Wired To Block Ad-Blocking Users, Offer Subscription (wired.com)

AmiMoJo writes: In a blog post Wired has announced that it will begin to block users who block ads on its site: "On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it's important to be clear that advertising is how we keep WIRED going," wrote the editors. The post goes on to offer two options for users blocking ads: whitelist wired.com or subscribe for $1/week.

Comments

Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bye then!

Re: Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Funny how suddenly, after years of abusing ads for profit, sites are now trying to act like innocent victims just trying to keep the lights on. Time to sleep in the bed you spent the last 20 years making.

Re: Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is selling ads "abusing" them? The whole damn point of the enterprise is to make some jingle. You want free content? Go watch cat videos on youtube. You want something edited, well, someone's got to pay the writers and editors.

Re: Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is selling ads "abusing" them?

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

Re: Ok.

[FunkSoulBrother]

Oh bullshit, they didn't sell any ads, they signed up to an abusive tracking filled ad network that did all of the work for them.

If I start a convenience store and can figure out a way to stay afloat selling Snickers and M&Ms, then hooray for me, but please don't call me a confectioner.

If they want to sell ads, actually sell the space like they did in their print version 20 years ago, and host them first party, and we'd have a hell of a time blocking them in the first place.

Re: Ok.

[epyT-R]

1. ads went from small simple banners to huge flash/js animated annoyances to javascript powered spyware.
2. ad networks don't care about malware, making adblock a necessity, not just for sanity but for security.
3. ads cover most of the screenspace these days, making sites illegible.

Web 2.0 really did make this bed. Now it can sleep in it.

Re: Ok.

[Mal-2]

So they can host the ads locally and vet them for malware. They'll fly right past adblockers. Browsing without an adblocker is like fucking without a condom. You should only do it with someone you really, really trust.

Re: Ok.

[david_thornley]

I now do have a way of paying Wired, if I like. I don't know if I used to.

You need to consider what's involved in paying for things. I'm happy to let people display some images on my screen so they get paid for it and support the site. However, accepting advertising nowadays means having people running arbitrary programs on my machine, including malware, with no accountability. If it were a transaction where I knew what I'd be getting, I'd consider it. For example, if I liked Wired a lot, I'd pay the subscription money. If somebody would be responsible for any damage caused, I'd consider it.

Right now, running arbitrary advertising is a bad idea for the economy as a whole. The expected value for the gain for the site is much smaller than the expected value for the loss incurred by the user, which means that unchecked ads are destructive, net. If this causes problems for the websites, well, I'm sorry, but I'm the one taking all the risk here, and your website is probably not worth enough to me to justify the risk.

I feel entitled to send HTTP requests to websites. Except in the very few cases where I've got an agreement, I'm not entitled to any particular reply, so if the reply is the HTTP equivalent of "Die in a fire!" I accept that and move on.

Re: Ok.

[Darinbob]

Exactly right, we do not have to go to their sites. Wired can go bankrupt if they want without any of our help.

I use adblock because you are never told up front how much it will cost you to support their ads, they don't tell you how much or your bandwidth they will borrow, they don't tell you if they have malware or not, because all you know is that someone said "here's an interesting link that you should read about this important topic". I never agreed to get their malware. I never agreed that in order to read 20 lines of text that I must also accept 20 megabytes of animated ads or that my fast broadband on my fast computer will take a very long time downloading it and executing the scripts.

I am sure that theoretically there are good players out there. But I HAVE to use adblock for my own safety and to protect my internet service from abuse. I see Wired maybe once or twice a year which is far to little to deal with the hassle of adding to a whitelist, so it's simpler to just stop going there altogether. (I have allowed some sites to serve up ads in the past but Wired doesn't reach that bar for me)

If sites really cared then those sites would serve up their own curated ads rather than relying on sleazy third party advertisers and would not serve up an overwhelming amount of crappy javascript.

Re: Ok.

[Anubis IV]

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

This is like entering into a cage fight and then complaining about getting hurt. Noone makes you go to an ad-supported website and read their content.

