Google planning changes to Chrome that could break ad blockers

The APIs that ad blockers depend on are also popular among malicious extensions.

Read the whole story

 

[graylshaped]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect them to reinvent online publishing.

Hyperbole doesn't help, either.

I'm not expecting Ars to reinvent online publishing, but they do have to do something other than the same-old same-old.

Clearly you have no genuine interest in helping be part of the solution, so I'll pass on discussing it further with you after this.

That's very telling, Aurich. I call you out for blaming the customer for not making a business model profitable, so you end the discussion.

He described it as being your choice. There was no blame assigned. Blame cannot be assigned. It can only be assumed, and it is telling you did so.

All the selfish cynicism you can muster won't hide the fact that you are a free-loader, and that the second half of your username is a misnomer.

 

[graylshaped]

What?

I was mocking peevee, since he seems to think reality is determined by his opinion. (i.e He was obviously downvoted by Ars staff, not actual forum users, because that's his understanding of how the forum works.)

You articulated it poorly. I've seen you do better on sensitive topics.

You are not having a good day. There really is no upside for your reputation in continuing to post on this thread.

 

[graylshaped]

There isn't a historical model on how to generate revenue, that omits either, or both of those items.

Currently, the site cannot exist without advertisers.

I am at a total loss to think of a single content source in any medium that could exist absent advertisers, subscribers, single-issue purchasers (micro-transactions), or patrons (sponsored content).

You are tilting at windmills.

 

[Dark Empath]

Clearly you have no genuine interest in helping be part of the solution

That's very telling, Aurich.

He described it as being your choice. There was no blame assigned.

He falsely accused me of having no genuine interest, then he ended the conversation after calling me smug. That sounds like he's assigning blame to me.

Blame cannot be assigned. It can only be assumed, and it is telling you did so.

"Blame cannot be assigned"? Why not? Are you saying that nobody has ever blamed anybody for anything? Seriously? Did you read that quote in a fortune cookie or something?

All the selfish cynicism you can muster won't hide the fact that you are a free-loader

Using the internet correctly and safely isn't freeloading.

the second half of your username is a misnomer.

:facepalm:
The second half is nothing without the first half. The first half is there for a reason.

 

[opfreakx]

The company that creates rules for Ads, then builds in an ad blocker for Ads that don't meet its ad rules, now blocks Ad blockers.

Oh you dumb asses that supported a truly evil company because of your hatred of Microsoft.

You seem to have not been around the days when Microsoft sucked.

They both suck. Both need to check each other, but it's hard to do so without causalities. Case in point, Apple killing every other smartphone platform.

I'm not denying IE sucked. But I also never bought into the church of google like so many people have. Currently use edge, ff, and chrome on some pcs. I'm not about to be some born again that preaches about any of them.

 

[graylshaped]

Clearly you have no genuine interest in helping be part of the solution

That's very telling, Aurich.

He described it as being your choice. There was no blame assigned.

[excuses and rationalization]

Sorry. Your pretense notwithstanding, the odor of your fecal effluence is detectable.

 

[Dark Empath]

There really is no upside for your reputation in continuing to post on this thread.

My reputation?

So you're thoughts and opinions are contingent on whether you think other people will agree with you? You choose to believe and articulate only what you think will be popular? That's pretty pathetic, dude.

I am at a total loss to think of a single content source in any medium that could exist absent advertisers, subscribers, single-issue purchasers (micro-transactions), or patrons (sponsored content).

You are tilting at windmills.

Speaking of tilting at windmills, I have no idea what you think you just demonstrated. You literally just doubled the number of ways Ars could generate revenue.

I claim Ars should diversify revenue streams because the two they have might not sustain them into the future, and you list twice as many revenue streams as Ars uses, claiming they can't exist without them. Thankyou graylshaped, you're supporting exactly what I said.

Now, if Ars can come up with more streams, it'll be even more resilient to the whims of advertisers, users, and markets.

 

[Dark Empath]

Sorry. Your pretense notwithstanding, the odor of your fecal effluence is detectable.

*slow clap*

 

[graylshaped]

There really is no upside for your reputation in continuing to post on this thread.

My reputation?

So you're thoughts and opinions are contingent on whether you think other people will agree with you? You choose to believe and articulate only what you think will be popular? That's pretty pathetic, dude.

Hey, you are the one attempting to convince a business you utilize that they should change. Credibility plays into such an effort.

You are burning yours, the "pathetic" attempt to deflect this onto me notwithstanding.

 

[Dark Empath]

Hey, you are the one attempting to convince a business you utilize that they should change.

As opposed to Aurich, who thinks the users should change to suit the business?

Which of us do you think is being more realistic? (That's an honest question.)

Credibility plays into such an effort.

Yes it does, and this constant deflection into "reputation" and "credibility" instead of actually addressing my points or questions is getting tedious. I mean, you reduced yourself to making fun of my username instead of addressing my points. That's how little you've actually thought about this topic.

 

[graylshaped]

Hey, you are the one attempting to convince a business you utilize that they should change.

As opposed to Aurich, who thinks the users should change to suit the business?

Which of us do you think is being more realistic? (That's an honest question.)

Credibility plays into such an effort.

