Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

9
  • 49
    I wonder what percentage of users on SO install an ad-blocker as a reflex? I personally don't know why anyone browses the internet without turning off ads, except out of ignorance. Commented Nov 9, 2024 at 4:40
  • 7
    You have been a fervent, articulate, and evidence-based critic of Stack Exchange for some time now, what would be your idea for the company to make a profit that would exclude advertisements? Commented Nov 10, 2024 at 9:04
  • 11
    They could knock off the stupid stuff and ask for donations. They could even self-host ads. Commented Nov 10, 2024 at 19:40
  • 16
    @Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні As SamB sugged, I think that the old company from Jeff age would have no issue to raise some funds thru a donation campaign, Wikipedia style. That said, in this contest the issue isn't even the ads by themselves, those would be tolerable to a degree- I would be fine with Microsoft Azure / Amazon AWS ads on SO for example. The real issue is the intermediary ads provider. I know companies think it is not realistically feasible to self host ads, but at the same time it is not realistic to expect the user to blindly trust unethical providers. Commented Nov 11, 2024 at 8:58
  • 19
    @samb the company’s expenses are something like $100M a year. Obviously the site should have been non-profit from the beginning, but there’s no path from where it is today to being donation-funded, and it’s disingenuous and unhelpful to act like that’s a real alternative. Commented Nov 12, 2024 at 3:58
  • @ꓢPArcheon I'm not very familiar with these aspects of the ads business - is there any reason to think that this "auction" system is somehow worse in terms of online ad providers than how ads were previously being served on these sites? That is, does this post relate to the overall state of advertising here or to something about this test specifically? Commented Nov 13, 2024 at 22:12
  • 5
    @BryanKrause IMHO the standard approach to ads most sites use nowadays is vexatious to the user and can only exist because of the inadequacy of the current laws framework. Companies are just able to offload their responsibility for whatever scam will be presented on THEIR site to the "ads provider", which in turn doesn't really take any responsibility for inappropriate or even malevolent content on their platform either. This is why most users nowadays install an ads blocker. Ask yourself, did anyone invent a device to censor ads on TV? no, because those can't damage you or steal your info Commented Nov 14, 2024 at 8:50
  • 1
    @BryanKrause to answer your question, there is nothing specific to THIS test here, just a general reminder that almost no one will see those ads in the first place under the current conditions. There are very few users left who would want to whitelist the network out of "charity", and unpopular choices will only push those few towards just blocking everything as well, like everyone else is already doing. Commented Nov 14, 2024 at 8:53
  • 11
    @ꓢPArcheon "Ask yourself, did anyone invent a device to censor ads on TV?" - yes, most DVRs. Let's not fool ourselves, while malicious ads and privacy are obviously a concern, most people block ads because they don't want to see ads. Commented Nov 14, 2024 at 12:11