Please ATS Members and Non-Members alike, STOP Blocking Ads- Or there may be NO ATS at ALL

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

originally posted by: theySeeme
a reply to: TrueAmerican

This is total B.S. As a computer programmer and web developer with over 13 years of experience I can without a doubt say that a site on the traffic and size (of database/text) could easily be hosted on a 15-25$/monthly plan.

This is not about ATS closing, it's about someone wanting to make a profit off of the website, nothing more.

So it's bad for them to pay for (and build) the site and then want to make money off of it, but it's OK for you to shame people for "wanting to make a profit" while utilizing the thing, that their labor created, for free?

All of that aside, all of us are able to freely use web services such as ATS because of advertising. Why is generating a profit a bad thing??

They didn't create the content. They created the house to hold it. You should really read more posts here then you'll get an idea about what ads really do.

The ads generate revenue for the website.

It's like asking a bunch of carpenters to build you a house for free then charge them to live in it so you can pay the taxes on the land.

That's a pretty poor analogy. Creating a thread is not the same thing as writing the code to build a website.

What skilled laborers have they asked to work for free (and even if a skilled laborer agreed to do a thing for free, so what??)?

While you're at it, you take all of their personal information and sell it to someone else so you can reap a little more reward. But... It's YOUR house.

They sell your demographic information, so what? You literally use a service for free and find reasons to complain.

I hope they start charging for user accounts.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Thanks for the article.

THIS is exactly my point and where I stand. I would have assumed this would be common thought on a conspiracy forum but I guess I was seriously wrong.

What I find remarkable is the way both sides of this debate seem to simply assume the large-scale capture and exploitation of human attention to be ethical and/or inevitable in the first place. This demonstrates how utterly we have all failed to understand the role of attention in the digital age—as well as the implications of spending most of our lives in an environment designed to compete for it.

How this doesn't piss anyone off is beyond me



I have to give a BIG thank you again. This article was VERY well written and made tons of sense. I believe everyone should read it and then argue the point after they have read it.

a reply to: StallionDuck

How this doesn't piss anyone off is beyond me

Getting angry at others simply because you're doing a thing that no one is coercing you to do is irrational.

That's like getting mad at casinos because you have a gambling addiction.

a reply to: StallionDuck

The comparison is that when parties with a similar interest (in this case, small websites not under the revenue gathering apparatus of major media) tend to work together in union to address a common goal (in this case, keeping adblocker's from extorting websites under the guise of consumer protection).

His point slapped me right in the face. Im sorta shocked that its being missed in lieu of making ATS the enemy. Adblockers are extorting domains for whitelisting. Big media can afford it....small, independant websites cannot. The conspiracy angle: its a ruse by major media to drive out smaller competition, and aggregate audiences under them only. But that aside....to answer your question: the metaphor revolves around everyday people running a business and having a common goal to be able to continue to be in business by fighting a protection racket (which threatens to burn down their house).

a reply to: CharlestonChew

The ads generate revenue for the website.

The members create the content for the website that pull in readers.

So what's your point? I know what ads do. There is no question about the revenue being generated. But what ELSE do they do? See my last post prior to this one. That will give you more insight.

That's a pretty poor analogy. Creating a thread is not the same thing as writing the code to build a website.

No its not. How so? What does that have to do with creating a thread and writing the code? The code wasn't written from scratch. It began with something... a foundation. But... You can write code all day long. Without the content that people want to read, your code doesn't mean squat. You'll just have a really well coded website with zilch on it! Do you think people come here to see a pretty website or the user created content on that website? Half of it is just user comments with news stories pulled from another website, which they probably found on another website like drudge or yahoo that does the same bloody thing. You don't see those guys blocking you from reading or stopping you from contributing something to their site because you have an ad blocker.

I also stand by my analogy. Your skilled laborers are your members, posters... You know. Not just the ones that throw their opinions around like they matter. The ones that actually build a post with something of interest that get those people to toss around their opinions so they can feel like they matter.

How could you miss the obvious here?

They sell your demographic information, so what? You literally use a service for free and find reasons to complain.

You're not the solution, you're obviously the problem. Many people would think you are totally against privacy. And it's more than your demographic information. You should research more.

I hope they start charging for user accounts.

To be 100% honest.. Me too. Because when that happens, I'll be history from this site while another takes it's place, as will majority of it's readers and contributors. Hence this site would fail and I could nod with a knowing smile. Do you honestly think this site would survive if that happened? Seriously?

originally posted by: StallionDuck


The members create the content for the website that pull in readers.