That's missing the point quite a bit. People don't walk into cage fights, clueless as to what's about to happen. There's informed consent. Not so with web pages. In fact, if I load a Wired page, not even they know what ads I'll see or what sort of malware they might be serving up, since they've offloaded that responsibility to third-parties who, as a group, have proven themselves untrustworthy (e.g. Forbes malware recently). Today's Web is like an endless hall of doors with barely-useful labels. The only way to find out what's inside is to open a door and step in. There's no consent. Just regret (see: goatse...actually, don't).

Ad blockers restore informed consent. They give us the ability to say, "We're unwilling to pay the price you're asking". If sites want to deny us service because of that, that's how things are supposed to work. After all, if two parties can't settle on a price, there shouldn't be an exchange of goods or services. More importantly, however, ad blockers allow us to specify what we DO consent to. To the best of my knowledge, all of the major ad blockers are configured to permit first-party ads by default. If sites like Wired are willing to take responsibility for their ads and trust them enough to host them on their own servers, I'm fine with viewing them. My ad blocker will let them through. We'll both be in consent.

Until then, it'll block the ads they're serving up from third-party ad vendors, and if they want to deny me service because I'm blocking them, that's fine.

Well, "fine" inasmuch as it's a boneheaded move that'll bite them in the ass in the end, but still, it's their ill-fated choice to make.

Re: Ok.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we use a hosts file to block APK? No? Then hosts file blocking is insufficient.

Oops

[AmiMoJo]

I forgot the third option. Stop reading Wired.

Note to people submitting stories: No more wired.com links please. It joins forbes.com on the /. blacklist.

Re:Oops

[gstoddart]

There's a very important fourth option that they neglected to mention, yet is entirely in their control: stop delivering ads they don't host and haven't vetted.

Pretty much this.

Serve an ad from your own server, which doesn't require scripts, and doesn't rely on 15 external tracking sites to monitor my visit (OK, on that particular page it was 5), and I don't have a problem.

What's that? You can't serve those ads, or having it be non-targeted isn't as effective? Too fucking bad.

This bullshit about letting a bunch of external sites set cookies, run scripts, run plugins, and track everything I do ... that's your problem. Because I'm not trusting some 3rd party just because you're getting a few shekels from them -- I have no reason to trust those 3rd parties. That's an idiotic security model, and wired should know it.

Serve a script-less ad from your own servers without external tracking, and I won't even bother blocking them.

Re:Oops

[swb]

Were they ever really relevant, or has it most always been a lifestyle magazine for fetishizing technology? Vanity Fair for Macintosh users who fancied themselves high tech? The kind of thing the CIO keeps in his office to show he's "up to speed"?

The only people I've known to read it wouldn't know TCP from UDP and have stronger opinions about icon design than cryptographic hash functions.

To be sort-of fair, I have flipped through it a few times and found a few articles that were interesting, but it's really kind of a design-centric version of Popular Science with more emphasis on computers and networking.

Re:Oops

[zarmanto]

A fourth option is becoming more and more likely with these actions by Wired and by others: soon enough, someone will develop a "smart" ad filter, which downloads the ads from sites which attempt to prohibit access to ad-block users, but do not actually render those ads to the screen, thus hiding their presence from the website. (Naturally, the default behavior will still be to not download ads at all, in order to save bandwidth.)

My eyes and ears do not belong to you, Wired. The days of loud and obnoxious ads perpetually invading webpages and assaulting our senses has passed: it's time to find less obtrusive ways to monetize your content... not more obtrusive ways. Otherwise, you risk losing your audience entirely.

eh

[Anonymous Coward]

or not risk my computer being infected and just not goto wired anymore.

$52/yr is a lot for a subscription

[scorp1us]

Since there's no pulp to push, the economics of the price are astounding.

If ads were more intelligent and higher class, they wouldn't be so annoying. Nothing like continuing to see ads for something you bought, or putting up with taboola's brain-dead stupid tricks.

Ads should be as good as the articles they parasitically feed off of.

I'll consider unblocking ads ...

[Monoman]

I will consider unblocking all ads on their site if the accept all liability for the ads, content, and actions of their site.

Re:No problem

[pla]

Or just wait an hour or two for AdBlock's anti-AdBlock killer list to re-fix their site.

