[ajsnigrutin]

We had the "old" internet and we had ads... a text banner here and there, and then an image or maybe a gif banner on the other side. Noone really cared, sites got ad views, users got content.

Then ads moved to flash (security issues), popups, popups when you close the first popup, video was added, with sounds, two banners became 20, fixed location floating divs were added, and in the case of youtube, a 3 minute video of something contains 3 minutes of ads.

So yeah... they had a chance, went way overboard, and now they complain that people block ads.

[gruez]

> We had the "old" internet and we had ads... a text banner here and there, and then an image or maybe a gif banner on the other side. Noone really cared, sites got ad views, users got content.

The "old" internet was also run by hobbyists without a profit motive, and did not have sites that hosted your videos for free. A few static banner ads might be able to keep the "old" internet afloat, but it certainly would not be able to keep today's internet afloat.

[jeroenhd]

The "old" internet was full of people fighting hot linking because a JPEG being embedded on a popular forum took down your website for a considerable time.

Then the internet ran on an investor bubble that let companies serve content at a loss in hopes of a future acquisition.

Now ads are proving to be the only reliable way to get income out of videos. There are affordable options out there, but because these services were once free everybody feels like they're entitled to free hosting and media.

[m4jor]

dont forget popunders! the sneakiest of the sneaky.

[ajsnigrutin]

and the ones, where you click on a link, it openes in a new tab and the original tab gets replaced with an ad.. so you close an ad, and lose all your "back" history.

Also, real-life ads need regulation too... like some limits of X square meters of ads per 1 km^2 of area... preferably X going slowly towards zero.