked in the first place? Any of these, and you've crossed the line.

And since the latter group seem to be the norm rather than the exception thesedays, I have PithHelmet cranked up so high I hardly see any ads at all. Certainly I haven't had some stinking pile of java or flash load without my permission in quite a while. And it's been so long since I've seen a popup, I'm shocked and confused when I have to use some public computer that they even still exist.

I think it was actually X10, and their "pop-under" bullshit, that pushed me over the edge into full-out ad-blocking mode.

cya,
john

Innovation such as?

[VernonNemitz]

How about this? An ad-blocker that DOESN'T block the first two ads that meets its blocking criteria, per Web page. After all, it's not really the IDEA of ads on Web pages that's the problem, it's the QUANTITY. "Too much of any good thing is a bad thing", remember?

Of course, whether or not people would replace their block-every-ad plug-ins with plug-ins that block-all-but-first-two-ads (or maybe first three) remains to be seen. On the other hand, the more people that do use such a specialized plug-in, the more that Web-page designers get the message to not go overboard with the ads -- and that would certainly benefit everyone.

Re:Innovation such as?

[berzerke]

...After all, it's not really the IDEA of ads on Web pages that's the problem, it's the QUANTITY. "Too much of any good thing is a bad thing", remember?...

To a certain extent I agree. I vaguely remember visiting a website that had so many ads, I couldn't find the content (likely the "Click here to enter" link). I left quickly.

However, that is only part of the equation. The other is annoyance. I use adblock, but don't block all ads, nor do I even try to. But if the ad is a pop-up, or flashing/jumping/vibrating ad, then I block it, and usually all others from that server. I find it somewhat ironic that a simple static banner ad will get more viewing from me that the fancy flash ads.

Re:Innovation such as?

[FireFury03]

After all, it's not really the IDEA of ads on Web pages that's the problem, it's the QUANTITY.

Actually, for me it's not about quantity, it's about quality. I have no problem with static banner ads, google's textual ads, etc. The ones I do block are the ones that are designed specifically to be annoying - Flash ads that suck up my CPU time, animated GIFs with horrible flashing colours on them which can't help but distract you from what you're actually interested in on the site, popups, etc. And the worst type, IMHO, which seem to be gradually appearing - banner ads that play sound and loud music.

If people stick to non-intrusive, targetted adverts then I will see them and occasionally click on them when they are advertising something that looks interesting. If they insist on annoying the hell out of me then I'll just add them to adblock... and usually they annoy me to the point that I add the entire advertiser's domain to adblock rather than bothering to filter only the annoying ones.

This is _exactly_ the same as advertising through spam, direct sales, high pressure sales, etc - I will never buy from these methods of advertising because they annoy the hell out of me. It amazes me the number of people who complain about spam, telesales, door-to-door salesmen, etc but then quite happilly buy from those advertising methods without even considering that their sale is one of the reasons those advertising methods are used.

Re:Innovation such as?

[LiquidCoooled]

I agree with this, but its not ironic.

It means you like to use the web as a magazine that you read. You don't expect extra popup adverts in your favorite weekly, nor do you expect a moving image distracting you from your article.

I personally block all flash and gif animation (image.animation_mode=none) on a page, but I have never gone as far as removed the actual adverts.
It has improved my browsing expecience no end, and I have clicked through to more adverts since doing this than before, mainly because the context is right (I still keep to my regularish suppliers however).

The only gripes I have with this is the flashblock ummm flashes the anim onscreen at least one frame, and the animated gifs stupidly miss out on an advert chance by essentially blanking themselves for the 1st frame.
I would want flashblock to simply leave a flash anim paused by default, but leave it visible.

FUD to English Translation

[saddino]

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned.

FUD to English Translation:

The end of DoubleClick will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has whined.

Good point... but wrong group to make them

[KD5YPT]

The point they're making is a valid one. For one, "free" online content still costs money to host in term of bandwidth and storage space. For the majority of the online content, those costs are covered by 4 sources.

1. Webmasters themselves.
2. Donation/Subscription of users.
3. Selling site related stuffs (self-advertising).
4. Advertisement.

Of the four, advertisement is probably one of the more stable source of income to cover the cost of webhosting. Hence the widespread use of ad-blocking devices could severely hinders webmasters' ability to solicit funds from advertiser.

HOWEVER...
Doubleclick.com is not the right company to argue about this. They had been notorious in creating highly intrusive and annoying ads. Even worst are their use of spywares/adwares. My opinions on online ads are that they should follow a few guidelines.
1. NO SOUND! Maybe a one-time sound, BUT NO REPETITIVE SOUND THAT GETS NERVE GRINDING.
2. No "in your face" pop-up ads. New browser, flash or otherwise.
3. Graphics banner/sidebar ads is tolerated. Even those with somo animations (I kinda grew fond of those flash sidebar ads here in slashdot, they look cool, now that's effective advertising).
4. Relevant ads as much as possible.

So instead of blocking all ads, punish those who pisses you off and let other that you find tolerable, or even likable (found an even cheaper harddrive because of google TextAds, gotta love those things) through.

Sounds like you need to learn to spell.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whose"

"Its"

Get a clue.

Advertising? Maybe...

[Zephiris]

Maybe I'd still view any advertising if it were still simple. Advertising that became intrusive and even dangerous is all over the place now. But, besides any personal information, privacy, or revenue for a favorite site concern (sorry Slashdot!), advertising has generally become designed exclusively for 1Mbit/s and higher connections. It's impossible to even simply browse through text anymore because of advertising anywhere. Even with adblock and similar extensions for other browsers, advertising is still intrusive enough that it still steals an insane amount of bandwidth. Only Adblock itself is particularly smart enough to track what's loaded and allow you to block advertising javascript, as well, which can steal an absurd amount of bandwidth for no real purpose.

Things in general are getting larger and larger, programs, advertising, and javascript included. Contrary to apparent popular belief, this isn't because it's getting BETTER, but because programmers (speaking as one) are getting excessively lazier and less skilled as time goes on. Noone knows how to keep things relatively small anymore.

Not to brag (or self promote; current problems with the webhost), I don't consider it something to brag about, it's simple, but my website has always been designed with a relatively small size in mind. Even from a completely clean cache, it loads in just a few seconds on dialup, and refreshes are more or less instantaneous. If people worked by that principle anymore, which is one of the reasons why I'm greatly disappointed with Firefox these days, the internet might still be a dialup-friendly place.

If Anarchy Online only uses 0.4KB/s (when not idle in a corner), what's the excuse for so much other software for utterly hating dialup since about 1999?

Hey bennie,

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need a plug in to block your ads. I have a custom hosts file that blocks every doubleclick server on Earth. And just about every other ad server out there. After a couple of years of use, I'm only adding or editing it once every few weeks, so it gives good coverage. instead of coming out to your servers to pull an ad, either everyone on my lan gets nothing, or they get one of our own banners in place of yours.

Your problem is you believe you have the God-given right to spam us and bury us in ads. I've seen one ad exec claim that we are stealing from the publishers when we get up to go to the bathroom during commercials. Reread that sentence. You marketing droids don't have your heads screwed on straight.

Explain to me what benefit EMD Marketing, aka dealsreferals.com, aka Super Wealth, aka onlinefortuneopportunity.com, aka best-onlinegames.com, aka 718-837-7570 has in calling me 5-10 times a day, then hanging up when I answer? Is there any purpose to receiving a call from 718-837-7570, a number controlled by Verizon, when you hang up and don't take return calls to that number, or the number given in the recording, 718-259-5655? Due to overwhelming demand you can't answer the phone? Overwhelming demand for what?

It's you and your kind that call from the numbers above and who believe you have every right to disturb us, that makes the online experience and telephone experience a misery.

Free content disappearing? Good. Then we'll go back to students, academics, scientists, geeks, and others using the Internet like it was originally. And the businesses that figure out a way to profit from putting out free content will always be there. And you won't. Can't wait.

Simple

[geekoid]

Becasue the blink and have moving pictures.
I will block all das like that. Google did this right, and I don't block there ads.

'Ok, Slashdot editors, I want to read your magazine, but I do not want to let you earn any money for running it.'

And?

"Any other behaviour is immoral"

from dictionary.com:
immoral Audio pronunciation of "immoral" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-môrl, -mr-)
adj.

Contrary to established moral principles.

your statement seems to be false. nobody, except you and advertisers, considerd viewing ads a moral principle.

" (some would even call it stealing)."

they would be wrong.

Tell you what...

[lowe0]

Create advertising that I want to see, and I'll watch it.

If the advertisers could come up with ads for products that are relevant to me, are entertaining or informative, and are delivered in a manner that does not cause me to react negatively, then I won't mind sitting there for a few seconds. Don't lock me in, don't follow me around - tell me a story or give me informatoin, and let me out of the ad at any time.

Of course, if anyone knew a way to do all that, they'd be a marketing genius. It's not easy. So instead, we get crap, and they wonder why it annoys us.

Ads I Hate!

[Nom du Keyboard]

I truly despise the following ad types, the people that produce them, and the people who put them on their sites:

1: Pop-ups, pop-unders, and anything that opens another window.
2: Anything hard to close.
3: Anything that uses measurable extra bandwidth to download itself.
4: Anything or window that moves. This includes animated ads.
5: Anything that overlays the content I'm trying to read.
6: Anything that wants me to install their custom software, especially when it comes back and tells me yet again to install their adware/spyware/hijack crap when I try to close out of the window.
7: And most of all, anything that includes video and or sound -- especially sound!

Do this crap, and I go out of my way not to buy your products, while complaining to the sites that host your ads. I may not get you kicked off, but I will seek to annoy the webmasters who have to deal with my feedback about your tactics.

Re:Ads I Hate!

[KD5YPT]

That's a pretty good list of what not-to-do. However I might contest number 4 (although it might get tied into number 3). Animated ads that stay within its boundary and aren't to flashy (aka epileptic inducing) should be okay.

There's a line in my /etc/hosts file

[callipygian-showsyst]

127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net

No, it will be the end of Doubleclick...

[EricTheGreen]

What will happen is that online sites will steer their business to ad providers who are capable of ad placements that don't drive J. Random User to install/activate ad blockers.

The website "buyers" couldn't care less about who provides the ads, as long as they: a) don't have Enron-esque legal or social blackmarks on their resume, b) make placing the ads relatively painless for the buyer, c) deliver results. Some ad service or services will qualify on all of the above, and will see an uptick in business as result.

Consumers will still want the website content, it will still be profitable to providers to offer the content--it'll just take some changes in how the blurbs are presented. Nothing changes for the principals in this process. Lots changes for the middlemen (ad-providers). To which I say: tough darts, guys.

Instead of ranting, maybe DC should re-consider their presentation model using the above criteria. Or maybe our long-suffering DC exec is tacitly admitting that the presentation model,as is, will continue to decline and has been reduced to spawning FUD in the hopes that it slows the decline. Not that that's ever been done before, of course....

Sounds like what DC really needs is a creativity infusion, not a reduction in ad-blocker use. Good luck, folks.

advertising - can't leave well enough alone

[gosand]

Everyone reading this site while blocking ads is able to do so only because of people like me who do view them (and subscribers).

I provide content for this site, by posting comments. So does everyone else. Without comments, this site wouldn't exist.

I don't block ads, because they don't bother me. I do block popups. Advertisers are the leeches. Advertising is fine, I understand the need for it. But they can't leave well enough alone. We can't just have commercials in TV programs, we now have to have product placement as well. Websites can't just have ads, they have to have popups or deceptive practices. You can't just watch a movie, you have to watch commercials before it and endure the endless advertising of "merchandising opportunities".

IMO, these companies are causing their own problems.

The market getting smaller...

[Mad Sprinkles]

Didn't their customer base dwindle whenever they realized that most of us, being avid net users, subconciously ignore the ads anyway?

funny

[paulsomm]

funny, doubleclick.net was the first site added to my AdBlock filter, and was an entry in my local HOSTS file for years before that.

I don't have a problem with online ads in general. its the ones that dance over the page (or otherwise obscure the content), redirect, resize, rely on large flash or java apps, or try and download code to my machine that prompted me to block.

a simple banner or inline image is fine and doesn't prompt me to block.

Advertisers should realize a lot of what they're complaining about is in response to their own activities to be more intrusive and obnoxious.

There some truth to this

[scronline]

Avertising has several modes. Doubleclick's method of advertising is the one that's the problem. Popups, popunders, and the appearance in many spyware "issues" is what has caused all this. It's just like spam, when you let it go unchecked...well everyone here knows how that's turning out right now.

The banner advertising will never go away and it's NOT a good idea to block those. They tend to get placed on a site that's not obtrusive enough to pull away from the content and usually they don't affect anything. I don't mind see banner ads on a site and sometimes I click through to them.

On the other hand, any site that advertises in popups immediately gets closed (if it even managed to get past the popup blocker) and remembered as a company I will not purchase from in the future. I also tend to steer away from sites that USE popups simply because it's annoying. I could give a rats arse about the content. If the site annoys me, I quit going.

In short, advertising can help keep content free, but when it becomes so intrusive that it takes away from the site it's on, isn't that detrimental to the content owner in the first place? Back before there were any good popup blockers, if I would follow a link and a popup jumped infront of me, I closed the popup and clicked back and moved on. It was that simple. Of course we can't forget about the popup swarms that some people would get either. Particularly if they would up on some porn site.....THERE'S A REASON TO BLOCK THAT CRAP.

I only block annoying ads

[gvc]

I block distracting ads - ones that eat real estate, blink, slow page display, or overlay what I want to read.

In contrast, I find Google's ads tasteful and well targeted. Potentially even useful. So I don't block them.

Perhaps Doubleclick should change their approach. And their name, because doubleclick already has a permanent home in my adblock battern file.

Why do they worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I see it, if I never ever click on banners or ads (which I never do) then why are they worried about me blocking ads? The end result is the same wether I see them or not because there's no way I'm going to follow the links anyhow.

If newspaper ads were like internet ads..

[kuzb]

From the article:

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

Honestly, if newspaper ads were ANYTHING like internet ads, you'd have pages jumping up in front of what you were reading, things would move around on the page to get your attention, the ads would make noise, they'd be lime green and red in colour, and some of them would even be full motion videos of people pitching products for up to 60 minutes at a time.

I don't understand how these people can liken internet ads to newspaper ads. It's not that many of us really mind advertising, but internet ads go out of their way to be as obtrusive and irritating as possible. Is it any wonder we're going out of our way to block them? Frankly, I'd prefer a large gaping hole, than to being bombarded me with senseless marketing campaigns.

Free-loaders: Is it really a problem?

[sterno]

Here's the thing. Ad revenue is based on what is actually getting responses. If I don't view an ad, obviously I'm not going to buy whatever the ad was for based on that ad. But the question is: would I have bought it anyhow?

Ad blocking could be legitimately claimed as hurting the bottom line of advertisers only if some portion of those ads would have been responded to in the first place. My impression is that if you are somebody who would go through the effort to block the popups and ads that you probably weren't going to be buying from them anyhow. It's the same priciple with spam. Spammers try to do everything to get an e-mail into your box, but if I've got layer upon layer of spam filters, perhaps I'm simply not a market worth reaching.

I do think it'd be an issue if it became default, and there might be a basis for a lawsuit if that happened in IE because it is the default browser for most people. Mozilla and Opera could probably get away with it if they wanted to. Frankly though I don't think it's worth it to them to do it. If people are hell bent on not seeing ads they'll have on problem finding a checkbox and turning it on.

Re:Free-loaders: Is it really a problem?

[emurphy42]

I think the spammers are trying to reach the market where someone else (the ISP, the employer, a geek friend) has imposed layer upon layer of spam filters, but the person who actually reads the box is a fair mark for spam.

I'd Rather Pay

[the0ther]

Who gives a damn about this? Apparently unlike a lot of other people, I am willing to pony up some moolah to pay to read my favorite sites. What we need is a clearinghouse to handle payments. Why doesn't the government keeps its dirty hands off of commerce and stick to initiatives that promote interstate commerce?

My browser already blocks all ads by default!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Lynx. You mean I broke the Internet? W00t!

Oh bullshit

[SJasperson]

No, the demise of online advertising won't kill free content. This is trivially obvious to prove by noting that there are lots and lots of sites out there that manage to provide free content without online advertising, using a variety of business models. Some put the content out there as a way to promote other businesses (http://joelonsoftware.com./ Some run text sponsorships that their readers apparently find tolerable (http://www.larkware.com./ Some are just labors of love partially funded by donations (http://www.crazymeds.com./ Ad blocking is going to kill off one particular obsolete business model. Big deal. There aren't a lot of buggy whip manufacturers left either. It's called progress. Get over yourself, change with the times, and stop whining.

Advertisers: Don't remove control from the user.

[Xibby]

AdBlock and similar products exist because advertising has become so obtrusive that it prevents the software installed on your computer as well as the content on websites from being useful.

The worst offender I've seen lately was a new "punch the monkey" style add. It was flash based of course. Normally these ads are just animated banners, but the designer of this one got the clever idea of putting sound into the ad. The chosen sound was quite possibly the most obnoxious sound possible. It sounded like my speakers were pumping out radio static.

Now this is a flash ad right, so you should be able to right click on it and stop it from playing, and stop the flash from looping. Nope. The creator of the flash disabled all controls. The location of this advertising wasn't bad, it wasn't obtrusive, it wasn't in the way, but it was still noticeable. The problem was, I was jamming to my iTunes library at the time, something totally unrelated to web browsing.

Advertisers: This is your problem. You removed all control. My only options were to not read the content at all or block your ad. Seeing as the content was important to me, the only option left to me was to install AdBlock. And as you had just royally pissed me off, I didn't just block the one ad that was annoying me, I blocked all the advertising from your domain(s). If you've let one obnoxious ad get out to the internet, I'm sure it's not the only one.

Go out there and learn some principles of user interface design. One of them is that the user should feel in control. As soon as you remove control, the user is going to take action to regain control. Pop-Ups and Pop-Unders are other good examples. You're creating new windows that I didn't ask for! Not only are they getting in the way of my web browsing, they are getting in the way of other things I'm doing on my computer. Again, my options are to block advertising or close my web browser. Both are options you don't want, so don't force me to take these actions in the first place.

I do not mind ads on web pages myself. I don't even mind transition advertising where you click a link, and instead of getting the next page of an article you are reading you get a full page advertisement, and another link to continue to your article. Where web pages use these "transition" ads I've felt they were relevant to the content was viewing, and felt no need to block them.

Any time I'm not in control of what my computer is up to, you've gone too far and you have left me with no choice but to install ad blocking software. If you had left the user in control of their computer, you would have had much less to worry about. Now though, your practices have spawned countless pieces of ad blocking software. The software was made to block the obnoxious ads that should never have existed, but now that it's out there, there is no stopping it from blocking everything your industry does. You left us users with no other choice, and now you will feel the consequences of your actions.

The end of free content? I don't think so.

[some guy I know]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

There was free content on the web before the first webvertisement appeared, there is non-webvertisement-supported free content on the web now, and there will be free content on the web after the last webvertisement disappears.

The real problem with advertising

[Johnboi Waltune]

Many of us feel that advertising and marketing can be spiritually and emotionally harmful to the human mind. Misleading appeals engineered to manipulate people's deepest emotional drives to convince them to buy products is a fucking sick and twisted way to make a living. No amount of equivocation is going to convince me I don't have an imperative to maintain my own spiritual and emotional health... and for me, that includes avoiding advertising at all costs.

To that end: My iPod has replaced my radio, my homebrew PVR automatically strips out all commercials from my few favorite TV programs, and when web-browsing at home, I block all internet ads using Firefox and Adblock.

So you say that will lead to the end of "free" content on the internet? Good, I say. I would rather pay outright for information and entertainment I consider valuable, rather than rely on some dodgy click-for-profit advertising scheme that is quickly proving itself intractable anyway.

And to Doubleclick and all those who make a living from advertising: I won't go as far as Bill Hicks, who semi-seriously suggested such people shoot themselves, but I will urge you to reconsider your career choice. Make something or do something that contributes to society, rather than trying to sell us crap we don't need, can't afford, or probably aren't interested in anyway.

Oh Puleeze

[smagruder]

It's nobody's duty to prop up a company or industry or economy, and likewise, it's nobody's responsibility to watch advertisements. me

This guy must think we're actually going to miss the "mainstream media" (read: corporate-controlled media) news sources if they go away. Nope! The "corporate view on irrelevant matters" will just be replaced with alternative news, from which more and more people are getting their information anyway.

You are 100% correct.

[brunes69]

Because after all, we all know that before the WWW ad boom of 2000, there was no content on the web.

Oh wait - I think I have that backwards - there was *better* content on the web *before* the major corperations and their ads came on.

You -> Foot -> Mouth

Re:You are 100% correct.

[smoker2]

Because after all, we all know that before the WWW ad boom of 2000, there was no content on the web.
Oh wait - I think I have that backwards - there was *better* content on the web *before* the major corperations and their ads came on.

Exactly right. It was the ads and the uptake of the net by big business that caused so much boom and bust in the industry. Personally, I would be glad if all the ads disappeared tomorrow.
As for the cost of bandwidth etc, bollox !
Hosting pre-requisites are cheaper than they have ever been. If people need so many ads to support their crappy little sites then they don't really belong on the net in the first place. This is a place for the enthusiast to create, and everybody to enjoy, not a private corporate cash-cow, or a place where every git with a copy of FP can make their fortune.
Bah !
I used to rent out webspace for fun and profit, but as the prices kept falling, it became more of a pain in the neck to keep things sweet and still make any money. So now I host a few sites on colo servers for friends and mirror for worthy causes, and charge nobody anything. Bandwidth is pretty cheap these days and I average just under 1000 GB per month, which is less than 50% of my allotment. No ads are needed to pay for any of this. I'm tired of going to some blog site and getting adverts thrust at me, and I'll even include Google ads in that. The only people really benefitting from Google ads are Google, through the impression counts.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[Blakey Rat]

Better content my ass. There's tons better content now that writers on the web are actually being PAID then there was before, by far.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. The ratio of paid-for typed characters in files on the web is still 0,00000000001% of all characters. Ads however are up in 1000000000% in annoyance. BTW these statistics are not made up.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you should actually read something about Google AdWords and AdSense. It's quite refreshing. For instance, you don't pay for the impressions, you pay for the click-throughs. So you actually get what you pay for as an advertiser. It's all pretty neat what you can do in AdWords.

I could go on, but I leave it as an excercise to the curious and open-minded reader.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[crimson30]

My thoughts precisely.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[pipingguy]

Here is a good example of a corporation that has used the web to educate their customers (and anyone else that cares to learn) about engineering in a specific specialty field, and are not just hawking their wares.

