Prompted by “Online Ad Czar Berates Adblockers As Freedom-Hating ‘Mafia'”: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/01/26/1720217/online-ad-czar-berates-adblockers-as-freedom-hating-mafia
Randall Rothenburg, the president and CEO of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has made a speech branding the creators of Adblock Plus (who were banned from the conference where he made this keynote) as “rich and self-righteous,” and accused adblockers of subverting freedom of the press. Speaking at the IAB’s annual conference, Rothenburg characterized the Adblock Plus team as “operating a business model predicated on censorship of content.”
Read that again, but flip that accusation entirely to instead accuse the advertising industry, and you see an example of the Gross Hypocrisy — a widespread and deep mental illness naturally working to selfishly and obviously stupidly tear society apart (especially within some of the most influential groups).
When mainstream information sources are beholden to the ad industry, there can be no news broadcasting the likely seriously negative health impact of being constantly (if not continuously) bombarded by manipulative ad tactics.
People often cite the dangers of abused drugs and guns, but nobody cites the dangers of selfish information (especially the mainstream media — masters of selfish information reporting for their professional benefit).
In addition to hypocrisy, the ad industry (for their professional convenience, if not survival) operates in serious denial by insisting everyone demands their services.
Enter ad-blockers to thankfully oppose that denial and allow people to powerfully escape from the merciless and logically unhealthy psychological stress of ‘buy this or your life suffers’.
I always knew ad revenue would never cut it online, despite unanimous support by “Internet experts” for the contrary around the beginning of the millennium.
Websites are software applications, not newspapers (or such), so the user interface becomes a critical factor in content determination.
As a website designer, I understand that screen real estate is critical in software design.
Users need the prime spot(s) on the screen to cover website-using convenience, while advertisers demand those captivating spots be used for ads — seriously crippling website interactivity.
Users need elements on the screen to properly capture their attention for healthy interactive flow. Ads that blink and colorfully distract work against that attention (and some apparently are even maliciously attacking your computer).
My main point in this line of privacy reasoning is people need to defend themselves from information abuse (especially considering its rampant nature these days — basically many strangers know more about you than you do), and like any other defense option, that means the defenders need the right tools for the job.
Data gateway products that quickly but thoroughly read information entering and leaving your device (home/car router, phone, etc.), and can be intuitively used by basically anyone, are the only answer to defend healthy psychology.
In addition to automatic information blocking, those products will conveniently show you the personal information that you agreed to sacrifice about yourself for a “free” app (or such) — perhaps leveraging that data to build a profile similar to the marketing ones beyond your reach, so you can see what they all see about your life.
Those products will likely scare (if not horrify) you, but then wonderfully allow you to remove destructive software. That removal becomes leverage against information abuse within the software industry, so a necessary trend towards reasonable information acquisition.
The hypocritical rant prompting this post sufficiently verifies the ad industry’s concern over this legitimate defensive effort for the populace to take reasonable control of information management.
People should always be able to opt-out of advertising, and any worthy publication must understand that logical conclusion, so provide another option to generate their necessary resources (including solid financial discipline, subscription revenue, merchandise, pay-to-play contests, etc.)
The more expensive the publication (perhaps due to the usually expensive investigative reporting into powerful areas involving our lives — including exposing widespread and deep corruption), the naturally higher that price point.
However, information is no longer contained. If an expensive publication reports a result of hard and expensive work, other information sources can freely basically report that conclusion, so the paywall idea solely involving information also doesn’t work.
To help get around that issue, publications need to sell more than information. They need to offer a convenient and pleasurable website experience (e.g. think the embraceable value of a nice restaurant ambiance inspiring software design — a common sense idea that no other “Internet expert” espouses during the building of overly complex websites often confusing and/or annoying to the eye and beyond).
They also need other community features (privacy, safety, etc.) to ultimately sell their credibility that cannot be readily freely made available elsewhere.
Free websites (including those with ads) will continue to be available, but you get what you pay for in life (logically speaking, stress is reality’s currency and economy for its own supreme balance/stability, despite any financial advantage).
A free website with ads is like going to restaurant with a similar business model — a place with ads distractingly all over the place, but the food is free.