I use the silent mode on my Apple Watch. It does require topping off the battery in the early evenings and/or keeping it on the charger after I wake up until after showering.
While this is generally true for legacy publications (impossible to cancel!), I mostly enjoy paying for niche-topic newsletters from a single source. A great example is a former newspaper journalist who was laid off and now produces his own newsletter focused on a single college football team. He probably makes more now than when a newspaper employee. I am a happy subscriber. I pay for a handful of these. I also subscribe to newsletters like "Morning Brew." while free and ad-supported, it is well done.
100%. And sometimes that form of payment is putting up with ads, etc. I routinely back out of sites that suddenly take over the screen with a popup or take up large chunks with video or animations. Same as opting not to go in a particular store. But I also stick around and occasionally use products advertised to me. Shocking, I know.
So back out of the webpage and don't read it. That is a constructive way of letting a content producer know their user experience is not worth the "expense" of consuming their product. But if the content is worth your time and energy to consume, pay the "price" of admission.
I back out of the webpage and go to 12ft.io, which allows me to both, read the article, while simultaneously using that constructive way of letting the publisher know that their product is not worth it's price.
And then 12ft-dot-io throws an error, but still shows its own ad in the bottom right corner! But you probably knew that since you constructively use them.
The three articles I read from the NYT a year are not worth the price of a monthly subscription.
My choices are:
1) Use archive.ph to read the three articles.
2) Never read a NYT article again.
3) Pay for a subscription for the NYT.
I think you need to be approaching this from an exceptionally legalistic perspective to think that anything but Option 1 is reasonable. If I could pay the five cents of value those three articles are worth, I would, but I can't so I won't.
Standing at an empty intersection, I'm not going to start lecturing someone for looking both ways and crossing the street when the traffic light signals "Don't Walk".
I understand that you might feel that journalism is under funded and that this scofflaw, naredowell attitude is further jeopardizing it. The fact that the reasons newspapers are failing is complex and has less to do with consumer behaviour than it does with other factors not least of which are market consolidation and lax antitrust laws. I pay hundreds of dollars a year on newspaper subscriptions and I refuse to believe that I'm the reason any of that is happening.
I guess we are going down a rabbit hole that 12ft-dot-io doesn't specifically address — it doesn't bypass paywalls. Regardless, #2 is an option. And the choice is entirely yours.
I get more peeved at the entitlement many feel to use ad blockers and rail against content producers monetizing their sites, when the choice to not consume the content is an option. Ask my why I gave up twitter a few weeks ago :)
> Regardless, #2 is an option. And the choice is entirely yours.
I can also choose not to read over the shoulder of someone reading an article on the train or averting my eyes at the headlines displayed at a newsstand. Somehow, I can't find in me the slavish devotion to the media industry margins required to do so.
> I get more peeved at the entitlement many feel to use ad blockers and rail against content producers monetizing their sites, when the choice to not consume the content is an option.
This is such a confusing opinion, and an even more baffling to thrust it unto others.
The best thing to do for ones computer safety is to run an ad blocker, as acknowledged by even the FBI[0]. Profiling by ad companies makes our world more insecure and inequitable. I deeply despite selling client data as a business model, as it seems you might as well.
So, your position is that I should both lodge my complaint against their unfair dealings by not consuming their website, but that it is also unjust for me to evade tracking and block ads because it hurts their bottom-line which is unethical to begin with . This sorta feels like chastising me for walking out of the room while TV ads run and deigning to watch the rest of the programme.
It’s baffling to me why you would insist on consuming content produced by such dangerous abusers of your security and privacy. And then thrusting your opinion that all content should be free onto all sites monetized by ads is further confusing.
That’s glib. It is possible to discern websites that are safe, respect privacy and are generally pleasing to visit without an ad blocker. If you deem them unsafe, leave, don’t log entirely off the internet.
I’m not saying you are telling me to. I’m pointing out that you are depriving sites from their chosen method of monetization while continuing to consume their content. Effectively “averting your eyes” from their ads, instead of just not visiting the site.
I’m not accusing you of anything. It’s just simply what you are doing. It’s the mental gymnastics these threads are always full of justifying the wholesale disavowal of all ad-supported content that is hard to follow.
This assumes the their presence has no affect on me. It takes time to click a page and let it load, and more time to dig through all of the results when all of them are unreadable. Maybe if there were a tag like [ungodlyamountofads] on each, it would help. But even then I'd still have to scroll through them.
I guess I fail to see how one can entirely remove how fully voluntary the visiting of a webpage is. It is how the web works! And how all kinds of "free" media has worked for eons.