Such comprehensive knowledge was not available on the web before larger companies started to figure out that providing good technical information at their sites tended to make visitors (i.e., people who specify and use their products) revisit.

Since I often influence purchasing decisions for industrial installations, companies that are upfront and honest and informative about the technology they provide will always be the first ones I think of when I go looking on the web for a supplier.

Re:You are 100% correct.

[Trejkaz]

Sure, if you can actually see the content past the DoubleClick popups...

I am afraid of DMCA.

[pan0k]

Since all ads are copyrighted and it is illegal to download copyright materials into the computer thanks to DMCA, then am I not committing a crime when I download all those ads with my web browser?

AdBlock Filter Here!

[node159]

Here's a good adblock filter for those looking to get started. It has been known to be slightly overzelus, but besides the fluke site, it works wonders.

Welcome to the new old internet, enjoy the peace and quiet =D.

[Adblock]
/\/(ad|commercial|marketing|promo(tion)?|shop|spon sor)s?\//
/((double|fast|ad)click|click(xchange|sor))/
/(page|side|text)_?ads?/
/rcm.*\.amazon/
/(adsdk|a1\.yimg|akamai|amznxslt|atdmt|atwola|bilb o\.counted|bizrate|bonnint|brides\.ru|edge\.ru|hit box|falkag|maxserving|promote\.pair|realmedia|sant a\.imho|servedby|spinbox|tribalfusion|qksrv|zedo)/
/\/ads?(\.[\w]*){2,3}\//
/(ima?ge?|ad)serv/
/(ad|banner|sponsor)s?_?(id|ima?ge?|[0-9]*x[0-9]*) /
googlesyndication
us.yimg.com/a/
/\/buy_assets\//
/[\W\d_](top|bottom|left|right|)?banner(s|id=|\d|_ )[\W\d]/
/[\W\d](double|fast)click[\W\d]/
/[\W\d]click(stream|thrutraffic|thru|xchange)[\W\d ]/
/[\W\d]value(stream|xchange|click)[\W\d]/
/[\W\d]dime(xchange|click)[\W\d]/
/[\W\d](onlineads?|ad(banner|click|-?flow|frame|im a?g(es?)?|_id|js|log|serv(er|e)?|stream|_string|s| trix|type|vertisements?|v|vert|xchange)?)[\W\d]/
/(hot|spy)log/
/[\W_](b(an|nr)s?|jump|redir(ect|s)?|stat)[\W_]/
/\W(cy|r)?c(ou)?nt(er|ed)?\W/
/p(artner|ing\.cgi|romotion)/
reklama
/sp(onsor|ymagic)/
/top(100|cto)/
/\D\d{2,3}x\d{2,3}\D/

Re:AdBlock Filter Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, you don't really need all those filters. I use a combination of a hosts file and adblock, but even when I used only adblock, these two filters caught the vast majority of ads:

/[\W_](web|click)?ad(x|s|(v(ert(is(ing|ement))?s?) ?)
|banners?|img|images?|clicks?|serv(er)?)?[\W\d _]/

/((affiliate|sponsor|offer|promo(tion)|partner)s?
|marketing|sales)/

Re:AdBlock Filter Here!

[slothdog]

Try this site for a very comprehensive (and frequently updated) adblock filterset. I haven't seen an ad in ages.

Re:AdBlock Filter Here!

[thejaded1]

This guy keeps up to date on things to block as well.

http://www.pierceive.com.nyud.net:8090/

Re:AdBlock Filter Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

This page has a good list of Adblock filters too. Frequently updated.

I remember a time...

[Xepherys2]

... when button-style ads were the only ads. A small 160x90px button that linked somewhere. Maybe the button was flashy, maybe it was Spartan, maybe nobody clicked it.

The internet started as a mostly academic venture. The early adopters of most internet protocols (Gopher, email, NNTP, even HTTP) were government agencies and universities. If I lost free access to http://www.webmd.com/, I'd live. The truly good sites are the primarily free sites, such as http://www.wikipedia.com/. If the internet moved away from corporatization, it'd be better (like it was in the olden days). No spam, no ads, no crap, no millions of business websites that add no value to the global community. In other words, aside from the folk at DoubleClick losing their jobs, who really loses out here?

'a negative vibe against advertising'

[Anonymous Coward]

...Captain Obvious strikes again!

A very valid concern

[angsuman]

It is norm of forums like this to bash such articles. However the reality is that a large part of the content of the internet survives because people are willing to look into ads. Good sites like paidcontent or nick d's sites leverage on the ad market of the internet. Like television shows ads are an integral part of the content. Without ads the amount of quality content (along with some -non quality content too) will drastically go down. Sure there will be few people who would philanthropically put content out but compared to the current size of the internet that would be a miniscule minority.

When you are freeloading you are doing it at the expense of someone else. When you buy (and use) a cable descrambler you are passing on the cost to the paying customers. Television and internet market is analogous in some ways. Would television shows (except boring public service shows and church sponsored preachings) survive if people didn't pay for the content or viewed advertisements? It is the same with the internet.

I don't particularly care about doubleclick or any such companies. But the concern he raises is very genuine. Adblockers reduce the monetary incentive to publish content.

At the end of the day you need to pay bills and feed your family. Unless you are born with a silver spoon (or a dotcom millionaire), sooner or later you will have to put your philanthropic interests at hold while you are working on something that pays. What applies to an individual also applies to a society.

Re:A very valid concern

[Todd Knarr]

However the reality is that a large part of the content of the internet survives because people are willing to look into ads.

If this were true the DoubleClick wouldn't be complaining. They're complaining because the majority of people aren't willing to look into ads and are taking steps to insure they don't have to. And frankly I consider refusing to look at obnoxious ads "freeloading". I'm not obliged to read the advertising flyers in the newspaper (as opposed to dropping them in the recycle bin unread), I'm not obliged to sit there and watch the ads on television (as opposed to going to get a drink while they're on), and I'm bloody well not obliged to look at the annoying bit of flash some suit's decided to slap up on a Web page.

Re:A very valid concern

[angsuman]

> And frankly I consider refusing to look at obnoxious ads "freeloading".

Well then you are "freeloading" at the expense of others :)

Believe it or not...

[Progman3K]

I use the ad-blocking hosts file found on
www.everythingisnt.com

Many of you know it I'm sure. It works really well.

But when I returned to Slashdot to surf, I realized ads.osdn.com was being blocked.

I thought to myself that since the ads on Slashdot are NOT obtrusive, and they ARE a form of revenue for Slashdot, why should I block them?

It all goes with how you are selling your soul: if you are a web site with NO moral fibre, you won't care about subjecting your readership to pop-over/under/whatever type ads.

But if you are only trying to make a legitimate dollar and have some integrity, then you do like Slashdot and have a simple banner ad at the top of the page.

I would expect Slashdot to find another advertiser if ever osdn.ads.com started spewing pop-ups or somesuch, and as a sign of respect to Slashdot, I edited my host file and removed the line that was blocking ads.osdn.com

lest Slashdot be forced to become a pay-only service some day, I suggest we all do the same.

Not all web sites are equal, and not all advertisers are equal.

I've decided to support Slashdot in this way.

I know it's very popular to malign Slashdot, but what can I say, this is how I feel.

You say that, but....

[Syncdata]

I may one day buy a new car, Ford/Chevy/etc. I may not. Either way, it's totally uninfluenced by your billions of dollars a year in ad money.

You say this, but you don't truly know to what extent you've been influenced.

When McDonalds first started running adds referring to themselves as "Mickey-dees", I was galled at what a blatant and rediculous attempt it was to gain "street cred". Surely this will never work, said I.

2 months later, and millions in advertising, I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees".

Noone in their right minds thinks that when they pop the top of a Budweiser *ugh*, buxom swimsuit models will randomly show up and start partying. But I'd be willing to bet that somewhere in anheiser busches marketing department there is a graph that shows a direct correlation between the number of buxom lasses in ads, and the ammount of money they get from the 18-25 year old market. Sorry for the off topic rant.

Re:You say that, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't remember too many "buxom lasses" in Budweiser (King of Beers) commercials. Perhaps you were thinking of coors light?

Re:You say that, but....

[Otter]

I don't remember too many "buxom lasses" in Budweiser (King of Beers) commercials. Perhaps you were thinking of coors light?

I figured he's a horse...

Re:You say that, but....

[shrubya]

You're probably too young.

Re:You say that, but....

[Cro Magnon]

I might call them "Mickee Dees", but I still make retching noises and call their product "McBarf" burgers. The ads influenced what I name them, but not what I think of their stuff.

Re:You say that, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone in their right minds thinks that when they pop the top of a Budweiser *ugh*, buxom swimsuit models will randomly show up and start partying.

I wish they did. I might actually drink Budweiser if they did. Until then, I'll stick to Guiness Extra Stout. You know, REAL beer. :)

Re:You say that, but....

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

#1 I've undoubtedly been influenced to some unknown degree. I won't deny this. I'm working hard at unraveling all their shit though it might take me a lifetime.

#2 McDonalds doesn't even sell food, according to their commercials. I think they are either a hiphop night club, or possibly an amusement park. I hope they continue to lose money.

#3 I like blonde swimsuit models as much as the next guy. I probably see as many beer commercials as anyone else. I still don't drink, never even had a beer in my life. Their money is wasted on me. Tell me how I'm stealing again, if Tivo zips through those commercials?

Re:You say that, but....

[schon]

I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees"

Funny, I've never heard anyone refer to them as that, and there are a few people in my office who eat there regularly.

Personally, I still refer to them as "Rotten Ron's", or (if I feel like waxing poetic) "Rotten and Raunchy Ronald McDonald's"

Re:You say that, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if this has already been said but 18 year olds are not old enough to buy beer anyways. I know it is still marketed towards them and yes I drank it at that age, but really. There is no free web anyways I pay for my internet access and that is not good enough? I guess we need to tax that a few more times so everyone can get their share.

Re:You say that, but....

[dlZ]

I remember when people first started using "Mickey-dees" around me, and I had no idea what they were talking about. But then, I almost never watched TV at that point (how age can change things) and am a vegetarian. I had no idea that came from commercials...

So sad, really.

Re:You say that, but....

[Zordak]

That was exactly my thought when I first heard that forced pop culture catch phrase they were trying to push. Sure enough, just like you, I started hearing people say it and wanted to vomit. Their new hip-hop commercials have guaranteed that I will steer clear of the place. I don't care to socialize with the dread-locked-just-came-from-a-college-party-and-ha ve-the-MJ-munchies crowd they appear to be hoping to attract.

Re:You say that, but....

[DavidTC]

You guys who don't like the nickname 'Mickey-Ds' do realize that absolutely no one in existence considers it 'cool', right?

I know people who call it Mickey-Ds to degrade it.

Re:You say that, but....

[Darby]

When McDonalds first started running adds referring to themselves as "Mickey-dees", I was galled at what a blatant and rediculous attempt it was to gain "street cred". Surely this will never work, said I.

2 months later, and millions in advertising, I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees".

I'm sorry dude, but if you really think that the advertising is why people call it Mickey Ds then you're really out of touch.

That's been the standard name for it among most people I know for at least ten years before they ever put it in a commercial. Keep in mind I've lived in SoCal, The pacific northwest and the midwest during these years so it's not even the case of it being a regional thing.

They weren't trying to gain "street cred". If anything they were merely demonstrating how slow they are to pick up on ordinary i.e. not "street" slang which is in extremely widespread use.

Re:You say that, but....

[Dirk the Daring]

Interestingly, we called McDonald's Mickey-Dees (boy, never thought I'd put that on paper!) when I was growing up. The year? 1988. In Iowa. First heard from one of the nerdiest guys in the high school. I know they're working the street-cred angle right now, but they can do better than a group of white Iowan high school computer nerds from the '80s.

Re:You say that, but....

[Dirk the Daring]

^%#&@$(!@.

I forgot to preview for line breaks. So shoot me.

Re:You say that, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Guiness isn't beer. It's a food group unto itself.

Re:You say that, but....

[crimson30]

I second that one. I remember using that when I was a kid... and I'm 28 now.

I didn't get it from a commercial either... I got it from my dad.

Re:You say that, but....

[JetTredmont]

Exactly what my reply was going to be.

Nonetheless, in the "other" areas of the country, apparently the advertising worked.

Re:You say that, but....

[BiggerIsBetter]

I'll third that. McDonalds advertisers are leeching from popular culture. Their current tagline (in NZ) is "I'm lovin it" - which people were saying a lot *before* McDonalds used it. They're not trying to create "cool" phrases for themselves, they're trying to associate themselves with something that is already "cool". Unfortunately, by doing so, they kill the original... kind of like an overactive parasite.

Re:You say that, but....

[hawk]

"Mickey D's Bar and Grill" is a reference that goes back *at least* to 1980. I'd be surprised if it doesn't go back at least another ten or twnety years before that.

hawk

Re:You say that, but....

[pipingguy]

Anyone that starts using a new word or phrase because they've learned it from advertising (or hard to pin-down "trendiness" etymology) is a moron. You can add to that list of morons people that use "good to go", "all about the", "boxen" and other cringeworthy, pop culture cliches.

This phenomenon is directly related to one's desire to appear to be part of a 'cool' group and automatically identifies them as fashion followers.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what "it" was, now what I'm with isn't it. And whats "it" seems weird and scary to me.

re: clicking to cost them $'s

[King_TJ]

You know, you bring up a point I'd thought about before... What if someone started designing software that ran in the background on the computer (perhaps as a screen saver, so it wouldn't bother you while you were actively using the PC), and just automatically crawled web pages, looking for ads to "click on"?

You could even feed it a list of the sites you'd most want money/credits to go towards and aim it there first....

If enough people ran such a program, it seems like the advertisers would be forced to change business models, since they'd be paying out a lot more than before to advertise on sites -- or they'd be forced to withhold a lot of payments and lose business partners.

Free content predates advertisements

[vijayiyer]

Interestingly, I remember when there were no ads to be seen on web sites. The content was free, and surprisingly useful.

userContent.css

[HTH NE1]

Some excerpts from my userContent.css ad filters:

a[href*="doubleclick.net/"] img { display: none ! important }

*[width="729"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="728"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="550"][height="150"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="468"][height="60"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="336"][height="90"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="336"][height="280"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="300"][height="250"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="220"][height="120"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="180"][height="150"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="160"][height="600"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="150"][height="60"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="125"][height="125"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="120"][height="600"] { display: none ! important }
*[width="125"][height="300"] { display: none ! important }

a img[src*="468x60"] { display: none ! important }

img[onload] { display: none ! important; }

iframe[src] { display: none ! important; }

body script { display: none ! important; } // If only this one would work!

div.contextclick a[name^="ra"] {
text-decoration: none ! important;
border-bottom: 0px ! important;
color: inherit ! important;
}

#DCol { display: none ! important }
#CCol { display: none ! important }
div.showcases { display: none ! important }
div.showcase { display: none ! important }
div.scSpon { display: none ! important }

div[style="border: 2px solid rgb(51, 102, 153); padding: 6px; margin-bottom: 10px;"] { display: none ! important; }

span.artText P.ArticleBody + P[align="right"] + table[width="180"][align="left"] {
display: none ! important;
}

object[codebase*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
object[code-base*=flash] { display: none ! important; }
embed[type*=flash] { display: none ! important; }

And that's just what slashcode only slightly mangles.

Re:End of the free internet? It's past time.

[mydn]

When you pay for "internet", you are paying for access to the network. This includes resources at your ISPs facilities and at the facilities of other organziations they have contracted with, and ones they have contracted with, etc. You are not paying for the consumption of resources of content providers. You are not paying for the production of content.

It's the same with cable. When you pay for basic cable you get several channels that are supported by advertising or other means (PBS, etc). There are channels that you can only get by purchasing a cable subscription that *still* have advertising (MTV, SciFi, CartoonNetwork, etc). There are select channels that require a specific subscription that have limited or no advertising (HBO, SkinaMax, etc), though these still tend to advertise their own programming.

I pay $50 a month for a 10mb fiber connection to the internet. I (theoretically, of course) would still have to pay extra for Playboy, or a dating site, or Napster. None of those organizations get a cut of my $50/month access fee.

I have no problem with advertising-supported sites in principle. It's the pop-ups, the flash, the click-through, the invasive advertising that bothers me. If they used the same approach as a newspaper then that would be OK. The ads are spread around through the content, but don't interrupt your reading excessively. Current ads are more like those stupid cards in magazines...they force you to that page when flipping through and they fall out in your lap. First thing I do when I get a new magazine is flip through it upside down so the cards can fall in the trash. The other advertising is fine. Same thing with the 'net; pop-ups and flash have to go, but other advertising is generally fine.

ADDS DRIVE CONTENT CREATORS

[bohemian_observer]

Adds are the fuel that brought tons of quality content to the net, yet backstabbing geek is ready to condemn all this and demands all for free. Another fine example how open-source and open-source spawned programs undermine the very core of the web.

Yesterday it was the end of paid content

[swiggidy]

CNN now offers free online video

Today it's the end of free content? I'm confused.

Ad-execs! Click-through should not be your metric

[Canonical AC]

The whole problem is that advertising execs do not seem to understand their business, or else can't explain it to their customers.

In the early days of the web, advertising was based on number of eyeballs that saw the advertisement...like any other medium: magazines, newspapers, television, radio (okay, ears :-)

Then some genius decided that they should be recording click-throughs, which skewed everthing, because that is not how advertising works.

It's all about mindshare....so I may not be interested in the product when I first see the ad, (like, I am not looking for a car).

But, if I know about the car from seeing an advertisement for it, say 6 times in a month, if I do need a car in 6 months, that car would come to mind. If I go to the showroom, or even go to the manufacturer's website, or look at a review on another website, does that mean the original non-clicked through ad was useless? Not at all.

Now we seem to be stuck with the 'If I make my ad more flashy, and trick people into clicking on it, somehow that serves my customer better' mentality that promotes pop-ups, flash, and other annoyances.

Of course, this just assumes that ad-execs are dumb, not evil. The real answer is probably they are evil, and they know this, but click-throughs are a good way to pay much less than 'impressions' (or whatever the industry calls 'number of eyeballs seeing the ad')

That's just silly

[bogie]

You'd think that with a UID that low you'd remember that there was an Internet with Free content before ads starting appearing on every single freaking page. But I guess not.

The biggest joke of all is that advertisers think online ads work in the first place. I haven't looked directly at the top or bottom of a page in like 7 years. Most humans look for the text and ignore all of that crap floating on the edges that has bright flashing colors.

Either way its a moot point as adblocking with prebuilt filters won't ever appear by default in Firefox or IE.

So basically all of these worthless agruements about what would happen "if everyone started using filters etc" are just that, worthless. It isn't ever going to happen so why do people feel the need to bring it up year after year?

Re:That's just silly

[NickFortune]

So basically all of these worthless agruements about what would happen "if everyone started using filters etc" are just that, worthless. It isn't ever going to happen so why do people feel the need to bring it up year after year?

FUD? Astroturfing? trying to establish a pretext that there is a need for draconian new legislation to make ad blocking illegal?

It can't be because anyone thinks it's likely yo happen, so I'd guess it has to be about trying to protect failing revenue streams.

Look at all the adverts! Forget your irrelevant "content"; pay attention only to the advertisments. Or we'll take your internet away. Then you'll be sorry!

ad blocking /etc/hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html
Add the contents of this list to your /etc/hosts and no more adverts

fight the doubleclicks, not the slashdots

[sbma44]

The doubleclick drone has a point: advertising-supported sites will be hurt by ad blocking. People are talking about innovation and new opportunities, but c'mon -- remember when the internet advertising bubble burst, and sites like Penny-Arcade had to go begging? We didn't get micropayments or sponsorship deals or anything else out of that. All we got was talented content authors going begging.

I don't mind having things sold to me -- what I mind is having things sold to me intrusively. That includes pop-ups, flash, and most importantly, being tracked. I don't want there to be a profile corresponding to my IP on doubleclick's servers.

Adblock prevents GETs for particular domains from ever being made, I believe. That's no good, because it is easily measurable on the server side, resulting in fewer payments to the site owners. A better solution would be to use GreaseMonkey-style client scripts to filter particularly egregious advertising. Your bandwidth will be wasted on the ads, yes, but c'mon -- that's not a big concern for most of us. You won't have to experience the ads, but there'll be no way for the advertisers to know that. Clickthrough revenues would go down -- but of course, that could be automated too.

The point is to make advertising less effective without unduly hurting the content authors it supports or the people trying to sell their products. Ultimately this may drive the cost of advertising to tech-savvy audiences up (and thereby lead to less of it being purchased), but I doubt it will significantly affect the overall demand for the products we buy. Put another way, I might not end up buying from ThinkGeek if Slashdot ads are suppressed, but my total geeky t-shirt budget is likely to remain about the same. Ideally this would result in industry resources being shifted away from advertising and toward uses that actually provide a better experience for the customer. This is probably wishful thinking, though, and perhaps a reduction in advertising really would lead to a reduction in demand for geek-goods, the same way as it would for other demographics.

Then make your ads non-intrussive

[guacamole]

I don't mind seeing the ads as long as they don't distract me from looking at the site content. Usually, such sites are news web sites. It's really distracting to see an animated gif or a flash ad while you're trying to read the text an inch away from it on the screen. If they used just plain non-animated ads, then I'd never start blocking them.

Quote

[Orlando]

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. - George Orwell

threshhold

[RealProgrammer]

Precisely!

I don't block:

• images from the same server as the page
• images with low distraction
• images that are visually pleasing
• images that conform to the content, rather than forcing the content to conform

A simple, static (per-view) banner doesn't bother me. Advertizing related to the content doesn't bother me. Pretty, but subtle, images that fit the color scheme and page layout of the site are just fine.

What I will block every time are

• images hosted by an ad site
• animated GIFs, flash, etc. Go away!
• off-site images that crowd the screen or conflict with the page layout I'm expecting. If I have to alter my browser window, I click on AdBlock and tell it:

  http: //*.adsite.com/*

  (Slashcode kept making that clickable, so I put a space after the ":").

I block everything from doubleclick.net, for instance.

Re:threshhold

[VGPowerlord]

I don't necessarily block things from an ad network, unless it tries to set a cookie. Then it gets the boot.

Re:threshhold

[aaarrrgggh]

The threshold is an important issue, the question becomes does it get constantly lowered as we block the really annoying ads? I try to avoid blocking ads on Slashdot, but some of the more recent ones have been sufficiently distracting that I have had to block more and more. (so long falkag.net)

I want to support sites, and some of the advertising is actually of interest to me, but having it shoved down my throat gets old.

