[agumonkey]

That fits my definition of acceptable. I, we, aren't blind to people's need to make money for the time and effort. But we don't want 50% clickbait video poppin up randomly. Same for battery life, etc etc. No JS.

With some fixed not too screamy image smartly positionned, I'd never block ads.

I don't get the logic behind these ads. They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ? If someone is looking for something he'll react to subtler cues. If the ad is really relevant (not just word match) to the content, it's even better. But that's a rare oddity.

[yann63]

> They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ?

Actually, yes, they do. And it scares me that they may be right. Ads are toxic. Why don't we ban them? I've yet to hear a sensible argument to keep ads.

[Intermernet]

The "sensible argument" is that ads allow small "content creators" to "monetize" their content.

I think this is mostly a fallacy. I know of many developers, bloggers, musicians, film makers, etc who put their content out into the public domain because that's what they want to do. There are "monetizing" opportunities above and beyond advertising that seem to work well, but the lowest common denominator, and by inference, the lowest form of media, are generally ad-driven.

People argue with "yeah, but what about game of thrones and silicon valley". I reply with "yeah, but what about keeping up with the kardashians, jersey shore and the latest CSI franchise".

The gold / dross ration is 1 / 99. We can easily lose most of the ad driven content in the world without losing entertaining content.

I may be a statistical aberration though. I'm obviously not the "target audience".

[chris_7]

> "yeah, but what about game of thrones and silicon valley"

But these are subscription-driven? The Americans would be a better example. I get shows like that on iTunes, because if a show is good enough to watch, it's too good to watch with commercial breaks.

[blakeyrat]

Well in the US we have this little thing called "Freedom of Speech", so unless you're prepared to push through a Constitutional Amendment, banning ads ain't gonna happen.

(Nor should it, in my opinion.)

Anyway, I can't give you a sensible argument to keep "brand" ads which strike me as ridiculous also. But if I'm an inventor and I invent a great new X, how the hell am I supposed to tell the world about it without advertising it in some form or another? "Hey, I have a machine that can make your life easier. But I can't tell you what it is or how to buy it, because ads are illegal. This makes sense."

[aninhumer]

> Ads are toxic. Why don't we ban them?

Because there's no way to do so that doesn't run into serious issues with Freedom of Speech, in both letter and spirit.

Who decides what's speech and what's an ad?

[nothrabannosir]

> They really think that shouting red stuff at my face will make me spend time and money ?

Much like SPAM, they wouldn't pay for it if it didn't work.

Unfortunately.

[agumonkey]

Yeah, stupid me, I bet the ROI is good enough otherwise they'd stop.