[DotNetWill]

I tried asking this in the ad blocking thread but no one replied. So here is my question, the internet is not a socialist creation it lives very much in the capitalist world. Severs and devs are expensive (as an experienced dev my company charges £500+ a day for my services, if I'm on site). Since 'content' is expected to be free on the internet and it's more expensive to run a write heavy service such as a forum/reddit style site that are expected to be free.

Realistically large sites have high running costs and few ways to make revenue. You can syndicate others content but you have to be massive to charge for that, but you can't get there without making a massive loss.

How do you want to companies to pay for it, you've made it clear you don't like ads of any forms but would do you want paywalls? To turn you and your habits into "the product"?

Seriously now, non site owners and people who want sites to be free what do you propose? Why do you not like the ad supported model?

[LifeOfBryan]

"Why do you not like the ad supported model?"

Annoying
Disruptive
Intrusive
Distracting
And let's face it, it's not just to run a forum DS have many many paid employees that do something or other writing news that I don't read and have no wish to ever as I'm over 12 and not a girl.

They have done their best to dumb the forum down to a level of trivial zelb pap us over 12s don't want to read that sort of B grade nonsense.

So of course I don't want the same mindless adverts.

It's typical of DS now that it thinks what it does is unmissable and tries to force you down to reading it. Same with their ads.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by LifeOfBryan

"Why do you not like the ad supported model?"

Annoying
Disruptive
Intrusive
Distracting
And let's face it, it's not just to run a forum DS have many many paid employees that do something or other writing news that I don't read and have no wish to ever as I'm over 12 and not a girl.

They have done their best to dumb the forum down to a level of trivial zelb pap us over 12s don't want to read that sort of B grade nonsense.

So of course I don't want the same mindless adverts.

It's typical of DS now that it thinks what it does is unmissable and tries to force you down to reading it. Same with their ads.

So even as an active forum member you want DS to shutdown?

[LION8TIGER]

Well, in my opinion the man that made it all happen could have made himself one of the richest people on the planet if he decided to copyright.
Luckily he gave it to us for nothing, good on him.

The market will always try and extract money out of a good idea, that's how they make their money.

If everyone ran things like Adblock+ and maybe a hosts file then sites like DS would suffer dire financial loss. It is really down to the percentage of people that visit with no Adblock which is probably fairly large/enough to keep the ball rolling.

[LifeOfBryan]

Originally Posted by DotNetWill

So even as an active forum member you want DS to shutdown?

Ah the usual I have to have your options.

Don't take up politics!

Did you even read my post as to where the money goes?

[jjesso123]

If it was chose of intrusive adverts, and say donating then I would be probably rather donate. However I don't feel donating could solely keep massive forum open. As already said I'm sure there is more not using adblocker than are anyway.

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by LION8TIGER

If everyone ran things like Adblock+ and maybe a hosts file then sites like DS would suffer dire financial loss. It is really down to the percentage of people that visit with no Adblock which is probably fairly large/enough to keep the ball rolling.

right, so is it just a sense of entitlement that says "I'M not putting up with ads. I want everything free and adfree and convenient. And someone else can pick up the bill, don't care who"?

[jsmith99]

For myself, I've no objections to ads, or even to data trackers. What I object to is the way they can stop you downloading webpages if their server can't deal with their calls.

I've seen urls flicker across the bottom of the screen; they're not a problem. I've also seen webpages just stop loading, and at the bottom is displaying mookie, doubleclick or yieldmanager.

Modify the code so that, if there's no immediate reply, they drop the call (whatever the technical term is), and I for one would be happy to have ads.

[archiver]

I just draw the line at paying FOUR times for something, especially when the only acceptable method of payment is to accept unwanted advertising. Even now, I'm pretty sure some 'flash' adverts slightly increase my computer power usage, so it's also another little bit I can do for the environment Service providers like DS, Wikipedia etc. would be better funded from the ISP/line-dealer/hardware-manufacturer pot, or set up some means to donate (if you feels the need to compensate for putting less in than you get out). Certainly ISPs, in the early days, provided much more of the web content as part of the user package. It was rare and somewhat frowned upon to see a site use advertising and it would have been difficult to persuade advertisers it was worth bothering with back then. Different now. I expect to see a red flashing banner atop every DS forum page soon, exclaiming "Watch and click the ads or DS will close". (is almost what's being suggested)

The demands of commercialism already weigh heavily on the freedom of the net and if they and their legislators force more and more control - maybe an alternet will become necessary. In the meantime, as long as http is http - I'll avoid adverts.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by LifeOfBryan

Ah the usual I have to have your options.

Don't take up politics!

Did you even read my post as to where the money goes?

No not at all, you said you don't like ads. But you clearly don't like my options so how should you DS pay for servers?

