Using AdBlock violates "social contract"? WTF?

[CDiehl]

The problem isn't that websites might start to cost money. They already do cost money, and that's why owners of sites accept ads like people do in every other medium. The problem is that advertisers seem to have forgotten that they are putting their ads on someone else's site, which is why they are paying for them. Putting an advertisement on someone's websites does not obligate readers of that site to look at them, any more than watching TV obligates people to watch the commercials. It's just cheaper to

Kreshna, I was simply taking what already exists and extending it to other media. The reason what I described isn't happening is because it's impractical, but if it became practical, and if advertisers had the power to make it happen, it would. I think they are treating internet ads in this manner because they think they can.

[namdoolb]

I'm surprised they haven't implemented forced ad watching. It's not like they don't have the technology.

I mean, all they'd have to do is keep your access to the site you want to veiw pending until you'd veiwed the ad to the satifaction of the ad provider, whose server would then communicate with the site in question and inform them to give you access.

Thank fuck they don't actually do that, that would drive me up the wall.

[Psycho Smiley]

Some sites already do that. Either you hit an ad page and get redirected after n seconds, or with multimedia, the actual content doesn't load until you've watched an ad. You can get around it, but it wastes almost as much time as watching the ad.

[Spacebeard]

I'm surprised they haven't implemented forced ad watching. It's not like they don't have the technology.

I mean, all they'd have to do is keep your access to the site you want to veiw pending until you'd veiwed the ad to the satifaction of the ad provider, whose server would then communicate with the site in question and inform them to give you access.

Thank fuck they don't actually do that, that would drive me up the wall.

Salon does that. That would be a reason I don't read Salon.

What we're probably looking at in the future is:

- An arms race between increasingly effective (but intrusive) filtering systems and increasingly insidious ads.
- Many more sites resorting to subscription models or voluntary fundraising drives.

[General Zod]

If advertisement revenue goes down due to a proliferation of ad-blocking systems then free web services will die alongside of them. I don't like advertisements either but they're what permit most websites sans corporate sponsor to survive.

as i said earlier. if you like the content the website offers and visit it frequently then you should let the ads go through. but if you just visit once or twice then the ads can go fuck themselves. course that's just me.