I would find it hard to believe that giants like Google aren't making significant investments into solving the ad blocking 'problem'.
It's an arms race that represents an existential threat to too many companies and too much money.
It's an arms race that represents an existential threat to too many companies and too much money.
But besides getting people to pay, Contributor is facing a problem with sites using multiple ad networks. The Onion, for example, is both participating in Contributor and continuing to run ads from other sources. So if I turn uBlock off for their site, I see the "Thanks for being a contributor!" message (instead of one ad) right under two giant ads.
But it is very muted and I very rarely note it is there. Here's an example: http://imgur.com/28jjUjr
I haven't heard of Contributor until now, but I'm curious as to how the technology works. Would privacy extensions like Ghostery interfere with the collection of visit statistics that would determine the distribution of your contributions?
When I first signed up, I had to reconfigure uBlock to allow ads from these Google networks so I could then see the contributor block instead of ads.
You may end up with a world with nearly unblockable, more creepy ads, and no more open web as we know it today.
Ad-blocking is ad-blocking, you'll always be able to do it another way if one current way no longer works. It might be inconvenient (as it is on an iPhone, for example), but we'll get there.
That doesn't bode well for adblockers, then. DRM has been incredibly successful at
(a) acclimating consumers to the idea that they can't own digital goods[0], even the ones that they have purchased; and
(b) stifling innovation in the music industry for the last 15 years[1].
The status quo is that users have both the right and the ability to block ads. (The only missing piece is the knowledge or awareness of how to do so). In a DMCA-like situation, I can't see how things would realistically change for consumers for the better.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9414211
[1] Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned by the record labels. So the last major leap forward was.... iTunes? That was 2001.
Spotify doesn't count, since it's partially owned
by the record labels. So the last major leap forward
was.... iTunes? That was 2001.
"Rhapsody was the first streaming on-demand music subscription service to offer unlimited access to a large library of digital music for a flat monthly fee..."
Native advertising is what's going to get us.
With the whole article.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/243797/forbes-...
http://www.experiencetheblog.com/2014/08/new-york-times-nati...
>Eyeo GmbH [...] collects millions or[sic] euros from large players such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Taboola, who all gave in to Eyeo blackmail to have their ads whitelisted.