Yes it does, and this constant deflection into "reputation" and "credibility" instead of actually addressing my points or questions is getting tedious. I mean, you reduced yourself to making fun of my username instead of addressing my points. That's how little you've actually thought about this topic.

Aurich pointed out YOU own your choice. You are the one defining who you are, not him.

*shrug* Reputation and credibility play into one's ability to convince others of your point of view. This is Communications 101 stuff, my dark friend. You clearly have some rhetorical skill, innate or via training, as shown by your attempt to co-opt the (accurate) description of your own deflection back onto me. You fail, but I note the attempt.

Noting the irony inherent in one with your expressed lack of empathy choosing such a username is not the same as making fun of it.

What "points" have you made? Your "OMG I GOT HIM" comment I doubled their revenue options? They have subscriber and ad streams. They offer one-time purchases via merchandise, as Aurich acknowledged while correctly saying that isn't the path on which to rely, and he flat-out said patronage is not a path they intend to take.

I've thought deeply about this topic and chose to subscribe. You have put zero thought into this, and clearly base your point of view on delusion entitlement.

 

[grommit!]

I am at a total loss to think of a single content source in any medium that could exist absent advertisers, subscribers, single-issue purchasers (micro-transactions), or patrons (sponsored content).

You are tilting at windmills.

Speaking of tilting at windmills, I have no idea what you think you just demonstrated. You literally just doubled the number of ways Ars could generate revenue.

Let's take a look at that list more closely:

- Advertisers and subscribers. Already in place. For context, the site had around 15 million unique visitors a month as of 2017. Less than 0.1% of those comment, so the subscriber base is a fraction of that.

- Single-issue purchasers (micro-transactions). Not feasible for any business with high fixed costs due to unpredictable income. A variation of this (full-time paywall for individual stories) would reduce budgets all round, reduce coverage/result in clickbait, reducing readership etc in a downward spiral.

- Sponsored content. Already discussed, considered unacceptable by many - as evidenced by the furor when previous "sponsored" series by the likes of GE and SAP were ran.

Short of ars finding a patron with large pockets willing to fund it out of the goodness of their heart, what other options are there?

Hey, you are the one attempting to convince a business you utilize that they should change.

As opposed to Aurich, who thinks the users should change to suit the business?

Asking users to pay for good quality content is not new - see newspapers and magazines. You want something good for free? Well, good luck with that - the free lunch is almost over.

 

[Aurich]

We have ads. Traditional ass boring ads. They're bigger than they used to be, but we don't do popups, we don't follow you around the page playing videos, we don't do autoplay sound. It's the best we can do really, if you think there's a way to make money with some text based ads you're fooling yourself.

We have a subscriber program with benefits, amongst which are zero ads and tracking. Is anyone else even doing that? Love to know if you know of one.

We do affiliate links, if you buy something from Dealmaster or a review that's got a code we get some percentage. We also have a clear ethics statement about that stuff, and we don't do things like paid junkets. We're as aboveboard and transparent as we can be really.

We sometimes do 'advertorial' pages where we host someone else's copy, but those have a clear [SPONSORED] box before the text, they're in a different font from our articles (seriffed), and you have to click on an ad to even get to them. Zero chance of being fooled into thinking it's real editorial content. I bet most of you have never even seen one honestly. Been around for years.

We don't do paid editorial. If someone says "this story is an ad, you're on the take" they're just being an asshole, they aren't correct. We skirted too close to the edge once with GE, that got uncomfortable, so we learned from it. Even that wasn't advertorial, but still, it got a little weird, no argument.

We sell tshirts and mugs and shit like that. It's hardly worth the time and effort, it's more for fun really. Any revenue from that is basically incidental. Please, buy some, it's great, but it's not supporting the business.

I really don't know what else to even say. Is there a paywall coming? Not right now, but nothing is off the table for sure these days. Condé is clearly moving in that direction, and there's a reason for it.

I dunno what I'm missing, maybe we'll think of something else. I like reader-supported subscriber stuff the best, it's the most ethical. No middle man, we do content, you enjoy it, and in the middle is just these interactions, the forum, the comments, hopefully a little fun. I've got a long list of subscriber perks and comment improvements that we're working on.

End of that day though that's really what this is. We do content, you read it, and somehow compensate us for it. If that doesn't work we go out of business, and so does half the web. This isn't about Ars, it's about global platforms. Journalism is very vulnerable, and if you don't think you'll miss it then frankly I think you're an idiot, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that.

So if you want to block ads and you don't subscribe to the places you love, don't be surprised when things get messy. Yes, I'm 100% biased and self-interested here, whitelist us first lol. But I really am talking big picture here. Ad blocking isn't a handful of geeks showing up as a little percentage in the logs. It's mainstream, and that has consequences.

Edit: Oh, we do video too! And if you haven't watched our War Storie series you really should, it's great. We not only do video, but we actually do good video now. In depth, technical, geeky, and also (importantly) things that make for good video instead of an article. Read the comments on our video stories, people don't bitch anymore heh.

 

[Dark Empath]

Aurich pointed out YOU own your choice.

