The genuinely useful stuff out there is on 1990's era personal sites. Then there are Wikipedia. Then there are company blogs (most of these were slop even before LLMs, but there are some quite good ones). Then user-generated hobbyist-driven stuff where advertisement only paid for running the platform - and these could be crowdsourced, it's not like running a server is that expensive. The rest is the content created for the sole purpose of showing people ads - and it belongs in the wastebasket.
This is naive at best. Some of the worst ads (popups/popunders/autoplay flash with sound) existed years before adblockers.
I don’t know what the adblocker usage rate is but I’d bet it’s low as virtually none of the non-technical people I know use them.
Do people read what they post?
Ad blockers are a rational response to bad incentives and blaming them is like blaming progress for displacing harmful industries.
Block ads always.
It happens by improving margins by paying site owners less per ad than they did before. This resulted in mass-produced blogspam that site owners could jam more ads into to make up the loss in revenue. Google rewards these types of pages by upranking them in their search algorithm, then extinguishing them by summarizing the content in the search result ("zero-click searches"), thereby paying site owners nothing while profiting off the ads in the search result page.
This would have happened regardless of ad blocking, where they were already paying nothing to site owners due to zero impressions and clicks. Google is a publicly traded company, so the line needs to go up every quarter by any means necessary.
jjgreen•1h ago