The advertisers need to understand that they really can't win this war - Even if it eventually comes down to letting every single ad and craptastic script on a page run in an invisible sandbox just to pass all their tests, we still won't watch the damned ads.

Find a revenue model that doesn't depend on pissing off your customers, or you deserve to go out of business. Really that simple.

Re:Malware

[JenovaSynthesis]

Exactly my thought. Maybe if publishers were on the hook for the damage their ads cause they might be a bit better at policing them.

The headline should read like this

[kuzb]

"Wired to lose 20% of its readership"

Most people are not going to turn off their ad-blocking software just to read Wired. Regardless, the quality of their content has been dropping steadily over the last decade.

What do you propose that they do?

[dlenmn]

after years of abusing ads for profit, sites are now trying to act like innocent victims just trying to keep the lights on.

I see this type of comment fairly frequently, and I understand the sentiment, but what exactly do you propose that they do instead? Just go bankrupt? Can they somehow regain your trust by running non-abusive ads? (Whatever that means. How do you know which ads aren't abusive? Do you check every site or just run your ad blocker everywhere?) What if non-abusive ads aren't enough to break even? Micropayments?

Wired produces good content, so I'd hate for them to go under. I see other comments saying that you'll just get your content elsewhere, but that's just kicking the can down the road instead of solving the problem. The same problems apply to your new news source, which is probably going to ban ad blockers sooner or later too unless a long-term solution is found.

(Moreover, what exactly does "abusing ads for profit" mean? Are you faulting them for trying to make a profit using advertising? Is the complaint not the ads per se, but the ads that track your every move? If so, that's not at all clear from your writing.)

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[FunkSoulBrother]

I suggest they host the ads as first-party, no Javascript, static images/ text links on their actual domain. One would pretty much have to write an AI to block them, and there would be little reason to try.

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[stealth_finger]

after years of abusing ads for profit, sites are now trying to act like innocent victims just trying to keep the lights on.

I see this type of comment fairly frequently, and I understand the sentiment, but what exactly do you propose that they do instead? Just go bankrupt? Can they somehow regain your trust by running non-abusive ads? (Whatever that means. How do you know which ads aren't abusive? Do you check every site or just run your ad blocker everywhere?) What if non-abusive ads aren't enough to break even? Micropayments?

Wired produces good content, so I'd hate for them to go under. I see other comments saying that you'll just get your content elsewhere, but that's just kicking the can down the road instead of solving the problem. The same problems apply to your new news source, which is probably going to ban ad blockers sooner or later too unless a long-term solution is found.

(Moreover, what exactly does "abusing ads for profit" mean? Are you faulting them for trying to make a profit using advertising? Is the complaint not the ads per se, but the ads that track your every move? If so, that's not at all clear from your writing.)

They could start by taking ownership of what they display. Host the ads first party, do some basic checking that the ads you're serving to your customers are at least legit on the surface. If there isn't enough revenue to keep them going how about a merger or something with any of the other shitload of tech/news/light entertainment sites and combine their pools of readership. There are plenty of ways for failing business' to get back on their feet, or so I'm told anyway.

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[AmiMoJo]

Can they somehow regain your trust by running non-abusive ads? (Whatever that means. How do you know which ads aren't abusive?

Yes. Pledge publicly to only display ads from their own servers, manually checked before going live, no Javascript, no tracking cookies, no animation. I will know if they keep their end of the bargain up because lots of people will be watching them carefully for compliance.

Also, as long as you disable scripts (or even just third party scripts) and Flash, that cuts out 99% of the malware anyway. Hopefully your browser is sandboxed well enough to block the other 1%, and if they are willing to make the effort then I'm willing to give them a chance.

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[Ken D]

Do you think that a magazine would print an ad in their product sight unseen?

Of course not. They have guidelines for acceptable ads and screen each and every ad before accepting it for their print run.

Why do/did they think they can just outsource their ads for their online product?

Online advertising is just broken because they absolutely, positively cannot be trusted.

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[QuietLagoon]

...I see this type of comment fairly frequently, and I understand the sentiment, but what exactly do you propose that they do instead? Just go bankrupt?...