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by archiver

I just draw the line at paying FOUR times for something, especially when the only acceptable method of payment is to accept unwanted advertising. Even now, I'm pretty sure some 'flash' adverts slightly increase my computer power usage, so it's also another little bit I can do for the environment Service providers like DS, Wikipedia etc. would be better funded from the ISP/line-dealer/hardware-manufacturer pot, or set up some means to donate (if you feels the need to compensate for putting less in than you get out). Certainly ISPs, in the early days, provided much more of the web content as part of the user package. It was rare and somewhat frowned upon to see a site use advertising and it would have been difficult to persuade advertisers it was worth bothering with back then. Different now. I expect to see a red flashing banner atop every DS forum page soon, exclaiming "Watch and click the ads or DS will close". (is almost what's being suggested)

The demands of commercialism already weigh heavily on the freedom of the net and if they and their legislators force more and more control - maybe an alternet will become necessary. In the meantime, as long as http is http - I'll avoid adverts.

I don't see how you're paying 4 times. The internet connection you purchase from your ISP is completely separate from content that is delivered over it.

The model of "content rich" ISP was tried and has failed in the form of AOL. Plus, there is simply too many sites for the isps to fund them.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by archiver

I just draw the line at paying FOUR times for something, especially when the only acceptable method of payment is to accept unwanted advertising. Even now, I'm pretty sure some 'flash' adverts slightly increase my computer power usage, so it's also another little bit I can do for the environment Service providers like DS, Wikipedia etc. would be better funded from the ISP/line-dealer/hardware-manufacturer pot, or set up some means to donate (if you feels the need to compensate for putting less in than you get out). Certainly ISPs, in the early days, provided much more of the web content as part of the user package. It was rare and somewhat frowned upon to see a site use advertising and it would have been difficult to persuade advertisers it was worth bothering with back then. Different now. I expect to see a red flashing banner atop every DS forum page soon, exclaiming "Watch and click the ads or DS will close". (is almost what's being suggested)

The demands of commercialism already weigh heavily on the freedom of the net and if they and their legislators force more and more control - maybe an alternet will become necessary. In the meantime, as long as http is http - I'll avoid adverts.

in the nicest possible way that is nonsense

i have to buy my car and you want me to put petrol in it too? the car manufacturers should pay for the petrol or something like that, i don't really care exactly who, possibly the tyre manufacturer.

you block ads because you can. don't make out it's for some ideological stance. you know that a lot of sites you use are entirely ad funded but you don't care, it's for some other mug to worry about.

[Andy2]

I use Simple Adblock to get rid of ads. It's not the ads themselves that bother me, it's the way they disrupt my browsing. Many ads take too long to load, most cause the page to jump around and make it difficult to click on links, some are badly written and cause slowdown or freeze-ups.
Some have only to be rolled over to start an annoying, loud video. That's why I block them.
I know sites depend on ads for income, but some sites take the plss by cramming far too many onto the pages, greatly exacerbating the problems listed above.

[vanzandtfan]

On sites I use regularly and which don't have too intrusive ads I'm more than happy to view ads. Not a chance on DS though, the ads are far too intrusive and given previous events (and DS's shoddy response) dangerous.

[Spot]

When animated ads started appearing on DS, my bandwidth usage suddenly shot through the roof, and actually put me over the modest allowance which was fine for my modest needs - I'm just a surfer, not a downloader, so a basic low cost package should be fine for me.

So - in simple terms, the ads were costing me money and I wasn't prepared to put up with that.

[grps3]

i use adblock

i dont really mind seeing ads on websites

but what i hate are the obtrusive ads....you accidently scroll over them and they expand and get in the way of what you are trying to do

also

the videos that autoplay on some sites can be really annoying if i have music playing

but imo it nots my fault sites like DS dont make money....or enough money as i dont click on the ads anyway if i happen to have adblocker paused or disabled

not sure if DS do this , but they should have an 'improved ' version of the site that does not include ads for a small monthly or yearly fee...... maybe offer avatars/sigs and a private forum for paid members ......or they should charge the ad companies for displaying ads...not per click

[Tassium]

Does the OP not see the irony?

Without the internet itself no company would be in a position to serve up adverts or make any chance of a profit whatsoever.


Who pays for the internet? Certainly not the OP, or any one of a gazillion private firms getting a freebie at someone else's expense.

The internet is basically paid for by those individuals who use it. ISP fees, mobile 'phone contracts etc etc.


To slyly criticise those who pay for the infrastructure that even gives you a chance of making money... seems ungrateful to me. Or did you think the internet was a natural resource?

---

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Does the OP not see the irony?

Without the internet itself no company would be in a position to serve up adverts or make any chance of a profit whatsoever.


Who pays for the internet? Certainly not the OP, or any one of a gazillion private firms getting a freebie at someone else's expense.