Yes, and I pointed out that my choice might lose me a news site, while his choice might lose him his livelihood. He can blame the site's readers for their choices all he wants, but that won't change the outcome.

What will change the outcome is Ars making changes, before Conde Nast forces changes. Neither you nor Aurich will change the outcome by blaming the readers and their choices.

You are the one defining who you are, not him.

I haven't defined myself at all. I've left myself completely out of the argument, talking solely about being realistic in regards to revenue and business. However you have defined me, focussing on personal attacks as opposed to addressing my points.

What "points" have you made?

That blaming the customers for not supporting your business model leads to bankruptcy, that ad revenue is unreliable at best and declining overall, and that sites like Ars need to diversify their revenue in order to protect themselves. Given the chance I probably make more (such as expecting casual readers to whitelist their site over others is generally unrealistic).

You've basically ignored all these and resorted to personal attacks ("freeloader", "delusion entitlement").

[Aurich] flat-out said patronage is not a path they intend to take.

I know, yet I never got a response when I brought up the "articles" promoting "19% off TVs in time for the Superbowl!" Ars is full of them. They're ads, obviously, yet Aurich claims they're not.

He just ignored that the same way you ignored my question: Which of us is being more realistic? Aurich who thinks the users to change their behaviour, or me who thinks the business to change its behaviour?

Because honestly, Aurich talks like his ideal is the Black Mirror episode Fifteen Million Merits.

 

[Dark Empath]

Asking users to pay for good quality content is not new

No it's not, but all we see are the business that managed to pull it off, not the 99% that failed.

 

[bthylafh]

The only other alternative is "sponsored content", which would piss off most of the readership.

*cough*outbrain*cough*

 

[grommit!]

Asking users to pay for good quality content is not new

No it's not, but all we see are the business that managed to pull it off, not the 99% that failed.

As I said in the bit you conveniently cut off - the free lunch is almost over. Not just for ars, but for lots of other sites. You can go "LOL, not my problem" if you want, but you can't say you weren't warned.

The only other alternative is "sponsored content", which would piss off most of the readership.

*cough*outbrain*cough*

Exactly.

[edit]

I know, yet I never got a response when I brought up the "articles" promoting "19% off TVs in time for the Superbowl!" Ars is full of them. They're ads, obviously, yet Aurich claims they're not.

I find it amusing you're complaining about these after suggesting ars diversify their revenue streams.

 

[Dark Empath]

As I said in the bit you conveniently cut off

It wasn't "conveniently cut off", it was nothing new. It's been said multiple times already.

the free lunch is almost over. Not just for ars, but for lots of other sites.

Probably. And like Tom said on the previous page, it'll be the wrong 75% of sites that go under.

You can go "LOL, not my problem" if you want, but you can't say you weren't warned.

I do not understand this constant strawman bullshit. Not once have I said anything like that, I've gone out of my way to leave my personal feelings out of it.

All I did was say the stakes were bigger for Aurich than for me. He can assign blame to the readers, or he can take a look at the business options. I don't want Ars to go under any more than you do, but being unrealistic about the direction things are going will not help.

 

[grommit!]

As I said in the bit you conveniently cut off

It wasn't "conveniently cut off", it was nothing new. It's been said multiple times already.

the free lunch is almost over. Not just for ars, but for lots of other sites.

Probably. And like Tom said on the previous page, it'll be the wrong 75% of sites that go under.

You can go "LOL, not my problem" if you want, but you can't say you weren't warned.

I do not understand this constant strawman bullshit. Not once have I said anything like that, I've gone out of my way to leave my personal feelings out of it.

All I did was say the stakes were bigger for Aurich than for me. He can assign blame to the readers, or he can take a look at the business options. I don't want Ars to go under any more than you do, but being unrealistic about the direction things are going will not help.

You've said all along that it's up to ars to find ways to sustain itself. That is the very definition of "LOL, not my problem" - especially given you rejected all the ways they have come up with.

Aurich is right though. There's no point in engaging with you on this.

 

[Dark Empath]

Speaking of strawmanning...

I find it amusing you're complaining about these after suggesting ars diversify their revenue streams.

I wasn't complaining about them, I was calling out Aurich for claiming they don't do sponsored content, when they obviously do.

Of course they should diversify their revenue, I just don't understand why he'd lie about it. Yes, he later said Ars gets a commission from those articles, which is fine, but he originally called that "sleazy" and said Ars will never do that.

So why are you pretending I'm the one with the issue? Christ almighty.

 

[grommit!]

Speaking of strawmanning...

I find it amusing you're complaining about these after suggesting ars diversify their revenue streams.

I wasn't complaining about them, I was calling out Aurich for claiming they don't do sponsored content, when they obviously do.

Of course they should diversify their revenue, I just don't understand why he'd lie about it. Yes, he later said Ars gets a commission from those articles, which is fine, but he originally called that "sleazy" and said Ars will never do that.

So why are you pretending I'm the one with the issue? Christ almighty.

As you got in before my edit - because he already addressed it :facepalm:

 

[Aurich]

Affiliate linking and advertorial are two entirely different things, with entirely different ethical issues, please stop trying to conflate them.

I haven't lied about a thing, but feel free to call me a liar again and see what I do about it.

