How ironic is it to bypass the paywall on this particular article? Anyway: https://web.archive.org/web/20231216234337/https://www.economist.com/business/2023/12/11/welcome-to-the-ad-free-internet...
I'm a fan of ad blockers, and I do not understand how people put up with the level of advertising we're expected to be subjected to. I have friends that have actively declined to learn about ad blocking DNS servers because they want the ads in their mobile games. I don't even know how I should feel about that.
Edit: as long as people are reading this: Adguard DNS is the only thing I'll advertise for free. It's so nice being able to play mobile games and use apps without ads, I will stop using my phone before I watch another ad
There are many features in games that are locked behind as videos. You watch an ad for more "gems" or whatever to use in the games. My daughter plays them and asks me to disable the adblocker once...
There are many features in games that are locked behind as videos. You watch an ad for more "gems" or whatever to use in the games. My daughter plays them and asks me to disable the adblocker once in a while so she can get an item she wants. She pretty quickly gets frustrated with the ads being everywhere and usually asks me to turn it back on.
Mobile gaming is a horrible look into a void of nightmarish and cynical shittitude. Ads are everywhere and barely ever show representative gameplay, about half the games on offer are either clear...
Mobile gaming is a horrible look into a void of nightmarish and cynical shittitude. Ads are everywhere and barely ever show representative gameplay, about half the games on offer are either clear data-thieving scams or rip-offs, and the ads themselves can contain some of the most revolting content imaginable. I stopped playing a game I liked because it kept showing me ads for some "ASMR" popping and squeezing game that nearly made me throw up.
I'm one of those who don't use adblockers at all. But I don't like being subjected to ads, so I have my own way. If the site uses ads reasonably, I tolerate them and I visit the site. If the site...
I'm one of those who don't use adblockers at all. But I don't like being subjected to ads, so I have my own way.
If the site uses ads reasonably, I tolerate them and I visit the site. If the site goes over with ads, I stop visiting it. I stopped watching Youtube because of that. I also stopped visiting many local sites. I also closed countless tabs with articles I wanted to read but ads level was "too much". I don't want to use such sites so I don't use them. If it depended on me only, I would simply let such sites die. Yes, even Youtube. If they want to run such an aggresive ad campaign, they don't deserve better.
Is adguard dns functionally equivalent to pihole? Just wondering if it makes sense to purchase this service if you have the know how to do it yourself.
Is adguard dns functionally equivalent to pihole? Just wondering if it makes sense to purchase this service if you have the know how to do it yourself.
Ad-blocking DNS is handy for mobile devices when you're not connected to your pihole-filtered home network. You don't have fine-grained control over what's blocked or allowed, but it's a heck of a...
Ad-blocking DNS is handy for mobile devices when you're not connected to your pihole-filtered home network. You don't have fine-grained control over what's blocked or allowed, but it's a heck of a lot better and safer than relying on whatever DNS your cellular provider or public Wi-Fi uses, or potentially your VPN provider unless you roll your own.
***I do pay for Blokada Cloud - their private DNS is satisfactory, and I can fine-tune my block or allow lists to my heart's content.
I suppose it's not in The Economist's financial interest to mention that the "ad-free Internet" already exists via things like uBlock Origin, dnsmasq, and SponsorBlock.
I suppose it's not in The Economist's financial interest to mention that the "ad-free Internet" already exists via things like uBlock Origin, dnsmasq, and SponsorBlock.
Maybe, but not really the main focus on the article which is more about the various new subscription plans that surfaces now (Meta recently launched an ad-free subscription) and how businesses now...
Maybe, but not really the main focus on the article which is more about the various new subscription plans that surfaces now (Meta recently launched an ad-free subscription) and how businesses now seeks alternative ways to advertise (hint influencers).
And influencers are just the ol' Brand Ambassador model updated for the 21st century. Convincing influential people to publicly endorse a product is an extremely old form of advertising. It's hard...
And influencers are just the ol' Brand Ambassador model updated for the 21st century. Convincing influential people to publicly endorse a product is an extremely old form of advertising. It's hard to imagine a world with zero advertisements of any kind.
Simply blocking the ads doesn't give you an "ad free" internet, because the content you're seeing is being created to serve an ad-infested business model. You're not seeing all the ads, but you're...
