An Immediate Follow-up to Blocking

Because, of course, I would find an article that would have been extremely relevant and helpful to my previous Blocking post immediately after posting said post...

Seth Godin get's it:

[A]dvertisers have had fifteen years to show self restraint. They've had the chance to not secretly track people, set cookies for their own benefit, insert popunders and popovers and poparounds, and mostly, deliver us ads we actually want to see.

Alas, it was probably too much to ask. And so, in the face of a relentless race to the bottom, users are taking control, using a sledgehammer to block them all. It's not easy to develop a white list, not easy to create an ad blocker that is smart enough to merely block the selfish and annoying ads. And so, just as the default for some advertisers is, "if it's not against the law and it's cheap, do it," the new generation of ad blockers is starting from the place of, "delete all."

Ad blockers undermine a fundamental principle of media, one that goes back a hundred years: Free content in exchange for attention. The thing is, the FCC kept the ad part in check with TV, and paper costs did the same thing for magazines and newspapers. But on the web, more and more people have come to believe that the deal doesn't work, and so they're unilaterally abrogating it. They don't miss the ads, and they don't miss the snooping of their data.

Sorry to quote so much but it really does encapsulate the whole issue. We're sick and tired of being screwed with and so...

Advertisers will come up with either a better or a much, much worse way of delivering their "content" to our eyes. I hope they embrace the spirit of the open web and make it smart, fast, and not creepy. No doubt some will. Most, I fear, won't.

Either way I've got my sledgehammer.