Written reviews and compilations

[Couchpotato]

Tbh, not really. Realistically, it affects smaller websites much more because their advertising revenue is much smaller to begin with. Once a user has an ad blocker installed, they'll block ads everywhere indiscriminately.

Like it or not, the reality on the internet is that the advertising revenue pays for the running and operation of the websites you use unless the person running the website pays for it out of their own pocket and all the staff are volunteers. You can ask for donations, but that usually doesn't even cover the server and software expenses, let alone anything else. And the percentage of users willing to support the websites that they use with a donation to gain ad-free access is negligible and usually only limited to a few dozen regulars at best for a website like RPGWatch.

So yea, from a regular user's perspective, all ads are evil and serve no purpose whatsoever except to annoy them. From the perspective of the website owner, if everyone thought like that, they could close up shop.

Well feels like this is getting personal and that was never my intention. Your correct about two different perspectives. I'm a user and your a webmaster with different opinions.

Though one correction, I ran a small forum site that cost me only $50 a month. I put about three or four small ads, and that covered maybe 1/3 of the forum expense.

Look I get I do, you mentioned you have plans to implement ads and other changes as well. Now I might not like it or approve but again it's not my site, and I don't pay a dime.

Edit: Self promotional time I post a lot of written articles and videos on my forum news-thread. HiddenX is welcome to post them on the front-page for news, but rarely does.

 

[SveNitoR]

Tbh, not really. Realistically, it affects smaller websites much more because their advertising revenue is much smaller to begin with. Once a user has an ad blocker installed, they'll block ads everywhere indiscriminately.

Like it or not, the reality on the internet is that the advertising revenue pays for the running and operation of the websites you use unless the person running the website pays for it out of their own pocket and all the staff are volunteers. You can ask for donations, but that usually doesn't even cover the server and software expenses, let alone anything else. And the percentage of users willing to support the websites that they use with a donation to gain ad-free access is negligible and usually only limited to a few dozen regulars at best for a website like RPGWatch.

So yea, from a regular user's perspective, all ads are evil and serve no purpose whatsoever except to annoy them. From the perspective of the website owner, if everyone thought like that, they could close up shop.

Yeah, a majority of the internet is paid by ads. The problem is that the ad networks repeatedly have been compromised leading to the spread of viruses, and they collect and use so much information from users it becomes intrusive.

Some sites introduce payment models, buy they often have too high monthly costs to attract anyone but the superfans.

My guess is that the internet will become more compartmentalized, both from a national perspective and by businesses pay-walling stuff. The computer geeks will still find ways to get stuff a lot cheaper or for "free" but the majority of people won't have the patience or skills to get there and will pay for some web page's content.

 

[Drithius]

There were plenty of ads in the middle of the nineties on the internet. They were just so bad, no one clicked anything unless they loved penis enlargement, secrets so good the doctors wouldn't tell anyone, or wanted to become a millionaire by this one trick.

Do not miss explosions of Flash windows.

 

[Redglyph]

Can't always be nostalgic about the 90s...

 

[Taluntain]

Well feels like this is getting personal and that was never my intention. Your correct about two different perspectives. I'm a user and your a webmaster with different opinions.

Though one correction, I ran a small forum site that cost me only $50 a month. I put about three or four small ads, and that covered maybe 1/3 of the forum expense.

Look I get I do, you mentioned you have plans to implement ads and other changes as well. Now I might not like it or approve but again it's not my site, and I don't pay a dime.

Edit: Self promotional time I post a lot of written articles and videos on my forum news-thread. HiddenX is welcome to post them on the front-page for news, but rarely does.

Nah, nothing personal, I know that many people legitimately don't know that the ads on the websites they frequent serve a legitimate purpose, and rather crucial one at that, so I feel that it's important to point this out every now and then. From a typical user's POV today, the ads on any websites are only there for a couple of minutes on a brand new install of their OS until they install an ad blocker. And then they never see any again, possibly for years. So it's easy to develop the mindset that the ads are only there to be blocked as such discussions are usually completely one-sided.

Yeah, a majority of the internet is paid by ads. The problem is that the ad networks repeatedly have been compromised leading to the spread of viruses, and they collect and use so much information from users it becomes intrusive.

The malware issue did pop up every now and then in the early days of the internet, but honestly, none of the advertising networks that I've worked with in the last 15+ years have had any such cases. The same goes for data gathering, as every legitimate website has had an advertising cookie consent policy for years now where you can regulate which (if any) information you allow the ads to track. So both of the things you mention are non-issues at this point.

Can't always be nostalgic about the 90s...

See, and they said nobody's going to miss popups!

 

[Ripper]

The malware issue did pop up every now and then in the early days of the internet, but honestly, none of the advertising networks that I've worked with in the last 15+ years have had any such cases. The same goes for data gathering, as every legitimate website has had an advertising cookie consent policy for years now where you can regulate which (if any) information you allow the ads to track. So both of the things you mention are non-issues at this point.

