[sambrand]

Advertising is paying for goods with attention. It's a novel type of currency. It's a wealth generator. And it's contributed to a more diverse Internet.

If you don't want to pay with attention that's fine. If you believe the Internet should be an ad-free Utopia, that's fine too. But rather than take content without paying attention, practice some civil disobedience: embargo publishers who piss you off.

[toothbrush]

I'm really curious whenever people say such things though: what about (thought experiment) the situation where i let my computer run whatever code websites throw at me, but that come hell or high water, i'm 100% sure i would never click on any ad or be swayed in my opinions regarding what to purchase? Is that 'attention' still worth any nonzero value? Or what about the situation where some technical gizmo forces me to look and listen to the advert (see Black Mirror S01E02) before receiving the article text. Say i do all that, but still am 100% uninterested in what's being offered—wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests to not show that ad?

On a lighter note, this is how i feel about ads: https://youtu.be/JiHjzGKc8tA?t=0m58s (Black Books – "just browsing")

[sambrand]

At least today even fraudulent impressions are valuable because ad buyers are willing to pay for them. They're smartening up though, as Tony Haile (author of the linked article & Chartbeat CEO) is aware. Viewability & attention metrics are the future of ad performance tracking. (and that link gave me a good laugh)

[copsarebastards]

> But rather than take content without paying attention, practice some civil disobedience: embargo publishers who piss you off.

Economically, how does this differ from using an ad blocker? Do you think content publishers care whether they don't get paid because I didn't visit their site or because I used an ad-blocker?