No, what you're doing is reformatting content that is being openly broadcast to anyone who cares to look in its direction, to best suit your interests and device capabilities and security.
If a site literally cannot survive without ads being viewed, they should block those who use ad blockers or reconsider their business model since blocking will only become more prevalent over time.
Not a bad idea on the email though.
Earlier, the websites were "pirating" his/her device & browser.
Fucking disgusting.
I will and have support people in other mediums(donations, patreon, etc), but the advertising model serving bad actor's code to my browser is not going to fly.
Such utter nonsense.
I am not sure why you use the term "cognitive dissonance" for referring to a situation where I consume without paying for something, and I don't feel entitled either. It feels very sonant to read clean websites.
If someone chooses to provide a resource it's their issue to figure out how to make it profitable. Trying to set up a fake moral pressure which requires me to listen to/watch mundane, uninspiring bullshit that I do not care about, that wouldn't make them any money from me anyhow, is kind of a strange way to go through life. If I went to your website for it's great content, why do you want to force me to look at something else instead? My brain resources are too valuable to be used to process to hear someone's lies about their products.
In essence you want me to pay for your things by quite literally wasting my time.
How did that become a thing, I wonder ...
I call it entitlement because you want, and are getting, a free lunch. I call it cognitive dissonance because as an adult with bills to pay you must understand that you are hurting a business by consuming content that costs them money to create and host without paying for it, be it with your time or your money.
Clearly there is a dissonance between the product your consumers want, your content, and the product you're willing to offer them: your content mixed with advertisement. That's an unfortunate situation.
Why does the advertisement make you money in the first place though ?
Someone out there with an actual product or service, want's to sell their product. To increase sales, they pay you an amount of money that they think represents the amount of sale they will generate from the buyers that buy based on the advertisement run on your site. Whether it's through the proxy of some ad network or not.
If I am not willing to buy any products in the first place, I don't have to be factored into the amount the company is willing to pay to advertisers, as it will not increase their sales. If, based on just viewing the advertisement, I still am, that price is slightly inflated.
All what I am doing by blocking ads is bringing that price closer to it's actual value. Now, that's not in your interest as a content producer, but you don't have to be all moralistic about it and try to make me feel bad.
You might argue that that's incorrect, and after viewing enough advertisement I might be persuaded to buy a product that I would not have wanted to by before, but I am not willing to give you that power over my mind for mundane stuff like deodorants and beverages.
- The security implications of the large ad networks (how many malware scares were the result of exploit-laden ads being served on large, popular sites?)
- The privacy implications of same (tracking all the things)
- The large ad networks attitude towards said problems. ("Meh.")
The moment the sites that show these unvetted ads take some responsibility and agree to reimburse me and my company for my time spent dealing with a security breach caused by their shitty practices is the moment I begin considering not blocking ads at the firewall, and not a second before.
They want all the benefit with none of the responsibility. And that responsibility goes well beyond "paste some javascript we gave you in your header".
As long as the transaction is that one-sided, people will continue blocking, and no amount of moralizing is going to change it. Get used to it.
And if I chose not to consume their content, how much money would it save them?
Any time you shove me down ransomware you are actively supporting crime.
If the initial html that loaded on the page also had the ads in it, it'd be much harder to block them and also make the experience of seeing those ads much less unpleasant.
As it stands what people are doing is loading the initial html and saying "no thanks" to all of the follow-on stuff.
There's two sides to every story.
The idea of a website serving ads themselves, instead of relying on a call to an ad network, is good. It means big changes to how advertising works though. The advertisers would have to give customers the ads for them to embed into the page and would need some sort of guarantee that the customer wouldn't change the ads and would pull them down when it was time to do so. I can't think of a way to check this stuff automatically that doesn't involve a call to an advertisers server, which is the whole problem to begin with.
Until 30 after 30: http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say...
Block users who have adblock? Okay...
Serve those users pop under malware for over a week to users who was kind enough to disable ad blocking? Not Okay...
I lost my inclination to feel guilty after that... Ad Blocking is a SECURITY measure at this point, since ad networks can't seem to protect me.
I'll protect myself to the best of my ability.
They feel that they are entitled to not adapt their business model to change and will push anyone off the jungle gym who won't play by their archaic rules.
It's their right, but the only entitlement I feel I deserve is the right to ignore their childish behavior as well.