Post #725104
2026-03-09 17:23 UTC
Replies (14)
-
@mttaggart@infosec.exchange 2026-03-09 17:25
@dangoodin Good. The advertising model needs to die for the internet to live.
-
@huitema@social.secret-wg.org 2026-03-09 17:29
@dangoodin I understand the feeling. The problem is that people are blocking ads for safety and privacy reasons, not just because they are stingy. The only alternative then is paying a subscription, which does not scale very well. I do that for several publishers, including yours, but I don't want to manage more than maybe 10. I wish there was some kind of syndication. Or maybe ads that don't carry scripts and trackers.
-
@lxskllr@mastodon.world 2026-03-09 17:31
@dangoodin I consider ads a security risk. I won't disable my security to read an article. I wouldn't mind them so much if they were like newspaper ads. Static ads hosted on the visited server. They want a new ad, it gets submitted for review. Less valuable than tracker ads, but more valuable than the nothing they get from me blocking ads.
-
@gsuberland@chaos.social 2026-03-09 17:33
@dangoodin you can pry my adblocker from my cold dead hands. pick any other monetisation path.
-
@SnowyCA@social.vivaldi.net 2026-03-09 17:34
@dangoodin I really struggle thinking of a way around the problem because buying a subscription is fair to the author but many folk can't afford more then one or two subscriptions
-
@thomastraynor@social.linux.pizza 2026-03-09 17:42
@dangoodin And I use it due to the fact that those 'ads' are running very intrusive scripts. Not a problem showing me ads. Show me ads, just not those scripts siphoning off information about my machine and location. Also, how do they know I am running adblockers unless they are running extremely intrusive scripts to detect what I am running?
-
@wowsuchcyber@cyberplace.social 2026-03-09 17:42
@dangoodin let me buy articles by the unit for an acceptable price instead of forcing me to let google and facebook invade all my life and we'll talk, otherwise, yes, sorry, goodbye to your articles. It's an open market, other will take the spot.
-
@barubary@infosec.exchange 2026-03-09 17:45
@dangoodin If you're not willing to support the families of those you want to read ... and their 947 closest partners ...
-
@BalooUriza@social.tulsa.ok.us 2026-03-09 17:58
@dangoodin You would have a point if pretty much every ad vendor on the planet wasn't a malware distribution network and privacy invading leech. My identity is not your income.
-
@Niklas@chaos.social 2026-03-09 17:59
@dangoodin often, I would be very much willing to pay a small fee to be able to read an article. Just like I would buy a printed magazine. I just can’t pay for a subscription for all of the news outlets. It would be awesome if you could provide a simple „pay 2,50 € to access this article“ process.
-
@brotherpsyche@mastodon.social 2026-03-09 19:30
@dangoodin no worries https://gitflic.ru/project/magnolia1234/bpc_uploads
-
@dpontifex@infosec.exchange 2026-03-09 20:06
@dangoodin I do subscribe to Ars Technica because it consistently publishes articles I find useful. I want to support journalists, but I can’t afford to subscribe to every website that occasionally publishes something I want to read. And I won’t risk my privacy and security by turning off my ad blocker. I wish micropayments were available for these situations, but when faced that paywall I will just go away. (Wondering why micropayments never went anywhere — seems like a missed opportunity)
-
@AMS@infosec.exchange 2026-03-09 23:55
@dangoodin Shame that even subscribing doesn't stop the ads and tracking. I pay for a several news site subscriptions and they all fail regularly when using an adblocker, even when I explicitly let the subscription cookie through. It seems news sites are more interested in tracking and malware than in selling subscriptions.
-
@Mutesplash@uncontrollablegas.com 2026-03-24 17:15
@dangoodin If only you _could_ support the people you want to read, directly. There's a third party in this situation that is the objection...