I would say it is still very much an issue. The idea of malware from ads (in the form of some silly virus) is not as much of an issue these days, but that's a very narrow definition of malware. I (and I suspect most people) don't want to be tracked, fingerprinted, and profiled so advertising companies can trade our data. Modern ads are not mere banners you can click on if interested - they run code with the purpose of doing exactly those things. I think it makes a great deal of sense to treat that code as untrusted.

The idea that we can scratch around for the data collection settings for every advertising entity, on every website we visit, and, having collected our data, hope that they will abide by our request not to use it in certain way? No chance. I think it is far more sensible and practical to prevent them doing it in the first place.

Of course sites need some kind of funding to survive (we managed fine with donations) but, IMO, letting advertising services monetize our personal data is not an option.

 

[Redglyph]

Nah, nothing personal, I know that many people legitimately don't know that the ads on the websites they frequent serve a legitimate purpose, and rather crucial one at that, so I feel that it's important to point this out every now and then. From a typical user's POV today, the ads on any websites are only there for a couple of minutes on a brand new install of their OS until they install an ad blocker. And then they never see any again, possibly for years. So it's easy to develop the mindset that the ads are only there to be blocked as such discussions are usually completely one-sided.

AdBlock allows non-intrusive ads by default, with a sub-option to only allow non-tracking ads. Perhaps it's a good attempt at a compromise for everyone?

Except for sites that heavily depend on intrusive ads, or ads that heavily depend on tracking features, but there I'd argue there's a more fundamental problem with those.

There's apparently an "Acceptable Ads" board, which is the criterion used for the non-intrusive ads by the blocker. I haven't dug any further.

 

[Taluntain]

The idea that we can scratch around for the data collection settings for every advertising entity, on every website we visit, and, having collected our data, hope that they will abide by our request not to use it in certain way? No chance. I think it is far more sensible and practical to prevent them doing it in the first place.

It's your prerogative if you choose not to trust the safeguards that are in place, naturally. But there is no "collecting your data" in advance -- the cookie consent manager appears on every legitimate website the first time before any advertising loads and you can opt out of everything there if you wish. That's the point of it, but yea, 99% of people just whack the button to make it go away without bothering to read what it actually does.

Of course sites need some kind of funding to survive (we managed fine with donations) but, IMO, letting advertising services monetize our personal data is not an option.

As I said, every legitimate advertising provider today gives everyone the ability to opt out of any tracking at any time and displays non-targeted ads instead. So there no "monetizing your personal data" in such a case, nor is there really any in the vast majority of other cases that would go beyond showing a user more targeted advertising. So branding all the advertising as out there to "monetize your personal data" is disingenuous at best.

 

[Taluntain]

AdBlock allows non-intrusive ads by default, with a sub-option to only allow non-tracking ads. Perhaps it's a good attempt at a compromise for everyone?

Except for sites that heavily depend on intrusive ads, or ads that heavily depend on tracking features, but there I'd argue there's a more fundamental problem with those.

There's apparently an "Acceptable Ads" board, which is the criterion used for the non-intrusive ads by the blocker. I haven't dug any further.

That AdBlock option never really took off for multiple reasons. The primary is probably the fact that all the AdBlock users can still block even all the ads that they approve, so naturally the overwhelming majority of users block all those as well. There's now also the fact that there are multiple other ad blockers that don't subscribe to that policy in any way that have an even larger market share. Funnily enough, AdBlock will actually allow almost any ads to get through, even quite annoying ones, as long as the advertiser pays them off directly. So they really have zero credibility in that regard.

 

[Ripper]

As I said, every legitimate advertising provider today gives everyone the ability to opt out of any tracking at any time and displays non-targeted ads instead. So there no "monetizing your personal data" in such a case, nor is there really any in the vast majority of other cases that would go beyond showing a user more targeted advertising. So branding all the advertising as out there to "monetize your personal data" is disingenuous at best.

Surely you understand how the game actually works? Here's just one example of Oracle's BlueKai system, which was in the headlines a couple of years ago. Of course their intent is to show you better targeted adverts, but they do this by trading the information they glean with their tracking tech with each other and the major data brokers. It's a massive ecosystem, and it's how the industry works. It's very clearly about monetizing people's personal information (and it can go way beyond targeted adverts.)

Who the hell's to say which are 'legitimate' advertisers, whether they honour their claims, and what their code does and doesn't do. We're supposed to trust this vast network of unknown parties with our information, when using information about us that way is their entire business model? I think that's naive in the extreme.

 

[Taluntain]

If you want to cherry pick individual cases out of hundreds of millions of legitimate advertisements to make your argument, you certainly can. You could really apply the same argument in real life much more readily with the same or greater amount of data gathering there across various sectors. The point is, using bad apples and "what-if" scenarios as an excuse to paint all the advertising as bad and in need of blocking is both factually incorrect and a vast exaggeration on the level of "an evil man kicked me once, therefore all men are evil and should be erased from my sight". In real life, that doesn't work, of course, but online the system is such that it actually does. But anyone capable of thinking ahead a bit will understand that the more people who block ads, the more websites will need to turn to paywalling their content or preventing access to those who refuse to whitelist them in their ad blockers. Which gets us back to the original topic before going off-tangent here a bit. It's a simple cause and consequence scenario.

