Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe you should just ignore the adverts?

Thats becoming less and less possible.

I can ignore ads which just sit there. I can't ignore ads which fill my screen and require me to dismiss the ad or ads that are autoplaying videos with sound and everything.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
And what do they bring exactly? Money/infrastructure to create the video?

pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.

Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.

Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.

If I remember correctly, not all of the channels were originally part of the network (I'm thinking Dodger, Jesse Cox, Crendor and some others). I may be completely misremembering things. whatever the case, I just became totally disinterested when it turned into Polaris.

Yeah they were, Husky was one of the founders and got everyone involved with TGS. TotalBiscuit got Jesse in from the WoW days.

Must've completely misremembered that. Boy do I feel dumb

Eh, it's not actually all that important for the viewer anyway.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe you should just ignore the adverts?

Thats becoming less and less possible.

I can ignore ads which just sit there. I can't ignore ads which fill my screen and require me to dismiss the ad or ads that are autoplaying videos with sound and everything.

Indeed; Youtube likes to have three types of adds, the 60 minute ones that you can skip in 5 seconds, the three minute ones you can skip in five seconds, or the 30 second ones you can't. It's the last group that gets on my nerves the most, honestly.

Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.

Unethical?Is it unethical to skip an ad for a netflix series that seems boring that you cant watch anyway because you don't have netflix?I hope not....

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.

The thing is though, is that they make their money off of me (well, Advertisements, but those are directed at me). If they want me to watch verts, they HAVE to make them convenient for me.

Because if they don't pander to me, I don't see why I should pander to them; yes, Youtube needs Advertisement money to create content, but then I can go to Dailymotion or other sorts of video sites instead.

If 90% of the internet cost more than my time to view I'd be okay with 90% of the internet disappearing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.

Perhaps the owners of those sites will have to accept that many of their visitors are put off by the ads they allow on their sites, and may fold as their viewers so elsewhere.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe you should just ignore the adverts?

It has the same result as installing an ad blocker except that the web site you like to read receives the advertising income and can continue to operate.

Not really...ignoring advertisements still wastes seconds of my life that I'll never get back, whereas installing Adblock takes but a minute and lets me proceed directly to the content.

Some websites, like AR15.com, have a separate industry forum for their site sponsors. I don't see the sponsors' ads, but I regularly check the industry forum to see the latest deals. This way, (1) I'm actually USING the information as a consumer, not just having it involuntarily blasted directly into my face (do you like that visual? Because it's what internet advertising has basically devolved to accomplish), and (2) the website can still generate income from advertising. They can generate additional money through discount codes, skimming a portion of sales when consumers use site reference-specific discount codes.

Time for advertisers to adapt and overcome, rather than crying about the situation that they created in the first place. PS: most people don't install Adblock to deal with banners; they install it to deal with obnoxious gak like pop-ups and long videos that you can't skip past.

My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.

It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.

Would you pay for content free of ads?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.

It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.

Would you pay for content free of ads?

As I already said multiple times...people need to re-value things they enjoy. The internet sadly created a "Everything should be free!" attitude among a lot of people and stuff just ain't free. The very best thing to do is to use Adblock and then directly donate an appropriate amount of money to the content creator. Everyone wins.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.

There is also an interesting side cost for the poor suckers on 'metered' bandwidth connections where the ad will theoretically cost them money directly or offset the amount of bandwidth they can use for viewing actual content. In this day and age where some HTML requests result in megabytes of 'stuff' to see about 10kb worth of content, it seems justified not only to block ads, but also limit loading images, javascript, and css as much as possible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you pay for content free of ads?

It's funny you should ask, I made the mistake once of paying for the onion, stupidly thinking it would free me from the adds, particularly the ones on their video content where it's the same ad for like 2 weeks straight before and after every video. Sadly it turns out I was paying for the privilege of being advertised to, no thanks.

Why should I lose download space because of the ads?

Moral? Of course adblock isn't moral, but it is no more immoral than the tantamount theft that these forced adverts are.

Some youtubers I watch now have been doing their own in video adverts for things they enjoy, I don't mind these as much, because I wouldn't be watching their channel if we didn't at least have some views in common, so there is at least a decent chance I'll be interested in what the ad has to offer (almost audible.com, almost...). Why can't people do more of that?