 

[Dark Empath]

You've said all along that it's up to ars to find ways to sustain itself.

Uh huh, you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

Because you're speaking as if you think businesses have the right to receive revenue.

That is the very definition of "LOL, not my problem"

That is just fucking lazy. I want Ars to be able to sustain itself into the future, therefore "lol not my problem". FFS, that's lazy of you.

especially given you rejected all the ways they have come up with.

"All" the ways? You mean "both" ways. Yes. Give me a better option, or find alternatives.

Aurich is right though. There's no point in engaging with you on this.

Why? Did you run out of straw?

 

[graylshaped]

You've said all along that it's up to ars to find ways to sustain itself.

Uh huh, you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

Says the freeloader walking out of the store with candy dripping from his pockets.

The level of intellectual dishonesty you are displaying is truly audacious.

 

[wagnerrp]

If all it does is relay requests, it's not a server.

If it listens for incoming unsolicited datagrams and responds to queries, that's pretty much the definition a server.

Then every relay is a server, every access point is a server.

It also means your router has a built-in Facebook server, a built-in google server, a built-in Arstechnica server, etc. But in reality it doesn't, it simply forwards requests to the real server.

A proxy server is still a server.

Yes, and all ducks are birds, but that doesn't make every bird a duck.

Not all routers are proxy servers, but they are relays, or gateways. These terms actually have useful definitions, and it doesn't help when you muddy the language by calling anything that forwards packets a proxy or a server.

If it forwards on layer 2, it's a switch. If it forwards on layer 3, it's a router. If operating at a higher layer than that, as an application-specific DNS forwarder or proxy does, it's a server. There's nothing muddy in the language.

 

[Dark Empath]

That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

Says the freeloader walking out of the store with candy dripping from his pockets.

And once again, you dodge, duck, evade, make personal attacks, and won't answer a straight forward question.

That is a clear indication of your personal integrity right there. You really do think businesses are entitled to revenue.

 

[graylshaped]

That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?

Says the freeloader walking out of the store with candy dripping from his pockets.

And once again, you dodge, duck, evade, make personal attacks, and won't answer a straight forward question.

That is a clear indication of your personal integrity right there. You really do think businesses are entitled to revenue.

Okay. I'll bite. What straight forward question did you ask?

 

[Dark Empath]

Okay. I'll bite. What straight forward question did you ask?

You fucking quoted it.

"That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?"

Because everyone here keeps framing things as if businesses have the right to be profitable, they have the right to receive revenue. That's bullshit. Businesses need to make practical business decisions to stay afloat, just like the rest of us do.

Thegrommit said "You've said all along that it's up to ars to find ways to sustain itself." As if that's a bad thing! As if Ars shouldn't have to sustain itself. So I asked him if he thought businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves, which of course he didn't answer. Just like you didn't answer when I posted "Which of us do you think is being more realistic? (That's an honest question.)"

 

[grommit!]

Okay. I'll bite. What straight forward question did you ask?

It was originally about diversity of revenue, but it doesn't matter. For all his talk, he just doesn't want to pay. Any further discussion is just an attempt to distract from that, so there's no point.

 

[graylshaped]

Okay. I'll bite. What straight forward question did you ask?

You fucking quoted it.

"That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?"

Because everyone here keeps framing things as if businesses have the right to be profitable, they have the right to receive revenue. That's bullshit. Businesses need to make practical business decisions to stay afloat, just like the rest of us do.

Thegrommit said "You've said all along that it's up to ars to find ways to sustain itself." As if that's a bad thing! As if Ars shouldn't have to sustain itself. So I asked him if he thought businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves, which of course he didn't answer. Just like you didn't answer when I posted "Which of us do you think is being more realistic? (That's an honest question.)"

That's not a question. You're JAQing off, and you know it. Of course businesses must take it upon themselves to survive. Is that some kind of gotcha?

You say it's name-calling: I say it is truth in labeling: You Are A Freeloader. You act as if Ars owes you its service for free. You're proud of it. "It's on them to get money to survive, but don't expect it from me" is the tenor of all your posts here.

Your other pointless question, regarding which of you was being more realistic about the business model: Aurich is being far more realistic. Your solution is to change the business, with no parameters or options or suggestions. You offer no suggestions, no meat--only assurances that you intend to continue to consume the content for your pleasure with less than a by your leave--with scorn for their ALLOWING you to mooch. On the other hand, after acknowledging that you are free to do so if that's what floats your decrepit boat, Aurich reminded you it is your choice, with the very realistic statement that if too many customers act as entitled as you--and, yes, I'm paraphrasing--then you probably won't have Ars to kick around any more.

To which your response was--again paraphrasing--That would suck more for you than for me.

How sad for you to think you are staking out some sort of moral high ground here.


edit: two grammar corrections

 

[Fibonaccied]

To be fair, there's one expense Ars has already dispensed with in the interests of streamlining: Ron Amadeo's salary is, of course, paid by Apple.

 

[TomXP411]

"That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?"

Of course they do. They follow the social contract.

They create. You consume. You pay for it.

How are you paying for Ars Technica's news, Dark? Are you viewing the ads, or are you a paying subscriber?