And yet the #1 complaint i hear from my fellow members on ATS is that the content just isn't what is used to be.

See? Cause -> Effect. In the words of my fellow members.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: StallionDuck


The members create the content for the website that pull in readers.

And yet the #1 complaint i hear from my fellow members on ATS is that the content just isn't what is used to be.

See? Cause -> Effect. In the words of my fellow members.

That, my friend, is a whole different topic and unrelated problem. The solution would be to fix the problem. Not work around it and hope for the best. That's what politicians do

originally posted by: CharlestonChewI hope they start charging for user accounts.

Well, you can always make a voluntary donation.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Sounds like you are armed with the legal knowledge to protect consumers by taking adblockers to court for their extortion practices, as laid out in the OP of this thread.

Its one thing to create a product that is monetized by consumers purchasing the product and using it for protection/blocking. Its another thing entirely to give the product out for free to gullible consumers who truly do believe they will get something for nothing, then turn and extort websites with your new army of software equipped internet users with offers to buy "whitelisting".

So there you have it: you claim extortion is illegal...take this to court. Its the very definition of a protection racket.

It could be possible that ATS (or other similar sites) could take it to court. But that is expensive. And since folks are blocking ads, there just isn't the revenue to pay for it (which is the entire premise of the OP as I understood it).

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Maybe I'm missing something that I'm just not understanding. Feel free to explain if you spot it.

I don't understand how an Ad Blocker stops any site, great or small, from something ethical. Keep in mind that it's not the site that angers me. It's the ads that the site holds that angers me. Those ads are malicious based on what they do. They don't just show me an advertisement.

Aside from the auto-on video ads, those really piss me off... I don't mind an ad that shows me a picture of it's product, doesn't take away from my loading time and isn't pulling information from me in one way shape or form without my consent.

We're not talking about the way ads were displayed 10 years ago. Now these ads pull information and history from the viewer. Ads are not the only thing that does this, yet Ad Blockers are blamed specifically.

Other than stopping ads from taking information from you, how are Ad Blockers killing the little guy?

Also, I don't consider any company worth over a million to be the little guy.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexanHis point slapped me right in the face. Im sorta shocked that its being missed in lieu of making ATS the enemy. Adblockers are extorting domains for whitelisting.

Again, you're dangerously close to wilfully spreading infamy. You keep telling lies: adblockers do not EXTORT anybody or anything. They are software meant to filter out unwanted content. Similar to virus scanners, spam filters and firewalls. There is nothing illegal about them. Nor are they unethical, actually, you might even say it is unethical NOT to use them.

Big media can afford it....small, independant websites cannot.

Adblockers can be configured by the end-user. So, what is being blocked or not is the end-users choice, not that of the adblocker company.

The conspiracy angle: its a ruse by major media to drive out smaller competition, and aggregate audiences under them only. But that aside....to answer your question: the metaphor revolves around everyday people running a business and having a common goal to be able to continue to be in business by fighting a protection racket (which threatens to burn down their house).

You keep repeating that, but you have been proven wrong: blocking certain types of content is totally legal, ethically correct and has nothing to do with arson.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
I did not ask a question. I did not argue about anything (though I could and with good reason). If you really want to know what my stanza is on the idea of ad blocking, you may want to read this article by a fellow of Oxford University I agree with most of what he says.

It's always interesting and often entertaining when academics with no "skin in any game" chime in on value-exchange business models.

It seems that the apparently esteemed Mr. Williams has completely forgotten that value-echange business model for free or nearly-free media has been driven by the support of advertising for well more than a century. The social contract is that ads are a companion to the content, and a necessary component to support either the creation or distribution of the content, or both.

The Internet introduced the first real hazard to the breakdown of that social contract; consumers of content are depriving the publishers of the revenue that ads provide in order to continue acquiring and publishing the content. It's a very real problem for many websites, ATS included.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
The members create the content for the website that pull in readers.

Yes. But the chicken didn't come before the egg.

Years of continued hard work went into creating a platform that would inspire people to come and share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions. We didn't get more than 4 million pages of people's posts by being a so-so platform for user-generated content.

Much of what we offer freely to members, especially an unrestricted free image upload space and super-sized avatars/customizations, is part of paid packages elsewhere.