Simply blocking the ads doesn't give you an "ad free" internet, because the content you're seeing is being created to serve an ad-infested business model. You're not seeing all the ads, but you're still subjected to clickbait, curiosity-gap headlines, and a focus on driving traffic (SEO-driven content designed to appeal to as broad of a general audience as possible) instead of building a loyal audience base (more niche content to develop high-engagement and retention from an interested subscriber base).
Changing business models does a lot more to the nature of the media being produced than just whether ads are there or not.
But it's hard to imagine ye Olde brand ambassador being this pervasive in any age before, no? You have travelling sales men, but it's easy to shut your door or dont let them in. These days every...
But it's hard to imagine ye Olde brand ambassador being this pervasive in any age before, no? You have travelling sales men, but it's easy to shut your door or dont let them in.
These days every video I watch has them talking through an ad.... It's awful.
It's starting to feel like living as Truman, with my wife turning towards the camera suddenly talking about soap or juice in a super fake way mid conversation.
I’m so glad it’s not just me who thinks of that exact reference! Every YouTuber breaks character to tell me how much they love Hello Fresh or SurfShark, and I “hear” it in the voice of Laura...
I’m so glad it’s not just me who thinks of that exact reference! Every YouTuber breaks character to tell me how much they love Hello Fresh or SurfShark, and I “hear” it in the voice of Laura Linney going “I’ve tasted other cocoas. This is the best!”
Not all television. The better programs did not do this. CBC and BBC do not do this. We used to have free television before it got overtaken by advertising
Not all television. The better programs did not do this. CBC and BBC do not do this. We used to have free television before it got overtaken by advertising
Those tools only work because only a minority of users use them. Websites cost money to build and host. Ads are a necessary evil unless you want to pay a subscription for everything.
Those tools only work because only a minority of users use them. Websites cost money to build and host. Ads are a necessary evil unless you want to pay a subscription for everything.
Well I am willing to pay*, where can I apply to remove all the ads from my view? Not just on the web, but ideally in public spaces IRL too… Until then I’ll happily use ad-removing technology, at...
Well I am willing to pay*, where can I apply to remove all the ads from my view? Not just on the web, but ideally in public spaces IRL too… Until then I’ll happily use ad-removing technology, at least for most of the time.
And I think you’re right, to be honest: The average (American) user makes Google around $270 per year, but how would you convince most of those users to pay the $60, $120 or whatever out of their own pocket for an alternative offering? Let alone a substantially higher amount if they had to subsidize non-payees? That is a place I would probably not want to go to myself, either…
*This is not me talking out of my ass: I am actively paying for a bunch of software, including e.g. Kagi, the ad-free search engine, and email. But I realize most people are not fortunate or willing enough to afford payments if the alternative still seems “free”, at least on the surface.
there are quite a few other methods than just subscriptions. But sure, a lot of the professional web would collapse overnight if adblock hit some 90%+ adoption. I wonder if it's really that bad,...
Ads are a necessary evil unless you want to pay a subscription for everything.
there are quite a few other methods than just subscriptions. But sure, a lot of the professional web would collapse overnight if adblock hit some 90%+ adoption.
I wonder if it's really that bad, though. when people can't just randomly scroll and expect free, infinite content, you start to focus more on some other (likely better) sort of metric than "engagement tactics". Buzzfeed won't exactly disappear per se, but there will be much less sites aiming at such a model if they want long term engagement from subscribers.
This type of thing would need to be accompanied by a culture shift where paywalls and subscriptions (perhaps with a free trial) are the norm. Even for services that offer options between...
This type of thing would need to be accompanied by a culture shift where paywalls and subscriptions (perhaps with a free trial) are the norm. Even for services that offer options between free/ad-supported and paid/premium subscriptions, the paid subscriptions are typically in the minority. Are you and everyone else prepared to pay for services that you use for free today, including email, search, social media, news, aggregators, etc?
Yeah, I agree. It wouldn't be viable given what many are used to now. I'm prepared to pay for everything, but many can't and others simply don't want to.
Yeah, I agree. It wouldn't be viable given what many are used to now. I'm prepared to pay for everything, but many can't and others simply don't want to.
That is the kind of ad-free internet that is unsustainable. As more and more people use adblockers, more and more ad-supported websites will switch to an entirely premium model.
That is the kind of ad-free internet that is unsustainable. As more and more people use adblockers, more and more ad-supported websites will switch to an entirely premium model.
While I agree with the first part of your statement, that everyone using an ad-blocker be unsustainable, I'm highly skeptical the number of people using ad-blockers is a cause for these "premium"...