Or are you the third choice? What is the third choice?
That's the guy who doesn't pay for what he takes, despite the clear social contract.
What do we call people who take things without paying for it?

Let's ask this guy, I'll bet he knows...

You love Ars Technica. You have posted here over 7000 times. You've been a member for more than 11 years.

So ask yourself, do you think it's really fair to spend so much time here, to soak up all of their hard work, and not pay for it?

Because only one kind of person does that, and I think we all know what kind of person that is.

As for me, I've put my money where my mouth is. I don't want the ads, so I pulled out my credit card.

Will you do the same? Put that et Subscriptor tag after your name, and then you can talk.

 

[cbreak]

All I know is I appreciate all the Ars readers who use the best form of not seeing ads on the web.

https://arstechnica.com/store/product/subscriptions/

Weird... UBlock Origin didn't block that post! Conspiracy!

 

[graylshaped]

"That is a serious question (the sort nobody seems willing to ever answer). Do you think businesses shouldn't have to sustain themselves?"

Of course they do. They follow the social contract.

They create. You consume. You pay for it.

How are you paying for Ars Technica's news, Dark? Are you viewing the ads, or are you a paying subscriber?

Or are you the third choice? What is the third choice?
That's the guy who doesn't pay for what he takes, despite the clear social contract.
What do we call people who take things without paying for it?

Let's ask this guy, I'll bet he knows...

You love Ars Technica. You have posted here over 7000 times. You've been a member for more than 11 years.

So ask yourself, do you think it's really fair to spend so much time here, to soak up all of their hard work, and not pay for it?

Because only one kind of person does that, and I think we all know what kind of person that is.

As for me, I've put my money where my mouth is. I don't want the ads, so I pulled out my credit card.

Will you do the same? Put that et Subscriptor tag after your name, and then you can talk.

Our Dark friend has articulated a new form for the long-established principle of Tragedy of the Commons. He and his ilk will proselytize ad-blocking, proclaiming its virtues, all the while saying "it's their fault they let us."

Full disclosure: I use an adblocker. A few pages into these comments, I paused, checked my browser history, and whitelisted several sites I use regularly, and want to continue to be able to do so.

 

[ab78]

While all this is true, the ball is in content producers' court to convince readers that their sites are safe to use with ads turned on.

I don't think that's true honestly. Ad blocking because of malware is a niche issue. Niche because few users know or care about it (in general, obviously higher here at Ars), and niche because it's just not a major problem. I'm not trying to pick a fight with security conscious people, but malware in ads on major sites is just not a huge threat. It could be better, no argument, but it's not the crux of the matter.

People just don't want to see ads.

I think that's the honest conversation to have. I don't mean the arguments about malware or your slow computer or anything else are not valid, but in the big picture "how are we going to survive this" the main reason the general public ad blocks now is because it's easy and they don't have to look at ads.

I think most people have no idea there's even a cost being paid by that choice. They think if they weren't going to click anyways it's not harming anything. I hear this all the time. It's not true in case you're one of those folks by the way.

My response is simple: whatever your reason for blocking, now that it's widespread it's a real problem for sites. And they're going to respond by either putting up paywalls, blocking ad blockers and starting a new phase in that war, or simply laying off people and eventually going out of business.

Is what it is, but if you want to be part of the conversation you have to see all the sides. I'm not going to save Ars by trying to convince the people reading page 7 of the article comments to subscribe, but maybe at least ponder what it all looks like from different angles, and how you want to be a part of that.

Individual subs to web sites is not something I'm likely to do, but a shared subscription system is something I'd support and be involved in.

Maybe that will end up the answer, I dunno. It's a pretty difficult solution to imagine right now, would require a hell of a lot of cooperation between a lot of vastly different companies.

I get that no one wants to subscribe to every site they use. But look at the registration dates in these comments. If you're a 2013 reg for instance, that's not even considered 'old school' here, and you've been with us for 6 years. It seems like we're more than just another website to some, so maybe that's worth putting in the 'special' bucket where a sub makes sense to you.

Aurich,

I don't particularly care whether I see ads or not except that they form a security risk (and obviously the egregious cover-the-screen, interrupt you and piss you off ones which Ars obviously doesn't run!). I tend to read Ars at work at lunchtime so seeing as work don't feel they need to run adblockers, I'm content that my use is covered by the ad-supported model for the time being. If I were to mainly read it at home, Ars would be one of the sites I would subscribe to. However...

I think there's a gap in the available subscription models (for all websites). The choices are either don't subscribe, or take a relatively expensive all-you-can-eat monthly subscription. That's fine for a very tiny handful of sites that I read almost every day (Ars and the Guardian) but there are a much greater number of sites that I might read occasionally: often enough to be glad of their continued existence, but not often enough to make it worth subscribing, and no I'm still not turning my adblocker off.

What I would like to see become widespread is a third option, where you could make a small micropayment (maybe a dollar or so) and it gets rid of adverts and any naggy "please subscribe" message from the site for a certain number of page views, even if those page views take place over several months. The small amount would be a much smaller barrier to paying infrequently-used websites for a lack of advertising, and although there are a small number of sites I visit very regularly, most of my page hits overall are from sites I visit much less frequently. Assuming my web use is a fairly common pattern, it seems there's a lot of scope to improve sites' revenues by providing a payment option that better suits infrequent visitors.