I don't mean to excuse incredibly poor user experience design, and certainly not abusive tactics. But sorry if I have zero empathy for your clicking, loading and scrolling pain. Leave the website! It is amazing how many people are defending a site that claims to "Remove popups, banners, and ads" while:
1 - failing to even work.
and:
2 - shows it's an ad on the resulting page!
While we likely agree there are egregious abusers of both user experience and privacy, I don't believe I have a fundamental right to define how a website is allowed to present their content and/or monetize it. But I do retain the right, which I frequently practice, to leave a webpage and utilize alternate sources in that moment and in the future.
Majority of the internet is your "leave the webpage" example so by allowing shady ad tech sites to use these tactics you're just promoting the proliferation of a shittier internet. Being subjective in this case makes no sense to me unless you have skin in the game so I'll assume you do.
As an exaggerated albeit relevant comparison; this is like saying you don't want police even though there are lots of criminals, you can always just walk away if things look suspicious. This assumes you have the eye to determine what is suspicious. I was hoping I wouldn't have to worry about crime in the first place.
Absolutely I have skin in the game. Do you never benefit from free content, tools or services that exist only because the opportunity to monetize through advertising is possible?
I display a single banner ad on a website that offers a free business tool, as an example.
I also do the same on a free business tool where I also offer a paid, advanced, ad-free version. If a user sticks around for 30 seconds, which most do (average time on both ad-supported sites is more than six minutes), then the freemium site pops up a message alerting them to the paid option.
No obligations and no restrictions on the free versions.
I don't make significant amounts from ads or subscriptions, but I would have no incentive beyond this to continue to offer these services, which many appear to find valuable and use for commercial purposes.
I frequent many free sites/tools that benefit from my visit, and I benefit from their offering for both business and personal reasons. I understand and agree to the transaction occurring.
Outlandish comparisons like you offer completely miss the mark and dilute the legitimate arguments for the use of ad-blockers, which I do believe exist. But I will offer an equally outlandish counterpoint: You prefer a world where over-policing would occur and round up innocent victims with criminals? "Most crimes are committed by males aged 18-25, if we round them all up, we will drastically reduce crime!" Hyperbole, I know. But probably more applicable than your argument for the use of ad blockers.
As I said before, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. Using an adblocker allows for a cleaner, safer internet for the user. No doubt about that. It also, it has to be acknowledged, sweeps the good under the rug with the bad. Period. All-or-nothing enforcement is your proposition. Again, that simply has to be acknowledged. There is no debate there. If you believe that will ultimately lead to a better internet, then that is where we can disagree, as that is entirely subjective.
I'm not saying you're hiding anything it's just easy to see why you have this opinion. My example was not outlandish and is relevant. Vs the argument you made which was a purposefully dishonest analogy.
My hope is not to state that ads are evil as I don't believe that, just to point out that you are a person who serves ads, I also never state any of the opinions or beliefs you say I did, Have a nice day!
> But if the content is worth your time and energy to consume, pay the "price" of admission.
This assumes that the "time and energy to consume" is equivalent to the "price". What if it is worth the time to install 12ft or whatever, but not worth the price they want to charge?
I mean, sure, if you insist and make site-level negotiations with yourself about the value of the content.
Here’s a simple example for me:
I search Google for how to perform an operation in an Excel spreadsheet. I skip past the obvious ads at the top first. I click on a promising result on a user forum, but first have to click through a popup and then have a banner covering a third of the screen and a small inset screen with a video. That’s too much for me. I stop and go back to Google. I pick another option. And I may remember that forum is not worth the click in the future.
We make decisions like this online and offline every day. The fact is there are many valuable sites and services that are ad supported and done so responsibly. Not all, but many. Ad blockers are a blunt tool. Installing one on grandma’s browser is a constructive use, but not just because “ads are bad.”
Boat resto and outboard engine maintenance. On my second, bigger restoration (old fiberglass boats). Knee deep in electrical right now. I really want to get a smaller two-stroke outboard and fully take it apart and rebuild it, and work my way up to larger engines.
Perfectly said. Your readers do not have to use your website, they choose to. And they can choose to leave your website, and they can choose not to click on your affiliate links.
When and ad comes on the radio, I can change the station. When an add comes on the TV, I can change the channel. I cannot force either one to not broadcast the ad to me and go back to normal programming.
That is fair. However my readers (and I) choose to keep using websites and getting things from creators, but strip them of their income. We expect everything to be free, but the quality content to keep coming. Oh and now it has to feed AI too.
In that sense they're not leaving. They're consuming my work and occasionally even creating more work, and not giving anything in return.
This is something I'm okay with. In my case it works that way by design. My website is meant to be a free resource. However in the absence of paying users, we're stuck with commercial patrons. Mine have no leverage, but that's very unusual.
reply