On Mon, 29 May 2017 03:19:23 +0100,
Rob Morley , in
 wrote:
>  On Mon, 29 May 2017 01:56:47 +0000
>  RS Wood  wrote:
>
> > On the hacker thread [1] there's a huge discussion about how adverts
> > are a necessary part of keeping sites funded.  I disagree.  I buy
> > products from the manufacturers I want.  When I want.  If I want.  And
> > advertisers have royally f*cked up some sites.  Some popular news
> > sites are damned near unreadable these days.  Suddenly: all the
> > adverts are gone.  Good riddance.
>
>  That's an understandable attitude, but short-sighted.  Someone has to
>  pay for content and delivery, you can't expect hobbyists and
>  philanthropists to sustain the current level of internet consumption.

Well, if ad networks and/or advertisers would stop putting up
intrusive crap, or actual malicious content [1], I'd be more inclined to
let them advertise to me.

But when either the intrusiveness of the ad, the size of the ad, or
the stupid javascript involved causes my browser to spin its wheels
and beg for mercy, I'm likely to hit the X button and kill the window.

And not see your ad, or read your content.

1:
https://www.cnet.com/news/new-york-times-bbc-dangerous-ads-ransomware-malvertis
ing/

And that wasn't the first (nor last) time "trusted" websites were
subverted to distribute malware.

--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow
isn't looking good, either.
I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05