Re:threshhold

[Cruciform]

I hope some ad execs see the parent and take heed.

I don't mind unintrusive ads either. And some have led to purchases. But I refuse to give my time or money to those who try to ram their adverts down my throat.

Check that on a per-word basis.

[khasim]

A cheapo paperback novel is not comparable to a newspaper. Your nonsense about "equivalent jobs" does not hold true.

a. It is not "nonsense".
b. It does hold true.

Your typical, cheapo paperback will have been written by ONE author, at and most two editors.

Yep, and that one author will write just about every word (whatever the editors don't change). Which runs in tens of thousands of words that the author must write and the editors must read.

A typical daily newspaper, on the other hand, will have portions written by literally hundreds of reporters/journalists, with several editors and fact-checkers being involved as well.

Yes, there are more people writing for the newspaper, but they are each writing a small fraction of what the author writes. Many articles won't be over 100 words.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
The start reading through the "Local" section.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story. asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Fatal%20Carjacking
There, 88 words. And that's a typical example of a non-headline story.

The costs add up significantly. Novels just don't incur the same expenses.

Been over that already. Yes they do, for everything except the fact checking and the paper-boy delivering it.

Indeed, look at the price of any book with actual photos and content. Like a textbook, or computer-related books. They'll run you upwards of $30, if not well more than $70 for better quality books.

No, you can find books that are that expensive but you've claimed that NEWSPAPERS would be $15 each without ads.

I've shown that paperback books have most of the same requirements AND they have to PAY for advertising, but they're a fraction of what you claimed the newspapers would cost.

Don't tell me that you can find more expensive books. That isn't the issue. I'm sure you can. But the fact is that paperback books are less expensive than your newspaper claim AND they have most of the same expenses.

Unless the difference is going to the paperboy or fact checkers, you are ... wrong.

Re:Check that on a per-word basis.

[CyricZ]

Over the course of a year, a typical journalist or reporter will write a total of hundreds of thousands of words. That is far more than a novel by a long shot. Most of the time spent working on a novel is in the editing phase. Much like software implementation, the actual coding phase takes very little time. It is the testing and distribution that is the real time and money consumer.

From TFA

[piznut]

"He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were. "

I dont really care for this analogy. On the internet, advertising unfortunately almost always takes the form of something extra smacked right on top of your content and in a lot of cases you have to 'deal with it' before you can actually get to the content. This is annoying.

I think a more accurate analogy would be a newspaper with a bunch of leaflets attached to the outside, where you have to pull them all of in order to get to the actual news in the paper.

Or a magazine with 100 reply cards inside of it that you have to dispose of before you can just sit down and enjoy the read.

Mr. Smith, If you dont want people to block your advertising content don't throw it up in their face and make them 'deal with it' before they can get what they are looking for.

Goodbye Wikipedia!

[localman]

My favorite site, destroyed by the lack of ads!

Actually, I think slashdot is the only ad supported site I visit regularly. I'd be sad to see it go, but I think I'll survive.

Cheers.

Irony?

[monkeyfarm]

1) It's ironic that the guy's "job" is "privacy chief" at a company that's reason for being is to invade other people's privacy. Fox guarding the hen house. 2) It's interesting that he was helpful enough to tell people what tools to use to actually do the blocking. This guy is clearly a 'tard. But then again, look who he works for.

obligatory Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves quote:

[Anonymous Coward]

"But why a spoon, cousin?"
"Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more!"

'Nuff said.

Re:Doubleclick may die, but online advertising won

[Anonymous Coward]

> Doubleclick relies on the technical ability of the web browser to fetch ad content (scripts, iframes, and images) in separate request. Furthermore, those requests are for content on central servers managed by doubleclick.

The war will get real interesting when doubleclick starts hosting cascading style sheets.

No need to worry

[dtfinch]

By default they only try to block the fucking stupid popups and popunders that only serve to breed consumer resentment for the advertising sponsors.

It's all about presentation

[LibertarianWackJob]

Web pages are generally written in HTML which is a markup language. It is just a way to present your content. Slashdot has annoying flash ads but I can normally scroll past them and see the content I'm looking for. That is because the information is oriented vertically such that scrolling is possible. Ads on the side of the content I'm interested in or that can't be moved off the visible screen are unacceptable and are always blocked.

Advertizers need to see the entire page as a single entity that will be viewed by the user and figure out how to work within those constraints.

Writing a good page requires good content and an artists eye for presentation.

Advertising is principally wrong

[Baki]

I oppose advertising in any form and thus feel free to block it. I would rather pay than have to put up with advertisements.

Reasons why I oppose advertisement as a principle:

• It is subjective information.
  
• Advertisements are paid for by companies, who calculate the cost of marketing in the market price of their products.
  
• Therefore, everyone, even those that don't watch advertisements, pay a kind of tax on all products due to this rotten system.
  
• It is therefore a complete waste of resources that everyone is forced to accept.
  
• Instead of biased information, I would rather see that the price of products is diminished. The money saved can and should be put partially into an objective organisation that tests products and provides true information on products.
  
• People who visit "free" sites funded by advertisements profit from the money paid by the advertisers. Since this money is paid by all consumers (since it is passed on in the product prices) the public at large is subsidizing people who use these "free" services.
  

I think the world would be better if we cut out the enormous waste of resources the advertisers make, the waste of everyones time when viewing advertisements, and the damage caused by biased and untrue information.

Free to Improve, and Doubleclick left behind

[WillAffleckUW]

No, it's an end to easy money for DoubleClick. Now they'll have to reinvest some of their annoyingly-gotten gain into producing ads that people don't go to lengths to block. Like ads for products people want to know about, without destroying their multimedia experience. Otherwise, DoubleClick will just keep reinvesting in whining about losing their right to annoy you.

I agree.

Advertisers who insist on trying to display movies without consent, with music and sound, that grab my browser, already have a black mark in my mental Consumer notebook. The firms (and doubleclick knows who they are) who support gigo like this deserve to waste away.

It's called Consumer choice - part of capitalism. If you don't like it, take the rest of your red commie Bushbots and move to Russia.

Re:Free to Improve, and Doubleclick left behind

[Doc Ruby]

I'd love to see a FireFox plugin that rises to this DoubleClick challenge. Not only block a popup, but collect their target URLs and IMG SRC URLs into a blacklist. Which block embedded images/objects with matching URLs. Bastards can run Flash, but they can't hide.

Create ads that provide value to the viewer

[Anonymous Coward]

People are on the Internet to get value, be it software, information or entertainment. Advertising can be surprisingly effective if it, itself, provides some value to the user. An advert I produced was the most visited page on the site of a popular motorsport team by a long way, visited far more often than the team news or even the home page itself.

For some reason, ad companies worry about click-through when it comes to internet adverts. Other advertising campaigns aim to inspire an emotional association with the product or brand being advertised. There is an indirect link between seeing the advert and purchasing the product -- people don't immediately rush to the nearest shop when they see a TV advert or billboard.

Internet advertising can improve by ignoring click-through, communicating more subtly with the target audience and giving the audience added value that they actually want and will actively seek out.

Newspaper advertising on the web?

[Skapare]

If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content.

I remember a case a few years ago in Dallas Texas. The Dallas Morning News was threatening to sue a local web site operator for deep linking into the Dallas Morning News web site for interesting stories. Their claim was this was stealing from them and depriving them of ad revenues.

Out of curiosity I checked out the newspaper's web site and the linked stories. The web site main page was full of ads. About half the main page was ads. Too many ads for me to want to come back to read news. But then I went to the story pages and found no ads at all. Each story page was totally ad-free.

Maybe the newspaper was right that deep linking would deprive them of the revenue. But they were sure dumb as hell setting things up that way. If they truly wanted to get ad revenue, they would put a reasonable number of ads on each page of the site, including the stories. Then they could attract deep linkers and make money from that, instead of reject them and lose out.

OTOH, if the big newspapers all switch to pre-paid content, maybe that would open the way for more indy news, which knows more about using non-intrusive advertising, isn't interesting in collecting everyone's personal data, and doesn't have the "stockholder tax" to siphon off funds.

Ads I enjoy

[cluening]

I have to admit it: there are some ads I enjoy. None of them are pop-ups, flashing gifs, flash movies, or anything similar. I think all of them have been Google Adwords ads, and I think I have liked them only because they actually have something to do with the current page I am reading.

If it wern't for companies like Doubleclick that want to SHOVE ADS DOWN YOUR THROAT, I don't think I would need an ad blocker.

Get the Facts

[dtfinch]

Those are the only ads I click on, and it's never to buy something. Most advertisements are paid per click. If I'm won't be clicking them anyways, there's no loss to them if I block the ads.

I actually relly like Google ads

[Sycraft-fu]

I do a lot of tech purchasing for our department which includes buying things I don't have experience with and haven't purchased before. Google ads are generally how I find a seller. I look on the left side when I'm searching for information, the right side when I'm searching for vendors. The good ones have it set up so you click the Google ad and go straight to the product you are interested in.

That's how I found B&H (pro video sales). We needed a DV camera. I've used them and know about them, but never bought them, it was always someone else that handled that. So I had no real idea where to get them. Circut City and the like had them, of course, but they were overpriced and didn't have the one I wanted. So I key it in to Google, and look at the ads. There's was a B&H ad that when clicked took me to the page for that camera with the option to buy.

Now THAT'S good advertising. Getting me straight to what I want to buy with a minimum of fuss. It not only doesn't annoy me, it actually makes my job easier.

In fact it's their end

[famazza]

The only end I see through the popularity of ad-blocking plugins, is the end of adware companies.

What do ad-blockers plugins do? They automaticaly denies any kind of content coming for known hosts. By pushing ad-content to other servers, or even better, to the same server where content belongs, will deny any kind of attempt to block ads.

It's the end of adware companies. DoubleClick is 'hype-ing' on an issue that can become a risk to their business.

In other words. Never mind on them.

Tough!

[Epsillon]

I pay for access and data transfer. You want to peddle shit, pay for it. Don't expect me to.

Bastards.

I have always wondered . .

[ndansmith]

. . . why Slashdot even bothers with images for ads, knowing that most of the readership will block them with adblock.

Re:If newspaper ads were like internet ads..Answer

[Nom du Keyboard]

I don't understand how these people can liken internet ads to newspaper ads.

And the answer is...

The Double-Click Reality Distortion Field!

(You didn't think Steve Jobs had the only one, did you?)

Google Got It Right

[FreeUser]

The analogy doesn't hold up. To compare ad-blocking with something that could do the same in newspapers doesn't even make sense. What's really going on (in my opinion) is the natural selection process. Browsers started out simple, naive, and unassuming. Then came the predators... in this case popup ads. Now most browsers offer popup ad blocking or extensions to block popups.

Exactly right.

Google ADs are more like newspaper ads...on steroids. I use adblocker to block annoying ads (read: pretty much everything). I don't like clutter in my life, I don't like animating amages vying for my attention when I'm trying to read/watch something else, and I don't like being shouted ad.

Advertisers don't get this, but Google does.

I'm sure someone could (and probably has) written a filter to block Google ADs as well. But, as disgusted as I am with normal advertising, I actually find Google ADs useful, for a number of reasons.

• Google ADs are relevant to what I'm looking for
  
• Google ADs are presented in a manner that is inoffensive, and stays out of my way when I'm not interested
  
  • same sized or smaller text as the search results
    
  • relegated to a small column off to one side--web searches
    
  • or at the bottom of the screen--gmail.
  
  
• Google ADs work as an additional source of information related to what I'm looking for, NOT noise distracting from it.
  

Often I ignore Google ADs, because I'm not shoppign or interested in buying something, I'm just interested in reading up on a particular subject. But often I am actively looking to purchase something, and Google ADs are actually beneficial, helping to cut through the 10,000 matches I've found.

In short, Google ADs are exactly what advertising should be. I suspect the Internet is evolving to where the only advertising that survives will be something like this--ads that bring useful, benefitical, relevant, on topic information to the user WHEN they want it, in the manner they want it, unobtrusive but accessable. Everything else (popups, banners, annoying blinking text, video snippets, click through image, etc.) will die the extinction they so richly deserve.

This won't be the end of online advertising, nor will it be the end of free content. It will be the end of marketers who think they have a right to invade your home, your life, your TV, your phone, your computer, and yell at you to buy whatever it is they're hawking. And I, for one, won't lament their passing.

/etc/hosts fix

[TheGratefulNet]

ARE there people who don't currently map the likes of such ilk as doubleclick to 127..1?

they get a whole lot of non-I/O from my site, I'll tell you that much..

Modify Adblock

[ndansmith]

I can see how this could be easily defeated. Adblock should still download the images from the ad servers, but not display them. It is the best of both worlds. Websites get ad revenue, advertisers think they are getting ad-views, and browsers do not have to actually look at the ads.

Re:Modify Adblock

[Mike Buddha]

You can set adblock to do just that. You have the option of merely hiding the images or not even downloading them.

Re:Modify Adblock

[SenFo]

I don't think you're idea is the best solution. For instance, dial-up users use enough of their available bandwidth, as it is. I'm sure most dial-up users would rather not be downloading all that content without even benefiting from it.

I didn't read the article, but from the Slashdot post, I got the idea that they were upset that Firefox had ad-blocking turned on in its default configuration. If that were the case, developers could simply turn it off by default and provide us with the ability to turn it on. Alternatively, I believe it would be fair enough to ask the user whether they prefer to have ad-blocking on/off, the first time they launch the browser.

I don't, however, believe that they have a case because consumers that don't mind pop-ups (are there any?) can still turn off Firefox's AdBlocking feature. We could argue that consumers haven't turned off ad-blocking because we would simply rather not be annoyed by the ads.

not all of us are hawkers

[drwho]

I am annoyed with this supposition. I don't have any ads on any of my sites; I put them up purely for the reason of being useful to the community.

What I am getting annoyed with is that there is an increasing number of purportedly 'community' sites that are are now polluted with google ads. These don't belong on the site, and can't easily be blocked.

Why do some people feel as though they can simply bow to commercial pressures and suck a few pennies out of the audience with such ads? I have lost a lot of respect for these sites. Some of these are wikis I have contributed to in the past, particularly ones having to do with community wireless networks, but I will no longer be a part of someone's revenue generating model. It's so cheap to host a web site these days, there's no reason to claim you need this money to support the costs of running it. If the site sponsor can't kick in the $1.50 per month to pay for the site, I'll go to a site where the creator of it does care enough to run it without ads.

OK, so how about this...

[Kythe]

Why not modify Adblock and similar software such that they download the ads (putting them in the cache), but don't display them?

You could still have the option to simply not download the ads, too, for limited bandwidth users.

I can see Doubleclick's point (though I have little respect or sympathy for that particular aggressive company), and am looking forward to adblock incorporating a whitelist for sites one wishes to support.

Advertising Annoyance

[Fordiman]

I agree... Ad-blockers are a response to several things: 1) popups, popunders, etc. They are annoying and obtrusive. Kind of like going to a mall and having every salesman in the place come up to you at the same time shouting their pitch in your face. 2) The new pop-in flashes (you know, the ones that slide in over top your page content) 3) noisy adverts. I absolutely, positively abhor sounds in adverts. 4) Adware. Advertisers do NOT have a right to secretly install ANYTHING on my computer. Ever. 5) "Click-through" adverts. No one has a right to require a click on their product before I can see content. Ads that are OK: 1) Banner ads, even animated. 2) 'Tween-content ads, the type where if you click for an article, you get an advert with a "skip this ad" thing. I'm used to fast forwarding through commercials. 3) Sideline ads, similar to banner. 4) In-content ads, preferably not animated. People block all ads to avoid the annoying ones. Stick to the non-annoying ads, and you won't have a problem.

So you claim.

[khasim]

Over the course of a year, a typical journalist or reporter will write a total of hundreds of thousands of words.

Really? Yet the majority of articles I see in the paper http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ seem to have an API or UP byline http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story. asp?category=1110&slug=Trade%20Center%20Collapse.

That is far more than a novel by a long shot.

Again, so you claim. Yet the references I can post do not seem to support your claim.

Anyway, I've posted enough references for this. If you want to continue to claim that a number you pulled out of your ass is accurate, go for it. I've posted links to an actual newspaper.

Paperboys must be pulling in 6 figures on your world. suh-weet!

Re:So you claim.

[DogDude]

What's with your silly straw man argument? You're saying that one guy, sitting in his living room writing a novel for a few months costs the same as hundreds of well-educated reporters, going in person to news events, taking photographs, etc? You're out of your mind. Real news does, indeed take much more money to create than does a novel. And, if I were a journalist, I would say that you deserved a good kick to the nuts for suggesting that real journalism is something that can be done as cheaply as a hack writing a novel.

On top of that, newspaper circulations are falling rapidly, meaning either more ads, or a higher price.

Re:So you claim.

[SatanicPuppy]

Okay. Hard numbers.

It costs (pure operating expenses), 2,429,190.00 dollars to print ~50,000 papers a day for 3 months.

It costs ~12.00 (11.95) a month to get the paper, which works out to 1,800,000 in the same period, not counting deadbeats and single copy no sales.

So, for a full year, at 12.00 a month, the profit for the paper would be: 7,200,000 - 9,716,760 = -2,516,760

Those are figures from a relatively small paper, in an area where average salaries aren't all that high, and while $15 dollars an issue is clearly a laugh for us, it's probably about right for the New York Times. It's pretty clear that with zero ad revenue we'd have to increase subscriptions by 30% to make any profit at all.

Oh yea. The front page today had 1358 words on it, from four articles and some teasers, and all of the articles continued on other pages. 80 words in barely enough for a brief, and if your local paper routinely has stories that length, either they suck BAD, they're Gannett(same diff), or they aren't putting their full content online(which is really common).

Re:So you claim.

[Robert The Coward]

I think you own numbers just proved his point. You didn't say if you were a daily or a weekly but based on the text you are a daily.

to print ~50,000 papers a day for 3 months.

So based on your own number you could produce a paper with the same contain without ad's for less then $30.00 a month. Now all things being equally. Things wouldn't be as the amount of people paying for your paper would go down as cost went up but the cost of each paper would be cheaper without the ad's as well. But just for grins lets say that the numbers or readers stay the same and cost stay the same. On a daily paper there would on avg. be 30 papers a month or a cost of about $1.00 a Day. No were near $15.00 Dollors a day the previous post said. Even if you were a weekly that would still only be $7.50 a paper half the amount he said.

I personal don't believe that it would be worth it for most paper to do unless it became easier for them to create 2 version one with a high cost with out ad's and one with ad's but I think the number of people that would choice the more expensive option would be near zero.

However newpapers the ad's are more like google's adsense for the most part. They are largely Text or or limited graphic

If we had to deal with things like ad's on the inet then people would likely stop reading papers even faster. In my opion the worse thing of all the blinking Red / White ad's that you can't ingonore causing me to for the 1st time in over 10 years of using the inet to conside ad blocking software.

Google ad filters

[Anonymous Coward]

Google runs plenty of ads. They make lots of money off their ads. And nobody's up in arms about their ads, nor do you see anything being added to browsers to block them.

You are kidding, right? A greasemonkey script to block google ads was the first thing I installed. And this little gem in my NetNewsWire CSS file will also remove the annoying google-turds, feedburner ad crap, and slashdot ads from my RSS feeds:

img[src*="feeds.feedburner.com"],
img[src*="fee dster"],
a:link[href*="/imageads."] img,
a:link[href*="googleadservices"],
a:link[hr ef*="ads_by_google"] {display: none !important; }

I have no problems with ads in principle...

[La Camiseta]

It's just that when they get overbearing I really hate it and block them (the joys of dial-up). I tend to completely block image and flash ads, but I have no problem with text-based advertising. That's why I haven't blocked the googlesyndication.com site yet, although they are beginning to push more graphic banners.

Learning from Google

[novakane007]

Doubleclick could learn a lot from google's ad model. Not only are the google ads non invasive they are actually relevant. I don't usually block google based ads because they are simply relevant text. In fact I've often used the blue ad links on top of google searches. They are usually quite useful. For example, this morning I was looking for a PDF creator for Citrix and the ad links were actually more useful than the free text that was returned in the search. Now that is advertising that works.

Ads are (literally) for the stupid people

[isomeme]

I would think that advertisers would welcome ad-blocking technology. Smart people rarely buy something because an annoying flash ad strobed and jiggled at them, so server hits to send such ads to smart people are largely wasted expense for the advertiser.

However, only reasonably smart people can understand how to obtain and train an ad blocker. Voila, problem solved; your ad-server hits magically skew toward stupid people, who are more likely to buy your products. Each hit on your server generates more revenue than if ad-blocking technology did not exist.

Ain't the invisible hand cool?

Then don't make annoying adds!

[Anonymous Coward]

I will block only filthy crude or annoying adds

adblock

[BerneAI]

oh you mean the annoying flashing scrolling bandwidth sucking slow loading ads. gee i'm shocked

Even if he was right about this...

[huge colin]

...the content that I would miss the most isn't ad-supported anyway, so it's not going anywhere.

The very best pages on the internet are those that are in the tone of "Hey, check out the information I've compiled about how Product X works. I reverse-engineered it; here are some pictures." Private enthusiasts always generate the most interesting stuff.

The end of graphical ads, not free content

[spisska]

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

No. It means that if ad blocking becomes standard, it will pose a threat to bouncing, popping, blinking, annoying graphical ads on the web. Text ads do not get in the way, do not distract, and do not get blocked.

The fact that Mr Smith sells bouncing, popping, flashing, annoying graphical ads may have something to do with his opinion.

Note to marketers: It is possible to reach your target audience without annoying everyone else.

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[Jerf]

It is possible to reach your target audience without annoying everyone else.

Despite the fact that I am technically savvy, I have not invested time in AdBlock or anything else.

I have FlashBlock (moderately misnamed, it really makes loading Flash fully voluntary), turned off image animations, and forbid unrequested popups.

By and large, this makes the web perfectly tolerable, and I do not feel that further time invested in crazy blocking schemes would pay off. The only thing on the horizon that might change the balance is further penetration of interstitials (I don't instantly leave the site, but I don't come back), or on-page adds (that aren't Flash since I block that).

If they weren't such dicks, they might not have prompted the formation of such sophisticated tech to counter them.

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[reverse flow reactor]

Agreed.

I have doubleclick.net not only adblocked by the browser, but also have an entry in my hosts file that routes doubleclick to the bitbucket:
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net

But I do click on Google ads. What's the difference? Doubleclick tends to send me stupid, annoying, irrelevant ads that waste screen space. Google send me relevant, non-annoying ads that work in a 3cm^2 textbox. I have even bought things that I found in part with Google ads.

