[mlmlmasd]

> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free.

I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience.

The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need.

> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress.

This is a step backwards, not progress.

> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves.

Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

[TheIronYuppie]

DISCLOSURE: I WORK AT GOOGLE ON NOTHING AD RELATED BUT IT CERTAINLY PAYS MY SALARY.

>> The fact is that advertising pays for much of the internet content you consume for free. > I've never had free internet... which ISP do you use?

How many payments from Comcast to New York Times happen per year? Hint, the number rhymes with buck mall.

>> It's because of perverse incentives and a lack of regulation in the entire industry that force bad formats, fraudsters, malware, and the pursuit of data and volume to win over quality and user experience. > The whole point of advertising is to trick people into buying shit they don't need.

Or, it's to inform you about the stuff that's out there. It's all perspective. "Trick"? What phone do you own? I guarantee you heard about it through some form of advertisement. And before you say that it's only because you read a review about it - I 1000% guarantee you saw an ad somewhere that primed you to even read the article.

>> As much as I don't care for the ABP approach, it's something that can be used to actually make progress and that's what this is, progress. > This is a step backwards, not progress.

Why?

>> It's finally some outside pressure on the industry to change from the segment of the advertising mechanism that matters most - the people themselves. > Bullshit. This is a way of lifting the pressure on the industry, and this initiative is mostly supported by players in the industry. Not the people.

There's no one on the other side right now - ABP is at least bringing the people to the table.

If you don't like it, then turn on and pay for Google Contributor (see earlier disclosure about my employer) and then no ads AND the site you visits actually get paid.

[manigandham]

ISP are providing access/transit, not content. Just because you have a car doesn't mean you can go to any store and carry out merchandise for free.

Advertising, and the greater marketing concept, is not that simple. It's about connecting customers looking for wants and needs with the companies that offer them. There is a certain amount of work in creating that desire (hence the wants and not just needs) but it's ultimately still the consumers choice.

Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry? ABP is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

[mlmlmasd]

> ISP are providing access/transit, not content.

If you want to go that route, then none of the advertising companies, or companies that make money from advertising are providing the content either. There are several steps before the content comes from some person's mind to your computer, the ISP is one of those steps.

> Care to explain how this is backwards progress and lifts pressure on the industry?

You want me to explain how an initiative to not block a subset of ads alleviates the pressure from blocking all ads? Seems pretty trivial to me.

> This is a company and extension that only makes it harder for the existing ad networks to continue.

Nope. They did make it harder before, when they weren't taking money from advertising companies to not hide ads, and weren't launching initiatives such as the topic of this thread.

[click170]

I don't agree that this is a step backwards, but I certainly do agree that this is not a step forward.

Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising, until we see that there is no progress and this is all talk.

I do enjoy that both sides are trying to improve the situation, but I still feel like the ad industry has yet to acknowledge that they are the root cause of the problem.

We almost need an advertising "intervention"... If the creation and rapid adoption of adblocking software isn't the embodiment of that though, I don't know what is.

[manigandham]

> Progress will be defined by decreasing the amount of obnoxious advertising

That's exactly the point. Advertising is necessary, but showing that we all agree to a better implementation of it will let us move forward rather than making things worse.

The people in the industry know the reason, but again it's about incentives and lack of oversight. Far easier to just look the other way and make a few dollars than try to go against the grain.