[2h]

Ad blocking is the anti virus of this generation.

If someone is using ad blocking, especially with custom rules, they are saying, loud and clear, they DON'T WANT most JavaScript running.

web developers should just respect that and move on, not try everything the browser allows in order to ram it down their throats. Theres really no excuse for it. with browsers essentially acting as operating systems these days, you're basically trying to justify malware.

[paulryanrogers]

Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

IMO if users block ads then I imagine the websites are well within their rights to deny service or ask for other forms of payment.

[alex_lav]

> Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

Don't make something appear to be free, and then try and swindle someone down the road. Ask for money or don't. Painting a user going to an unsecured site as "taking without giving" is disingenuous. If the website is open to all, it is free, and there is no expectation of payment.

> IMO if users block ads then I imagine the websites are well within their rights to deny service or ask for other forms of payment.

If a site expects to be paid, make it a paid site. Block me from entering. If not, it's free, and don't put ads on it. If you want to appear free but try to force me to receive content I didn't request, I will block it. Simple as.

[paulryanrogers]

It's not swindling to be paid for by ads. Broadcast radio and TV have worked that way for half a century.

Creators and hosts are paying for the resources to serve to the public. They can block the blockers if they wish.

Making things only paywall-ed or entirely free will just lead to more 'native' ads disguised as content and less content available to the unbanked and less affluent.

[alex_lav]

> It's not swindling to be paid for by ads. Broadcast radio and TV have worked that way for half a century.

And I'm free to turn the volume down on my TV or radio when the ads come on. They don't attempt to block me from doing this.

> Creators and hosts are paying for the resources to serve to the public. They can block the blockers if they wish.

You seem to have forgotten what we're discussing, so I'll quote it again

> Respect user's taking without giving anything in return?

This is what a free site suggests, and is not immoral. I am allowed to control the content on my machine, so I'll block the content that makes it to my screen as I see fit. If a website doesn't like this, they're welcome to make their content paid and I'll simply not look at it.

> Making things only paywall-ed or entirely free will just lead to more 'native' ads disguised as content and less content available to the unbanked and less affluent.

If you're saying "You must look at ads or advertising will get worse", I categorically reject both sides of your argument.

[arp242]

In a previous comment you said "Ask for money or don't".

Now you say "they're welcome to make their content paid and I'll simply not look at it".

So people should pay their rent, how?

This reminds me of that YouTube discussion last week were people were up in arms that they might have to pay, and then the very same people were also up in arms that YouTube has ads.

Either come up with a viable alternative or accept one of those two options.

[alex_lav]

> In a previous comment you said "Ask for money or don't".

Yes.

> Now you say "they're welcome to make their content paid and I'll simply not look at it".

Ask for money and give me the opportunity to decline (which I will, for almost all content that currently contains advertisements).

> So people should pay their rent, how?

Is your argument seriously "Advertising is a proxy for UBI"? Injecting toxic content into your website and forcing me to look at it doesn't seem like a worthwhile strategy for either the consumer or the website owner.

> This reminds me of that YouTube discussion last week were people were up in arms that they might have to pay, and then the very same people were also up in arms that YouTube has ads.

I will not pay for YouTube, and I will not look at YouTube's ads. If they want to make the service paid only, they can, and I'll simply use a different service. Simple as.

> Either come up with a viable alternative or accept one of those two options.

You seem to misunderstand. My job is not to strategize for other people as to how they can skim money off unpaid content. I'm a consumer. My interests are very obviously self serving. I don't watch ads, I won't support content that pumps ads, and I'll continue to block ads very aggressively. I'm uninterested in brainstorming how people can try to deceive me for their gain and my loss.

[2h]

> So people should pay their rent, how?

It's not the end users job to answer that question.