Adblocking - should it be banned?

[mustang1]

He was talking about the bit where the business concerned can pay the adblock company in order to be white-listed and thus not blocked by them.

I thought they wanted to block the adblocking software s businesses could continue spamming us with adverts.

 

[Drago]

They must get a right shock when people channel surf during the tv ads.

 

[nickyboy]

Howsabout this then.....

All sites that derive primarily all their revenue from advertisments, if you use an adblocker you can't access the site?

That would, of course, include Cyclechat

Doesn't seem an unreasonable position to adopt. Unless folk want something for nothing that is. Websites cost money to run so if you're not willing to participate in their chosen method of raising revenue to allow the website to be maintained why should you be able to access the website?

 

[jefmcg]

Howsabout this then.....

All sites that derive primarily all their revenue from advertisments, if you use an adblocker you can't access the site?

Well, yes, that seems fine with me. That's a completely different from the Government banning them. Personally I find the level of advertising on newspaper websites fairly intolerable. Before I had an adblocker, I'd cut and pasted the words into a text file to read without flashing ads drawing my attention away. So for the moment I just chose a different site if they won't show me the content without ads. That's my decision and their decision respectively, and there is no need for Government intervention.

That would, of course, include Cyclechat

Yes and no. I have adblocker turned off here, and I don't see any ads. Which seems pretty reasonable. As a contributor, I am a "content provider". The revenue that Shaun sees from ads is dependent on there being something other than ads on here.

 

[Drago]

Fine, then judging from the poll results above the massive majority of us then wouldn't access these sites and they'd die anyway.

 

[ufkacbln]

I am also fully aware that some ads are linked to your browsing history, so there is an element of "tailoring the ads to the individual"

However there is much that is unsuitable

 

[Shaun]

I think the increase in use of ad-blockers is closely related to the increase in size of ads and use of intrusive ads, as well as sites using masses of ads on a page to surround a small amount of content.

It does have a knock-on effect on CycleChat and other sites that don't display intrusive ads because most blockers are always-on, but I feel it is counter-intuitive to deny access to people using blockers since most visit CC as a guest a few times before registering as a member.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Howsabout this then.....

All sites that derive primarily all their revenue from advertisments, if you use an adblocker you can't access the site?

That would, of course, include Cyclechat

Doesn't seem an unreasonable position to adopt. Unless folk want something for nothing that is. Websites cost money to run so if you're not willing to participate in their chosen method of raising revenue to allow the website to be maintained why should you be able to access the website?

So long as that site remains responsible for the adverts that are served by their site, and any malicious ones. Of course, they will then need to make sure any adverts served are suitable for mobile viewing also, and then I think it will only be fair to notify the user of the size of the adverts so that the user can make a choice whether or not to continue if they're on a restricted bandwidth internet connection.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Out of curiosity, can anybody name a few advertising companies that have gone to the wall because of ad-blockers? Because if you can't, I suggest the culture secretary shift his attention to culture and away from inappropriate metaphors about protection rackets.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

Out of curiosity, can anybody name a few advertising companies that have gone to the wall because of ad-blockers? Because if you can't, I suggest the culture secretary shift his attention to culture and away from inappropriate metaphors about protection rackets.

About as many as music and film businesses went to the wall because of "piracy" which he mentioned in his interview.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

About as many as music and film businesses went to the wall because of "piracy" which he mentioned in his interview.

Who though? I mean, I know about the recording companies. Film companies less so but TV in general must have had an effect on them. Advertisers brought to their knees....?

 

[Supersuperleeds]

Who though?

I meant no one has gone bust

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I meant no one has gone bust

Aha, I misunderstood you! Some recording companies did go bust but that process was already underway before interwebbery came along.

 

[mustang1]

That as well but that bit is the justification.

I don't mind politicians coming out with weak justification (bossy attitude + no skill = politics), but I see too many examples of people not noticing this weak justification and discussing topics other than demoting said justification.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I am not sure how this started. Nobody is going to ban adblocker or its kind. Content providers have the ability to withhold content once they detect an adblocker. Some will ask you to whitelist to gain access to the content. Both the content provider and the consumer (viewer) have a choice. Its a happy medium.

The comment about livelihood of content providers being affected by adblocker is laughable. If the content has value, people will subscribe or pay for it. In some models people donate because they rate the content. The only ones who will complain about adblockers but do not want to block access to their content are those that do not have much value or little value to offer in content but rely on clickbait and spam to generate revenue.

In the case of Cyclechat and Shaun and many others operating a similar model, the content is provided by the active members and not Shaun. Shaun provided the direction, infrastructure, the maintenance and we all agree passively to the quid pro quo arrangement. It should however be acknowledged that Shaun carries the risk like all entrepreneurs in funding the build and the maintenance. These models are typically fee free for obvious reason unless the platform owner introduces esoteric content or content that is exclusive and not available free elsewhere,