Yes, the members create the content, and there's a great deal of truly stunning content on ATS. But we give you a high-value social contract: a superior platform in which to express yourselves, and see those expressions in major search engines within minutes of posting.

All we're asking is that the other side of that social contract be respected; appreciate the unique platform and free services enough to refrain from blocking the ads.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Its one thing to create a product that is monetized by consumers purchasing the product and using it for protection/blocking. Its another thing entirely to give the product out for free to gullible consumers who truly do believe they will get something for nothing, then turn and extort websites with your new army of software equipped internet users with offers to buy "whitelisting".

I do agree with you here. Ad Blocker was originally for blocking ads. The people who bought them out use it for nefarious greed.

BUT... It's the only tool WE have to push back against the equally greedy companies who create these ads. So I guess we're simply fighting fire with fire, you could say.

Touché'?

a reply to: StallionDuck

The members create the content for the website that pull in readers.

Yep. That's what a forum is, user-driven content. It's entertainment.

Why is it wrong for the people who built the website to generate revenue off of the website?

So what's your point? I know what ads do. There is no question about the revenue being generated.

What do you mean "what is my point"? You made a statement regarding ads implying I didn't understand the point of them:

You should really read more posts here then you'll get an idea about what ads really do.

My point was to clarify that I understand the point of advertising: 1. to generate revenue for the website and 2. to show you things that you might want to buy (very diabolical, I know, #FeelTheBern and stuff).

But what ELSE do they do? See my last post prior to this one. That will give you more insight.

You mean this pseudoscientific, nonsense:

What I find remarkable is the way both sides of this debate seem to simply assume the large-scale capture and exploitation of human attention to be ethical and/or inevitable in the first place. This demonstrates how utterly we have all failed to understand the role of attention in the digital age—as well as the implications of spending most of our lives in an environment designed to compete for it.

"they captured us by offering us things that we wanted!"

No its not. How so? What does that have to do with creating a thread and writing the code? The code wasn't written from scratch. It began with something... a foundation. But... You can write code all day long. Without the content that people want to read, your code doesn't mean squat. You'll just have a really well coded website with zilch on it! Do you think people come here to see a pretty website or the user created content on that website? Half of it is just user comments with news stories pulled from another website, which they probably found on another website like drudge or yahoo that does the same bloody thing. You don't see those guys blocking you from reading or stopping you from contributing something to their site because you have an ad blocker.

You're claiming that by coming here and creating threads that you're somehow a laborer (you're not). Creating threads on ATS is entertainment. Reading threads on ATS is entertaining.

Funny thing about entertainment: not only will people engage in being entertained for free....they'll actually pay for it.

You're conflating things that aren't equal. You didn't write the code for the site, you don't maintain or update the code for the site, you don't pay the costs for the site, and you don't manage the servers for the site. You come here strictly to be entertained, and you have the incentive to come here of your own free will, others we wouldn't be having this argument.

I also stand by my analogy. Your skilled laborers are your members, posters... You know. Not just the ones that throw their opinions around like they matter. The ones that actually build a post with something of interest that get those people to toss around their opinions so they can feel like they matter.

Lol, ok.

How could you miss the obvious here?

I know the difference between entertainment and labor??

You're not the solution, you're obviously the problem. Many people would think you are totally against privacy.

My privacy hasn't been invaded. OH NO, THEY KNOW SOME STUFF ABOUT THE LINKS I CLICK ON AND MAYBE MY GENDER AND RACE.

2spooky4me

And it's more than your demographic information. You should research more.

Prove it. Tell me what I am wearing right now.

To be 100% honest.. Me too. Because when that happens, I'll be history from this site while another takes it's place, as will majority of it's readers and contributors. Hence this site would fail and I could nod with a knowing smile. Do you honestly think this site would survive if that happened? Seriously?

I would gladly pay for an account for a number of reasons, but the ATS' owners would have to specifically charge one to two hundred dollars a year for an account subscription to make paid accounts effective (don't give people the option to pay monthly).

Why?

1. Paid accounts means no advertisements. You can pay for a service that you enjoy without having to be bombarded by ads.

2. Paid accounts means your data doesn't have to be sold (yay, your paranoia can now take a break and relax).

3. Paid accounts disincentivizes trolls. People setting up fake accounts with the express intent of trolling, proliferates across the web because web services are free to the end user, meaning: a person can create sock-puppet accounts without any net loss to themselves. Having to pay one or two hundred dollars upfront means that a person would really, really, really have to enjoy trolling to actually pay for multiple accounts (but wouldn't because they are going to accrue huge losses when they are found out and their accounts are banned).