While I agree with the first part of your statement, that everyone using an ad-blocker be unsustainable, I'm highly skeptical the number of people using ad-blockers is a cause for these "premium" models. They do it because they can get more money this way. A vast majority of people don't use ad-blockers. I would wager that even if ad-blockers never existed, this type of service is the inevitable outcome when these companies are looking for more and more ways to extract profit.
I'm the kind of person who never bothered to install an ad blocker until this year. It just never seemed worth the effort figuring out. That changed in the last few months when YouTube started...
I'm the kind of person who never bothered to install an ad blocker until this year. It just never seemed worth the effort figuring out. That changed in the last few months when YouTube started absolutely taking the piss with the amount of unskippable ads.
YouTube continuing to escalate the amount of ads is what made their model unsustainable. They eventually crossed the trust thermocline with me.
I never said it was the direct cause, I am saying it is a likely outcome of adblockers becoming more prevalent. As people become more frustrated with ads and more aware of how poor privacy is...
I'm highly skeptical the number of people using ad-blockers is a cause for these "premium" models
I never said it was the direct cause, I am saying it is a likely outcome of adblockers becoming more prevalent. As people become more frustrated with ads and more aware of how poor privacy is online, I think adblockers will only continue to become more popular.
It might be semantics, but if someone says “X is a likely outcome of Y”, I take that to mean “X is causing or is going to cause Y to some effect”, that’s why I worded it the way I did.
It might be semantics, but if someone says “X is a likely outcome of Y”, I take that to mean “X is causing or is going to cause Y to some effect”, that’s why I worded it the way I did.
I found this interesting because I can see that 2023 has been a year which for me has been a substantial shift towards using mostly either non-profit websites or online services I pay for. The...
I found this interesting because I can see that 2023 has been a year which for me has been a substantial shift towards using mostly either non-profit websites or online services I pay for. The Reddit exodus being part of it. The article says something about how people with the resources are moving away from the ad-driven online services and while ads isn't likely to go away, we are starting to see some sort of switch in how the internet will look in the future. Streaming services are starting to have cheaper options with ads and costlier subscriptions without ads. Some sites are increasing their paywalls, going harder against adblocks and require tracking and ads to use the service.
I am not seeing ads going away anytime soon, it is simply too valuable for businesses, but I personally hope for a techdriven economy in the future that is less reliant on advertising and data tracking than now.
The first time I saw an ad on the inside of a toilet stall door, I thought of this Bill Hicks routine, and decided he hadn't gone far enough. A long time ago, there was a road beautification push...
The first time I saw an ad on the inside of a toilet stall door, I thought of this Bill Hicks routine, and decided he hadn't gone far enough.
A long time ago, there was a road beautification push in the U.S. that limited billboard advertising on many interstate freeways. When I was growing up, I didn't see too much public advertising, but it's been creeping back all my life and I can't believe how ugly things have gotten.
And I just took a United Airlines flight last week, and was privileged to see advertising on all the screens.
Thanks for the link to the Hicks bit, that was fun. I started putting into practice Banksy's bit on advertising* and tear ads down (when I can do so fairly discreetly and not get into legal...
Thanks for the link to the Hicks bit, that was fun. I started putting into practice Banksy's bit on advertising* and tear ads down (when I can do so fairly discreetly and not get into legal problems).
*I liked the surrounding commentary in this blogpost on Banksy's rant that I found when searching for the exact quote, so I'm linking to it rather than a page of quotes or something more specific.
I have my head stuck in an e-book all the way from gate to gate and turn off the screen at my seat, but that doesn't spare me from seeing what's shown (that awful flickering at the corners of my...
I have my head stuck in an e-book all the way from gate to gate and turn off the screen at my seat, but that doesn't spare me from seeing what's shown (that awful flickering at the corners of my eyes!) on screens at other seats.
Understand that I hate video ads so much I lived without watching broadcast TV for over a decade, until I could afford cable and fast enough Internet for streaming. I never go to restaurants or bars with TVs on if I can avoid them. These days, I don't generally watch YouTube - I know there are blockers, but it's just not worth it to me to bog down my browser with yet another security/privacy risk. Inescapable ads are my version of Hell.
They make blinkers for horses. I wonder if there is a way to temporarily block your perepheral vision. I feel your pain although my dislike for video ads is not quite as strong as yours.
