
Originally Posted by
Trixter
The whole thing feels scummy to me.
I'm in agreement here and because the whole website is dumbed down to benefits the user receives and not what they're actually doing, it's hard to tell the level of shadiness. If you are replacing a websites banners with your own banners, then that kinda sucks. You're basically making money off the backs of the real content providers and cutting off their revenue. I totally agree with blocking shady ads, the ones that do weird popups or take over pages or send you to criminal websites (sites that will try to tell you that your computer is infected and send you to some indian call center 'fake microsoft' to fix). However, sites that use simple image type banners are perfectly fair and i'm okay letting those through.
What's also not clear and maybe someone knows, the 'approved banners', are they approved banners that are just images without any type of tracking.. or are they instead approving, say, a facebook ad that generates revenue for them but at the same time blocking the same (tracking) facebook ad that generates revenue for the publisher.
Either way, I used to not run any ad blockers because i was okay with ads for sites... unfortunately there are a few sites i go to with super scammy / browser killing ads that killed it for the rest, and there is no good ad blocker that blocks only bad ads but lets the good ones through. There are a few ad blockers that claim to do that, but they barely work. A good example is to go to a torrent site and do a quick browse to see if your browser goes to crap. Ublock is the only blocker i've found that actually successfully blocks bad stuff, but unfortunately it blocks legit ads as well.
-- Brian
Systems: Amstad PCW 8256, Apple IIe/II+/GS/Mac+/Mac 512k, Atari 800/520STFM, Commodore 64/128/Amiga 3000/PET 4032/SX-64, IBM PS/1 2121-B82, Kaypro II, Osborne 1, Tandy 1000 SX, TI-99/4A, Timex Sinclair 1000, TRS-80 Color Computer 3/Model 4 GA
Bookmarks