 

[Ripper]

I think you’ve misunderstood the point I’m making. I’m not cherry-picking the example of BlueKai as one particularly egregious instance; the reason they were in the press was for the security leak, not the nature of what their system does. My point is that this is how the entire tracking/brokering industry works, there are countless similar systems, and I thought it best to provide an example. We could find more examples from now until next Christmas, because that’s what the business is. I’m afraid that if you think that’s a ‘vast exaggeration’, it is your facts that are misleading – and that’s why I wanted to post.

Of course you will put these adverts on here, and it’s your right to do so. But when you’re telling people that tracking and profiling is now a ‘non-issue’, and that these entities should simply be trusted, I certainly find that disingenuous.

Where I agree with you is that tracking is happening also in other ‘real world’ situations – but that’s not an argument against trying to prevent it wherever possible, or that our browsing habits are a particularly revealing set of data.

In terms of advertising going forward, it never needed this kind of personal data before, and only wants it now because it’s more profitable. If adverts were dumb banners placed in the sort of places they think relevant customers would see them (which is how advertising has always worked), I could see the argument against blocking them. But this is a whole different ballgame.

 

[Taluntain]

If adverts were dumb banners placed in the sort of places they think relevant customers would see them (which is how advertising has always worked), I could see the argument against blocking them. But this is a whole different ballgame.

"Dumb banners" is exactly what you get when you opt out, as I explained above. But I know, you don't trust that to be true, if not today, they could exploit it tomorrow, what-if, etc. That's fine, honestly neither you nor anyone else need to go to any lengths to attempt to justify blocking ads. Simply not liking ads is as good a justification as any.

Also, I didn't say, as you claim, "that tracking and profiling is now a ‘non-issue’". What I wrote was that as opposed to in the past, today you can opt out of it; in fact, you are required to make the choice whether you want to allow it or not on the first page load. So for anyone who is sensitive about this issue, the industry has made steps to address their concerns and provided the option to opt out. This didn't exist in the past.

Plenty of adverts on an average website are still dumb banners, as you call them, and ad blockers block all of them the same as any other ads.

 

[Ripper]

What I wrote was that as opposed to in the past, today you can opt out of it; in fact, you are required to make the choice whether you want to allow it or not on the first page load. So for anyone who is sensitive about this issue, the industry has made steps to address their concerns and provided the option to opt out. This didn't exist in the past.

Yes, and the reason that such requirements exist is that the shameless fuckery of said industry eventually caused the slow wheels of legislation to turn and do something about it. I'm suggesting that by not having adblocking on by default, one instead takes the default position of trusting all those myriad advertisers, across every site you visit, to now be respecting your privacy. I don't think that's a very good idea.

 

[Taluntain]

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't block ads anywhere. Not in nearly 30 years that I've been using the internet. I don't support most of the websites that I use with donations, so I feel that the least that I can do in return for free access is to let their ads load so they can get a few cents from my visits. Some ads can be annoying, sure, but I feel that there have been far fewer of those in the recent years. I do fully realize that when blocking all the ads is only a click away, it's far easier to come up with a million justifications to do it vs. not to, though. That's just human nature.

 

[Ripper]

Well, let's perhaps just agree to disagree, rather than the 'your argument is just a sad inevitability of human nature' route.

 

[Taluntain]

I wasn't referring to you specifically there, the prevalence of ad blocking is by far mostly down to how easy it is to do it and far less any actual concerns about privacy. Realistically, most people aren't very concerned about it when it comes to sharing their personal information over various social media, for instance.

 

[Pladio]

For me it's an allergic reaction to some sites which have millions of ads everywhere or which stops me from enjoying its content.
Unfortunately, the side effect is blocking most ads on most websites.

 

[SveNitoR]

Regarding ease of disabling ads, I'd guess this intersects with a general computer savviness. Most people don't block ads, but the computer nerds often do, and a lot of gamers are computer nerds.

Personally I block all JavaScript through NoScript and all ads with ublock by default. Then I allow some things once I trust a new web page more.

I don't use social media, since I don't want to be tracked so much, avoid Googles services as much as I can and I use Duckduckgo to search. I'm not paranoid enough to think the ad networks and social media companies collect data for evil purposes, but they do collect it to monetize the data.

I block as much as possible for my kids. I don't want them to grow up completely awash in ads. Ads do impact people, and kids are especially vulnerable. I'm also restrictive with what apps they are allowed to use, and how.

To be fair, the personalized ads suck. Not as much as non personalized, but they do suck. So obviously the companies algorithms aren't good enough at guessing my wants, and definitely not at the right time. I'm pretty convinced other types of marketing is much more effective, like influencers, streamers and product placement. It's obvious my kids are impacted by what streamers/Youtubers say and show.

 

[Stingray]

Personally I block all JavaScript through NoScript and all ads with ublock by default. Then I allow some things once I trust a new web page more.

Never looked at NoScript, but I'm surprised that any modern website would be functional without JavaScript. Do you have to whitelist everything you want to actually work? Does it come with a default whitelist containing "well known" sites? Wouldn't it be easier to just not visit sites that you don't trust enough to enable JavaScript for?