Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

Your original post said "cause the loss" of. My initial post explained that when I use ad-blockers, it does not, in fact cause the loss of any revenue, because I wouldn't go to the obnoxious websites unless I could do it with an ad-blocker. Your continual disavowal of whether using ad-blockers is good or not is not on point and has nothing to do with that.

Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

Even if I were to stipulate that not receiving revenue might be a cost under some circumstances, under the circumstances where the ads are so obnoxious that the only way I would view the site is with an ad-blocker, then there was no revenue for them to receive anyway. Take away my ad-blocker, and I won't be visiting the site.

Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.

Comment Re:"cost online publishers" (Score 1) 528

We are discussing revenue that they are not currently getting, and that they would still not be getting if ad-blockers didn't work (because I find the ads so annoying I wouldn't be bothered going to the site).

If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.

Hint: the solution is not technical.

Slashdot Top Deals

The system was down for backups from 5am to 10am last Saturday.

Working...