 

[graylshaped]

While all this is true, the ball is in content producers' court to convince readers that their sites are safe to use with ads turned on.

I don't think that's true honestly. Ad blocking because of malware is a niche issue. Niche because few users know or care about it (in general, obviously higher here at Ars), and niche because it's just not a major problem. I'm not trying to pick a fight with security conscious people, but malware in ads on major sites is just not a huge threat. It could be better, no argument, but it's not the crux of the matter.

People just don't want to see ads.

I think that's the honest conversation to have. I don't mean the arguments about malware or your slow computer or anything else are not valid, but in the big picture "how are we going to survive this" the main reason the general public ad blocks now is because it's easy and they don't have to look at ads.

I think most people have no idea there's even a cost being paid by that choice. They think if they weren't going to click anyways it's not harming anything. I hear this all the time. It's not true in case you're one of those folks by the way.

My response is simple: whatever your reason for blocking, now that it's widespread it's a real problem for sites. And they're going to respond by either putting up paywalls, blocking ad blockers and starting a new phase in that war, or simply laying off people and eventually going out of business.

Is what it is, but if you want to be part of the conversation you have to see all the sides. I'm not going to save Ars by trying to convince the people reading page 7 of the article comments to subscribe, but maybe at least ponder what it all looks like from different angles, and how you want to be a part of that.

Individual subs to web sites is not something I'm likely to do, but a shared subscription system is something I'd support and be involved in.

Maybe that will end up the answer, I dunno. It's a pretty difficult solution to imagine right now, would require a hell of a lot of cooperation between a lot of vastly different companies.

I get that no one wants to subscribe to every site they use. But look at the registration dates in these comments. If you're a 2013 reg for instance, that's not even considered 'old school' here, and you've been with us for 6 years. It seems like we're more than just another website to some, so maybe that's worth putting in the 'special' bucket where a sub makes sense to you.

Aurich,

I don't particularly care whether I see ads or not except that they form a security risk (and obviously the egregious cover-the-screen, interrupt you and piss you off ones which Ars obviously doesn't run!). I tend to read Ars at work at lunchtime so seeing as work don't feel they need to run adblockers, I'm content that my use is covered by the ad-supported model for the time being. If I were to mainly read it at home, Ars would be one of the sites I would subscribe to. However...

I think there's a gap in the available subscription models (for all websites). The choices are either don't subscribe, or take a relatively expensive all-you-can-eat monthly subscription. That's fine for a very tiny handful of sites that I read almost every day (Ars and the Guardian) but there are a much greater number of sites that I might read occasionally: often enough to be glad of their continued existence, but not often enough to make it worth subscribing, and no I'm still not turning my adblocker off.

What I would like to see become widespread is a third option, where you could make a small micropayment (maybe a dollar or so) and it gets rid of adverts and any naggy "please subscribe" message from the site for a certain number of page views, even if those page views take place over several months. The small amount would be a much smaller barrier to paying infrequently-used websites for a lack of advertising, and although there are a small number of sites I visit very regularly, most of my page hits overall are from sites I visit much less frequently. Assuming my web use is a fairly common pattern, it seems there's a lot of scope to improve sites' revenues by providing a payment option that better suits infrequent visitors.

How do you feel about paying less than the price of one Grande Latte per month? Locked in for two years. AKA: $80 for two years. I'll charitably assign the recently announced Hulu price reducation to a comparison: $168 for a content provider that I use maybe a third as much.

Ars had such a deal recently, and I jumped on it. Plus tchotchkes (for which I probably should place the order).

They are on this, dude. Jump in. The water is fine.

 

[MontyPython]

This might be unpopular, but most web pages are created by people earning a salary. Yet most don't require payment...because of ads. So seriously, unless the ads are malicious, they should be shown.

I would actually agree, IF the ads would not be malicious. But almost all of them are, and their malice is stealing my precious time by showing me 1) non-relevant ads which I would NEVER click on (despite ad networks, especially Google's, knowing everything about everybody), 2) mostly false advertisement; 3) distracting presentation. Not even talking about scripts, videos etc in them.

In the perfect ad world, all ads would be
1) small and non-obtrusive, but CLEARLY marked as ads, having different background and font from the page content
2) >50% relevant to the viewer (as in >50% of probability of click through, meaning they are more likely to be useful for both advertiser and the user than not)
3) clearly marked by who and from which country pays for it (maybe in short form, like "IBM", with full data on hover or on click in small pop-up)
4) from companies SUEABLE for false advertisement in the country of the viewer (meaning the company has tangible assets in this country to lose if the ad is misleading)
5) with ability to close it, using big and clear close button, once and forever.

Because 99.9999% of ads are NOT like this, they ARE malicious, full stop. And the only thing which can push ad companies to that brighter, honest future is universal usage of adblockers.

Friends do not let friends NOT to use uBlock Origin.

Most ads on mainstream sites, actually pretty much all..are not malicious. You want content for free, just admit it. You're not any different than movie or music pirates.