I can easily ignore Google ads when I am not interested. Pop-up windows are annoying and frustrating, and even create a "negative advertising experience".

So Doubleclick, don't be annoying, and maybe, someday, I will consider perhaps not routing you to the bitbucket. Maybe.

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[k12linux]

Exactly. I rarely take the time to block an ad with adblock. Even flashy annoying ads aren't immediately killed off all the time.

There are only three times I usually bother to AdBlock an annoying ad. One is if it is flash-based (because I can't use the nuke-everything plugin to simply right-click and remove it.) The 2nd is if it is poorly done flash which sucks up most of my CPU time. The 3rd is for excessivly annoying ads (such as those that obscure content.) For the last catagory I'll even edit the AdBlock pattern to try to block everything from that company.

A final note.. I really hate flash ads. I'm ready to install the FlashBlock extension. You can't use the wheel on your mouse to scroll if it happens to bring a flash ad up under the cursor. You can't simply nuke them (since right-clicking doesn't allow you to do anything but what the flash plugin wants you to do.)

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[JahToasted]

Exactly. I do the exact same thing you do (FlashBlock, disable animations), and its good enough for me. I expect that free websites are going to have ads, everyone has to make a living, right? But when the ads are flashing 4 different colours at 20 fps, that makes it difficult to read an article. See there's only so much annoyance I will put up with to get the content I want.

It's stupid to blame the adblocking programmes for this. They assume that if there was no way to stop flash, popups, animations, they people would just put up with it. That's where they're wrong. If reading a site is too difficult because of ads, I'm going to stop reading that site.

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[zsau]

I block Google's text ads on google, because they do get in the way and do distract. They significantly narrow the viewspace so that I have to widen my window to more than 800-odd-pixels-wide before I can read my emails. Half the time even the bottom navigation items are covered up! Unfortunately, if I choose to widen the window, it makes it impossible to read most other websites I'm likely to by click a link from GMail because the the content on those sites ends up way too wide. It also means I can't have two browser windows side-by-side (one for mail, one for web), in spite of the fact that I have an ueber-wide screen.

OTOH, I don't care about graphical (or other text) ads, as long as they don't move, don't cover up the text, and don't interfere greatly with the text and navigation elements. Y'know, kinda like you get in newspapers?

Re:The end of graphical ads, not free content

[zsau]

That should read 'I block Google's text ads on gmail'. They may or may not blocked on Google's search page; if they are, it's only because of the former.

Not against advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm not against the advertising on the web, if it follows certain criteria. 1) It is not a popup 2) It does not have excessive flashing/moving

It isn't about 'ad blocking' per se

[Snowhare]

Very few ad blocker programs block ads that are not attempting to do something abusive. It is about blocking intrusive and abusive ads. Doubleclick and ilk want huge centralized databases of personal information and push formats like audio/popup/popunder/floating ads that actively interfere with people using the web.

It is as if you were reading a magazine and everytime you turned the page someone shoved a sign between you and the magazine and wouldn't let you read until you signed something and crumpled the ad up and threw it away.

The free market is just telling marketers don't be evil. Doubleclick is unhappy because their business model is to be as evil as we want to be.

It is noticable that only marketers appear to believe that intrusive advertising (whether you are talking telesolictors, door-to-door salesmen or popups) is something people actually want.

Re:It isn't about 'ad blocking' per se

[xant]

Only on your last statement do you fall down:

It is noticable that only marketers appear to believe that intrusive advertising (whether you are talking telesolictors, door-to-door salesmen or popups) is something people actually want.

Nobody believes people want intrusive advertising. They just believe it works... because it does.

Re:It isn't about 'ad blocking' per se

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nobody believes people want intrusive advertising. They just believe it works... because it does.

Depends on what your selling. I doubt I would need to do the market research to find out whether this would work for selling the complete works of Shakespear vs. say, a Jacky Collins collection.

In general, over generalizations are wrong (as in the parent post).

Re:It isn't about 'ad blocking' per se

[Baloo Ursidae]

Very few ad blocker programs block ads that are not attempting to do something abusive. It is about blocking intrusive and abusive ads.

Advertising, by definition, is abusive and intrusive. Nothing that stops advertising can be described as the same unless it's closed source and thus you can't tell.

Web ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these "web ads" you speak of?

Signed,
Firefox Adblock user

Warn in one hand...

[fishbowl]

Warn in one hand, shit in the other... See which one fills up first.

As a matter of Fact...

[franksp]

Adblocking is the *beginning* of the free, as in freedom, internet. This means that you will only see the ads you want to see. Pop-ups, pop-unders, and the like are an invasion of privacy, and a blow to free will of people.

Pop up ads are EVIL

[scharkalvin]

and deserve to be locked. OTHO put the web page in a frame, with the 'meat' in the middle and the ads in side collums and that will be tolerated. (Looks just like the newspaper).

So Let Them Keep Their So Called Content!!

[Halvy]

After all it's not FREE when you have to spend time being agravated and dealing with the mountains of annoying FLASH Ads on your page all the time!

The business and advertising people need to adjust to the Net-Citizens requirments, NOT the other way around!

They (business & ad agencies) need to stop thinking that the average person is or should-be concerned about how much money businesses and ad companies make.. PERIOD!

As in so many other facits of life today.. The-System is stacked against the individual, so that leaves us little options... but we do have some.

1) Continue to support (even by paying for good browsers. The OPERA browser does a great job of blocking pop-ups.. and it is SHAREWARE like.

2) Fight companies like MacroMedia, who are fraudulantly advertising that you can *stop* their ad by taking the time to set certain switches in their annoying animations, when in reality, you can't (because you still get the same ads from the same companies after you request them *not to*!

And btw, MacroMedia is another one of those companies that don't even have the courtesy to respond with a *robot* mail system, telling you that they received your email--- let alone respond by a human (maybe no humans work in these ad agencies.. :)

I'v realized that alot of companies (ie in radio especially) PURPOSEFULLY dont' respond, because that is a FREE way for them to get a view of *Market* responce when they do or don't do something.

In other words, for every person like me that calls up to *complain*, they know that there are X amount of other people listening, or are pissed,based on a ratio system.

Usually I don't respond when I hear or see something in the media, because I know that this is what the scumbags at the marketing companies are doing. However sometimes you have to (like when I needed to find out why MacroMedia would NOT block ads that I requested) test-the-waters by emailing them at least once to see if they are a *concerned* corporation or not.

3) Continue with open software projects to development alternatives to MacroMedia types. And continue to support hackers (i mean programmers..) who figure out wayz how to *give-it-back* to the bastards (ie. Ad agencies and companies that use them). :)

The way I look at it.

[Gyga]

Some ads are very important and useful (ex I like google ads I often find somthing interesting). These ads help sites remain in service. Some ads are annoying Ex popups, no one reads popups they are a sign of useless ads.

I think people should keep a tolerence for some ads. A good ad can be useful and users should alienate all ads merly because they are ads.

People often say they shouldn't have to pay for a site through ads ignoring the fact that the web builder is giving them sothing for free (on /. who knows what that is).
--
I'm a troll hear me rawr.

Another PHB

[Rac3r5]

Maybe this guy is really ignorant.. or just doesn't surf the net like most ppl.

I've seen a reduction in those online popups.. but an increase in those annoying flash adds in the middle of ur content.

Dude.. advertising mechanism have changed from pop ups to flash ads within content a while ago..
maybe u should keep in touch... no wonder ur loosing business...

oh and if ur talking about those ads that tell me that I won a free trip.. don't worry.. I close them anyway..

Are you trolling?

[cfalcon]

Many of the websites I visit don't get any advertising revenue at all. They exist either to sell me a product diroctrly, or are people willing to put forth some effort to publish their views. Those things will *always* be there, ads or not.

And if there are ads, it's not free currently, now is it?

I'll bet that the Internet minus ads will be superior to its current state. There may be less news sites, but what you are saying is that the only websites will be from people who are doing it for the sake of doing it. I don't really have a problem with that, if the free market value of a website drops very low.

Obligitory Bender

[stinerman]

Now thats an idea! I'll start my own car business with more R&D, lower prices, and a hooker and booze party.

In fact, forget the R&D, and the low prices!

What if...

[timigoe]

..adverts weren't so much 'in your face'? Then we might not need to block them. I don't mind 'adsense' adverts - they're not very intrusive and they can look like part of the page.

The problem is pop-ups, pop-unders and alsorts of other 'get in the way' type adverts that force you to 'close' them before you can see the content.

Also, flash and Linux don't mix very well - a few pages I know of make heavy use of flash adverts all over them - this grinds the browser to a crawl.

Now I have a nice set of regular expressions for squid that hide most annoying adverts from view.

Ads kill the free internet, not ad-blocking

[forgetmenot]

Are not the ads themselves killing the free internet?

Bear with me here because I have limited knowledge of economics but it seems to be a simple capitalist economy game to me.

An ISP, like any company, wants to maximize profits. Back in the day, before ads were everywhere, hosting costs were fairly cheap and anybody and their dog could throw up a website. Along comes ads to generate revenue for site operators. Now the sites operators are making profits! The ISPs therefore can now raise the hosting costs to grab a share of those profits. This kills off all the sites who don't display ads, but that's ok, because those that are left can now afford the higher ISP costs resulting in a net increase in profits for the ISPs.

If the ad revenues disappear, it seems reasonable to expect that ISPs will have to lower their hosting costs or lose their customers. Lower hosting costs may then allow more do-it-yourselfers who don't want or need the ad revenues to be able to afford putting up free sites again.

Do you have proof?

[tkrotchko]

" if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web."

I would call that *at best* speculation.

I'm not sure if its true or false, but I can also speculate that if banner ads are blocked or removed, that people are smart enough to come up with something else that will manage to make money.

But I'd also point out that the web existed before banner ads. And that the growth of ecommerce is not dependant on banner ads.

Hm...

[Fordiman]

Are we talking a TV-style 90-second ad, or an annoying Flash ad? 'cos the annoying flash ad wouldn't work.

Re:Hm...

[bedroll]

It'd be a flipbook animation. But instead of the book, each cell would be in a new pop-up ad.

Re:Hm...

[corsec67]

Holy crap, the only way to get rid of that kind of annoying ad would be to run

killall mozilla-bin

It would be interesting to see once, but that would probably bring a computer to its knees.

Only annoying ads

[mikeg22]

I only use AdBlock to filter out annoying ads. You know, the ones that have animation and/or sound. These ones make it really hard for me to read the content of the website....its like trying to read a newspaper while a clown is dancing right next to it. Normal, text based ads are fine...

Free Content...

[mudfly]

existed on the internet before your dumbass company. I hapily adblock your service with *doubleclick*

Doesn't change anything

[CjKing2k]

I have never bought anything from a popup, banner, or flash advertisement, and I never will. If I am to go shopping online, I already know what I'm looking for and where to find it. I have no problem adblocking. As far as I'm concerned, I am saving companies like DoubleClick bandwidth that would otherwise be wasted on sending me content that I will never respond to.

I leave it to those people who actually do buy stuff they see in banners and popups to support them. They're probably not the ones who are going to bother to find a way to block ads.

Wait, I have heard this one before

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to 35% of all Advertments were blocked in 2004, resulting in a staggering $33 billion loss to the industry, according to an annual study released this week by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade association and lobby group

They're Warning Us?

[Jipster]

So it's our fault if web advertising tanks and free 'net content goes along with it? I think someone should have warned the ad companies that user interest in their internet advertisements would tank if they kept making them bigger and louder. People aren't using ad blockers because they were pushed over the edge by banner ads, or even the occassional "punch the monkey". Ad companies were asking for it when pop-ups with flashing gifs or Flash-powered movie trailers started scrolling in on top of what I was trying to read. No, they're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. If free internet content goes down the drain due to a lack of advertising support, my blame falls squarely on the people that killed it in the first place: the ad companies.

Context

[sktea]

From the article:

If enough people started blocking ads, Smith warned that publishers would start charging for content. "In an offline world, what would happen in that case is that the 25c newspaper would cost $5," he said.

Does that mean crap newspaper chains would have to pony up some actual content?

a nitpic

[geekoid]

"If all Slashdot readers stop viewing ads..."

really, how does /. know I am blocking the ads?
They can't, it's block on my machine.

also, I will not click on an ad that blinks/flashes/has sound/ or is generally annoying.

so tell me how blocking those ads changes anything?

Re:a nitpic

[daft_one]

Well... If we go from "almost no one clicks the ads" to "absolutely no one has clicked an ad in 6 months"... Either the site is paid per click, in which case the revenue is already gone; or, the site is paid per viewing, but the advertisers get tired of no ROI and stop I'ing in slashdot ads. Then, Rob maybe figures it out ;-) Unless we all *only* block Flash ads and any popups, of course.

Re:a nitpic

[flosofl]

really, how does /. know I am blocking the ads? They can't, it's block on my machine.

It depends.

I used to think that Abblock worked by just redirecting anything filtered to the bit bucket. Then, I hit a site that gave me a redirect and told me to turn off Adblock. Now, they were actually serving up the ads locally so I don't know if the same detection can work with 3rd party ads. Maybe it has to do with Adblock blocking HTTP GET for filtered content or something... I don't know. But somehow they knew that their ads were not getting rendered (received?) by my browser.

But the point is that, yes, sometimes they can tell if you are blocking.

Re:a nitpic

[Madcapjack]

Slashdot knows now.

Re:a nitpic

[Anonymous Coward]

I hit a site that gave me a redirect and told me to turn off Adblock...But somehow they knew that their ads were not getting rendered (received?) by my browser.

Here's an example.

Re:a nitpic

[DCstewieG]

I remember some time ago Adrian's Rojak Pot ran an editorial about their site and ad-blocking. They say that 89% of their ads are blocked.

Oh lucky you guys, here's the link: http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&va r1=19&var2=0

Re:a nitpic

[abulafia]

One trick for detecting display is to embed JS that asks for the size of an image, and redirect if it is wrong. Not perfect by any, excuse me, stretch). There are others.

The logical conclusion of all of this is that content will be streamed to a flash applet surrounded by blinky ads. And then I'm going back to 80x24 only for all my content needs. (which is still how I read my mail - yeay mutt/procmail/spamassassin!)

Re:a nitpic

[dagoalieman]

I thought about this one, and it wouldn't be too hard I don't think. Many browsers fetch elements as the html comes in. So let's take a sample page:

<body>
<a href><img alt="annoying ad"></a>
<some content>
<a href><img alt="annoying ad"></a>
<final content>
</body>

Why not pull a tarhole like spam trappers do- My web script PUTs the first content through the first </a> then holds a brief second, a bit of the <some content> but not all.

Then, I go and look at the server logs for the get of the IMG file. If I don't see a fetch from the same IP that is fetching this page, redirect! Many browsers honor the redirects placed in odd places, plus there's good ol' javascript too.

Seems simple to write in english. But I'm not sure how easy that'd be to code. Not too difficult either, I would reckon

Re:a nitpic

[jridley]

If the ads are served from the page's domain, it's pretty trivial to know you're blocking ads. The server can plant a cookie when you load an ad, and another cookie when you load a page that should have an ad in it. Make the cookies contain a counter. If the two get way out of balance, they stop feeding you content. I'd allow a little leeway due to aborted loads, bad connections, etc.
If you don't allow cookies, don't feed content.

I can't think of a quick-n-easy way to do it with ads served from another domain, without having a backchannel between the two domains, but I'm no expert.

Re:a nitpic

[toddestan]

The fix to your proposed solution would be to have the browser download the ad, but Adblock would make it so the ad is not displayed in the browser window. That way, the content providers would have no way to know who is actually seeing the ads. This would actually put the advertisers in a worse position, because a significant portion of their bandwidth would now be completly wasted, making their margins even slimmer (though I'm sure quite a few people would see this as a good thing).

Re:a nitpic

[ares284]

I believe if you select "remove ads" in AdBlock preferences, it does not download the ads whatsoever. So a site can see that you've loaded their index.htm but not any of their advertisements. If you select "hide ads" it *does* download them, it just doesn't show them.

I think that's how it works anyway, though IANAABD (I am not an AdBlock developer)... ;)


-Ares

Re:a nitpic

[dagoalieman]

But for dialup users like me, it kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? ;)

I like most other people don't mind ads that are static text, static images. Even something with a relatively simple blink. It's these 500k animated gifs and 1mb spank the monkey flash ads that kill me. On dialup at home, I *have* to use adblock even on /. due to the fact that I don't want to wait up to 10 minutes just for content to be readable.

I suppose yet another workaround would be to set up an adblock that does the get, but then drops the packets after the first 1k or so. As someone pointed out to that, a javascript could be used to detect the image size and compare to expected, but...

Bah. All of this would be simpler if advertisers would just realize that it's been brought onto themselves. Kind of like spam, this is going to become a game of back and forth, I fear. We've already named the next two iterations of lunacy. ;)

Re:a nitpic

[alienmole]

One way they can tell if you're blocking ads is if the ad server doesn't receive an HTTP request from you for the ad. Clever blocker software could get around this by requesting the ad but just not displaying it.

Two words for you DoubleClick

[TheUndertaker]

F*ck you!

R.I.P.

My rules for blocking ads

[Anonymous Coward]

While I do use FireFox and AdBlock, I normally don't block the ad delivery sites. After all, the sites using them need to make a profit in order to stay open.

However, I will instantly and forever block any server delivering ads that are meant to look like something else, like an error dialog with an 'OK' button.

Oh, and I sometimes block those really annoying flashing ads, too, but not always. The more obnoxious, the more likely that ad server will be blocked.

:) news story link

[DaleCarpenter]

i just like that the news story has a link to go get "adblock" :D
kinda says how they really feel about the whole thing doesn't it. AdBlock

Re: NOT ALL ADS

[hytmal]

I use Firefox with AdBlock, and I've got to say that I only block ads that I think are obtrusive and annoying. I don't think anyone is losing any business from those "IF THIS BANNER IS FLASHING, YOU'VE WON!" things that just give me a headache. If you don't want us to block your dumb ads, DON'T make them annoying and distracting, make them catch the eye without being obnoxious.

Naw.

[Stumbles]

Gee, I wonder where those negative vibes against advertising in general ever came from? Could it be the slimballs enlist the even slimmier spammers? Oh wait spammers do it for free, yeah thats it.

Might Not Have Come To This

[RichiP]

If some of those same advertising companies had not abused the system and started spamming site with ads, I wouldn't even have taken the time to install AdBlock.

I've never clicked on an ad, have you?

[cerebud]

I think the people who are using AdBlock (I just started a few days ago) are people who wouldn't click on the ads to begin with. Those who are dumb enough to click on those ads probably aren't sophisticated enough to use Firefox or AdBlock. They're just whining. "Don't use AdBlock OR ELSE THE NET WON'T BE FREE!!" BOOO!!!!

way to make a false analogy

[colton cummings]

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.
This makes it sound like people are given adblocking tools without their consent. He tries to sound like people are being victimized by this and he's bringing some horrible mistreatment to light. This is a horrible analogy with a poorly masked agenda.

Relevant link...

[chris_eineke]

www.cluetrain.com

DoubleClick is an expendable middle man.

[vinohradska]

DoubleClick is an expendable middle man. Newspapers & TV stations have their own advertizing departments and people buy ads from them. If web sites want to stop people from filtering out their ads, they can make it much harder to do so simply by hosting the images & text on their own servers and eliminating the middle man. Google, for example, could be using DoubleClick for revenue. They don't. They do it in-house. DoubleClick is the only casualty here, not the people providing the content. Radio and TV used to have the advertizing included in the content. Talk show hosts would suddenly stop and read out some ad copy. There is no easy way to avoid that kind of ad.

Internet is business

[end3rtm]

I think lot of you guys don't understand how internet advertising work.

Without a doubt, I'm in favor of non-annoying ads. But I do want to see ads on my favorite sites so that these sites can make money and continue to operate. If all I have to do is view ads and sometimes click on a few to support these sites, it's lot better than me paying $2-5 a month to view that site.

Besides that point...it's not Doubleclick that's putting popups and rollovers and floaters on your favorite websites. It's the websites. Someone can't put a full page ad on LA Times without LA Times working on that ad. Same with ads on the internet. Everything is at the Web publisher's discretion. Unless...they turn over all their page impressions to these ad networks (fastclick, etc...) without approving any ads. That in turn, is webpub's responsibility.

Our society has turn more and more selfish where people only think about themselves. Like all the users who block ads to an ad supported site that they visit frequently...and advertisers who do whatever they can to get their message across without caring about how annoying it is to the users.

Re:Internet is business

[sagenumen]

I agree with the parent. I have some basic rules that I follow when I put mmy AdBlock extension to use.

First of all, I never block ads on sites that I visit frequently. However, the second I see some annoying flashing animated GIF, it's blocked. I'm ALL for targeted text ads...I think they will be the saving grace of internet advertising.

Secondly, if the ad is some stupid "shoot the monkey" type, it gets blocked. MLM isn't my thing to support. To use /. as an example: Non-annoying ads for generally related products/services. And not 500 of them all over the page. Very well done. Add that to the option to pay for removal and you have a well-executed ad/subscription-supported site.

The end of free content

[Z00L00K]

is not really in sight. OK, some content may be limited, but the web is more than newsflashes.

The adblock and popup-blockers are a response to annoying ads. If the advertisers keeps their ads less intrusive people may ignore them, but not to the level that they actively will block them.

Some ads are as annoying as a TV-commercial running 24x7 at maximum volume, while others are like a post-it on your door. If the advertisers can't learn to be reasonable, then they must run the risk of counter-measures.

Three Characters

[scythian_monk]

RSS

animated gif ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to the good old days of animated gif ads embedded into web pages and absolutely no pop-ups? I had no problems with these and they still got the message through. Flash ads slow everything down from loading times to finding the actual content of the webpage.

You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

Webpage ads should not under any circumstances be compared to newspaper ads! Newspaper ads do not possess the ability to jump out of the paper at you, or cover up what you are trying to read until you move/collapse them. Sound is also a missing feature from newspaper ads (oh, how i loathe the sound flash ads!)

Excuse me, but what free content?

[bXTr]

Most websites have so much advertising you can't tell it from the actual content. Some are pretty much all advertising. To paraphrase a quote about TV, the web is pretty much a "vast, pock-marked wasteland."

On another point, nothing on the Internet has ever been free. I pay for access as well as the webmaster, and he may also pay for hosting his website. These expenses are paid regardless of advertising. Advertising revenue only offsets those expenses.

As to the particular FA, this is like spammers claiming that spam blocking will result in the end of email. I see what he's saying from an economic standpoint, but I don't really have any sympathy for him.

Bah! No big deal.

