Ah sorry, I'm honestly quite naive on this topic, so you'll have to excuse me if this is boring/tiring. Maybe it's best to give me some links to rtfm on in you can be bothered (otherwise I'll just google it myself of course).
But just thought experimenting.. Say everyone uses ad blockers. Websites receive no ad revenue, websites die as main source of support to stay alive is ads. Now who gets affected by this? People who like the website and essentially are 'subscribed' to it right (keep coming back for more)? As opposed to those who just visit probably most commonly once for some particular piece of info or news.
So eventually it should go back to the days before ads infested the internet right, where everyone hosted because they could / was useful / original content etc? What's so scary or immoral about that, if anything that's even better right?
But that's only good for small websites, today's internet literally runs the world, sophisticated, large and complicated systems. Would this mean that to run the world without such ads (assuming I actually want the world to continue to being run by the internet), as everyone would use ad blockers anyway, these big websites would start charging for their content/functionality? Is that bad? I think maybe yes, that might be worse than just being gratis, but with ads (paywall → privacy concerns just to surf the internet). And so now I've come full circle and contradicted my original position. What other efficient ways are there to easily support large websites financially as ads can, if any?
---
Why do I avoid ads though in the first place?
1. Often (as in 99% of the time), they are very distracting. There are times when I'm on a computer without adblock, and I don't know how I ever survived without it. (Actually, I always inspect element > deleted, but to bother to do that everytime before I can read the content makes a point right?)
2. _Tracking → privacy concerns._
3. Because not what I came for. Captain obvious here.
So at the end of that, I think personally I wouldn't be opposed to non-tracking and non-distracting ads. But how do you confirm they do not track you? Can you? Is it possible to stop potential tracking attempts, without blocking the non-distractive (or unobtrusive) ads themselves?
---
I don't care if a site cannot support itself without ads and dies, I don't think it's immoral to not care about them if I don't care about their content in the long term.
Also, I don't think it's immoral to continue to use a site with adblockers when knowing full well that it might be functioning just due to those who do. I can understand why people think it's bad and is freeloading, but I think it's still justified because ads fuck you over privacy wise anyway, and so I think it's more important to protect yourself and your privacy than to have the only way to pay for the content compromise that. Just a too extreme form of payment.
Ignoring whether or not it's actually practically enforceable (because I don't think it is, nor do I think it should be possible), should it be the case that accessing a site's content is all or nothing. I.e. you get both the content and the ads or nothing at all. But even if you accept the all or nothing concept, you still have to compromise your privacy. I don't want the internet to be a place that's only useful if I 'accept' to give away my privacy. And I just realised how much of a simpleton I am regarding this topic..
But just thought experimenting.. Say everyone uses ad blockers. Websites receive no ad revenue, websites die as main source of support to stay alive is ads. Now who gets affected by this? People who like the website and essentially are 'subscribed' to it right (keep coming back for more)? As opposed to those who just visit probably most commonly once for some particular piece of info or news.
So eventually it should go back to the days before ads infested the internet right, where everyone hosted because they could / was useful / original content etc? What's so scary or immoral about that, if anything that's even better right?
But that's only good for small websites, today's internet literally runs the world, sophisticated, large and complicated systems. Would this mean that to run the world without such ads (assuming I actually want the world to continue to being run by the internet), as everyone would use ad blockers anyway, these big websites would start charging for their content/functionality? Is that bad? I think maybe yes, that might be worse than just being gratis, but with ads (paywall → privacy concerns just to surf the internet). And so now I've come full circle and contradicted my original position. What other efficient ways are there to easily support large websites financially as ads can, if any?
---
Why do I avoid ads though in the first place?
1. Often (as in 99% of the time), they are very distracting. There are times when I'm on a computer without adblock, and I don't know how I ever survived without it. (Actually, I always inspect element > deleted, but to bother to do that everytime before I can read the content makes a point right?)
2. _Tracking → privacy concerns._
3. Because not what I came for. Captain obvious here.
So at the end of that, I think personally I wouldn't be opposed to non-tracking and non-distracting ads. But how do you confirm they do not track you? Can you? Is it possible to stop potential tracking attempts, without blocking the non-distractive (or unobtrusive) ads themselves?
---
I don't care if a site cannot support itself without ads and dies, I don't think it's immoral to not care about them if I don't care about their content in the long term.
Also, I don't think it's immoral to continue to use a site with adblockers when knowing full well that it might be functioning just due to those who do. I can understand why people think it's bad and is freeloading, but I think it's still justified because ads fuck you over privacy wise anyway, and so I think it's more important to protect yourself and your privacy than to have the only way to pay for the content compromise that. Just a too extreme form of payment.
Ignoring whether or not it's actually practically enforceable (because I don't think it is, nor do I think it should be possible), should it be the case that accessing a site's content is all or nothing. I.e. you get both the content and the ads or nothing at all. But even if you accept the all or nothing concept, you still have to compromise your privacy. I don't want the internet to be a place that's only useful if I 'accept' to give away my privacy. And I just realised how much of a simpleton I am regarding this topic..