 

[ab78]

While all this is true, the ball is in content producers' court to convince readers that their sites are safe to use with ads turned on.

I don't think that's true honestly. Ad blocking because of malware is a niche issue. Niche because few users know or care about it (in general, obviously higher here at Ars), and niche because it's just not a major problem. I'm not trying to pick a fight with security conscious people, but malware in ads on major sites is just not a huge threat. It could be better, no argument, but it's not the crux of the matter.

People just don't want to see ads.

I think that's the honest conversation to have. I don't mean the arguments about malware or your slow computer or anything else are not valid, but in the big picture "how are we going to survive this" the main reason the general public ad blocks now is because it's easy and they don't have to look at ads.

I think most people have no idea there's even a cost being paid by that choice. They think if they weren't going to click anyways it's not harming anything. I hear this all the time. It's not true in case you're one of those folks by the way.

My response is simple: whatever your reason for blocking, now that it's widespread it's a real problem for sites. And they're going to respond by either putting up paywalls, blocking ad blockers and starting a new phase in that war, or simply laying off people and eventually going out of business.

Is what it is, but if you want to be part of the conversation you have to see all the sides. I'm not going to save Ars by trying to convince the people reading page 7 of the article comments to subscribe, but maybe at least ponder what it all looks like from different angles, and how you want to be a part of that.

Individual subs to web sites is not something I'm likely to do, but a shared subscription system is something I'd support and be involved in.

Maybe that will end up the answer, I dunno. It's a pretty difficult solution to imagine right now, would require a hell of a lot of cooperation between a lot of vastly different companies.

I get that no one wants to subscribe to every site they use. But look at the registration dates in these comments. If you're a 2013 reg for instance, that's not even considered 'old school' here, and you've been with us for 6 years. It seems like we're more than just another website to some, so maybe that's worth putting in the 'special' bucket where a sub makes sense to you.

Aurich,

I don't particularly care whether I see ads or not except that they form a security risk (and obviously the egregious cover-the-screen, interrupt you and piss you off ones which Ars obviously doesn't run!). I tend to read Ars at work at lunchtime so seeing as work don't feel they need to run adblockers, I'm content that my use is covered by the ad-supported model for the time being. If I were to mainly read it at home, Ars would be one of the sites I would subscribe to. However...

I think there's a gap in the available subscription models (for all websites). The choices are either don't subscribe, or take a relatively expensive all-you-can-eat monthly subscription. That's fine for a very tiny handful of sites that I read almost every day (Ars and the Guardian) but there are a much greater number of sites that I might read occasionally: often enough to be glad of their continued existence, but not often enough to make it worth subscribing, and no I'm still not turning my adblocker off.

What I would like to see become widespread is a third option, where you could make a small micropayment (maybe a dollar or so) and it gets rid of adverts and any naggy "please subscribe" message from the site for a certain number of page views, even if those page views take place over several months. The small amount would be a much smaller barrier to paying infrequently-used websites for a lack of advertising, and although there are a small number of sites I visit very regularly, most of my page hits overall are from sites I visit much less frequently. Assuming my web use is a fairly common pattern, it seems there's a lot of scope to improve sites' revenues by providing a payment option that better suits infrequent visitors.

How do you feel about paying less than the price of one Grande Latte per month? Locked in for two years. AKA: $80 for two years. I'll charitably assign the recently announced Hulu price reducation to a comparison: $168 for a content provider that I use maybe a third as much.

Ars had such a deal recently, and I jumped on it. Plus tchotchkes (for which I probably should place the order).

They are on this, dude. Jump in. The water is fine.

You miss my point. I'm entirely happy for Ars to have my money, I read it regularly and value it. I normally read it on a platform where I see the ads and it's therefore ad supported, and I'm fine with that. If I end up primarily reading it at home, I'll happily subscribe.

I'm on about other sites that I read infrequently but value enough to want to help contribute to their survival. There are lots of such sites (e.g. NY Times, Slashdot, etc....), and I'm not going to take out an $80 subscription to each of them, it's not worth it. What I would do, if there were a mechanism to do so, is pay them a dollar or so to remove adverts (or rather to ease my conscience about running an adblocker) for every x stories I read, even if I might only read those stories over a matter of several months. The subscription rate is $3/month and I imagine most subscribers read more than 1 story a day, so <10c per story. The usage-based model could charge a dollar and that covers you to have adverts removed from the next 10 stories you read, and the micropayment button appears on any page that is served up with adverts.

Obviously, for other people Ars might be one of the sites they read only infrequently, and I suspect many people would find a usage-based micropayment model ideal.

 

[Gooner1]

gHacks published an article this morning with news that Opera has also gotten into the "block the ad-blockers game," currently only with search engines.

Opera users who run any recent version of the web browser -- Stable, Beta or Developer -- and either the native ad blocker or a browser extension that blocks advertisement, may have noticed that ads are no longer blocked by either solution on search results pages.

Opera users with content blockers enabled may notice that advertisement is displayed as if no content blocker was enabled in the browser on search results page.

Opera made no mention of the change in recent Opera changelogs. Developers find information about it on Opera's Dev website:

Opera implements an additional privacy protection mechanism. By default, extensions are not allowed to access and manipulate search results provided by most built-in engines.

