Posted on 05/30/2016 8:17:17 PM PDT by dennisw
Many of the world’s largest Internet companies, like Google and Facebook, rely heavily on advertising to finance their online empires.
But that business model is increasingly coming under threat, with one in five smartphone users, or almost 420 million people worldwide, blocking advertising when browsing the web on cellphones. That represents a 90 percent annual increase, according to a new report from PageFair, a start-up that helps to recoup some of this lost advertising revenue, and Priori Data, a company that tracks smartphone applications.
The use of ad-blocking software has divided the online world. Supporters say it allows people to get better access to content without having to suffer through abrasive ads. Opponents, particularly companies that rely on advertising, say blocking ads violates the implicit contract that people agree to when viewing online material, much of which is paid for by digital advertising.
Mobile ad blockers, though, have become particularly widespread in emerging markets, where people are more reliant on their smartphones to use the Internet.
Already, 36 percent of the smartphone users in the Asia-Pacific region have so-called ad-blocking browsers on their mobile devices, allowing them to remove online ads when they use the Internet. In India and Indonesia — two of the world’s fastest-growing Internet markets — that figure is almost two-thirds of smartphone users, according to the report.
“We found the results surprising because in the West we don’t often consider what’s going on in developing countries,” said Sean Blanchfield, chief executive of PageFair. “It’s only a matter of time until mobile ad blocking comes to the West.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’ve used ad blockers since Flash ads slowed the computer down too much, years ago.
Web pages are too bloated with PHP, Java and other script-y junk, even without the ads.
I use an ad blocker because when ads are so bad you can’t read the page, what is the point?
If a site tells me to turn off the ad blocker in order to read their content, I don’t go back.
ABP +1
” say blocking ads violates the implicit contract that people agree to when viewing online material”
when consumers have to pay for every bit of that data plan, it makes sense to block out costly advertising/spam.
Google already collects money on searches from those who pay to appear at the top of search results.
Bookmark
I find Breitbart unreadable because of all the ads and scripts they have running. My browser virtually drops to a stand-still. I avoid that site now.
One really has to watch which sites ya visit nowadays. Even Microsoft, who’s critical updates are basically viruses and then they come up with the force fed updates on 10.
Those people are not making any friends.
NoScript is also good.
A good ad blocker like "ublock origin" or "addblock plus" clean up all that crap. I just double checked 15 minutes ago the way Breitbart looks on Internet Explorer with no add blockers. And Firefox where I use UBlock Origin.
Commercials on web pages and search engines makes me loathe the internet.
If ads weren’t so freakin annoying people wouldn’t need adblocker
Forbes and The Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post(who cares) are the worst. You can’t open them without the page crashing because of all the ads.
I like to know what advertisers are dumb enough to pay to advertize on websites nobody can open without an adblocker?
On the flip side, Sky and Telescope is probably the only site to do ads right, just a non-intrusive, non-animated banner up top or on the right side. If other sites just did that, nobody would have had the need to come up with Adblockers
hahahhaha! Block them all! I didn't sign no implicit contract!
There are plenty of alternatives to google.
Fuch google.
Suggestions for Google search alternatives?
No you didn't, but neither did you sign the implicit social contract with the government.
But, like it or not, life without a government would be short, brutal and very unpleasant.
Similarly, all of the "free" content on the internet is generated by someone who has to live.
From my perspective, the "non-intrusive" advertising I allow Adblocker Plus to display is just about right. And, some tracking is OK and even good. For instance, if I search for something like a specialized tool, or an unusual part, for several days afterward I get static ads that offer this item at lower and lower prices. This is actually useful to me. And, sometimes I even buy whatever it is. But, I can still block the animated pop-ups and that kind of junk...
Set your search engine to be: DuckDuckGo and never look back.
https://duckduckgo.com/
I also never go to news type sites where you have to sign in and give up email just to read some story. It’s their choice to do that, but there are probably 800,000++ news sites to chose from. There was a news site in Oregon that did that, because their chat following the news stories got political and way too real for them, so they changed their whole format and forced those who wanted to read stories to sign in, give up email, and they decided everyone must use their real name, no more anonymity in the comments. What a hoot. That place died out quick.
These aren’t innocent ads. Most target stupid users that click on anything. Get a few that tell my flash player is out of date and I need to download something. Others in a female voice tell me my Windows (doesn’t mention the version) is infected and doesn’t work right. Lol...Just put the ads on the webpage without popups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.