[Pig Hogger]

The next step would be a browser (or a proxy) which fetches the ads, but does not display them.

This way, there is no way the server could "sense" that the ads are blocked...

An additionnal bonus would be the DDOS performed on advertising servers (such as Doublefuck's) when ***EVERYONE*** starts leeching their ads.

It doesn't mean the end, but...

[spockvariant]

the beginning of non-intrusive advertising. Google has been doing it and see where it's taken them. The reason brand-makers invest in intrusive advertisements is because they exist. If all advertisement was non-intrusive, they'd be forced to invest in that. What advertisers don't see of course is the gift they would get in disguise- of reaching people who might actually care about their products without offending them. I refuse to believe that the whole internet is financed by 'punch the monkey' type ads.

Boo Hoo DoubleClick

[Roland of Gilead]

Yesterday on /. I read that "the end of paid content on the web is nigh", today I read "the end of free Internet content is nigh".
So which is it? ;?

Oh 'ya, DoubleClick can kiss my posterior oriface you greedy [insert curse words here], keep your spyware crap to yourself.

Meh...

The wonder of a free market...

[CFTM]

If we're lucky, this will be the downfall of DoubleClick. Unfortantely, someone will just come up with an innovation that prevents the ads from being blocked through the current methods; in turn the ad blockers will be modified to block this new content...continue ad naseum.

I predict that advertising on the internet will continue as always. Maybe the system will look different but I don't forsee the end of "free internet". We shall see...

One word

[oenophile]

Micropayments. As soon as someone figures out how to do micropayments cost effectively, efficiently and reliably, advertising will begin to disappear. Until that time, advertising will remain the foundation of content providers on the internet.

Do none of you know what Usenet is?

[jasonmicron]

"Who will host your site?"

Usenet has no hosting costs.

Re:Do none of you know what Usenet is?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Somebody do please mod the parent up. "Usenet has no hosting costs." *Exactly*

It is hard to feel sorry for companies bemoaning the fact that the victims don't appreciate how hard they work to rape us. Maybe those commercial interests will go somewhere else.

What about Google?

[geekee]

Would the ad blocking technology block Google targeted ad links? If so, wouldn't that kill off Google billion dollar per year revenue stream?

That is why Google works

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody blocks text ads so that is why Google's Adsense works...

What annoys me

[merc]

Is the notion that somehow I'm morally obligated to watch commercials or view the blinking, shouting, flashing, annoying pop-up tripe that the purveyors of net-crap spew. It's almost as if the marketing forces are trying to brainwash us into thinking we are somehow indebted to them.

I could care about the next guy; I know two things about my own personal net surfing habits that are absolute: I 'll always block this crap for as long as there are tools to do so and secondly I'll never lose a second of sleep over doing so.

And you didn't have "bought" journalism, either...

[Seng]

There once was a day when sites like Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, et al. reviewed the good, bad & ugly... Now there's a strange correlation between all the XYZ brand items reviewed and the XYZ brand banners all over the place... God forbid you post a negative review of an advertiser!

In the future, content will be free.

[Distan]

In the golden days of the internet, all content was free.

Content today has been encumbered by costs. One of those is the cost of being bombarded with advertising.

By removing advertisments, the content is restored to the free state.

The future of the internet is the same as the past. All content will be free.

End of Free content nothing.

[Khyber]

As long as those who are willing to do their stuff for free (like Joe Cartoon, or even id Software, who ripped the MP engine out of RTCW and made it a free for all online fragfest) cintinue to see the profit in releasing some free stuff to help boost their selling of other products, I doubt free content on the web is ever going away.

I know that every track, every song, loop, beat, whatever, that I make, I will put up on the internet, free of charge.

End of free content? Not while I'm still alive and breathing. Even if I have to host it on this crappy 384 kbit upload DSL. It will be free. This guy severely fails to even think about individual efforts, instead, he seems to focus on a group as a stereotypical whole, instead of looking at individual parts. This article is too far-biased, and it reeks of corporate conspiracy in one form or another.

Freeriders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freeriders, Ha!
The UK academic network (JANET) pays charges per megabyte of transatlantic traffic; a few years back, to reduce the bandwidth charges,they set up a Web cache service. http://wwwcache.ja.net/ That seems to be semi-defunct now, but when it had monthly stats online, the graphs for requests by volume were very interesting: 30% or more of the total transatlantic traffic (paid for by the UK taxpayer) was banners served up by Doubleclick and friends: advertising useless shite that wasn't even available/usable/useful in the UK. Every Doubleclick image had a unique URL with a tracking ID built in, so it wasn't cached like everything else, but served up anew with every page view.
So 30% of the bytes passing through the UK web cache were a complete waste of bandwidth, paid for out of the UK academic funding. And these arsecandles want to call anyone who doesn't want to waste bandwidth/download time on dialup in loading ads for stuff they don't want/need/can't use, *free riders*?

Competition

[Morosoph]

As long as we're still willing to view acceptable ads, there will be plenty of sites that will provide content for us.

In addition, this means that those advertisers who refrain from placing excessively annoying ads will get more business from myself, and fellow Adblockers.

Since those with quieter ads won't have to compete with the more aggressive for our business, there will be no loss for them, so long as we're sufficiently numerous.

Those who do use aggressive ads will compete more and more strongly for an ever-diminishing, and ever less savvy (and wealthy) part of the market.

It seems to me that we hold all of the aces.

Adblock/Admuncher, etc. will die!

[rrao]

There are a few effective steps that people who are interested in saving the current ad-model (doubleclick/google/yahoo/etc.) can take to beat ad-blocking software. One simple thing they can do is obfuscate ad-related URLs enough so that they are virtually indistinguishable from actual content. Yes, its going to be a bit of work with re-designing pages, etc. But there is a LOT of money involved and someone (Google?) will come up with a nifty tool for content publishers to accomplish it. And they don't even have to go through this for the majority of the sites on the web. About 5% of the sites attract 90% of the traffic (sorry no handy references to support this claim). They just need to take care of these sites to start with. The ball will be back in our court then.

This simple URL/image-size related rules based ad-blocking is only temporarily effective. We need a better way to recognize ads in webpages. Any ideas?

Re:Adblock/Admuncher, etc. will die!

[cpghost]

We need a better way to recognize ads in webpages. Any ideas?

How about distributed fingerprinting? With the right extension, everyone could report an ad to a set of distributed servers which whould then fingerprint the files. Browsers would then fingerprint every image they get (perhaps just a part of it would suffice), check against the fingerprint database using URLS like http://fprint.example.com/4a2f134a234140fa and cache the result.

Something like razor?

Ads ads, and more ads

[durbnpoisn]

It seems to me that Doubleclick will do anything to protect their little corner of the marketplace. I hate all the advertising. I block everything I can. But, I do understand why it exists... I just ignore whatever makes it through. In any case... If you're going to blame anyone for all the ads, and all the email SPAM, blame the people who actually respond to those ads! If the advertisers weren't making money, they wouldn't be doing it.

Death of Doubleclick != Death of Internet

[NickFortune]

Actually, free-rider situations like this are precisely where market forces don't work efficiently.

And since market forces are sacred and inviolable, the problem must lie in people having too much freedom, right? If that sounds like sarcasm, you need to read more news.

Bennie Smith is entirely correct -- if ad blocking becomes standard in popular browsers, that will be the end of free content on the web.

Heh. Google, the source of the most restrained ads on the internet is making mega money and expanding like mad. The source of the most annoying and intrusive ad on the internet is crying in his beer and uttering prophecies of doom.

What does your free market tell you about that?

plugins

[Fuzzums]

i was just blocking images from servers, but thanks to this topic, caused by the poor doubleshitbannerguy people informed me aboutadblock.

thanks to /. my life has changed and i can browse again with a smile!

thank you /. !!!!

Troll / Overated

[AviLazar]

I love the /. system. I had five trolls and one or two overrated...and the reason for this - because I do not have popular opinion.

Someone needs to point out how my statements are a troll? /. moderaters at their best.

I call bullshit.

[a1cypher]

Nobody should need to have pop up ads. If you need to annoyingly throw yourself in front of a user to get attention, then perhaps you should consider making a better product or advertising to the right people (or both).

If anything, people are going to purposely avoid brands/companies that give them annoying popups (I know I would). Its almost as bad as unsolicited telemarketing; interupting you in the middle of something completely unrelated.

If you have a product or service that is actually worth marketing, then you should stick to either unobtrusive banner ads (preferably ones that dont shake or flash like hell) or use text ads like google ad words. These ads need to be highly targeted to people already looking for your service/product.

The times of just throwing your product in front of millions of people on the slim chance that a few of them might actually be interested is comming to an end, NOT free internet. Advertisers will need to diversify or get out of the way, but stop complaining about it.

Advertisers are a problem, not a solution!

[v3xt0r]

If I wanted to be bombarded with ads w/ out my concent or control, I would watch TV.

Message for double click.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Stop making Shockwave Flash ads they're annoying. I block all SWF ads without a second thought.
2. Stop making your static ads flashy and annoying. I block these by default also.
3. Stop tracking my browing habits with your cookies. I delete these every couple of weeks.

If you put out ads like Google does then I would not feel the need to to block them. Flashy and annoying will NOT be tolerated!

The best adblock ruleset around

[Safety Cap]

Before you install it, make sure to read the instructions.

Swallow the Pill That Makes You Ill.

[mpapet]

-All people (98%+/- have televisions in U.S.)are used to advertising
-Most people won't mind a few commercials in everything, they are used to it. Even your shopping cart has advertisements on it.
-Advertising is everywhere and it WORKS.

For those that like google's adverts today, it is only a matter of time before they are replaced by something more (wait for it....) PROFITABLE. Look at Yahoo. Same idea, different day.

Double-click is here to stay. Double-click along with the rest of the ad industry (442,000 + 56,000 advert workers in 2002 http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs030.htm) likely pushing hard to get ads forced into browsers one way or another.

Switch to Linux, and maybe elinks or whatever that very useful text-only browser is called and regain some peace of mind.

Note to self:
Kill my television.

ADS == OK!

[Anonymous Coward]

POPUPS == BAD!!!

Popups are annoying, not ads in general. I don't mind ads nested in article text at all--it's done in magazines all the time, and it isn't excessively intrusive in web articles. They only take a split second for the reader to view and assess, whereas popups require moving the mouse and clicking on them to get rid of them, plus they're like someone screaming and jumping in your face to get your attention--incredibly annoying.

Content Subscription Conglomerations

[richyoung]

Imagine that the free internet has died (which I don't believe would happen, but we'll stipulate that it does anyway...) What's next?

Well, it's a PITA to have to manage 15-cent subscriptions to a hundred different sites. So companies start popping up that offer subscriptions grouped by interest. They even get you a little bit of a discount. You subscribe to OSDG, O'Reilly, and a few other FOSS news & info sites all in one bundle, and it costs $15 per year.

All those unemployed advertising folks will get jobs doing market research to determine the optimum mix of site subscriptions for particular target groups.

And then, you see some tasteful, very nicely targeted ads creeping back into some of the content, where the ad is served to you based on your interest in this particular page and your membership in this particular subscription service. Membership in these subscription services is cheaper than in other, ad-free ones, of course. Any punch-the-monkey ads get pulled because the paying subscribers demand their removal - or they only get served to the super-cheap subscribers.

So, what grows out of the death of the free internet? A user-driven internet where there is still advertising, but only the acceptable sort. We end up with a few annual subscriptions to pay for, but there are cheaper options if you're strapped for cash. Does this sound like Hell? No, it sounds practically utopian by today's standards.

/. UNITES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, I've been reading /. for a while now, and while the usual commenting crowd is usually quite divided, I'm highly amused that everyone seems to agree on this.

I think that should be come sort of indication of how /. feels about pop-ups.

couldn't read article

[matt me]

I went to doubleclick.com to read their press release, but I couldn't without first subscribing. Damn!

hey bennie

[wardk]

kiss my ass.

The End Of Free Content - HaHaHaHa

[cannuck]

What a cry baby. The end of free content?! hahahaha Most best things on the web right now are free - shared by a lot of individual people who either feel good about sharing or indirectly want to sell something while sharing. Of course these people don't force pop-ups. They get the attention of people using/benefiting by the free info and then indirectly try to sell something. It's what free intrioductory seminars are all about. At the same time MIT and other universities are putting up all the courses, manuals, lectures free of charge on the internet. More often than not - this info is far more relevant than many/most free sites (like Wikipedia).

Be informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Does nobody get how this works?
I work for DoubleClick. Let me just make some unapologetic clarifications:

1. DoubleClick isn't an advertiser. DoubleClick is a service provider that people outsource serving to, and use for campaign management.

2. Actually, the advertising market has been growing steadily, it's almost a boom in the industry right now. We still have colossal marketshare, but there is lots of competition and innovation going on.

3. Advertising is not going away. Annoying ads, further, are also not going away. This is because content providers want ad money, and advertisers want to get your attention. Text links might make you happy, but advertisers want blinking 5-foot popup-flash banners that play music.

4. DoubleClick doesn't even try to combat ad blocking. Does that tell you anything? Even though every content publisher we talk to wants us to outsmart it? It should tell you who motivates the industry.

5. What publishers are asking for from us is the ability to know if a user is blocking ads. If so, THEY want to implement technology to bounce the user, or force them into a subscription.

6. DoubleClick doesn't HAVE any personal information on ANYONE. Seriously, I can pull up a connection to all of our production databases right now, and tell you that it's just not there. All I can find out is if your cookie has seen an ad or not. One of Bennie Smith's jobs is to make sure that we, over here in engineering, don't ever develop a feature that would allow us to figure out who owns that cookie.

7. Guess who the scariest competetor on the block is? It's everyone's favorite company, a place called Google.

Guys, it doesn't matter if you block the ads- it's totally OK with us. Publishers will, however, very soon, start charging you money if you do. That's why you pay for HBO but you get network TV for dirt.

That's why networks run infomercials all day long, and why many advertisements are deliberately loud and annoying.

Re:Be informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, it doesn't matter if you block the ads- it's totally OK with us. Publishers will, however, very soon, start charging you money if you do. That's why you pay for HBO but you get network TV for dirt.

First of all, let me say on behalf of many people here - we don't really care what you think about our individual choices in how we browse the World wide web. I am certianly not waiting for Rupert Murdoch's permission to fast forward through commercials on FOX.

What might happen in the scenario you mention?

Software like AdBlock will be configured to download but not display the advertisements for particular websites that do this.

Users revolt. Websites that do this will become irrelevant as users, en masse, flock to other websites that somehow manage to do the same thing with no ads. I know this has happened to alot of news aggregation websites, the ones that have a cleaner interface and no annoying ads seem to have gotten popular all of the sudden.

Websites that truly produce unique and desired content but need money will either switch to micropayments, donations, or subscriptions (like you said). If the content that the website produces truly warrants it, users will actually pay for it or allow ads to be displayed.

One thing I do not understand: Why do people insist on showing ads to people who don't want to see them? You can try to go to all this trouble to force me to view advertisements but I will never click on one or buy any of the products advertised (becuase I am either offended by the annoyance of the ad, or it is irrelevant). The ad is basically wasted money. Do you think Republican candidates bother sending out direct mail campaign literature to registered Democrats? They certianly don't do it here. The reason is obvious.

Re:Be informed

[Anonymous Coward]

You dumbass, the only point was that DoubleClick isn't doing this. Publishers are telling us this is what they will do. And if what you say is true, then quality content online will be lost, because it costs a shitload of money. If they can't pay with ads, then they have to charge you money, directly or indirectly, to see the content. It's a REALLY SIMPLE equiation. And do you think advertisers care if you want to see their ads? Believe it or not, statistically, they make more money if they show the ads to lots of people than to few people. So it's users who drive this behavior, by constantly biting.

Re:Be informed

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. Intellectual weaklings on Slashdot calling me a 'dumbass' becuase they have no real argument.

Publishers are telling us this is what they will do

No shit.

And if what you say is true, then quality content online will be lost, because it costs a shitload of money. If they can't pay with ads, then they have to charge you money, directly or indirectly, to see the content. It's a REALLY SIMPLE equiation.

There are plenty of websites out there that don't have ads and don't charge money. It doesn't cost a shitload of money. I used to run a website with thousands of users out of my own pocket. I've been down this road before.

Thats a flawed equation.

I understand that costs vary from site to site and that some people can't run it out of their own pocket, but there are quite a few websites that manage to get by on donations and, while keeping their main content free, offer special perks and other pay-for services.

I've seen many a website die becuase users wanted the clearner layout and less obtrusive ads.

Believe it or not, statistically, they make more money if they show the ads to lots of people than to few people. So it's users who drive this behavior, by constantly biting.

You miss the point. These users aren't the ones who don't want to see the ads.

The users who expliticly go out there and start blocking ads are NOT interested.

Maybe the Republican National Comittee should go out and rent the ACLU's or NOW's membership list and try to recruit from it. I wonder just how effective THAT would be, becuase that is what trying to shove ads to people who explictitly don't want to see is tantamount to.

Add Blocking int't the problem, it's the result.

[lcsjk]

I don't mind seeing advertisements set to the side and un-obtrusive. If they jump or wiggle or flash, they get blocked. If they are still, I may or may not look at them when I finish the page a wanted to read. I am at work. I don't want to, and don't have time to go window shopping. If I am home, and an add looks interesting, I may take a quick look.

Pop-ups are like high pressure car salespeople. THey try to sell you something you don't want, and in doing so, they become so obnoxious that the buyer will not come back. I want them to wait over on the side and when I need to, I will ask a question. I want no cookies, no tracing, no sign-up and no collecting anything from my computer.

Blanks? The guy never used AdBlock, then

[zanderredux]

Agreed. He's using a bad analogy to spread FUD. It even seems that he never tried AdBlock or, if he did, he's trying to scare consumers away by constructing an analogy based on a false statement on how AdBlock works. Anyway, more FUD.

For the analogy to be complete, if there was an AdBlock for newspapers, my local newspaper sunday edition would get up to 60% LIGHTER! - a lot less paper and junk!

Imagine this: AdBlock being considered "environmentally friendly" because it prevented unnecessary tree cutting!!

README MSIE does support ad blocking

[quadra23]

On top of that, the executive's warnings are completely unfounded. IE still takes up most of the browser market, and how many average users who happen to have tried Firefox would even know that it supports extensions, much less even know that Adblock exists?

Dude I don't know how much you know about MSIE but it sounds like you know nothing about !path to windows!\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file. MSIE checks through this file everytime IE runs (incidently this works for all other web browsers on Windows systems, even Firefox) because it occurs on the network level. Here's an entry that you can use as a test.

127.0.0.1 www.microsoft.com

This entry redirects calls that would normally go www.microsoft.com to instead look on the 127.0.0.1 (which corresponds to localhost -- the computer you are currently using to web browse). Assuming you don't run a webserver on the same computer, you will see a "This page can not be displayed" 100% of the time. To block ads you would just re-route any site that you know displays ads by adding an entry to this file: using 127.0.0.1 as the IP and after pushing tab once enter the domain name that you want to block, and enter to add another entry. Now isn't that easy! You can have your cake and still eat it with MSIE!

Re:README MSIE does support ad blocking

[iced_773]

That's a useful tip, and yes, I knew nothing about that, but how many average users would know about it? We're talking people who would connect their computers directly to a DSL line without a router or software firewall to protect them! People who would say that the Norton Antivirus they bought five years ago should still protect them unupdated just fine, oblivious to the idea that new viruses require new definitions! People who never run Windows Update so they never received SP1 which would have turned on automatic updates, and subsequently SP2, which would have turned on the Windows Firewall by default!

The point I am trying to make is that the Internet would be a much safer place if the public were more educated about security problems. Companies such as DoubleClick and the infamous GAIN Publishing might not spend as many resources on adware and stay with page-based ads if everyone's computers were more secure.

Also I must add to my original post that it is DoubleClick's own fault that the more leet users are using Adblock or your IE fix. Their obnoxious "punch-the-monkeys" and "free iPods" and ads that jump right on top of what you are trying to see have driven us to these fixes!

Re:README MSIE does support ad blocking

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of modifying the hosts file yourself, you'd be better off using one where somebody else's done all the work: http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

Indeed, Moderation is key

[ShimmyShimmy]

the rule of doing it in moderation

Moderation definitely is key. To think that free blogs will die out is completely absurd as the idea of the 'paperless office' (well at least for the next 20-30 years or so).

But why do people try so hard to block ads? Why does it work so well in newspapers? Think about online ads. The more flashy, loud (figuratively and literally) and annoying they are, the more clicks they get. I think the market is just getting pushed too far. I never had a newspaper ad jump from the coupons page on top of the article I was reading on the front page (ie, popup), and i never saw any distracting movement, and certainly none making noise.

There will always be a market for ads, and I seriously doubt any browser will be powerful enough to stop them completely.

Take Spam for example. Hundreds (probably thousands or more) of programs have been written to reduce spam, and legislation has been passed to stop it, but it still works, and people still do it.

I think online advertising has just hit or is starting to hit a peak. I personally do not mind a stangant image on the side of a page, or even better a line of text in google's searches. I think over an extended period of time, public tolerance for annoying ads will invite enough ad blockers to get rid of 'shoot the monkey' and Savenow, but will still leave plenty of room for ads like Google.

The end is definitely not near, I just think there will be some settling point where people can be happy with a couple relevant, non-obnoxious ads on a pleasant article.

Score : -1, Troll

[LesPaul75]

Please mod parent (article) as Troll. I mean, seriously, an article that says "Doubleclick is mad at people who block popups"?

Upcoming articles:

• Spammers claim "End of free e-mail is nigh" if people continue to use spam filters.
• Tony Little claims "End of television is fast approaching" if people continue to fast-forward through commercials for Gazelle Freestyle.
• Microsoft claims "End of the personal computer era is upon us" unless people stop using Linux.

The Web is not Television

[DrVomact]

Distracting irrelevant advertisements on web sites have always been a dumb idea, and whining about the end of "free content" is not going to change that. You want me to watch your stupid ads out of pity? Gimme a break. I installed AdSubtract when it first came out, and I refuse to install Flush because its major use is either to show dumb flashing commercials or even dumber flashing content. (Anyone know how to turn off the tool bar that appears at the top of Firefox and prompts me to download the plugin every time I open a Flushed site?)

On the web at least, you have to be smart to make money, and the smart people (like Google) are doing fine. We just need a few more smart ideas. For example, I think that the concept of "pay per view" content is workable if it were implemented in the right way.

