Link to Original Source
I thought the most insightful exchange was the one in the article - it isn't about ads. Ads, and ad blocking are merely symptoms. It's about choice, or control. I want a say in whether I see an ad or not. I'm a significant part of the interaction. The idea of consumer that holds in the world of TV doesn't map well to the online world.
I have the ability to block ads. Using that ability doesn't make me immoral, dishonest, or any other disparagement I've see thrown around. It levels the playing field. Advertisers, website owners and I are informally negotiating a partnership of sorts, and I have much more say in the negotiation online than I do in other mediums. I'd be a fool to not use that power. Most importantly, I (and many others like me) *will* use that power.
The sites that figure out how to balance the control/dignity equation between their advertising partners and their viewer partners will do well.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but it is *the* problem. Not ad blocking.
(clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in)
That isn't clear at all. Could be an overreaction, or an outright publicity stunt.
The newspaper had a public forum that they controlled (or so they thought) and they could publish the "map" without a penalty. Well, turns out they weren't as insulated from their decision as they had hoped.
I'm enjoying the spectacle