It feels like it is nearing endgame for web browsers that rely on advertisers for money.

"Now that Microsoft has finally folded and Chromium rules the web, what are you going to do?  Run Firefox? Pfft.  Watch as we break YouTube on non-Chrome browsers.  Then what are you going to do?"

Breaking Youtube is a plus, not a minus.

 

[graylshaped]

While all this is true, the ball is in content producers' court to convince readers that their sites are safe to use with ads turned on.

I don't think that's true honestly. Ad blocking because of malware is a niche issue. Niche because few users know or care about it (in general, obviously higher here at Ars), and niche because it's just not a major problem. I'm not trying to pick a fight with security conscious people, but malware in ads on major sites is just not a huge threat. It could be better, no argument, but it's not the crux of the matter.

People just don't want to see ads.

I think that's the honest conversation to have. I don't mean the arguments about malware or your slow computer or anything else are not valid, but in the big picture "how are we going to survive this" the main reason the general public ad blocks now is because it's easy and they don't have to look at ads.

I think most people have no idea there's even a cost being paid by that choice. They think if they weren't going to click anyways it's not harming anything. I hear this all the time. It's not true in case you're one of those folks by the way.

My response is simple: whatever your reason for blocking, now that it's widespread it's a real problem for sites. And they're going to respond by either putting up paywalls, blocking ad blockers and starting a new phase in that war, or simply laying off people and eventually going out of business.

Is what it is, but if you want to be part of the conversation you have to see all the sides. I'm not going to save Ars by trying to convince the people reading page 7 of the article comments to subscribe, but maybe at least ponder what it all looks like from different angles, and how you want to be a part of that.

Individual subs to web sites is not something I'm likely to do, but a shared subscription system is something I'd support and be involved in.

Maybe that will end up the answer, I dunno. It's a pretty difficult solution to imagine right now, would require a hell of a lot of cooperation between a lot of vastly different companies.

I get that no one wants to subscribe to every site they use. But look at the registration dates in these comments. If you're a 2013 reg for instance, that's not even considered 'old school' here, and you've been with us for 6 years. It seems like we're more than just another website to some, so maybe that's worth putting in the 'special' bucket where a sub makes sense to you.

Aurich,

I don't particularly care whether I see ads or not except that they form a security risk (and obviously the egregious cover-the-screen, interrupt you and piss you off ones which Ars obviously doesn't run!). I tend to read Ars at work at lunchtime so seeing as work don't feel they need to run adblockers, I'm content that my use is covered by the ad-supported model for the time being. If I were to mainly read it at home, Ars would be one of the sites I would subscribe to. However...

I think there's a gap in the available subscription models (for all websites). The choices are either don't subscribe, or take a relatively expensive all-you-can-eat monthly subscription. That's fine for a very tiny handful of sites that I read almost every day (Ars and the Guardian) but there are a much greater number of sites that I might read occasionally: often enough to be glad of their continued existence, but not often enough to make it worth subscribing, and no I'm still not turning my adblocker off.

What I would like to see become widespread is a third option, where you could make a small micropayment (maybe a dollar or so) and it gets rid of adverts and any naggy "please subscribe" message from the site for a certain number of page views, even if those page views take place over several months. The small amount would be a much smaller barrier to paying infrequently-used websites for a lack of advertising, and although there are a small number of sites I visit very regularly, most of my page hits overall are from sites I visit much less frequently. Assuming my web use is a fairly common pattern, it seems there's a lot of scope to improve sites' revenues by providing a payment option that better suits infrequent visitors.

How do you feel about paying less than the price of one Grande Latte per month? Locked in for two years. AKA: $80 for two years. I'll charitably assign the recently announced Hulu price reducation to a comparison: $168 for a content provider that I use maybe a third as much.

Ars had such a deal recently, and I jumped on it. Plus tchotchkes (for which I probably should place the order).

They are on this, dude. Jump in. The water is fine.

You miss my point. I'm entirely happy for Ars to have my money, I read it regularly and value it. I normally read it on a platform where I see the ads and it's therefore ad supported, and I'm fine with that. If I end up primarily reading it at home, I'll happily subscribe.

I'm on about other sites that I read infrequently but value enough to want to help contribute to their survival. There are lots of such sites (e.g. NY Times, Slashdot, etc....), and I'm not going to take out an $80 subscription to each of them, it's not worth it. What I would do, if there were a mechanism to do so, is pay them a dollar or so to remove adverts (or rather to ease my conscience about running an adblocker) for every x stories I read, even if I might only read those stories over a matter of several months.

Got it.

Dunno about all of them, but--absent cookie blockers and other devices--the NYT gives you a certain number of stories (within some time period I haven't bothered to figure out) before they cut you off. I have found stories on that site and others who have similar approaches have many--but admittedly not all--of their current stories available via Apple news, which may or may not be an option for you.

The downside to what you propose is that it promotes teaser headlines. The current system does that to get our clicks, but your suggestion would escalate it, because a great headline would get our dollars, regardless of the substance behind it. This was true back through the heyday of the Hearst era--but our biting on the headline then got us a whole paper, not just a story.

So, pros and cons.