The right way would include the following requirements:

1. The amount of payment must be very small--so small that it's perceived as inconsequential by the viewer. Say you run an informative tech site that reviews gadgets, but you don't want to take ads because that's going to restrict what you can say about the items you're reviewing. So charge a penny per view of each article. Considering the potential size of a web audience for a really good site, all that copper could turn into a gold mine.
2. The first one is always free. People aren't going to pay to look at your site unless they've become convinced that it's a valuable resource. So let them look at their first ten articles for free. If the articles are really useful, most people will pay a tiny amount of money to read more. (Or, of course, you could just let people see the first few paragraphs of every article, or whatever.
3. Authentication and billing should safeguard the viewer's privacy.We'd obviously need a way to authenticate the viewing customer, bill him, and transfer the accumulated pennies to the web site owner's bank account. There are ways to do anonymous authentication where only the intermediary who does the banking knows your identity. Hmm do I sense a business opportunity here? Yeah...I'll file the patent immediately...

The Internet is Free

[Anonymous Coward]

It was created for the free exchange of information, not to make some asshole at an advertising company whose existence is parasitic to the Internet happy.

Fuck him.

Adblock easy to overcome?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Adblock works by filters, can't I just have ads load from my own web server and not put "Ad" in the url?

Amen!

[zanderredux]

In essence, this whole mess is the advertising industries own fault, not the fault of the makers of ad blocking software.

That people has an oversimplified way to look at the world. They like to see themselves as business experts (heck, one I know call himself a "strategy consultant") but they lack the analytical tools to analyze a business, even if that business is their own. And they even have the audacity to put the blame on the software because it poses a risk to their business model -- which was already flawed to start with.

The end of an era?

[Anonymous Coward]

has it come the time where people would be able to choose no to see ads?
Seriously, my browser has enable built-in pop-up blocker, and i've never ever though to disable it.
But it's a non sense anyway: just put the following line
$IPTABLES -A FORWARD -p tcp -d [ipaddr of doubleclick] -o $EXTIF -j REJECT
in my firewall script.
Aaaahhh, the freedom of the choice!

The ultimate ad blocker: The human brain

[MobyDisk]

I was reading an article on a site that had ads inside the content. The article referred to a chart which I could not find. I looked and looked and scrolled and scrolled to no avail. Then, I put my finger on the screen and scanned left to right, top to bottom.

Behold! The chart was exactly where the article said it was. But I couldn't see it, because it looked like an ad. I was in awe. I really honestly truly had to break out of my normal reading process to even see it.

Advertisers fight this with blinking popping scrolling punch the monkey ads to lure our eyes. But they fight a losing battle because it just makes it easier to spot. The younger untrained brains (kids and teens) can't block them yet, and they are more impressionable. That's why advertising works well there.

Eventually, surrepticious ads are they only thing that will work anymore. That will be when your video game character drinks Coke instead of using health packs.

That's rubbish...

[Phil John]

...hosting costs have come down considerably, to where the hosting market is now very commoditised, there are so many one-man-band hosts who'll give you 100GB a month for something stupid like $6.99. There's also the rise of ISP provided web-space, this used to be very uninteresting back in the day, but (for instance) my ISP now offers dynamic scripting, database driven sites and proper domain names (not http://users.myisp.com/~somereallyhardtorememberus ernamexyz12345). It's also much cheaper to get a reliable managed service with decent redundant links than it used to be. Back to the topic at hand though, I use AdBlock but don't block all ads. The only ad regexps that make it onto my blocklist are when I've come across something particularly obnoxious/crazy frog/flashing. I think that's fair, don't abuse the system by shoving flashing, noisy, annoying ads at me, and I'll not block you.

what about google

[roybotnik]

I don't see people blocking google ads. Google is worth a hell of a lot more than shitty companies like doubleclick, so you'd think people would take a hint. Stop being responsible for all those horribly shitty flash ads with sound and flashing colors, and maybe people won't be so annoyed that they have to block your garbage. If it's not going to work for you, go run a business that fits your style, like a used car dealership.

Waiting for build options

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for the day when Firefox can be compiled with Adblock already enabled, and with the user unable to turn it off, or turn of the popup blocker, without recompiling the whole damn browser.

I'll use that build on every computer I administer forever.

Ads aren't so bad, if used correctly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with ads on the net, people or companies should be allowed to advertise their products or services. Just don't make them so damn annoying like those huge ads that pop up and cover the entire screen, blocking the content I want to view. Putting them at the top, bottom or sides of a web page is fine with me, just don't force me to view them against my will.

A social contract

[bitspotter]

So, what you're saying is that if we give up non-free content, you'll stop the advertising?

Promise?

-
As excellent as that sounds, I call bullshit. Having access to an audience - any audience - is more important than the content itself. If they have to make up content, advertisers will.

Re:Advertisers: Don't remove control from the user

[innate]

This is exactly why I started using Privoxy. A web site I visit put up a Flash ad with sound. Until then the ads had never bothered me, but this one was so annoying that I went looking for a way to stop it -- and in the process I found out how easy it is to block all ads.

Attention advertisers: I would still be looking at your ads if you hadn't crossed the line with annoying animated sounds!

That's fine, buh-bye.

[Teahouse]

Don't fear fellow geeks. I remember the early www, and the sky isn't falling. In the beginning, DARPA created the web, and it was good. I entered this little burb and enjoyed talking to other smart people about interesting and stimulating topics. I respected and patronized the few hip corporations that used the web to make sure their brick-and-mortar customers could get information that helped them.

I never asked for the ability to order 1,800,000 items from Amazon, or to register my email addy to get the users manual for my kitchen appliance. I don't need to see 5000 videos of kids falling-crashing-killing themselves while imitating Johnny Knoxville. I don't need to pay for porn. I never asked for Yahoo or AOL to put every inbred idiot teen and their trailer-park mother on the web with a blog about the latest sales at Wal-Mart and how hot Justin Timberlake and Brad Pitt are. I don't need corporations to tell me how to get perscription medication, a good mortgage, a fake college degree, sex, or make a business deal in Nigeria.

As a matter of fact, I really liked the internet when all I could get were facts from people who wanted to share them. I liked reading good papers from university students and labs. I liked having 3-4 forums that worked like my old BBLs and a few USENETS. I liked going to a corporate site and being able to get contact information that included a real-voice 800 number and NOTHING ELSE!

So Double-click's claim that the sky is falling and threat that this could be the end of the internet as we know it really doesn't scare me. The internet as we know it sucks. Bring back Camelot, let Chicken Little crow.

Ad Blocking likely to simply fail?

[MS-06FZ]

As ad blocking becomes more common, mechanisms which circumvent ad blocking are simply going to become more common as well.

For instance, Adblock is based on the user's ability to turn URLs into wildcard expressions, in order to block parts of a webpage. This exploits things like the fact that ads usually come from other domains (like Google ads or doubleclick) and the fact that the webmasters in charge of ads have so far taken a rather naive view that doesn't account for regex-based ad blocking - naming directories "ads" and things like that, which are incredibly easy to block.

But that's not how it is on all websites. Comcast runs ads on their website (spoon-feeding ads to paid customers, thank you so much...) by placing ads within the same flash object which is used for site navigation. If you block the ad, you also lose the nav bar. Then there's places like Amazon, which host some ads themselves, and none of their URLs are particularly easy to chew on. And then there's also places like The Register, for which reaching the destination page usually involves watching, and then clicking, a Flash ad.

A basic problem with circumventing ad-blocking for many sites, of course, is the fact that the advertisers rely on having control over the web host in order to count hits from each site. This is where sites like Google will have an advantage: if their advertising URLs are sufficiently cryptic, users will be unable to block Google ads which appear on other sites unless they are willing to part with Google's functionality. This is in stark contrast to the situation with Doubleclick, for instance, which hosts nothing but ads. Another solution is for advertisers to simply aquire a large number of meaningless and dissimilar domain names. The more alternate hostnames they can throw at the user, the harder it'll be for the user to block. (But of course each new name won't be effective for very long...) I'm sure advertisers will come up with other accounting solutions as well.

Ad blocking isn't very sophisticated at this point, and it seems to me that advertisers are likely to have the advantage as soon as they make their anti-blocking technologies more sophisticated and do more to account for the growing segment of adblock users.

Let em rant!

[xmorg]

It is not the web advertiser's right to pummel you with adds. The "tradeoff" of free content for adds will soon become obsolete, with the advent or extreemly cheap web hosting, and download helpers like bittorrent. I know that people want to make a little cash on the side with their websites and thats fine by me. I know alot of websites who put nonintrusive adds on the corners, and on the top of the page. And thats fine. But I can choose not to be annoyed. And your website will be replaced by people who do little or non-annoying advertising.

Blocking ads by default? Not likely

[dcavanaugh]

MS still has commanding market share of the browser market. Their track record indicates they cater to everyone EXCEPT the people who use their products.

• DRM for the entertainment industry? No problem! We practically invented it!
  
• Spyware software installs via IE? Go right ahead!
  
• Pop up windows with disabled context menus & contols? Sure!
  
• Prevent users from doing "unauthorized" activities on their computer? Palladium!
  
• Wanna send some spam? We'll keep the filtering dumbed down so you can get right through!
  
• Spam is not fast enough for you? NET SEND!
  

I'm not sure now much more of their "focus on the customer" I can tolerate, but rest assured that the web advertisers will be well taken care of.

Wow!

[TheBrutalTruth]

What a typical American Business statement: "'a negative vibe against advertising in general'" As if there's something wrong with said vibe!

What gives them the right to brainwash everybody? That right belongs to TV...

As usual, marketing folks have it backward

[inkswamp]

The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default, a DoubleClick executive has warned.

God what a shortsighted dumb-ass thing to say.

If the end of free Internet content ever comes, it will be because online marketing morons (like the idiot quoted above) declared war on Internet users and decided it was apparently okay to seize control of browsers to put a client's logos in our faces nonstop. And when you declare war on your own audience, you lose, especially when the people who write the browsers and software that you rely on to deliver your messages are not on your side.

Back when the Web was newborn, before pop-up ads, I used to click ads on web sites that interested me. I knew that advertising supported this free stuff and I needed to do something to reciprocate. But after all the obnoxious, disrespectful and downright fucked-up stuff devised by marketing idiots for the Web, I've gone 180-degrees the opposite now and do everything in my power to remove ads.

So honestly... the end of free content. Whose fault is it really? Anyone saying it's the fault of users is clueless and only working out of their own self-interest.

The problem with Doubleclick...

[bwcbwc]

and the other advertisers isn't the ads. It's the $#@! tracking cookies.

In general, internet ads aren't really any more intrusive than TV and Radio ads, so there will probably be a large enough audience willing to put up with the ads to support the "free" content model. There are always a few website operators that think they are maximizing their revenue by serving up 14 background popup windows, but these don't tend to last very long. I'm not going to put up with some advertiser tracking every web site I visit, though. Let the content providers do their own audience research (or contract it to a neutral party) and provide the results to the advertisers. At least if they use tracking cookies, they have a positive motivation (risk of losing customers) to anonymize the information they've collected. The current situation is as if AC Neilsen (in the US) was the media broker as well as the audience surveyor for TV and radio audiences.

As a side note, when it's costing me nearly $50/month to connect to the internet, I can't exactly call this "free" content, either.

Dy'a think I might should take a grain of salt?

[mclaincausey]

Here's your anti-advertising vibe. Why shouldn't we have a bad attitude towards a business that tries to convince people to spend money they don't have on things they don't need?

Feh!

[TheHawke]

Taken from my HOSTS file

127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net

*shrugs*
Just water rolling off of a duck's back.

What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, what did you expect him to say? The browser's ability to block ads is a direct threat to advertising and the ad execs don't like it.. too fscking bad. I for one am happy to see this threat to advertising.. it means that the public has taken a serious stand against ads. Maybe now ads will begin to die off and the internet will be a much better place :)

Why I started adblocking

[EdMcMan]

My social contract goes like this:

Contract with content providers:

Don't use my computer resources for ads, and I will tolerate them.

When AIM started using flash ads, I switched to gaim. When flash ads became more prominent on web sites, I used flash blocker and adblock. Now I don't see any ads. Why? The ad companies got greedy. I will deal with annoying banners. NOT annoying flash and java applets.

slow mutha'

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a cheap bastard who runs his 1996 built computer (more like a box with bunny and a carrot inside then a real computer) with a swank 21 Kbps dialup connection. I'd rather not have useless ads i'll never click making my connection even slower.

The targeting part strikes everyone funny

[ianscot]

I have no problem with well-targeted adverts, but blanket adverts just get ignored. Whether the filtering happens in my browser or my brain makes very little difference.

Pretty good example of a very high-level internet truism: enormous corporations DO NOT UNDERSTAND the difference between traditional, broadcast models of [anything you care to mention] and point-to-point models. They pretty much want to program a commercial and have everyone who comes to a site view it, because that's how TV works. How do you fight through the white noise of TV ads to reach the most people? Lowest common denominator: beer ad city.

Their not "getting" a model where I drive the content shows up everywhere. The MPAA and RIAA sorts suing their own potential best customers, you know? Truly self-defeating.

To "target" the ads, though, they need to know something about us, don't they? How old am I? What are my interests? So how much privacy do I give up in order to avoid those pop-up flash annoyances in favor of custom ads? It does kind of cut both ways; we're reluctant to engage the whopping big corporate entities in that P2P way, too. And probably for good reason.

(Google's an easier example, because I've just given them search terms that show what I'm looking for. Not going to be so easy for many other situations, is it?)

No, advertising overstepped the bounds of courtesy

[mclaincausey]

Hey, ads are fine--just don't spawn a separate window for them. Don't install malicious ActiveX controls or other spyware and adware, or run other irritating scripts in your ads. Keep them on the page itself, be civilized, and maybe people will patronize your business. Is this hard? It's just common courtesy. The advertising industry dug its own grave here. Not shedding any tears for em.

Every time you block an ad...

[Mike Buddha]

Every time you block an ad, you make baby Jesus cry.

Please stop blocking ads, for Christ's sake.

adblock.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that www.adblock.org appears to be operated by an opponent of adblock.

adblock advertising

[stephemr]

Yup ... I use adblock it's great for those nasty flash ads. I don't have a problem with the google ads which are non-intrusive. I love the link to adblock.mozdev.org in that article. Surfer: "oh gee what's this? ... cool an ad blocking extension for firefox!"

Re:Oh, snap!

[Anonymous Coward]

>>apt-get install finger

dude... that's giving yourself the finger...


ya dumBa$$

Whose problem is this, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertisers take note, when the public creates technology to not have to see your ads, you're the one at fault, not them.

Anti-spam, adblocks, popup blocks, TiVo... get the hint, guys; we don't want to see your content. ...and having the brass to scold the public for it, that takes real nerve.

Praise progress for perfect examples.

[Chris Burke]

I can't wait either. I surely don't remember any advertising when I was using Google.

Ah, perfect example.

Discussing annoying on-line advertising is a subject as old as the web itself. When we used to have these discussions, we'd talk about costs and such as sites become popular, and how to balance making money with not pissing people off. The argument used to go that, hypothetically, one could make advertisements that were not annoying, and make a profit without pissing people off. The best of both worlds!

Then came Google ads, and proved the hypothesis correct. So, as of right now, I have absolutely zero -- ZERO -- tolerance for companies who think the only way to make money is through obnoxious, intrusive advertising. Because they are demonstrably wrong.

I like progress that way. It's like the arguments we used to have about whether programmers could make money from free software. Well, today lots of programmers make money from free software, as do lots of corporations. So, argument closed. Same with ads. You need pop-ups or free content will go away? Wrong. This is not opinion, it is fact. They are wrong.

Doubleclick needs to die. I can only hope that "Please don't block our ads!" is their swan song.

Re:Praise progress for perfect examples.

[metlin]

Well put.

And it's evolution, technology gets better and people realize that their old, buggy business model does not work.

And DoubliClick just can't come to terms with the fact that their obselete (and annoying business model) doesn't work anymore. So what do they do? Rather than evolve, they fret and fume.

Darwinism at work, baby.

Re:Praise progress for perfect examples.

[British]

Would you believe I made a horrid typo? I meant to say Gopher instead of Google.

Re:Praise progress for perfect examples.

[Chris Burke]

Ah, so you weren't being sarcastic, then? It's so hard to tell. ;) Anyway, I pine for ad-free web as well.

Ads should help, not hurt...

[amichalo]

Ads, and other things like coupons and laws, should help people, not hurt them.

My wife and I have a rule about coupons, we use them if we don't have an opinion about which salad dressing brand we buy, but if she wants a certain brand of mustard, then we get that brand. The coupon is there to save us money when we would otherwise not have an opinion.

In the same way, "helpful" ads like Google AdWords that give you links to buy whatever you are reading about are great. They identify themselves as ads, stay out of the way, and if you need 'em, they don't even require a search to find. Perfect. Helpful.

Flash ads on the other hand that was me to win a Sony PSP I could care less about make me want to scream. They are distracting and irritating, they don't convince me to buy from the advertiser and to the contrary, push me away from them.

So of my least favorite are on CNN.com. They are the square ones right in the middle of an article. ANNOYING! I would gladly allot a portion of my monthly cable bill to CNN.com in exchange for removing these objects of avoidance.

Sadly, since we don't pay for web content (by and large) the only 'vote' we have is not with our wallets, but with our browsers. We leave the sites. Find alternative, ad free or visitor friendly sources for the same content. The offending ad website's hits go down and they loose ad revenue and visitors. (Ironically, they probably start advertising on other websites and add to the mahem!)

I personally like the way /. ads work. They are non-obtrusive, appropriate for the audience, and don't make sounds or, for the most part, flashes and annimations.

Plus the April 1st ones are funny!

Not like the cookies back home

[lullabud]

I think what the grandparent is trying to say is that a cookie is merely a small piece of text

Those sure don't sound like the cookies my Grandma made! Those must be them thar new fangled fancy dancy fortune cookies er somethin'.

Mountains out of molehills

[XStylus]

Newer browsers don't block all advertisements. They block intrusive forms of advertising such as pop-ups. I still see those jiggling impossible-to-focus-your-attention-anywhere-else banner banner ads.

If advertising were passive instead of invasive, people wouldn't mind and wouldn't be going to extremes to get rid of them. Unfortunately, advertisers don't like passive ads because they're easy to ignore (as they should if it's advertising something you could give less than a damn about).

They want ads that grab your attention as if OMFG THIS IS THE HOTTEST THING SINCE SEX AND THE MOMENT YOU SEE THIS YOU'RE GONNA WANNA BUY A BUNCH SO CLICK ME CLICK ME CLICK ME JUST FUCKING CLICK ME, DAMMIT!!!

[click]

Ad: "Welcome to the X10 home automation superstore!"

Me: "Wha...? Why would anybody want this cheesy piece of crap?"

How does Adblock actually work?

[TintinX]

OK - I admit to being ignorant of this despite the fact that I have used Adblock for a long while now.
If I block an ad on, say, /., how does that effect the advertiser's page impression stats?
Where on the client does Adblock actually kick in? Does it register the impression and then simply not display it, or does it physically not register an impression at all?

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Have Blue]

You're paying for the wire leading from your house to the local exchange and a small share of the gateway router at the other end of it. Once you're out onto the net itself, you aren't riding on that $39.95 any more.

Get a Clue.

[Wolfger]

Google AdSense is blockable... But I don't block it. Why? Because it's unobtrusive, and is actually targeted at my interests (or, at least, tries to be by being context sensitive). DoubleClick is the opposite. They have the most obtrusive and annoying ads around, and are generally placed on sites with little to no regard for the audience reading the page. What's killing their business is not adblocking software, but ads that piss off the people they are trying to market to, that make people seek out adblock software.

Re:Get a Clue.

[radja]

I started seeing too many google ads. the sheer volume forces me to protect myself from them. since 2 weeks, adsense is blocked too. as soon as advertising gets annoying, it gets blocked.

not the end, but a profit cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it just means that advertisers will have to have software installed at the web server who servers the content of the free web site so that the adds appear to come from the web site. They could use a proxy feature of the web server.

Their pissed off because that means they'd have to trust the site server the ads to properly report their hits. They don't trust them.

It also means that "free" web sites would have to pay for the bandwidth to serve the ads.

The free internet existed before ads. It will exist after them. The funny thing is that HTML is designed to be interpretted and render to the end-users preferences. This is why we use HTML and not something that describes documents very specifically like PDF for the web. So one might argue that the internet was designed to be filtered (think lynx) and the very act of using HTML is acknowledgement that you are willing to accept this.

I suggest those who don't want "free riders" switch to an embedded format such as PDF for all of their content. Again, advertisement wholesalers won't trust the web sites they make money from...so ad blocking doesn't kill the web, advertising firms kills the web because they lack trust.

I love the way this all works...you get HTML for free, but you have to accept that browsers can display it however they want- and leave out things they don't care to show.

The end of free internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Your free internets are belong to us!

Seriously though, douche-bags like Smith want to use the marketing strategies of traditional mass media on the internet (content subsidized by ads your can't ignore).

It is not ads people don't like. People don't like being annoyed (go figure).

I look at (and support) ads all the time, when they interest ME. Some shows I see have a "marketplace" segment at the end of the show, showing me new products I might be interested in, I read magazines and look at ads that features new products from companies I'm interested in. I read the Micro Center ad.

They (2X click, et al) killed pop-ups and flash ads not because we hate them intrinisicly, but because they came to represent these mass marketing ad campaigns. If pop-ups/flash ads were targeted ads from the start, maybe we wouldn't hate them so much.

The google model works. I think the fact they are making money hand over fist (virtually entirely from ad revenue) proves it. And people who use google to advirtise are making more money through this method than even banner ads. Says a lot.

Go ahead, Web sites...

[ConceptJunkie]

I'm calling your bluff. If you insist on angering me with obnoxious and intrusive ads then I will continue to block them. If you think you need to charge to run your site, then go ahead. If it's worth it, I'll pay for it, if not, well, my loss and yours too.

Put up or shut up and quit whining.

I dare you.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, HATE THAT FROG!

If they could...

[Eskimore_]

If they could, advertisers would have adverts tattooed onto the insides of your eyelids, using glow in the dark ink while radio commercials played in your ear implants day and night...

This, like many other digital issues in the press lately, is about control; specifically, who's got it. It's not about the existance of free content on the Internet. It's about the stock price of an advertising company. Just as in digital media entertainment, smart companies will find a way to profit off of change. Dumb companies will wither and die, unless of course they can lobby for laws that protect their business... but that's another conversation.

If these advertising companies would just take a lesson from Google: people don't mind adverts so much as long as they're unobtrusive. Of course this would require respect for the consumer, something most advertisers don't have.

Filterset.g

[moyix]

Another excellent pre-made filter is Filterset.G . It aims to be quite complete while avoiding false positives. I've been using it for the past couple months, and can't recall the last time I noticed an ad.

