effects of intrusive ads
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 11:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charmianhttp://news.livejournal.com/121471.html?thread=80786303#t80786303
Livejournal is aware of the malware situation, and is collecting reports.
I'm not very savvy about the technical aspects of this situation, but it seems as if this isn't the first time that dangerous advertisements have appeared on LJ, so therefore I would encourage people to visit the site using Adblock or other similar scripts, if it is at all possible for them to do so.
I wonder what effect this will have on LJ? Already I've seen people saying that they don't want to link to LJ posts because of the intrusive advertisements (interstitial and page takeover). But if there are also not only irritating, but also disreputable and dangerous ads on there, it will further discourage non-LJ users from viewing LJ sites. This only informally increases the walled garden effect, as now, for non-paid users (Basic and Plus: functionally, for non-logged in users, Basic is indistinguishable from Plus. People who are paid and perm or use Adblock may be unaware of the extent of ads on LJ as well...), it only makes sense to use LJ if you want to put your content out there for the people who use LJ (as opposed to showing it to all of the internet).
Livejournal is aware of the malware situation, and is collecting reports.
I'm not very savvy about the technical aspects of this situation, but it seems as if this isn't the first time that dangerous advertisements have appeared on LJ, so therefore I would encourage people to visit the site using Adblock or other similar scripts, if it is at all possible for them to do so.
I wonder what effect this will have on LJ? Already I've seen people saying that they don't want to link to LJ posts because of the intrusive advertisements (interstitial and page takeover). But if there are also not only irritating, but also disreputable and dangerous ads on there, it will further discourage non-LJ users from viewing LJ sites. This only informally increases the walled garden effect, as now, for non-paid users (Basic and Plus: functionally, for non-logged in users, Basic is indistinguishable from Plus. People who are paid and perm or use Adblock may be unaware of the extent of ads on LJ as well...), it only makes sense to use LJ if you want to put your content out there for the people who use LJ (as opposed to showing it to all of the internet).
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 02:00 pm (UTC)i have a paid account, so i'm not affected.
i don't think it will have an effect in terms of people leaving LJ.
in the wider internet market, how is the debate of subscription versus advertising as the way to support websites trending? will people pay (as with dreamwidth) for a commercial free service? or is advertising, with all its annoyances, the only way to go?
i noticed that the New York Times is going subscription, like the Wall Street Journal. But of course they're not a community or network like LJ or Dreamwidth.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 05:25 pm (UTC)Caveat: LJ does something non-ad related that pisses a bunch of people off; they will then use this additional ammunition as froth fodder. (Mmmm, metaphor mixing.)