The internet is basically paid for by those individuals who use it. ISP fees, mobile 'phone contracts etc etc.


To slyly criticise those who pay for the infrastructure that even gives you a chance of making money... seems ungrateful to me. Or did you think the internet was a natural resource?

---

twisted logic. you've only seen part of the story.

you make the case that the people who have mobile phone contracts and ISP subscriptions pay for the internet, are the internet and content providers should be grateful to the customers because of that.

but they only do it because the content providers create something they want to see. if the content providers hadn't done that there would be no internet either.

it's a symbiotic relationship. both sides rely on each other. neither side exists without the other. you can surely see that?

as an aside your tone is mocking and belittling. which is odd for someone who is wrong.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Does the OP not see the irony?

Without the internet itself no company would be in a position to serve up adverts or make any chance of a profit whatsoever.


Who pays for the internet? Certainly not the OP, or any one of a gazillion private firms getting a freebie at someone else's expense.

The internet is basically paid for by those individuals who use it. ISP fees, mobile 'phone contracts etc etc.


To slyly criticise those who pay for the infrastructure that even gives you a chance of making money... seems ungrateful to me. Or did you think the internet was a natural resource?

---

Ummm... no. The internet is not paid for by the ISPs and mobile data contracts at all. What you pay for is a connection to the same "backbone" providers as other people, you're effectively paying for your providers infrastructure and their connection to an upstream provider or peering agreement.

When a company rents a server in the datacentre they also have to pay for a connection to internet and that funds the datacentres connection and the same process as above applies. The only difference is the company then has to foot the bill of the hardware to run the site, the electricity to keep it on, devs to write the sites you use and love, content creators to create something that's worthy of your attention and on and on. At the end of the day these are businesses there to turn a profit after all these expenses, sadly it is money that makes our world go round.

You seem to think the internet is a "thing" that isp subscribers pay for. It is simply a bunch of companies with peering agreement and no one group of consumers/business owners covers the cost completely.

[Tassium]

Originally Posted by flagpole

twisted logic. you've only seen part of the story.

you make the case that the people who have mobile phone contracts and ISP subscriptions pay for the internet, are the internet and content providers should be grateful to the customers because of that.

but they only do it because the content providers create something they want to see. if the content providers hadn't done that there would be no internet either.

it's a symbiotic relationship. both sides rely on each other. neither side exists without the other. you can surely see that?

as an aside your tone is mocking and belittling. which is odd for someone who is wrong.

It's not symbiotic, it's parasitic.

The "content providers" only exist because the internet existed first. The "content providers" provide little of real value, it's tittle-tattle and triviality. Free is it's price.

If free wasn't it's price they could charge.

[Tassium]

Hey I studied Computer Science, I know what the internet is.
------
It's a trend in society for those benefiting the most to claim victim status, now the on-line trader is blaming the public for not looking at their adverts. A new low.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by grps3

i use adblock

i dont really mind seeing ads on websites

but what i hate are the obtrusive ads....you accidently scroll over them and they expand and get in the way of what you are trying to do

also

the videos that autoplay on some sites can be really annoying if i have music playing

but imo it nots my fault sites like DS dont make money....or enough money as i dont click on the ads anyway if i happen to have adblocker paused or disabled

not sure if DS do this , but they should have an 'improved ' version of the site that does not include ads for a small monthly or yearly fee...... maybe offer avatars/sigs and a private forum for paid members ......or they should charge the ad companies for displaying ads...not per click

I'm totally with you noise making ads, I don't use ad blockers but I use flashblock to stop intrusive, noise making flask adverts.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Tassium

It's not symbiotic, it's parasitic.

The "content providers" only exist because the internet existed first. The "content providers" provide little of real value, it's tittle-tattle and triviality. Free is it's price.

If free wasn't it's price they could charge.

that's bollocks.

to put it really really simply. you wouldn't have an internet connection if there were no sites for you to visit.

[DotNetWill]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Hey I studied Computer Science, I know what the internet is.
------
It's a trend in society for those benefiting the most to claim victim status, now the on-line trader is blaming the public for not looking at their adverts. A new low.

You studied CS and you think the internet is paid for by residential ISPs and mobile data contracts..... OK. How can you pay for something that isn't a thing?

It's not online traders that are complaining, it's content producers that do not charge for it but still have massive operating costs.

[lettice]

Why do you not like the ad supported model?

Because you can.
As you state 'in the capitalist world', I have the freedom to choose.
To stop those loud, irritating and annoying ads, ruining my surfing experience.
Do not see this as any different to using a remote to change channels during ad breaks and zooming through them on a recording, or ignoring an ad in printed matter.

Ad Blocker software is also another way to make money, through donations or with paid 'Ad blocker' apps and tweaks.