Mixed Modes

[DumbSwede]

It occurs to me that one reason that popup advertising and flash advertising is so aggravating to many is the mixed media types it employs.

When you're in the mood for a read, you read. So the ads in magazines and newspapers match the type of sensory input you have chosen which is READING, and don't require any action to un-obscure what you are reading. Popup ads transform the passive act of reading into a forced interactive one.

When you watch a TV show or movie on TV you're in a video watching mode and ads while sometimes obnoxious or overly abundant don't tend t to be a jarring experience because they are presented in the same sensory input experience you have chosen to engage in. Ironically while many TV ads employ printed text also, it is rarely the only content of the ad and tends to be supplementary. If during your 30 minute viewing of a TV show you were subjected to 7 minutes of static, music less, text only ads you would probably have a similar amount of irritation.

For websites and games that are interactive in nature I predict the acceptance of popup type ads should/would be better since you would already be in an interactive mode state of mind. At $50 dollars a pop no one would tolerate active popup style ads in video games, but if Pepsi or Coke sponsored free game content that rivaled paid game content then you can bet game players would tolerate (with little complaint) interactive ads built into the game at between level intermissions. Call me immodest, but I would be surprised if my little post here doesn't start the hamster wheel turning in some marketing type's head (granted this idea has already been implemented to varying degrees already, and is no doubt in some stage of development somewhere for something by somebody).

My advise to advertisers who don't want to be hated, if not to be considered downright EVIL, don't mix modes when presenting ads. People have expectations for the types of experiences they engage in and don't want to be forced into another one involuntarily.

Free internet was first

[HermanAB]

the annoying marketers came after. The free internet doesn't need the annoying marketers.

Web Ads

[kilodelta]

Rule for on-line advertisements that should be implement immediately:

1 No blink tags, ever.

2 No purple/green backgrounds, fonts or images unless they occur in nature.

3 No bouncy ads, ads that pop in the middle of what you're reading or try to pop up windows.

4 No ads embedded in the web page so I can't block the really annoying ones.

5 Keep the ads at the top, bottom, right or left gutters. Ads in the middle of text shall be considered an offense punishable by death.



If advertisers would just follow these simple rules the market for ad-blockers would evaporate overnight.

Re:Web Ads

[Busy]

Which fonts are the ones that occur in nature?

Re:Web Ads

[kilodelta]

None occur in nature. But some are more pleasing than others.
>
You must be an advertiser.

Re:Web Ads

[Busy]

Nope, not an advertiser. Just amused by the idea of naturally occuring typefaces.
>
If you look to the left you'll see a flock of Times New Roman. Though indigenous, they are often considered an unsightly nuisance.
To the right you will see a Comic Sans MS, which are less common, although sometimes domesticated and cared for as pets.

Re:Web Ads

[kilodelta]

How interesting that I thought of the very same fonts.

Ever hear of the Bell Curve?

Re:Web Ads

[Busy]

Yes.

Re:Advertisers: Don't remove control from the user

[lightspawn]

Now this is a flash ad right, so you should be able to right click on it and stop it from playing, and stop the flash from looping. Nope. The creator of the flash disabled all controls.

Why do you have a plugin installed that lets you have such little control?

Uninstall it, call the plugin vendor and explain why you will not use their product until the necessary features are implemented; convince as many others as possible to do the same.

Reach exceeded grasp

[sjames]

Part of the problem for advertisers here is the same as I have posted before. When web ads consisted of a simple banner or two, most people didn't particularly mind. They treated them much like magazine or newspaper ads (that is, mostly ignored them.

Personally, when that's the extent of the ads, I just ignore them in place. However, if they try to pop up, over, under, through, whatever, they're toast. If they insist on jumping around like a chihuahua on speed, I block the entire ad server. Same for those that look like a Happy Llama production with horrific (and headache inducing) flashing red and yellow background.

Doubleclick, in particular, with their 'pioneering' efforts at tagging users like animals and tracking them earned a special place in my hosts file (127.0.0.1) well before there was adblock.

Advertisers need to realize that they are like the friend of the host's friend at a party. If they behave, they may stay, but if they insist on cleaning out the fridge, ruining the coffee table and peeing in the sink, they won't be welcomed again.

Re:Reach exceeded grasp

[krischik]

You are absolutly right - and yes Doubleclick was the first to be in my proxys block list.

Keep it under wraps?

[Cyclonus]

Man, what is with people? The smart thing would have been to keep it under wraps and not mention it, since not *EVERYBODY* knows about AdBlock, but they're just giving more publicity to this wonderful tool.

woops

[rayde]

well, i didn't really know about the adblocking extension for firefox until reading this. now i will definitely use it. i don't think that's what they had in mind by complaining, but it brought more attention to the capability.

Microsoft warns against open source software

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft (NASDAY:MSFT) warned today in a written statement about the dangers of not paying for software. "It ruins the fabric of business how we are used to it" according to Bill Gates, for this time supported by Steve Jobs, who is accidentilly designing cute Winle boxes.

Oh, what the heck, just do what you want on that internet. We now have full size non popup adds which you have to click through, no popup stopper can do something about that one. It is just waiting for the next add type which you can't skip, or one which says you need to upgrade to IE else you can not use this add!

A good regex should.

[Eunuch]

Sure it's out there. Just look.

A small question for those who support adblocking

[krelian]

As I presume that you are aware that someone has to pay for all the content that is being consumed, what other business model would you offer ?

"Using nice ads" is not an answer. When everyone will have learned that they can block all ads, that is the end. No one will remove ad blocking just to check if the ads got nicer.
all the excuses that I hear are the sort of "They started it !" Which as truth as it may be , won't solve the problem. With no ads there will be no content. Which brings me back to the question above. Does anyone have a solution ?

breaking the habit

[Anonymous Coward]

I've developed a habit. And it's going to free sites and the advertising there is busting my mind. I never click on the ads but they linger in my vision. If say slashdot became a pay service I would probably go insane but I'm already insane because of these ads. It would be painful at first but then I'd come off this high and change my patterns. I faintly remember the internet before ads and it was nice. It can be nice again I say, I'm willing to risk insanity to a better online experience than this. thanks for listening.

End of free internet?

[nurb432]

When was it ever free? Its always costed to be online. ( even in the darpa days.. it was being paid for by tax dollars )

What they mean is then end of content that doesnt require additional cost.

Thats fine with me. Besides, forcing me to watch an ad makes the content 'not free'. My time is worth something. Time they are wasting.

What's wrong with cookies?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of funny that on one side people are complaining about irrelevant ads on their screen, but don't mind the ones that are relevant, on the other - the same people complain of advertisers tracking their interests. So how exactly do you expect an advertiser to show you something you might likely be interested in without knowing what is it you really are interested in? Cookies is one way to deal with it. I for one has long disabled most of ad-blocking software I had installed earlier, and there are very few things left that I'm still blocking: pop-up ads and window resizing, because both annoy me a lot - most of browsers remember the window size that was closed last and next time would start with exactly the same size, which I hate. But anyway, I understand two things: 1) My habit of keeping cookies serves me well - lately I started noticing that I actually do see ads about something I might really be interested in 2) I certainly will never block ads on pages which serve me with some otherwise free useful stuff - I don't like using people's work for my own benefit without giving anything in return, so that's my way of saying 'Thank you' to them. Blocking cookies, thinking it is an invasion of privacy, is a paranoia, which has absolutely no reasonable explanation.

Re:What's wrong with cookies?

[Chris Burke]

So how exactly do you expect an advertiser to show you something you might likely be interested in without knowing what is it you really are interested in?

Oh gee, I don't know. Maybe putting up ads that are related to the web page I'm currently looking at or related to the search I'm currently browsing results for? There is absolutely no need to track what I've done or where I've been; there's no reason that information will necessarily provide relevent information anyway. Just because six months ago I browsed around for fishing rods a lot doesn't mean I give a damn about fishing rods now.

Google doesn't need cookies to show me relevent ads -- they base it off my current search. Penny Arcade doesn't need cookies to show me relevent ads -- they base it off the fact that they are targeted at gamers, so they carry game-related ads. Linuxgames on the other hand has some generic ad server that puts up random crap like ads for WCW. Maybe those ads would be more useful if I let them track my behavior with cookies. Why should I do that though when there is no reason to? I'm browsing Linuxgames.com -- what could I possibly be interested in?

Sorry. Cookies are an invasion of privacy, especially when they are used to track me across sites. I let them for specific cases, but see no reason to allow them in general, especially not so that marketers can then sell that information. And most of all because they don't need to.

Quick Way to Avoid Ads

[ka9cql]

If you don't want to buy and install software, just add the ad-producing servers to your "/etc/hosts" file with an IP address of 127.0.0.1. (On Windows this file is somewhere like c:/windows/system32/drivers/etc/hosts).

There's nothing that the advertisers can do about your local machine resolving their ad-servers to "localhost". This works on Linux, works on Unix, and most definitely works on Windows.

On some *nix systems you might have to change the resolve.conf setting to prefer files to DNS (and/or NIS/NIS+) but it still works great!

I have a big list of the most offensive advertisers in my hosts file, and even wrote a small Java application to serve up "Ad Removed" messages from my local port 80. What a dream it is to surf the web again without these ads!

Another note - turn Flash off! It's almost exclusively used for advertising, now. If there's any reason to use it (can't think of any...), you can always reenable it later!

Someone make AdMock to pretend to watch this shit.

[chrae]

Is there such an extention that will pretend to go through the motions of visiting a "sponsored link" to generate $$ for websites on a user's whitelist such that the advertising tracking mechanism thinks a unique visit has been generated?

That way we could provide support for websites we like while still visually blocking unwanted ads. This will of course ruin their technical business model and they'll have to adapt and thus creating a technical arms race.

In every way they adapt, this software would be updated. This would obsolete their advertising techniques in regular intervals and cause them a lot of grief. Advertisers are willing fight dirty and have bad karma so they get (-1, business model is fucked)

Doubleclick vs Clever Ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubleclick is my first entry in Adblock.

The stupid ads they feature and obnoxious tactics have brought it upon themselves.

There are clever ads that people enjoy watching; many here are too young to remember, but the VW bug ads were great to read/watch (pre-net); their current ads are fine as are any Porsche (not Cadillac pls!), Apple, and some other ads (mud-wrestling girls?).

Doubleclick targets folks with IQs two standard deviations below the mean.

I don't car about websites that have advertising..

[Buddha Joe]

But I do care when it is obtrusive and gets in the way i.e. Pop-up ads.. Put what ever ads you want on your page but stop forcing windows to pop-up (or under) on my screen.. it's just rude.. It amazes me that they haven't figured that out yet.

Re:AdBlock will be GOOD for the advertising indust

[justins]

Yeah, a lot of AdBlock users aggressively block all ads, period. But a good many of us don't.

Why not? I'm really asking.

Newspaper Technology

[cbbyers]

A similar tool would be accepted for newspapers -- as soon as they develop ink that blinks and chases your eyeballs around the newspaper.

Most ads on most websites are so shlock that it's like reading a book in room filled with monkeys that are randomly blinking flashlights in your eyes.

It's sad when a website can blink, scroll & flash more things than a rack full of core switches.

Pay sites

[StupidKatz]

are you just going to say "screw it" and charge for the use of your site?

... and watch what visitor base you have shrivel up overnight? If folks of my demographic are in that visitor base, we'll be packing up and moving elsewhere. There was free content before ads, and there will be after ads are gone.

Re:I don't car about websites that have advertisin

[Buddha Joe]

I almost forgot to mention this.. A good example of an unobtrusive way to do the advertising is how salon.com and a couple of other sites I have visited do it.. in order to view the premium content you either have to have a subscription or view a short ad.. They don't just force pop-ups and pop-unders on you..

Re:A small question for those who support adblocki

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't bother to block Google's ads because they don't annoy me. If that is what you mean by "nice" ads then it is a good place to start. Under no circumstances will I tolerate malware installs, pop-ups, pop-unders, floating layers that weave and bob about the screen, or anything that flashes and blinks like the Vegas Strip.

I don't block ads that aren't assaulting my machine or my senses. Anything that does these things puts me on the warpath. I will happily tolerate "no free content" to avoid these severe irritants.

Maybe "nice" ads are a good start at least.

more like...

[mliikset]

..."The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements by default...". Only if they are trying to earn a buck. There ARE people who put up informative, interesting, engaging websites without trying to get paid for it. Stop and think about it, you are exposed to more advertising on the internet than TV or radio, or most sections of a metropolitan news daily.

Keep crying loosers !

[Anonymous Coward]

The analogy between the newspaper ads and website ads is not accurate at all. There is no intrusion of privacy and tracking cookies involved with newspaper ads. It is okay with me if the ads on the websites are passive pictures or texts. But tracking people, saving cookies are not okay.

Also, when I read a newspaper, I can skip to any section I would like to read without jumping over obstacles, i.e. popups etc. Internet advertisement definitely went too far.

Becoming unprofitable due to loss of advertisement is not true. See how Google is profitable based on advertisement completely. I use hosts file to block the annoying websites putting ads on my screen but all of the Google ads are still visible.

Free Internet ...

[file-exists-p]

What is delightful in this article and in many of the comments here is that "free Internet" equals "free commercial Internet". May I remind you people that even if all commercial sites disappear tomorrow, there will still be valuable content out there ?

--
Go Debian!

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you stop paying does the wire go away? No, it's the service on that wire that you're paying for.

And another thing...

[mliikset]

... how much of your downstream bandwidth is used by advertisers? It might be a good thing to see the people who were trying to weasel money by means of free website features, some toy companies especially, judging by the websites my four year old grandson frequents. If someone provides a service or product that I want, I'll look for them. blitzing you with solutions to problems you didn't know existed, at your expense, ought to be optional.

On the other hand

[Anonymous Coward]

An end to ad blocking would likely lead to the end of free content on the Internet.

I already pay a monthly fee to access the 'net. If I have to pay a bit more to ensure the whole thing doesn't become a big steamy pile of horse-apples, so be it.

Profit!

[edsonmedina]

How come I never though of that?

1. Build huge site with no business model
2. Attract all kinds of people
3. Fill it with banners everywhere
4. Profit!!!!

No, wait...

Cookies DON'T slow down a computer??

[Khyber]

What about those cookies that auto-load everytime you start your browser and immediately reference your browser to their site? (IE, nor Mozilla, nor ANY OTHER *COMPETENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE* browser is impervious to this if it's fucking allowed, just like the Flash and Javascript sandboxes can have read/write acces to your own fucking harddrive, if so competently programmed.)

I've had ONE cookie from a pr0n site (How many /.'ers dont' visit pr0n sites? That's what I thought, at least 85% of you do.) set to immediately open my browser to another page that forces more crap onto your computer upon loadup. (I keep saying Mozilla is not perfect and has it's own flaws, three of which I've exploited, reported, and had ignored, and guess what? I'm still fucking people opver since they're ignoring it, at the rate of 50+ people per day.)

Cookies, as you so blindly put it, "HELP TO KEEP TRACK OF STATE ACROSS PAGES" which means I could program a cookie to open a nwe site once you re-login to my site where the cookie originated from. Do you fail to understand the versatility of a wide-open and commonly-exploited web programming language? Even PHP could be written to fuck your computer over. It just takes a matter of time before someone with the brains and insight to figure it out and exploit it.

And no blocking plug-in is 100% accurate or reliable. Your'e going to come across some site... or maybe bittorrent file, or some other extension your browsers does/does-not require you to have, and you're going to end up with crap on your ssytem. Firewall? Gotta know about it and program it to block that stuff first off. And I can guarantee you don't know 100% of the net. You're still at risk, regardless.

Mod me troll, if you want to. I'm speaking from personal, tested, and IT Magazine documented experience. Take it how you will.

Re:Cookies DON'T slow down a computer??

[Anonymous Coward]

How about mod you as id10t?

You license to drive the information superhighway has been officially revoked. Please return your computer to wherever you got it.

Cookies can not force your bownser to reference another site. Cookies are small text files that webservers can request. The cookie can not be do anything one its own. Cookies cannot do what you have stated.

You can however program web page to send you and identifying cookie. The server can send a http-redirect command to your browser.

Want a hint? Set your home page to something other than p0rn

Re:Cookies DON'T slow down a computer??

[toddestan]

I've had ONE cookie from a pr0n site (How many /.'ers dont' visit pr0n sites? That's what I thought, at least 85% of you do.) set to immediately open my browser to another page that forces more crap onto your computer upon loadup.

That's not a cookie. That's some kind of malware on your computer. Try running Spybot, Adaware, MS Anti-spyware, or simular to try to get rid of it.

Re:Cookies DON'T slow down a computer??

[Khyber]

As you just stated.. cookies are simple text files webservers, and the pages they host request. Within tht information, can be set a time bomb. I've done this exploit, it's somewhat documented, and so far it's not ben disproven, within any reasonable doubt. If it can be accessed, it can be a problem.

You can program a webpage to set a certain cookie, look for that cookie and throw in something else as well since it's REFERENCED in the cookie file. How nobody sees this simple sort of exploit is beyond me. It's so simple, and you just ignore it. Why do you think some anti-spyware programs still track cookies, hrm? Because bad info can be held in them, but more often than not, they're negligible.

One last aside. My homepage happens to be /. as it bothers to post the more useful stuff, albeit a bit late, mostly it can filter BS from real stuff we need to know.

And why I'm modded down when I stated before that my main purpose was to provoke rational discussion.

Ooops, I said a bad word....

Re:Cookies DON'T slow down a computer??

[michaelhood]

Did you hear that? The sound of IT Magazine's circulation plummeting.

You're crying about 8%?

[TylerDurden0]

Statistics show that Firefox users only account for 8-10% of all users. That stat may never reach 35% because of all the idiots out there that just use what comes with their new computer. Of those 8%, how many are using AdBlock? Blake Ross said in an interview he does not use even one extension because he wants a browser that is not filled with bloat-ware. I'd say 20% of FF users feel the same way. You're crying about 40 (potential, may be less) million users, compared to the 100s of millions out there browsing sites with your butt-puckering adware. Ha, ha, didn't see this coming but... THAT'S NOTHING!!

But DoubleClick isn't allowed to complain...

[Baloo Ursidae]

...for peeing in the pool, then getting annoyed when proxy managers whip out the chlorine. Just another reason to use your local caching proxy...

i will always order using the internet

[bariswheel]

there will never be an end to free internet content, NEVER. The internet will always be easier than driving and seeing a product. doubleclick will go down not because people will block ads, it will get destroyed because doubleclick will not evolve to a better advertising model, context specific advertising, which people do use and will continue to use. what people hate (and rightly so) are ads popping up that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the individual. This type of advertising will die out,much thanks to consumer demand. THANK GOD.

Re:I don't car about websites that have advertisin

[TylerDurden0]

They've figured out that there are idiots out there that click on it anyway because they think that's the only way to get rid of them. However annoying, it still get attention and summarily gets clicked. Just because a site does not have tons of annoying ads and pops, does not mean it is leaving you alone. Have a look at the source code on sites like Sportsline.com. There is stuff in there calling back to the site to install unwanted software on your PC. That crap is not just for pr0n sites.

It was better BEFORE advertising

[Easy2RememberNick]

I remember 1995 and how nice it was, it was around then that advertsing started (or least when I noticed it). Spam picked up quite a bit then too.

The Internet was much more interesting then too, lots of people with actual content and something interesting. Try searching for something now and you get a thousands pages with the subject but they yammer on about nothing, they just want your attention. The worst won't let you leave their webpage by clicking the back button!

Ahh the good old days.

DoubleClick's privacy chief?

[shadowspar]

> Bennie Smith, the online advertising network's privacy chief, ...

What? This guy's the Chief Privacy Officer for Doubleclick?
Isn't that a lot like being the Chief Legal Compliance Officer for the Mafia?

Embarassing

[theendlessnow]

Sounds like they're asking me to do my happy-dance in front of everyone here right now. Embarassing.

I truly believe that 90-99% of those companies relying on double click, etc. are sites I DON'T want to visit.

With that said, there is no such thing as "free internet content"... double click or no double click.

Accept ads but don't display them

[iliketrash]

It seems to me that perhaps the best approach to take against ads is to have the browser accept them but then not display them. I think that this is possible, and the sender of the ad has no way of knowing that the ad was never seen.

I _think_ that this is what OmniWeb (the top-of-the-line browser on Mac OS X) does. Also, OmniWeb has extensive, customizable settings to specifically reject certain (classes of) ads and to specifically accept certain (classes of) others. Granted, it is not for the dim of mind, as it requires a bit of grep to be effective, but it does work very well with a bit of tweaking.

Re:Accept ads but don't display them

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that perhaps the best approach to take against ads is to have the browser accept them but then not display them.

Isn't that worse overall? Not only are you not seeing them, but the company advertising is probably paying for the page impression. Wouldn't a stealthy approach of never loading them be kinder if you're gonna block them anyway?

only double click style ads get blocked so boo hoo

[timmarhy]

you don't see google crying about ads being blocked do you. thats because it's ads are often useful, and the only ones i've EVER clicked on. they also do not popup over, attempt to track me all over the web OR flash or try to mislead people into click on them. firefox's popup blockers only means the END of fuck wits like double click.

define content

[slutsatchel]

"The end of free Internet content will come when Web browsers start blocking online advertisements" Wrong. Maybe the end of free corporate-controlled content, but I for one believe human beings will continue to share information with each other. Jam Corporate Culture http://adbusters.org/home/

Simpsons did it...

[AdamWeeden]

Does this remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode where Homer was watching PBS and they demanded he make a donation before letting him watch his show?

Talk about drinking the KoolAid!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

This gets clipped and added to my quotes file:

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.
"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

Doubleclick isn't to bright.

[AckutarQuesinta]

I find it ironic that the company is called "double" click when the internet is comprised of "single" clicks. Whenever I see someone doubleclick a link on the internet, I admit, I judge them and assume they aren't very good with computers.

Re:A small question for those who support adblocki

[Omnieiunium]

To answer your question (which has been answered a billion times in this thread if you were REALLY bored and read through it all, like I did) Google Ads seems to be most people on /. enjoy. I mean they are simple and text-based and don't bother your web browsing at all. As well, most people don't seem to block images that blend into the site and aren't incredibly annoying and don't force you to click them.

Blocking could be stopped

[Excelsior]

I don't think this is rocket science. Blocking today is dirt simple because they host ads from an ad-specific server that is easy to block. If they started offering APIs for web servers to access and proxy the ad content, so that it was coming from the same host as the website, it would be much harder to block. If the path of the resource was random it would be next to impossible to block.