They make blinkers for horses. I wonder if there is a way to temporarily block your perepheral vision.
I feel your pain although my dislike for video ads is not quite as strong as yours.
For a long time, there was a problem with audio volume on ads being greater than the programming they interrupted. That was a big hot button sensory sensitivity for me. Volume excess is now...
For a long time, there was a problem with audio volume on ads being greater than the programming they interrupted. That was a big hot button sensory sensitivity for me. Volume excess is now illegal on broadcast media in the U.S., but there's nothing to prohibit Hulu or other cable/streaming channels from doing it.
There's no explicit legal control of brightness, flicker rates, or other visual and audio attentional hooks - fire, screams, explosions, baby cries, dogs barking, and so on.
I don't want to have to drug myself into inattentiveness to my surroundings to survive this assault. If there's any such thing as a basic property and freedom right, it should be the control of your own cognitive space, and non-consensual advertising is a forcible deprivation. I won't even get into what propaganda does, but repeating ads are a nails-on-chalkboard irritation and I don't want earworms or images stuck in my head.
This may be an extreme position taken by a precious snowflake, but it never ceases to amaze me what people can ignore.
The video ads are usually the worst part of the fight for me as well. I don’t think I’d mind as much if it weren’t the same three ads on a loop for the entire freaking flight. Every time I look up...
The video ads are usually the worst part of the fight for me as well. I don’t think I’d mind as much if it weren’t the same three ads on a loop for the entire freaking flight. Every time I look up all I see is the same ad for a sub-Marvel quality hero flick on every screen and I hate it. The last flight I was on turned the screen back on after every announcement so I had to keep it in map mode to avoid going back to the ads. Less distracting but still ads blanketed around me.
That's the thing, when I was younger I assumed that the annoying upselling was just for people on the free version of services. Later in life when I tried premium versions of things I was...
That's the thing, when I was younger I assumed that the annoying upselling was just for people on the free version of services. Later in life when I tried premium versions of things I was disappointed to find a similar amount of upselling even there.
My takeaway has been that falling for the first upsell (the premium service) only singles you out as a mark that's open to being up-sold, so the best strategy is to avoid services with that...
My takeaway has been that falling for the first upsell (the premium service) only singles you out as a mark that's open to being up-sold, so the best strategy is to avoid services with that payment model as much as humanly possible. I'd rather pay membership to a non-fremium service with only one tier.
On the enshittification front, paying for premium services is no guarantee that you'll remain free from advertising. For instance, my New York Times subscriber newsletter e-mail arrives with...
On the enshittification front, paying for premium services is no guarantee that you'll remain free from advertising. For instance, my New York Times subscriber newsletter e-mail arrives with embedded inline ads that I haven't yet figured out how to get rid of (they get past ad-blockers, private DNS, and pihole, and they're personalized right down to my bra size). My dreadfully expensive Financial Times subscription comes with sponsored content.
I've been paying for these vendors to support theoretically better quality material, but I'm getting treated like a resource that's not fully exploited yet. This is the future - maximum consumer extraction, unless we support and build alternatives.
Perhaps it's a sign that it's time to prune the subscription tree and that the core products aren't actually that good, if they're also bundled with that kind of garbage.
Perhaps it's a sign that it's time to prune the subscription tree and that the core products aren't actually that good, if they're also bundled with that kind of garbage.
Archive link for those hit by their paywall. Sort of on point on the article though, but I do think The Economist gives some free articles per user per month or something. I managed to read...
Archive link for those hit by their paywall. Sort of on point on the article though, but I do think The Economist gives some free articles per user per month or something. I managed to read without any login at least.
I think if it is true that the outcome of ad-blocking becoming ubiquitous is that everything on the web becomes one of a number of things: non-profit, subscription or other business model, or goes...
I think if it is true that the outcome of ad-blocking becoming ubiquitous is that everything on the web becomes one of a number of things: non-profit, subscription or other business model, or goes away entirely, I'm not sure I mind that outcome.
A move away from the evil of advertising and its infestation and the incentives it produces would be a net positive, I think. I believe that some business models or non-profit funding would still allow those of less means to not be shut out of things the web provides- though that is a tough angle to solve and is important.
Overall I feel like whatever pains we have to overcome to rid the web of the plague of manipulation and attention-theft we call advertising will be worth it.
