Support NeoGAF

[Ubername]

It works both ways.

I understand websites aren't free. Most are funded by ads and by blocking them ads you are taking away the funding for that website and yes, taking food off people's table... but, the website also needs to find a way to not be a complete asshole about it and not shove a loud ass video ad in your face that hijacks your computer.

I do also understand that the reasoning for those kind of ads is because of the rise/dominance of ad blockers. There just needs to be a cool middle ground so people get paid and users don't get hijacked/spammed. Especially on mobile. Nothing worse than being taken to the Google Play Store or getting a "YOU HAVE A VIRUS" hijack that removes you from the page.

Yeah, true. I can't visit a site on my phone without having >30% of my screen real estate taken up by crap. IGN, you have to click off their privacy policy every single time (not ads but intrusive.) Gamefaqs had full banners just pop up half way thru reading a page, that's no good. Going to an IMGUR link on mobile is an epic nightmare. A good portion of internet websites have these awful practices and yet people feel the need to defend them.

If you were taking any food out of their mouths then it was food shouldn't be getting.

 

[BadHand]

Do you still pay for cable TV?

No - free content with ads is much more preferred alternative to my example.

 

[Zog]

No - free content with ads is much more preferred alternative to my example.

Your example used cable TV to justify ads today. If you don't even pay for cable TV, how can you justify that example?

 

[BadHand]

Your example used cable TV to justify ads today. If you don't even pay for cable TV, how can you justify that example?

This might be the dumbest fucking thing I'll read all week.

My example is that paying for a TV subscription with ads is less preferable when compared to free content with less intrusive ads.

edit

 

[Zog]

This might be the dumbest fucking thing I'll read all week.

My example is that paying for a TV subscription with ads is less preferable when compared to free content with less intrusive ads.

edit

You said:

Right - whats the big deal?

30% of my TV time growing up in the 80's was spent watching unskippable in-your-face advertisements between the shows you wanted to watch (and thats on top of paying a subscription). I can deal with a few banners for free to access quality content.

That reads like: I spent 30% of my time watching ads in the 80's (and it wasn't free) so I am ok with a few banner ads now.

 

[Ubername]

This might be the dumbest fucking thing I'll read all week.

Can you not? I agree with what you said after that even though I had to wait for a critical edit. Let's not scream any more than we already have in here though.

 

[Mr. Grumpy]

People are welcome to discuss the value of online advertising and ad blockers, if people are wanting to do that then please set up a thread that’s positioned to do that.

Thank you.