4. Paid accounts means the ATS' owners can update the software of the site and the hardware

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexanHis point slapped me right in the face. Im sorta shocked that its being missed in lieu of making ATS the enemy. Adblockers are extorting domains for whitelisting.

Again, you're dangerously close to wilfully spreading infamy. You keep telling lies: adblockers do not EXTORT anybody or anything. They are software meant to filter out unwanted content. Similar to virus scanners, spam filters and firewalls. There is nothing illegal about them. Nor are they unethical, actually, you might even say it is unethical NOT to use them.

Then take that up with S.O., as I am just referencing his OP. That's the topic, right? What's discussed in the OP?


Between you, the fence, and me....i have no clue about any of this stuff. Other than what I have had to learn to keep my business relevant in its local market. But thats nothing to do with ATS type stuff. Im just going by what is in the OP, and employing the trust that S.O. (and Springer) have earned from me through almost 10 years of me seeing them do right time and time again.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

Other than stopping ads from taking information from you, how are Ad Blockers killing the little guy?

AFAIK - ATS gets paid when the ad is displayed on the page, nobody has to click on it, just the ad loading on a page gets ATS revenue. So by blocking it, ATS loses money.

I'm not arguing for ads or against blockers, I'm merely pointing that one thing out.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Again, you're dangerously close to wilfully spreading infamy. You keep telling lies: adblockers do not EXTORT anybody or anything. They are software meant to filter out unwanted content. Similar to virus scanners, spam filters and firewalls. There is nothing illegal about them. Nor are they unethical, actually, you might even say it is unethical NOT to use them.

I have enough "acceptable ads" (those approved by AdBlock Plus) to fill a major portion of our inventory. Mostly simple images and links.

In order for AdBlock Plus to show those ads, Eyeo GmbH, the parent company, want's in the zone of $5,000 per month in order to let those ads through. That's more than those ads would make.

They're not letting me display those ads to users of ad blockers on my own. Even those simple image/link ads are being blocked by AdBlock Plus. Simple image/link ads that many members have said would be fine.

They want to be the paid gatekeeper through extortion. Or, there are additional ulterior motives not yet known.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I can come to agree with all that you have said except:

All we're asking is that the other side of that social contract be respected; appreciate the unique platform and free services enough to refrain from blocking the ads.

I'm sorry SO. This I can not do. I don't believe in what you're selling here. Simply put. Leave the restricted picture uploads in place if you want but it's kind of pointless. If I really wanted to upload images, I could just simply turn it off, upload, then turn it back on. My blocker will remain every other time (99.9999%).

I can not in good conscious allow ads to infiltrate my privacy because these advertisers believe that they are allowed to it with out my consent. IF they want it, they can pay for it. I, just like you, just like your forums, just like their advertising stints, ARE NOT FREE. Where does the buck stop? Who cares. But it starts at the source of the information gathering. Me...

That is my point. So you see... To me... This advertising is thievery. It is stealing something from me and selling it to someone else for money, when I, the source, get nothing. No.. Not content because I am also contributing to this content. Myself using an ad blocker is my way of saying, "My information is not worth the content". I value my personal privacy whether or not it's interesting. I'm a pretty boring person but I will still not give up my privacy so freely. I may not be able to stop it from getting out completely but I will do all I can and know to stifle it.

Cmon SO. You of all people should understand this. What kind of site are we on here? Who's side are you on?

They say you shouldn't stand for something only when it benefits you. It has to be for the greater good.

Hey, I appreciate the content and the site and your level headedness. Still, I can't just give myself away so freely. It's against my core, so you'll just keep blocking me from uploading images, and that's fine... I get space costs money... But I'll continue with my blocker because I'm not free either.

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: StallionDuck

Other than stopping ads from taking information from you, how are Ad Blockers killing the little guy?

AFAIK - ATS gets paid when the ad is displayed on the page, nobody has to click on it, just the ad loading on a page gets ATS revenue. So by blocking it, ATS loses money.

I'm not arguing for ads or against blockers, I'm merely pointing that one thing out.

I don't doubt that. I know this to be true. But it's still not the point

a reply to: StallionDuck


Well you asked the question dude... I just provided the answer.

*shrugs*