The only alternative I would remotely support is an extreme regulation environment that makes ads small, static, safe, unencroaching, minimal, and has requirements about placement, quantity, bandwidth, and other metrics. But I doubt said environment is possible, so in light of that I wish for the death of advertising, both on the web and off (billboards, etc)
How ironic is it to bypass the paywall on this particular article? Anyway: https://web.archive.org/web/20231216234337/https://www.economist.com/business/2023/12/11/welcome-to-the-ad-free-internet
I'm a fan of ad blockers, and I do not understand how people put up with the level of advertising we're expected to be subjected to. I have friends that have actively declined to learn about ad blocking DNS servers because they want the ads in their mobile games. I don't even know how I should feel about that.
Edit: as long as people are reading this: Adguard DNS is the only thing I'll advertise for free. It's so nice being able to play mobile games and use apps without ads, I will stop using my phone before I watch another ad
There are many features in games that are locked behind as videos. You watch an ad for more "gems" or whatever to use in the games. My daughter plays them and asks me to disable the adblocker once in a while so she can get an item she wants. She pretty quickly gets frustrated with the ads being everywhere and usually asks me to turn it back on.
Mobile gaming is a horrible look into a void of nightmarish and cynical shittitude. Ads are everywhere and barely ever show representative gameplay, about half the games on offer are either clear data-thieving scams or rip-offs, and the ads themselves can contain some of the most revolting content imaginable. I stopped playing a game I liked because it kept showing me ads for some "ASMR" popping and squeezing game that nearly made me throw up.
I'm one of those who don't use adblockers at all. But I don't like being subjected to ads, so I have my own way.
If the site uses ads reasonably, I tolerate them and I visit the site. If the site goes over with ads, I stop visiting it. I stopped watching Youtube because of that. I also stopped visiting many local sites. I also closed countless tabs with articles I wanted to read but ads level was "too much". I don't want to use such sites so I don't use them. If it depended on me only, I would simply let such sites die. Yes, even Youtube. If they want to run such an aggresive ad campaign, they don't deserve better.
Is adguard dns functionally equivalent to pihole? Just wondering if it makes sense to purchase this service if you have the know how to do it yourself.
Ad-blocking DNS is handy for mobile devices when you're not connected to your pihole-filtered home network. You don't have fine-grained control over what's blocked or allowed, but it's a heck of a lot better and safer than relying on whatever DNS your cellular provider or public Wi-Fi uses, or potentially your VPN provider unless you roll your own.
***I do pay for Blokada Cloud - their private DNS is satisfactory, and I can fine-tune my block or allow lists to my heart's content.
I'm not totally certain, but I assume a pihole is better if you have the supplies and the know-how. I just use the public DNS, which is free
I suppose it's not in The Economist's financial interest to mention that the "ad-free Internet" already exists via things like uBlock Origin, dnsmasq, and SponsorBlock.
Maybe, but not really the main focus on the article which is more about the various new subscription plans that surfaces now (Meta recently launched an ad-free subscription) and how businesses now seeks alternative ways to advertise (hint influencers).
And influencers are just the ol' Brand Ambassador model updated for the 21st century. Convincing influential people to publicly endorse a product is an extremely old form of advertising. It's hard to imagine a world with zero advertisements of any kind.
Simply blocking the ads doesn't give you an "ad free" internet, because the content you're seeing is being created to serve an ad-infested business model. You're not seeing all the ads, but you're still subjected to clickbait, curiosity-gap headlines, and a focus on driving traffic (SEO-driven content designed to appeal to as broad of a general audience as possible) instead of building a loyal audience base (more niche content to develop high-engagement and retention from an interested subscriber base).
Changing business models does a lot more to the nature of the media being produced than just whether ads are there or not.
But it's hard to imagine ye Olde brand ambassador being this pervasive in any age before, no? You have travelling sales men, but it's easy to shut your door or dont let them in.
These days every video I watch has them talking through an ad.... It's awful.
It's starting to feel like living as Truman, with my wife turning towards the camera suddenly talking about soap or juice in a super fake way mid conversation.
I’m so glad it’s not just me who thinks of that exact reference! Every YouTuber breaks character to tell me how much they love Hello Fresh or SurfShark, and I “hear” it in the voice of Laura Linney going “I’ve tasted other cocoas. This is the best!”
Well that is how television used to be funded. Cigarette companies infamously funded cartoons and paid actors to use their products.