According to Wired, only 20% of the visitors to the site block ads. Hardly a reason for a site to go bankrupt.

.
But I would suggest that one of the first things that is done is get rid of the ad networks that track people around the Internet and also serve up malware. I see absolutely no reason for Wired ads to track me as I visit other websites. If Wired wants to serve ads, then wired.com should serve the ads.

Second, make the ads a whole lot less intrusive. When there's an ad on the page, I see it. There is no reason whatsoever to make the ad obnoxiously prominent to gain more of my attention, as that added attention will not result in a positive opinion about the product the ad is trying to sell.

There's more, but those two would be a good start....

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[jafiwam]

I suggest they host the ads as first-party, no Javascript, static images/ text links on their actual domain. One would pretty much have to write an AI to block them, and there would be little reason to try.

There are large technical problems with that.

The ad providers don't trust the content producers not to fleece them. How are they going to know? And how are they going go back to the widget seller and prove the ad was seen and worked?

Those are all technically, unsolved problems still.

On the other hand, the fact the ad networks think everybody is a shyster that will rip them off sort of demonstrates they are shysters themselves... everybody thinks others are just like them.

Re:What do you propose that they do?

[Nkwe]

I propose that they offer a web site subscription for a reasonable price. The summary says that they are offering access to the site via an ad blocker for $1/week, which is $52 per year. The print subscription price is less than $25 per year and that of course includes physical printing and mailing. They are asking way too much to not view ads on their web site.

You can't be fucking serious.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're years past the age of reasonable banner ads and sidebar ads. Ad creators have killed the goose with their greedy bullshit behavior. The online ad industry is full of abuse:

• Pop over ads
• Pop under ads
• Ads with fake close buttons that actually load MORE ads
• Ads that automatically open other tabs or browser windows to shove more spam in our faces
• Sites that spread thin, shitty content ("The Top 10 Ways Advertisers Are Assholes: Number 7 Will SHOCK YOU!!!") over multiple pages to generate more page views and ad revenue
• Deceptive clickbait ads (like fake DOWNLOAD buttons that are bigger than the actual download link on the page)
• Auto-playing video and audio ads
• Ads that are disguised to look like regular content (a practice carried over from the print world): if you're lucky the word 'Advertisement' is shown somewhere in tiny tiny print, although these days 'Sponsored Content' seems to be the favored term.
• Tracking cookies (not just one or two, but a dozen or more per page that eat your bandwidth and delay page loading)
• Ads that deliver MALWARE, because the ad networks and content providers don't give a shit and it costs money to protect readers from the scam artists out there.

Wired can just go fuck themselves if they think their readers should bend over and take this kind of abuse.

Re:You can't be fucking serious.

[war4peace]

Yeah, nice sum-up.
However, that 1 dollar a week thing... isn't it exactly what people here and elsewhere asked for? Like, for so long?
If the content's worth the money, pay up and peruse an ad-free, high quality website. Or if you deem it not worthy, don't visit it anymore.

You want me to see your ads?

[Holi]

Fine,
1 No auto playing video.
2 No pop-ups, pop-unders, page covering ads, or ads that cover the article where I have to wait for the close x.
3 No malware vectors, all your ads should be vetted (no exceptions)
Break any one and I use an ad-blocker. If that means I don;t read your rag, fine. The fact you are a tech magazine means you are just losing readership and will soon disappear.


The internet was not built to be an advertising medium, yet here we are, the majority of what you see online is advertising. It's gross and sad that we cannot come up with a way of funding things without constantly barraging people with lies.

Don't want people running AdBlocker?

[MachineShedFred]

Then don't make the advertising on your site intrusive, and abusive.

Ads have been on the Internet for 15 years now, we're willing to accept some advertising. But if you go overboard, we'll find ways to make it go the fuck away. The rise of ad blockers can be correlated with the rise of in-your-face pop-over infuriating advertising. I know the bills have to be paid, but stop throwing it up in my face covering the content.

You've got nobody to blame but yourself. Think of ad blocker software as the DVR 30 second skip button of the Internet. It exists purely as a reaction to content providers going over the line a few too many times.