Wall Street Journal:
Facebook is going to start forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop website, even if they use ad-blocking software.
The social network said on Tuesday that it will change the way advertising is loaded into its desktop website to make its ad units considerably more difficult for ad blockers to detect.
And:
With the move, Facebook risks turning off some of its 1.7 billion monthly users who prefer not to see ads while browsing the internet. But users are more likely to access Facebook’s app on smartphones and tablets, which are less susceptible to ad blocking than personal computers. Facebook will not circumvent ad blockers on mobile devices.
Interesting. This is a desktop thing, not a mobile thing. I wonder if the desktop only approach is a technical limitation or, perhaps, an Apple app review limitation, or something else entirely.
There’s also this:
“This isn’t motivated by inventory; it’s not an opportunity for Facebook from that perspective,” Mr. Bosworth said. “We’re doing it more for the principle of the thing. We want to help lead the discussion on this.”
When you are selling ads, and forcing people to watch them, tough to stand behind principle.
Haven’t accessed Facebook ever since I bought an iPad about four years ago. I find it’s the perfect device for sitting back and scrolling through my feed.
“When you are selling ads, and forcing people to watch them, tough to stand behind principle.”
Yeah, I’m pretty much going with that sentiment too. That’s sort of like a guy who sells a product and he’s announcing a price increase. Economic realities might indeed force that increase, but please don’t play the “principles” card.
Principles do not have to be altruistic. Their principle here, if you bother looking past the précis by Dave and the headline, is that ads do not have to all or nothing. That is a fine, legitimate principle for a for-profit company.
Facebookers are such mindless suckers.
Everyone should have the right to choose advertising or not. Even if you have to pay for ad-free content.
I hate ads, use adblockers and dislike this move by Facebook. That said, the principles lean on Facebook’s side here. If you consume an ad based service and block the source of their revenue, you can’t whine if they find a way to keep serving ads to generate the revenue to stay in business. What you can do is take your business elsewhere.
fuck these guys. its like TV networks saying i can’t use MUTE or fast forward.
ill pay money for better ad blockers.
Funny that people never complain about ads in newspapers. Could it be that you know how to skip over them? But oh no, Facebook ads are morally bankrupt. Seriously? Any self-awareness of hypocrisy?
It’s been 6 years and I don’t miss the Stan that is Facebook at all.
My response was probably a bit reflexive. But is that what this really is, “ads do not have to all or nothing”? Pushing past an ad-blocker just means “ads can’t be nothing.” In my own defense, I prefer to use paid apps. I prefer to pay for something directly rather than get ad-supported “free” things, since (as most of us know), when it’s free, I’m the product being sold. So I suppose I do understand that you can’t just expect to use an ad-supported service without seeing ads. I personally eschew Facebook.
This is true. I don’t personally use ad-blockers, and I think people are asses when they use a free service and refuse to understand what’s being sold. That’s why I talked about economic realities. I just thought the word he used seemed out of place, but I also think that people who use a free service while circumventing the financial model that runs it are also weasels.
I guess the problem with that idea is that of revenue growth. Say they expect to make $10 a year off of you with ad revenue. What price should they charge for ad-free content? $10? That sounds fair? Maybe $9.50 because you should get some kind of discount because you’re now saving them the extra bother of serving those ads, and that’s worth something, right? But the truth is Facebook is always trying to grow its revenue (naturally enough). Next year maybe they’ll expect to make $12 off of you, or $13. If they keep bumping the fee every year, they’d spark insurrection. I suspect that keeping the monetization invisible is better for them. So far it has been.
Their principle is to do right by their customers, not their product.
Almost like my cable bill. It creeps up every few months.
All the mumbo jumbo in the world cannot convince me that any of the advertising on Google or Facebook works – in fact, for me it’s an ‘avoid that’ result.
Imagine the money corporations would save by not advertising.
Friend paid a small fortune for “targeted ads” which FB Should be capable of easily delivering to certain demographics. They just sent the ads to random users, and the film would have got better exposure if we paid $1 or so on the DW for hackers to promote it instead. Any money you pay FB as an advertiser would be better off thrown down a well, or given away to anyone.