Not all television. The better programs did not do this. CBC and BBC do not do this. We used to have free television before it got overtaken by advertising
Government or public funding is a perfectly valid business model, but it seems to have limits.
Those tools only work because only a minority of users use them. Websites cost money to build and host. Ads are a necessary evil unless you want to pay a subscription for everything.
That's.. just false. It's entirely possible to turn a profit using freemium acquisition motion without ads.
Only if enough people are actually willing to pay, to the extent of subsidizing the majority of users who choose not to pay.
True
Well I am willing to pay*, where can I apply to remove all the ads from my view? Not just on the web, but ideally in public spaces IRL too… Until then I’ll happily use ad-removing technology, at least for most of the time.
And I think you’re right, to be honest: The average (American) user makes Google around $270 per year, but how would you convince most of those users to pay the $60, $120 or whatever out of their own pocket for an alternative offering? Let alone a substantially higher amount if they had to subsidize non-payees? That is a place I would probably not want to go to myself, either…
*This is not me talking out of my ass: I am actively paying for a bunch of software, including e.g. Kagi, the ad-free search engine, and email. But I realize most people are not fortunate or willing enough to afford payments if the alternative still seems “free”, at least on the surface.
YouTube ads became so annoying and persistent that I subscribed.
there are quite a few other methods than just subscriptions. But sure, a lot of the professional web would collapse overnight if adblock hit some 90%+ adoption.
I wonder if it's really that bad, though. when people can't just randomly scroll and expect free, infinite content, you start to focus more on some other (likely better) sort of metric than "engagement tactics". Buzzfeed won't exactly disappear per se, but there will be much less sites aiming at such a model if they want long term engagement from subscribers.
This type of thing would need to be accompanied by a culture shift where paywalls and subscriptions (perhaps with a free trial) are the norm. Even for services that offer options between free/ad-supported and paid/premium subscriptions, the paid subscriptions are typically in the minority. Are you and everyone else prepared to pay for services that you use for free today, including email, search, social media, news, aggregators, etc?
Or we drop them and realize that we've missed nothing.
Yeah, I agree. It wouldn't be viable given what many are used to now. I'm prepared to pay for everything, but many can't and others simply don't want to.
That is the kind of ad-free internet that is unsustainable. As more and more people use adblockers, more and more ad-supported websites will switch to an entirely premium model.
While I agree with the first part of your statement, that everyone using an ad-blocker be unsustainable, I'm highly skeptical the number of people using ad-blockers is a cause for these "premium" models. They do it because they can get more money this way. A vast majority of people don't use ad-blockers. I would wager that even if ad-blockers never existed, this type of service is the inevitable outcome when these companies are looking for more and more ways to extract profit.
I'm the kind of person who never bothered to install an ad blocker until this year. It just never seemed worth the effort figuring out. That changed in the last few months when YouTube started absolutely taking the piss with the amount of unskippable ads.
YouTube continuing to escalate the amount of ads is what made their model unsustainable. They eventually crossed the trust thermocline with me.
I never said it was the direct cause, I am saying it is a likely outcome of adblockers becoming more prevalent. As people become more frustrated with ads and more aware of how poor privacy is online, I think adblockers will only continue to become more popular.
It might be semantics, but if someone says “X is a likely outcome of Y”, I take that to mean “X is causing or is going to cause Y to some effect”, that’s why I worded it the way I did.
I found this interesting because I can see that 2023 has been a year which for me has been a substantial shift towards using mostly either non-profit websites or online services I pay for. The Reddit exodus being part of it. The article says something about how people with the resources are moving away from the ad-driven online services and while ads isn't likely to go away, we are starting to see some sort of switch in how the internet will look in the future. Streaming services are starting to have cheaper options with ads and costlier subscriptions without ads. Some sites are increasing their paywalls, going harder against adblocks and require tracking and ads to use the service.
I am not seeing ads going away anytime soon, it is simply too valuable for businesses, but I personally hope for a techdriven economy in the future that is less reliant on advertising and data tracking than now.
The first time I saw an ad on the inside of a toilet stall door, I thought of this Bill Hicks routine, and decided he hadn't gone far enough.
A long time ago, there was a road beautification push in the U.S. that limited billboard advertising on many interstate freeways. When I was growing up, I didn't see too much public advertising, but it's been creeping back all my life and I can't believe how ugly things have gotten.
And I just took a United Airlines flight last week, and was privileged to see advertising on all the screens.
