Any ideas how that could work in practice, from the advertisers point of view it's likely too risky, too hard to audit?
I don't see what the problem is: if the advertisers only pay the site owners based on actual click-throughs (rather than impression), what's the problem?
Re:Thank you for ad blocking
by kazagistar on Sunday March 20, 2016 @06:20PM
(#11324958)
I think the problem is that for most ads, impressions are the bulk of your value. For example, a company might advertise so that when you do actually need their service, they come to mind first.
For ads on TV, billboards, etc., that's true.
For web ads, I thought that most places had given up on charging by impression, and only charged by click-through.
Have you ever gotten malware from an ad, pre-adblocking?
Have you heard of this? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/16/major-site...
Not blocking ads in this context is kind of like not patching your server after hearing of heartbleed.
You might not like it, but sites are going to have to go back to the days where they host the ads on their own domain. I suppose they may still interact with an external network so they don't have to handle the sales themselves, but making sure everything is hosted from their own domain means it'll be much easier to hold them liable if malware is delivered through their site.