publishers may now charge users

[Pierre]

This is a Whole New Level.

Google to let publishers charge users for ad-blockers:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40132519
and
http://www.zdnet.com/article/sick-of-ad ... ce=twitter
Google will let publishers ask people who use ad-blockers to either enable advertising,
- or make a payment to view content without ads.

this is the next step in the Anti-AdBlocking war.

"Funding Choices" will roll out first in North America, UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.

But, then, there's more:
Google Plans Ad-Blocking Feature in it's Popular Chrome Browser:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-pla ... 1492643233
which some Folks are reading that, to mean, that Google will Block unacceptable advertising,
- from other publishers.
ie: a Filter could strip out ads that provide bad experiences for users

[mike acker]

interesting post

the ad-blocking war will continue and intensify

no one is obliged to use Chrome -- or GOOGLE. these sources may find that putting up pay walls just cuts down their business. how much traffic did WIRED lose when they put up a pay wall ?

the thing that worries me is this goon they have at the FCC these days -- what was he a K-Street lobbyist earlier? I hate to think what they might add to ISP EULA

[Portreve]

Leaving aside for the moment the not inconsequential fact that the Internet connects the world and not every country has something like the U.S.'s First Amendment, here's the thing:

You may have the right to say what you want, or to present what you say how you want, but you have NO RIGHT to be heard.

Some politicians in the UK want end-to-end encryption banned.

The EU evidently is considering requiring search engines to pay licensing fees for using images found by them on the Internet.

And now there's a push to mess with people who choose to use ad blocking software.

Y'know, if you really want to jack up the Internet, just keep going the way you're going. It's only a matter of time before the Internet will become largely useless.

Now, for the image licensing thing, consider the following ridiculous analogy.

There is a city which has determined at law two things:

1. Every outdoor sign requires a permit;
2. Every outdoor displayed item which contains information of some description is a sign.

That would mean you would not only need a sign permit for the sign on the front of your building, but you would need a permit for the display of the sign's permit. And then you'd need a permit for the permit, and a permit for that permit, and so on and so forth, until you would completely cover over the entirety of the structure with permits for permits for permits.

I have four what I consider to be very valid and necessary questions:

1. What is the perceived problem which necessitates one of these given laws?
2. What is the intended effect of that law?
3. What is the actual net effect of the law?
4. Is the net effect approximately the same as the intended effect?

[Arch_Enemy]

This is a Whole New Level.

Google to let publishers charge users for ad-blockers:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40132519
and
http://www.zdnet.com/article/sick-of-ad ... ce=twitter
Google will let publishers ask people who use ad-blockers to either enable advertising,
- or make a payment to view content without ads.

this is the next step in the Anti-AdBlocking war.

"Funding Choices" will roll out first in North America, UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand.

But, then, there's more:
Google Plans Ad-Blocking Feature in it's Popular Chrome Browser:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-pla ... 1492643233
which some Folks are reading that, to mean, that Google will Block unacceptable advertising,
- from other publishers.
ie: a Filter could strip out ads that provide bad experiences for users

Hee hee...let them charge.

I ain't a-payin'...

[deleted]

At work, I have a really, really, really, fat internet line to to outside world. I run with an ad blocker and a script blocker. When I hit news sites, I'm amazed at how many things are blocked, that I need to unblock, just to see video coverage. When I do unblock them, the page loads so slowly that it's almost unusable. By that time, if it weren't for the cat video, I'd never bother unblocking anything. At home on my much smaller pipe, I never unblock anything.
-H

[all41]

Hulu has been doing this. By paying 50% more you can watch without commercials, and even then some shows are exempted.

[mike acker]

more details

Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker. Here’s What’s Really Going On.
David Dayen

June 5 2017, 3:28 p.m.

excerpt

What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part.

The Chrome ad blocker would stop ads that provide a “frustrating experience,” according to Google’s blog post announcing the change. The ads blocked would match the standards produced by the Coalition for Better Ads, an ostensibly third-party group. For sure, the ads that would get blocked are intrusive: auto-players with sound, countdown ads that make you wait 10 seconds to get to the site, large “sticky” ads that remain constant even when you scroll down the page.

But who’s part of the Coalition for Better Ads? Google, for one, as well as Facebook. Those two companies accounted for 99 percent of all digital ad revenue growth in the United States last year, and 77 percent of gross ad spending. As Mark Patterson of Fordham University explained, the Coalition for Better Ads is “a cartel orchestrated by Google.”

[Seff]

I'm glad to have found the "Support Free Content" add-on, though eventually they'll work around that too... Basically its purpose is to make sure sites generate revenue even while ads are blocked on them. (I believe it's a Firefox add-on.) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... nt/?src=ss

This doesn't bode well for Android...

[Citizen229]

Hulu has been doing this. By paying 50% more you can watch without commercials, and even then some shows are exempted.

Dont hold your breath. Cable television started out ad free because the customer was paying for ad free. And look what it has become.

[all41]

Hulu has been doing this. By paying 50% more you can watch without commercials, and even then some shows are exempted.

Dont hold your breath. Cable television started out ad free because the customer was paying for ad free. And look what it has become.

+1
Those exact thoughts crossed my mind as well.

[MintyO]

Hulu has been doing this. By paying 50% more you can watch without commercials, and even then some shows are exempted.

Dont hold your breath. Cable television started out ad free because the customer was paying for ad free. And look what it has become.

Yes, things surely change. I remember when Google bought Youtube and there was some promise of not having.. what was it?

Add-blockers have been keeping up so far and there has been good one to switch to when old ones turn corporate or something. Very limited experience, as I've only needed 2 so far. First addblock plus and now that I don't feel it meets my demands anymore, ublock origin.

[rdanner3]

Hulu has been doing this. By paying 50% more you can watch without commercials, and even then some shows are exempted.

Dont hold your breath. Cable television started out ad free because the customer was paying for ad free. And look what it has become.

Yes, things surely change. I remember when Google bought Youtube and there was some promise of not having.. what was it?

Add-blockers have been keeping up so far and there has been good one to switch to when old ones turn corporate or something. Very limited experience, as I've only needed 2 so far. First addblock plus and now that I don't feel it meets my demands anymore, ublock origin.

I don't need ad blockers at all. First, MVPS' HOSTS file, then a FOSS tool I found a couple weeks ago that rolls up multiple high-quality HOSTS file suppliers into a unified HOSTS file. Admittedly, making sure a site I actually use isn't affected in some way isn't always easy, but it does keep the malware and adware sites at bay.

What's totally frustrating about the adblockers (and sites that fight them) is the constant warring going on. When a site tells you "An adblocker has been detected running on your computer. Whitelist us or we will continue to spam you with this message until you do" (or a statement to the same effect) it just annoys folks. Badly.

Yes, I get the fact that in today's world, sites must use ads to support themselves... but there are ways, then there are ways to do it. Personally, I've had a site before that was ad-supported, but the ads (aside from the tracker that sent a signal when someone clicked the ad) were all hosted locally to my site, and the ads were not intrusive. I had 20-30 ads, and (believe it or not) never had a single complaint about the ads slowing the site, causing popups or popunders (the latter practice I absolutely loathe!), etc. Granted, actual click-through was pretty low, but it usually gathered enough per quarter to pay server fees.