• MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    And it would never have gotten completely out of control, if people didn’t use ad-block.

    We should never have tried to fund the web with ads in the first place. We’re perfectly willing to pay for data plans, phone service, electricity. Web services should have been the same from the start.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Advertisers started this war.

      Pop up ads came before ad blockers.

      Nobody was doing this when it was static banners.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, I fully agree, the moment we accepted the deal of ads for “free” stuff, it was always going to end this way.

        There will only be a cease-fire when users start paying for what they use again. And even then, now that pandora’s box is open, some will pull a hulu and try to double dip on both ads and a payment.

    • experbia@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it would never have gotten completely out of control, if people didn’t use ad-block.

      “I wouldn’t get so carried away beating you if you didn’t make me so much angrier by trying to run when I smack you.”

      We should never have tried to fund the web with ads in the first place.

      I agree. But here we are. And until it’s illegal to do so (and, honestly, afterwards too), when a website I’m viewing politely asks me to download toxic ad content filled with psychological manipulation and malware, my computer will politely whisper “no.” I might revisit this policy in the future if the entire advertising industry takes a huge step back to tone down their abusive shit, but in the meanwhile, I have no problem blocking malignant content from my presence. No means no.

      A business plan that requires psychological abuse and exploitation of your customers is not an ethical, sustainable, or valid plan and the people who push it are not worthy of my consideration.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviusly. But this was an arms race that was always going to pan out this way the moment we started expecting ads to fund the web.

    • Defaced@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have YouTube premium included in my pixel pass subscription, so this doesn’t necessarily effect me. However, you have a grossly uninformed opinion on data and how it works. You think data caps and fast lanes would’ve saved us from advertising? I’m sorry but the sad truth is it wouldn’t have, the money from the ISPs isn’t going to trickle down to the website owners, that’s not how it works, that’s not how any of this works. That’s kind of one of the big arguments against data caps and fast lanes, it limits those websites from receiving traffic and in turn ad revenue. If anything those data caps would make things worse.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You have a grossly misinterpreted understanding of my comment. We pay for things like data because it just being free would never work.

        Just like youtube or spotify being free has never really worked. I’m saying we should start paying for services like those the same way we pay for our data plans.

        Which part of my comment made you think I was suggesting our data plans should somehow pay for our web services? That would be fucking stupid.