Thanks for the link to the Hicks bit, that was fun. I started putting into practice Banksy's bit on advertising* and tear ads down (when I can do so fairly discreetly and not get into legal problems).
*I liked the surrounding commentary in this blogpost on Banksy's rant that I found when searching for the exact quote, so I'm linking to it rather than a page of quotes or something more specific.
I bring my own entertainment on flights and turn off screens.
There are safety issues with billboards, especially at night
I have my head stuck in an e-book all the way from gate to gate and turn off the screen at my seat, but that doesn't spare me from seeing what's shown (that awful flickering at the corners of my eyes!) on screens at other seats.
Understand that I hate video ads so much I lived without watching broadcast TV for over a decade, until I could afford cable and fast enough Internet for streaming. I never go to restaurants or bars with TVs on if I can avoid them. These days, I don't generally watch YouTube - I know there are blockers, but it's just not worth it to me to bog down my browser with yet another security/privacy risk. Inescapable ads are my version of Hell.
They make blinkers for horses. I wonder if there is a way to temporarily block your perepheral vision.
I feel your pain although my dislike for video ads is not quite as strong as yours.
For a long time, there was a problem with audio volume on ads being greater than the programming they interrupted. That was a big hot button sensory sensitivity for me. Volume excess is now illegal on broadcast media in the U.S., but there's nothing to prohibit Hulu or other cable/streaming channels from doing it.
There's no explicit legal control of brightness, flicker rates, or other visual and audio attentional hooks - fire, screams, explosions, baby cries, dogs barking, and so on.
I don't want to have to drug myself into inattentiveness to my surroundings to survive this assault. If there's any such thing as a basic property and freedom right, it should be the control of your own cognitive space, and non-consensual advertising is a forcible deprivation. I won't even get into what propaganda does, but repeating ads are a nails-on-chalkboard irritation and I don't want earworms or images stuck in my head.
This may be an extreme position taken by a precious snowflake, but it never ceases to amaze me what people can ignore.
The video ads are usually the worst part of the fight for me as well. I don’t think I’d mind as much if it weren’t the same three ads on a loop for the entire freaking flight. Every time I look up all I see is the same ad for a sub-Marvel quality hero flick on every screen and I hate it. The last flight I was on turned the screen back on after every announcement so I had to keep it in map mode to avoid going back to the ads. Less distracting but still ads blanketed around me.
<rant/>That's the thing, when I was younger I assumed that the annoying upselling was just for people on the free version of services. Later in life when I tried premium versions of things I was disappointed to find a similar amount of upselling even there.
My takeaway has been that falling for the first upsell (the premium service) only singles you out as a mark that's open to being up-sold, so the best strategy is to avoid services with that payment model as much as humanly possible. I'd rather pay membership to a non-fremium service with only one tier.
On the enshittification front, paying for premium services is no guarantee that you'll remain free from advertising. For instance, my New York Times subscriber newsletter e-mail arrives with embedded inline ads that I haven't yet figured out how to get rid of (they get past ad-blockers, private DNS, and pihole, and they're personalized right down to my bra size). My dreadfully expensive Financial Times subscription comes with sponsored content.
I've been paying for these vendors to support theoretically better quality material, but I'm getting treated like a resource that's not fully exploited yet. This is the future - maximum consumer extraction, unless we support and build alternatives.
Perhaps it's a sign that it's time to prune the subscription tree and that the core products aren't actually that good, if they're also bundled with that kind of garbage.
Archive link for those hit by their paywall. Sort of on point on the article though, but I do think The Economist gives some free articles per user per month or something. I managed to read without any login at least.
I think if it is true that the outcome of ad-blocking becoming ubiquitous is that everything on the web becomes one of a number of things: non-profit, subscription or other business model, or goes away entirely, I'm not sure I mind that outcome.
A move away from the evil of advertising and its infestation and the incentives it produces would be a net positive, I think. I believe that some business models or non-profit funding would still allow those of less means to not be shut out of things the web provides- though that is a tough angle to solve and is important.
Overall I feel like whatever pains we have to overcome to rid the web of the plague of manipulation and attention-theft we call advertising will be worth it.
The only alternative I would remotely support is an extreme regulation environment that makes ads small, static, safe, unencroaching, minimal, and has requirements about placement, quantity, bandwidth, and other metrics. But I doubt said environment is possible, so in light of that I wish for the death of advertising, both on the web and off (billboards, etc)