Hopefully this doesn't offend too many people.

Good luck with that in 2019

It's completely non-intrusive with custom themes, had to look for it because it blends with the page so well.

Weird.. it was the first thing that got my attention when i opened the page (mostly because it looked different than what was there for the past few months).
I did a quick glance at the text and noticed words like "betting" and "CSGO skins".. for a moment i thought a spam bot managed to get a column majored.

hi Sujoy

it's been presumably awhile since you played quake but don't worry,

please consider biding on my quake live ca bath water. it'll help you get back to the TOP

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/quake-live-UK-CA-1...3870572777

Will it help for Clash Royale?

yes
bid with confidence

anyone actually sees ads nowadays with adblock and all?

I didn't want to say anything but
T H I S
H
I
S

That would be bad. If no one viewed ads at all, no one would pay sites to display ads. Sites offering free content supported by ad revenue would either shut down or you'd have to pay to access them. It would dramatically reduce the amount of free content on the internet.

maybe you should start paying for good content and let the bad one die out then?

Who said it is bad content? I only said it was free. If no one views ads, there will be much less of that free content, regardless of its quality.

We're talking about ad-driven free content on the internet. There's a lot of it, and it's quite handy to have. It's not bad just because it is funded by ads.

I'd say people who are not willing to go through the relatively minor and trivial inconvenience of viewing an ad are not exactly going to be the first in line to pay for all the content they currently enjoy on the internet without paying a dime.

Right now, you can google something and get a bunch of links, and then freely go through viewing those pages, most of which will be supported by ads unless they are selling something. It would be much more inconvenient, and less secure, if you had to go around paying each of these sites before you could see the content. Or do you plan to restrict your browsing experience only to those sites for which you have subscriptions?

How much are you willing to pay for a subscription, and for how many sites? It's gonna add up.

If you run a small website, it might be hard to convince enough people to pay, so you're probably just gonna shut down.

The advertising model has been good for the internet. I think it benefits everyone, and only at the cost of the small trouble of having to see an ad. (You can just avoid sites altogether where they make the ads especially obnoxious.)

The biggest problem is obnoxious ads taking more space than actual website.
Fuck them.
I have no problem with small baners showing products that I recently looked for etc.

I hate those too. Sites with really obnoxious ads just deserve to be closed immediately. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if ads are becoming more obnoxious due to their attempts to circumvent ad blockers.

I don't necessarily think blocking ads is some great sin. I just don't think it is in everyone's best interest for us to get to a stage where no one is viewing ads anymore.

The big players will always been fine in this. Google or Facebook or whatever big tech company can always just create another youtube like service, hosting "sites" instead of channels, where you subscribe to that service like you can subscribe to youtube. No ads, but now you pay (there goes your anonymity too), and all those sites are no longer independent but operate under the controls and rules of the big company, who could then see even more clearly everything you do.

I prefer it the way it is now.

The entire OSS eco system and freesoftware movement proves you wrong. Advertising bad at its core, market economy too. Good products need no ads. Theres nothing wrong in using advertising in the system as it is tho, you play the game you've been coerced to play

The content that would be produced for free or run off donations is already there. Removing ad revenue from websites would simply remove the websites that rely on it, leaving---as I said---less free content than there currently is. The free content producing hobbyists of the world aren't suddenly going to multiply in number just because these sites shut down.

Most of the free content is still produced by the people who gain nothing from the ad revenue. Its those that host the sites who decide to set up ads as soon as the site grows popular (reddit for example). If reddit had ads from the start it would never get popular, its a classic bait and switch

If the content is freely produced and easily available without visiting those sites, then those sites offer nothing of value, and people won't need to visit those sites and therefore won't require an ad blocker.

If people do visit those sites, the site must be offering something of value, even if it is just convenience. If someone uses an ad blocker, they are visiting those sites and therefore are enjoying that value.

If we allow sites to make money, money will motivate people to make sites, and there will be more sites available. Ads just do that in a way that the internet user does not have to pay, which is especially useful for people with little money.

As I said previously, I don't think it is a great sin to block ads, but when I visit a site, and I have benefited from it in some way, I don't have a problem showing a bit of gratitude, throwing a penny their way by doing what they have made really easy to do, more or less anonymously: just leaving their ads enabled.

Small unobtrusive ads, like the one now on this site or just banners, aren't really bothering me. Of course, if the ads are super obnoxious, I'll probably just stop going there, and they lose out anyway, which will teach them to make their ads less aggressive if enough people do that.

If one must use an ad blocker, perhaps they could consider whitelisting the sites they regularly visit.

You either took it down. Or im blind as a bat.

are u team drejk or team sanchez mate?