I love adblock, but I think it can and will be defeated. If DoubleClick doesn't figure out how, they may go out of business. But someone else will step in their place with a scheme for serving ads in a way that cannot be blocked.

And we should just give Hitler the sudetenland too

[Sgt Spleen]

I think you've got it backwards. Ad-blockers are not the cause of aggressive ads but rather the result of them. If ads would have stayed the way they were when the web was young, I doubt that ad-blockers would be as (relatively) widely used as they are today. Banner ads never bothered me personally until they started demanding attention. The problem is that advertisers are GREEDY and they kept pushing the limits trying to get more and more attention drawn to their ads. Tolerating annoying ads just tells marketers that we will put up with their crap and they will proceed to the next level of intrusive behavior.

Advertisers don't have a god-given right to make me look at their ads. The more they try to trick or force people into looking at their ads, the more people will hate ads in general and try to avoid them. Advertisers should be trying to woo and seduce me. Instead it feels like most of them are trying to trick me into walking into a dark alley where they can gang-rape me.

If the situation does arrive at a state where free content starts disappearing from the web because of lost advertising, it won't be caused by browser configurations but because the nature of the ads on the net has turned people against advertisers.

Google has ads?

[jkuzeja]

Gee, I never noticed that Google has ads. I guess that's good for me - maybe not so great for Google - and I can't imagine the advertisers enjoy it.

Opt-in advertising.

[Anonymous Coward]

if this retard really thinks people *want* advertising then perhaps we should have opt-in advertising for the idiots who really do want it. I mean.. if there's people out there who actually like spam mail (and yes they exist - sigh) then there should be enough mentally deficient who 'surf the internet superhighway' who want to see advertising to support any site... and leave us normal people to browse in peace.

bring it on punk!

[Anonymous Coward]

bring it on punk!

don't like me using adblock?

opinion noted. thanks for your feedback.

Ad-blocking wil bring the Internet back to...

[Cross-Threaded]

exactly what I want! A place to gather, and post, useful (sometimes fun) information.

At my first exposure to the Internet, it was nearly perfect. Consisting of little more than a collection of websites that people found interesting, informative, and/or fun. It was based on people/institutions wanting to share knowledge and experience, not entities looking to extract my cash, or make a quick buck.

Those sites that did have something to sell, actually had product that would sell based on its merit, not because it was hosted on a "cool" site with free games, discounts, etc. Why do I care if whatever goofy-dumb-site, paid for by dubbaklik.dumb, goes away? I sincerely doubt that the Internet(world) will be a worse place for it.

If I am searching for a product, or service, I want to let the search engine find it. When/if I find what I am looking for, I then make my purchase. If I don't find it, then maybe I don't really need it. (Hint here: products.google.com, services.google.com???)

I don't want to look at advertising, no matter how it manifests itself (e.g. Pop-Ups, Banners, etc.), even if it is something I might want. I make it a point to NOT purchase a product or service, if they try to advertise like this. If dubbakilk.dumb can't make their business model work because of my choice not to view ads like theirs, then they need to change their business model, right?

This guy is simply whining because his gravy train is going away, and he might actually have to innovate and add real value for the consumer, to make his business model work.

I feel that if a product, or service, is worth purchasing, the site of the seller will be able to make the sale, without getting in my face.

Don't threaten me with crap websites going away, because you'll find that's exactly what I want!

Funny

[elliam]

Funny thing is, the site in my sig is one of mine for the jewellery I make, but it's got banner ads in it and I just upped it from one at the bottom to one at bottom and one in the top right corner. Haha. At least they don't flash and squeal - I choose which banners I put in the rotation.

the vibe

[Tom]

'a negative vibe against advertising in general'.

Yeah, I really wonder where that may come from...

The end of free content? Hardly. I've been putting free content on the web for years, and it's not a homepage about me and my dog, and there's never been any paid ads on it.
The end of advertisement, on the other hand... well, sign me up for two, please.

Interesting? Informative? NOT

[Skippy_kangaroo]

The parent has it all ass backwards. Key attributes of public goods are that they are neither excludable nor rival. A public good that is excludable and rival is not a public good - it's a private good.

Furthermore, 'the Internet' is excludable - what do you think password protected sites are? The WSJ is clearly excludable.

The only thing in that post that is almost correct is that the Internet is not rivalrous in consumption. The fact that I am reading something does not prevent someone else from reading it (unless the Slashdot effect is operating when it is precisely because others are consuming the content that I can't... maybe I should say that the Internet is also rival in consumption but in a way that is normally irrelevant. And technically this applies to bandwidth rather than 'the Internet'.)

But didn't you say . . . ?

[Dissectional]

They say blocking advertising is going to destroy the Internet and its going to cost us lots of money to use it and our newspapers are going to be $5 as a result of implementing adblock in conjunction with Firefox.

Isn't this the same croud of people that see no threat to the browser market with Firefox by citing that IE is still the dominate browser?

I quite enjoyed this article. It gave me some hope that the narrowminded view of the Internet being geared around commercial interest only is being woken up to the fact that not everyone is chuffed with it becoming swamped and destroyed with advertising.

Screw Doubleclick

[Urusai]

*I* choose what I view. If I want to download raw HTML and parse it mad-libs style, then I will.

I remember when cable TV was largely ad-free. The relevance here is that not only will the future WWW not be free, it will STILL have obnoxious ads, and what's more you will be required to use IE with mandatory ad viewing (a la DVD players) to view your paid-for content.

BITE ME, CAPITALIST PIGDOGS

Want to stay in business?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

• Don't annoy people with popups
• Don't annoy people with noisy flash ads
• Don't annoy people with Ad's that pretend to be games, Bonzo Buddy, and what not
• Basically don't be a dick, and people won't be inclined to swat your ads.

Most delusional comment ever!

[Alsee]

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.
You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

Yeah, I'd feel *so* ripped off is the ads were missing from my newspaper.
::rolls eyes::

The scariest thing is that spammers and marketers and the like actually believe this sort of crap.

-

printable versions rock

[Foktip]

Its filled with juicy fat ads, for me to add to my massive ad-block database. Animated this, annoying that, etc. THose obtrusive advertisements make it impossible for me to read an article, and remember the content properly!

One thing i find kinda funny, is, if you just go to "printable version", you get a nice page with no ads, thats proper width. Its actually readable! Printable version is a godsend.

Some points for the pea brains

[NoMoreBS]

Seeing as advertising people are notoriously the most stupid people in the world, here are some facts that are plain for everyone else to see:
- if an ad is promoting something you don't want to buy, you won't buy it, no matter how annoying you make the ad
- if you are possibly interested in buying something, you enthusiasm won't be increased by feckin' annoying ads
- if you are definitely interested in buying something, you will notice an ad for that product, without need that ad to scream or flash or pop up at you.

Here's a thought.. instead of pumping crap through every sense possible with ads, why don't companies provide more useful information to convince us as to why we should buy their products. Blue frog ads may appeal to teenagers, but adult consumers prefer to make informed decisions when purchasing. If I thought I could get something useful information out of it, I'd be clicking on a lot more ads.

You know you like popups and flashy things

[dilvish_the_damned]

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

Does he really think people go to websites to see the latest doubleclick ads?
What he needs is a good inferiority complex to counter balance whatever this is.

vi /etc/hosts

[pair-a-noyd]

127.0.0.1 doubleclick.com

Fuck you doubledicks........

Mickey-Dees

[patio11]

Is this ad campaign a recent phenomenon? I've been out of the country for two years now and remember calling Mickey-Ds Mickey-Ds since childhood...

Dear Doubleclick

[XB-70]

Dear Doubleclick: Kindly fuck off, eat shit and die. Sincerely, XB-70

Re:Indeed, this is the free market at work. VEG...

[Anonymous Coward]

ETABLES -what Food eats!

Net Adverts lost it with the really ignorant stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

a) net advertising to most people means spam for idiotic things like penis enlargement
b) it means Nigerians perpetrating financial scammery
c) it means some new bit of chicanery called spyware

So to the average person it's apparent criminals and sexual perverts run the net.

Negative vibe, how stupid is this man?

Late to the party, but...

[PapagenoX]

I can understand that there probably have to be some ads on webpages to help pay for bandwidth, etc.. I don't mind banner ads at the top and maybe a discreet ad or two in the margins, but what I cannot abide are the ones that flash, the ones that appear while you're on your way to a link you just clicked on, and even worse, the popups and anything that insists on blocking my view of what I'm trying to read or look at. That shit is just obnoxious, and it needs to go. I very much doubt that free internet content will go away as a result.

Our..

[Acid-Duck]

Our computer, our internet account we pay for: If we don't want ads, we won't get them, enough said. Just like the Tivo subscribers who bought the box with a lifetime subscription instead of paying monthly... They shouldn't be forced ads thru their set-top box.

Erik

Double-click poisons the well

[tgibbs]

Double click and their ilk have poisoned the well, and now are complaining because nobody wants to drink the water. The fact is that most people don't mind static well-behaved ads enough to bother to seek out ad-blocking software. What has driven the development of ad-blocking technology is obtrusive ads that pop-up, pop-under, or use flashing or obtrusive animation.

Mandatory advertising? That ship sailed, mate.

[uncle_fausty]

Ah, Bennie - what part of that man's interview doesn't conjure the image of a 1920's huckster, cigar firmly chomped, replete with bulging pinstripes? He's stuck on the idea of push media, on the idea that the audience can't modify the material they're consuming. Computers, for the first time, offer a medium on the web and elsewhere that is malleable; I can choose what level of Slashdot thread to read, filter my news by my own preference, organize and reshape that content any way I want before I actually read it - and that's the strength of the web. Things didn't go the old media way on this one, and that's got Bennie upset, because he still lives in a world where media means newspapers, and newspapers mean ads that everyone reads, dammit. Content providers will figure out other ways to leverage money out of the web; the web is the first medium that allows the consumer to provide direct feedback on how they want to see that happen.

Thanks

[timtimtim2000]

Isn't posting a story about how free internet content will be ruined by Mozilla's Adblock feature only going to give it more users. If you were really concerned about a cause you definately wouldn't have notified millions of nerds of a new way to get out of advertising. By hey, Thanks! Adblock works great! I dont see anymore adds.

Hmmmm

[dcam]

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

I'd think: fantastic I have got more value than I expected, I get to read the paper without advertisments.

It takes a special kind of person to believe what he is saying.

Your PC may be infected!

[TheBillGates]

I don't think so, I'm on a Mac. If the advertisers weren't so darned persistant on putting out ads whose visual frequency caused health problems (my heart races at the fast refreshes) I would put up with them. Until then, screw you, you created your own problem. I'll continue to use ad blocker.

Yeah? How about this?

[Greyfox]

I will never buy a product advertised through doubleclick. If I'm inclined to purchase the product, I will go out of my way to find a competitor of theirs who doesn't advertise through doubleclick. And I will write both companies and inform them that it was soley advertising through doubleclick and no other merit technical or otherwise which influenced my buying decision.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Bennie.

Oh And...

[Greyfox]

I will (And in fact have, several times) buy items from companies who advertise on Google. Just in case there was any question...

Re:Oh And...

[boy_afraid]

Here Here! I can't work or live without Google. It is an ingrained in today's society as the internet itself. When the network is down at work I stop working since I can't access Google's infinite knowledge repository.

Thanks for the info.

[Randseed]

Thanks, Doubleclick. Your stupid, dumbass assertion just gave me the final push I needed to set up Privoxy.

Bite me.

What a pile of BS!

[irieken]

Ad blockers don't block ads that are privately hosted on the server, they just block syndicated ads.

Advertisters, Innovation, pls

[hermank]

Like most others here, I use ad block.

I wounder if there is a device with similar function for TV, will I use it? Hmm... That's depends.

While most of the TV commericals annoying, some of them have high quality. Remember once a TV commericals stating Paris Hilton jammed the hosting site?

And what would you think if there is punching monkey commericals showing on TV for 30 seconds? TV set sales surges as people keep smashing TV once the ad popped out.

Advertisters, Innovation, pls

A modest proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla/Firefox needs an extension that doesn't use ad blocking but instead renders ads into a null display that has a industry standard "click-through" rate.

I have a broadband connection. I don't mind if the data comes down, just as long as I don't have to look at it.

Also, this idea could be extended to the corporate section by developing a centralized network display on every desktop that delivers pop-ups to a help desk console. Spy/Ad ware breakouts within an organization could be graphically monitored and offending computers/users could be recaliberated as the outbreak happens... hey, is that specific enough for a software patent?

The Truth is Out There

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, well, it seems that Firefox *IS* gaining market share.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that maybe it has more market share that people are realizing; consider this: what percentage of firefox installs actually have an ad blocking extentsion? Whatever the number, it's less that 100%. ...and the shill hounds are begining to take note!

Google ads

[falconwolf]

Well it will also lead to innovations in new types of ads. I personally don't block google ads because not only are they lightweight and unobtrusive, but many times I find relivent information. Innovations need to come from comprimises, not from force like charging to view a web page.

Evem though I block ads in two ways, with the ad blocker in Mozilla and with a Host file, like you I don't intensionally block Google ads. To me they aren't that bad with their small sizes, thier placement in out of the way places, and they don't pop up. I even occasionally click on a Google ad though I normally won't look at resulting page, instead just let it open in the background before closing it. They are the only ones I will click on intensionally.

Falcon

Re:Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

End of free content be it.
Has someone seen the latest defination of FREEDOM? Why should advertisers tell web surfers what to do with their computers in their homes/offices. Whatever happened to PRIVACY.
This happens to be MY home, its MY computer, I PAID for this modem to blink. Its MY life. If DOUBLECLICK and others cant survive without throwing bits in my face, so what?.
Little pesty assoles!!!!

Exactly

[Jaazaniah]

A physical world example of this would be if a privately developed highway paid an advertiser to make the roadway ads more active. So they stick the damn things on helicopters and fly low and follow traffic a few miles before circling again. Then the developer would complain cause they all switched to taking the back roads and advertising companies pulled their money. If I see a stationary ad for a DQ and I want one, I'll bite, but don't stick yourself persistently in my face or you've just lost a customer. You'd think Advertising would take a tip or two from Sales; pushing too hard pushes them away.

Advertising will eat itself

[Baldric1600]

Everyone knows the advertising industry invented the web, no wonder they're annoyed control is being taken away from them ;) lol What ever happened to those 'advertising, the right to choose' ads I saw on cnn years ago?

Re:Negative vibe, huh? Flash ads make my balls hur

[spauldo]

Methinks you pay too much attention to the second friend on sexy losers.

Oh, and don't go there if you're somewhere that a really freakin' weird (but funny) comic about sex would be inappropriate.

Net Is NOT Free

[CarnivorousCoder]

What? There's a "free" Internet? Then why the hell am I paying $40/month US to Comcast?!!!

I wouldn't mind advertisement...

[KlausBreuer]

...if it wasn't so:

a) completely moronic (aimed at the lowest common denominator, and man, that's low)

b) disturbing and in-your-face. It's okay to see an advert as an aside (see Google Ads, for eyample), but I do not wish to be interrupted in my train of though by some garbage jumping at me.
Pop-ups, Pop-unders, yowling flash, flickering GIFs...

Soooo... it's your job to irritate me? Fine, it's AdAwares' job to disconnect you from me.
Thanks, AdAware!

Ads... actually usefull?

[Yjam]

Viewing the ad, or not viewing the ad.. that's the question!

If you think about the average internet user, well, he is the one who's gonna see the ads and click on then. Of course he's those ads main target! And maybe will he even buy something! Bingo...

This just to say that I 100% agree; if browsers integrate ad blocking policies, i'll sooner or later mean the end of annoying ads on the internet.

Annoying ads are the ones who pop and blink and make nasty sound and try to attract you via fake windows, ... I personally choosed to block those. Be cause anyway I would never ever click on it. SO they are just bandwidth consuming-mind innervating things.

Immagine you've been driving in the country side... nice trees, little rabbits, trees,cows,... and that was just 3 or 4 years ago. Now when you go to the same place, the rabbit's been painted black with a Nike logo on it, the trees each have a hugly flashing sign on it showing a chainsaw, ...
That's what hapenned to the internet. Became mostly just a junkyard.

So I think the problem is not ads in themselves, but the shape used to publish them. And anyway those who currently block ads wouldn't click on them.

Some ad cleaning will surely be a good thing.

Reavealing mistake ?

[bibi-pov]

I first read "the online advertising network's privacy thief" !

Not fussed

[ElvenMonkey]

Personally, I'm not fussed by adverts on sites, I ignore them routinely anyway. The only type of advert that continues to annoy me are intrusive ones, be it pop ups, or this damned annoying flash things that plonk themselves right in the middle of the content you're looking at.

no it won't end free internet content

[kwoff]

You'd still have university students and scientists, business sites, people whose ISPs provide web space....

Fight back!

[Trejkaz]

Damn, now you're onto something.

Instead of AdBlock not loading the ad at all, when something matches its filter, it should follow the link, spider that entire web site, and then throw all that data into /dev/null.

Fight ads back!

Crazy Doubleclick

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one will be very happy once they go out of buisness the majority of spyware crap seems to pull up there ads also , its because of this intrusive method they use that there is such a demand to block them. I personally hope the Ceo goes out of buisness and is forced to live on the streets for all the years of pain he has caused us.

Re:Who says the Internet is free in the first palc

[Per Abrahamsen]

You are paying for access to the Internet, not for the content. The DoubleClick guy was excplicitly talking about content, not access.

None of your US$ 39.95 are going to the content, unless they inlclude stuff like a /. subscription.

Hey, I give a shit about advertisers

[putaro]

I get up and go to the bathroom during ads on television.

Bandwidth for $$$ is the problem, it will be fixed

[Quizo69]

The whole argument about the internet and advertising goes to the cost of bandwidth, ie. so many GBs = so many $$$.

This is a time limited problem, because in the near future the internet will evolve away from fixed infrastructure and into wireless mesh technology, so you and I will provide bandwidth to each other essentially for a one time cost of the hardware.

Governments who are in the pay of lobbyists will try to enact laws against this sort of wireless commoditisation by various avenues, but it will fail because such a technology will be far too useful for mere laws to stop. Short of using jamming technology to thwart it, which could create a countermeasures industry alongside it, the prevalence of mesh wireless internet will be the next great democratisation of the world as we know it, providing the jump over the last means of control for others to regulate our internet usage via monetary or political means.

IE users can block ads now...

[MtViewGuy]

...Thanks to add-on "shell" programs such as Maxthon and Avant Browser.

I myself have been using Maxthon since Version 1.12 and the AD Hunter function in this program means vastly faster page downloads, not to mention a lot less loading of adware/spyware! :-)

Pop-up, period.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

You are completely correct, and the "feature" that prompted the heaviest growth in ad blocking was the pop-up. I'm still dumbfounded at the idea of letting a webpage control how the browser program acts (window resizing, pop-ups, new windows, etc).

Don't blame the advertisers who took advantage, blame the creators of languages that gave them the tools to do it.

Right thinking person 10 years ago: If language becomes standard to allow new window creation, this will lead to annoying behaviour, most likely from the commercial sector using them as virtual highway billboards.

Doubleclick Today: If blocking the virtual language that gives us the ability to annoy into submission becomes standard, this will lead to a pay-only web.

Life is a circle, and we go round and round and round.

this makes little sense to me...

[compro01]

ok, the people who use an ad blocker, are not very likely to be clicking on an ad in the first place, ad blocker or no ad blocker.

so how does the ad blocker detract from the bussiness that newer existed?

oh, wait, they're learning from the **IA!

Re:this makes little sense to me...

[compro01]

the preview and submit buttons should be further apart.

should be "bussiness that never existed"

and the "**AA"

They should pay me to look @ their ads.

[drac0n1z]

I'm on a 5k/s dailup, huge gif and jpg headers wastes my time, *logo* *blank.gif serves no use to me, I don't mind text ads that's accurately targeted to what I'm browsing. Ad makers should make onobtrusive ads, forcing me to look @ them is not the ethical way to sell me a product.

Stupid Magical Tricks

[IBitOBear]

There are all kinds of stupid magical tricks that can be used to tell if you are or are not blocking ads. There are also fairly basic ways to deal with this.

For instance, I have used Tools->Add Block->Preferences to select "hide ads" instead of "remove ads" to combat this very problem.

Once you understand the tools, you can combat the problems.

Examples:

The Microsoft Outlook preview pane (pain) opens all your email even if you don't mean to. When you right-click-and-delete a message Outlook opens it. The spammers can then "know" your email address is valid and a good spam target because when outlook opens the email it will fetch the images (at least the frist one) so that fetch (http get) tells them you are there.

This is germaine to this conversation of web sites because web sites cna do the same thing with cookies or, if you have cookies blocked, by adding arguments to the URLs of the sub-parts of the page.

So a URL of the format "http colon slash-slash my-site slash this-advert.jpg question-mark some-session-unique-tag" will cause the same this-advert.jpg to be delilivered to everybody and the server can harvest all the unique session tages to see who is or isn't getting the ads.

It is not uncommon for the intro page to have a web-bug (a one-by-one pixel graphic that is used to seed cookies or validate browser functions). That one tiny bit of dynamic html (etc) on just the one page can be quite effective at knowing what your guts do.

So, for instance, if you have the bandwidth (e.g. cable modem etc) you can "hide" the ads, but the computer still fetches them, so the sites cannot tell the difference.

I think hiding the ads I don't like (c.f. doubleclick and the similarly animated ads) costs doubleclick money for my "page view" and cannot possibly lead to a sale since not only won't I click on the ad, I won't even be tempted to, nor will I be infected with any "product awareness". Depriving someone (doubleclick) that does something that stupid (bouncy intrusive ads) of revenue while still contributing to their overhead is my civic duty... 8-)

And remember to use wildcards in your ad blocking, "http://*.doubleclick.net/*" is a completely unstopable way to banish a whole annoying domain from my life.

But still they pay the sites for my "page view" and they pay their bandwidth. I'm just doing my part to rid us all of their spamming, self-entitled leach-like business. _They_ after all, are free-riding on the bandwidth _I_ pay for.

proper vs as-intended

[goldfndr]

I find it particularly funny when people say that Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc do not render web pages properly when compared to IE

If you ever see/hear this, you could correct them. Mozilla/Firefox/Safari/Opera etc tend to render web pages properly whereas MSIE tends to render them as the author/artist intended, not quite the same thing.

I don't want any ads

[_j3$73r]

Actually, grapichcal or flashy ads don't make any good for me, I believe most of us DONT pay atention on any ads, ads on website just slow the connection (and for me, it was trouble because 56k modem is as slow as 28.8K in my area)