For the past eight or so years, most of my time browsing the internet has been spent without the annoyance of ads getting in the way of what I am searching for. While it is understandable that ads are often how websites – especially free ones – survive and stay profitable, there is a line that should not be crossed. Pop-ups, full screen ads and the ones that interrupt articles are distracting to the point where it makes me just close the website altogether. Yes, I get that this is the intention and that online ads are supposed to make someone want to view or purchase something, but enough is enough. This is why I use an ad-blocking extension on every possible browser. Who would want to go back to an internet cluttered with colorful images and videos trying to sell you something?
Lately, it seems like my hand has been forced back.
More websites have been presenting visitors using an ad-blocker with messages begging them to turn it off, often with instructions on how to do so. Typically, I end up listening to the website’s plea only to then be reminded exactly why I had the ad-blocker on in the first place. One of the worst examples of these ads are those that try to install malware onto my computer. Having a profitable website via monetization is completely okay, but sites shouldn’t resort to allowing shady ads that can harm visitors. That is flat-out unacceptable. Thankfully, this is not as common as it once was, but it still happens every so often, even on websites that should be trustworthy.
The latest example of a website or service saying “no” to ad-blockers is YouTube. Just a few days ago, I was greeted with a message reading “ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube,” a feature Google has been testing since June. Am I surprised that a company that gets a chunk of its revenue from monetization and tracking user viewing habits is now against programs that block their means of profit? Not in the slightest. Am I happy that a service that was once free is now trying to force most users to pay $14 for what is ultimately the same product, with little added benefit to justify the fee? Once again, not in the slightest.
The problem I have is not necessarily that Google is mad about “losing money” – they are still raking in billions of dollars, let’s make that clear – but how many websites make money in the first place. Maybe people don’t want to be advertised to every second they scroll? Maybe people shouldn’t have their every move tracked online? Maybe people’s personal information shouldn’t be sold to the highest bidder with little regard for their privacy?
It can be argued that, to avoid these problems, all you must do is not go on certain websites. This sounds easy, but, in practice, it is almost impossible. Besides the point that many sites rely on services that ultimately exploit their users, activity trackers exist on almost every corner of any website. Even an unsuspecting blog that has web design traits stuck in the early 2000s likely has Google AdSense along with a “telemetry” tracker built in. This problem feels inescapable, which signals that the web needs reworking to be more user-friendly for the people that rely on it, with changes like more options to opt-out of tracking and ads that don’t ruin the user experience.
