• pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I get that ads pay for a free internet. But that doesn’t mean that 60% of my screen needs to be malware to read a local news article.

    Until advertisers act in good faith, I block as much as possible.

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or those scummy click bait ads disguised as related articles? They make my blood boil with how they prey on the vulnerable.

      • 7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s all Google discover is on my phone… Ai generated articles that are just click bait.

        is a new episode of RandomShow airing tonight?

        Star Trek 31 confirmed to feature major tng character (from today)

        blah.

        • datavoid@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Google is so bad for this, plus the fact that they were the ones who started rewarding clickbait articles.

          In my mind though, MSN will never be dethroned from having the shittiest content.

    • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Used to be if I found the site of a newspaper I thought I liked, I’d turn off my ad blocker to see how it goes.

      I don’t even try any more. Again and again and again, every time I turn it off the page gets so cluttered that following the article becomes a chore and takes up so many resources that even scrolling slows to a crawl. Ludicrous nonsense.

    • Drusenija@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve been seeing clips from Ready Player One recently and this reminded me of the main bad guy’s philosophy on advertising in the OASIS.

      we estimate we can sell up to 80% of an individual’s visual field before inducing seizures

      Can’t help but feeling there’s some parallels there.

      • skyspydude1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Seems unrealistic. In reality, they’d be asking how often the seizures occur and would figure out if the increased ad revenue from going to 90% would offset any potential lawsuits.