Oh wait, YouTube has decided they aren't going to allow content creators to do that anymore because they can't really control that revenue stream. Is it their right as a business to take their business model in that direction? Of course it is, but that doesn't make it the smart decision either.

See, I don't mind stuff like how Deathbattle does it; the episodes are sponsored by various businesses (Netflix, Crunchyroll, other things) and they say

"This Episode is brought to you by XXXXXXX"

*Bunch of video content*

"Before the deathbattle, ADVERTISEMENT!"

*Deathbattle*


I'm ok with this kind of thing, because Its usually something I would look into anyway.

Indeed, and with deathbattle at least, they tend to be longer videos, so it serves to break it up and make it more manageable as well imo.

I dislike adverts, generally and so I have adblock installed.
Dakka I have whitelisted, as I know that ads here are relevant and unobtrusive but most places I go they remain blocked.

Advertising now has become so obnoxious it can be difficult to ignore so I would much rather it be gone entirely.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you pay for content free of ads?

The DCM under my name says "yes".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.

It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.

Would you pay for content free of ads?

I think you're way off mark here. The content won't disappear. If people find something interesting, there will always be a market. The market doesn't just disappear. It might recede over a very long period of time.

The producers of the product can disappear. And that's what will happen if video producers aren't getting their money. But the consumer will continue wanting the product. And someone will give it to them. Whoever makes the better product will get the attention of the market. In this case, it will be the ones who can run their site without plugging adverts in before the video. And out of these product producers, whoever can do it with the most financial success has a high chance of coming out on top.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Would you pay for content free of ads?

The DCM under my name says "yes".

Technically, though, you aren't paying for content with a DCM. You're paying for additional benefits such as changing your title, higher mod tolerance, no ads etc.

Those are incentives. The money goes towards the costs of the site.

I have no problems using adblock. I'm here for my amusement and benefit, and sitting through lengthy ads on youtube or having constant pop ups or those weird MMO borderline sexual ads is not beneficial to me. It's annoying. It wastes my time or is an eyesore.

So I block them. No twinge of guilt from me either. Deciding to be self employed on the internet is a major risk, and one the content creator chose. If they get burned it's their own fault.

Wait. Adblock would prevent Kate Upton commercials in bikini armor?

feth that noise.

 kronk wrote:
Wait. Adblock would prevent Kate Upton commercials in bikini armor?

feth that noise.

you could always just google her?

I prefer my positive feedback to be random. Like finding a dollar in my pants in the drier. Where did it come from? I don't know!

One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.

Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?

The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.

This.

nobody wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.

Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?

The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.

That and ads that serve up viruses. Considering just about every site I go to that uses ads has had at least one "whelp better hope your AV is updated" post I feel somewhat justified.

And this.

I didn't use AdBlock for a long time, I was content to just do the "let it play while I get a cup of tea"/ignore the banner thing, but the people serving the ads were not content with that. THEY started using intrusive Flash ads with default sound levels so high they blew my headphones. THEY started using banner ads with borderline-epilepsy-inducing flashing and bright colours to try and draw attention. THEY started using popup ads that required me to allow Javascript to run for some random unknown domains in order to dismiss it and actually view the content. THEY allowed their systems to be hijacked as vectors for spreading malware. And so they have nobody to blame but themselves that people decided enough was enough.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.

It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.

Would you pay for content free of ads?

And to continue the above; content producers also have nobody to blame but themselves, because THEY chose to use the kind of ad services I described above. Content providers abused users' trust for years with giant, loud, intrusive, malware-ridden ads, and now they are reaping the rewards of that behaviour. You can try and pretend this is the users' fault all you like, the fact is the only reason software like AdBlock even exists is the online ad industry and the content providers who used them made themselves so irritating that people were willing to sit down and code sophisticated software for free to confound their efforts.

 kronk wrote:
I prefer my positive feedback to be random. Like finding a dollar in my pants in the drier. Where did it come from? I don't know!

The obvious answer is that Kronk Kronkington III shortchanged a stripper.


That dick.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.

But you do have the description, comments and rating system to decide whether or not the video is worth watching.