Sophos Cloud Optix![Contributor by Google: would you pay to remove ads on websites? [POLL]](https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/11/250-google-contributor1.jpg?w=250&h=250&crop=1)
Google, the company famed for its motto of “don’t be evil”, has invited internet users to pay a monthly fee instead of continuing to see Google-served adverts on their favourite websites.
Any user willing to hand over $1, $2 or $3 per month via its Contributor program will see pixelated patterns and a message of thanks on selected websites instead of the ads served up by Google’s AdSense program.
The system, which launched on Thursday, is still very much in its infancy and only 10 high profile web properties are currently participating, including Urban Dictionary, The Onion, Science Daily, Imgur, wikiHow and Mashable.
Third party advertisements remain unaffected and will continue to be displayed as they are now.
Google says that when you visit a participating website, some of the money you’ve paid will go straight to that website to “directly support the people who create the sites you visit each day”.
In typical Google fashion, users interested in signing up cannot immediately jump on board – the company has implemented an invitation system that requires users to sign up with their email address and then wait an unspecified amount of time for a spot to open up.
Google describes Contributor as “an experiment in additional ways to fund the web”, adding:
Today's internet is mostly funded by advertising. But what if there were a way to directly support the people who create the sites you visit each day?
Only time will tell whether or not Google’s new approach will persuade users to part with a small monthly fee – it could well hinge on how many more publishers sign up for Contributor.
Although $1/month required to block adverts may seem trivial to some, others may prefer the tried and tested way of minimising advertising – ad blockers – which can zap far more than just Google’s adverts.
Should the system prove successful, it would represent a massive change in the way that the web funds itself, lessening the need for millions of websites to collect information from their visitors into the bargain.
Whether internet users would see that as a positive or not would of course depend on their view of Google, which itself would still be collecting data about which sites people visit and how they consume the content on each.
So how do you feel about the new Google Contributor system?
Would you pay a monthly fee to support your favourite websites while minimising the number of adverts you see on them? Perhaps adverts don’t bother you and you’re happy with the way things are?
Or do you just use an ad blocker because you are sick and tired of being bombarded with adverts everywhere you go?
Please let us know via the poll and comments below.
Why couldn’t I just use AdBlock Plus?
Poll should allow multiple choices because “Yes” and “I already use a free ad blocker” are not really mutually exclusive.
I could use an option “I already use AdBlock Plus but I’d happily pay Google to remove ads”. The reason for this is that Google is fairly unobtrusive with its ads and therefore I’d be willing to remove my AdBlock rule there. Many websites depend on it as a source of income so it seems like a fair enough thing to do.
That is under a condition that the YouTube ads would be gone of course 😉 These are the worst.
This is basically same as the Mafia asking for money to “protect” you from something bad. In other words, it’s a form of extortion.
It’s free and ad supported, I actually never used an ad-blocker until youtube (google’s company) started forcing me to watch 30 second commercials before showing me a video.
So yes, I would have paid $1,00 a month to block all video ads, but this article makes it look like we are talking about paying to block a single company’s ads which makes no sense.
Easy to block ads. Now if they provided a paid service that stopped storing data on me accross all their services I would be genuinely interested.
I really don’t like being tracked on the web. For example, I routinely blow away all of my cookies several times during a typical browsing session. I can’t see how Google would know to block ads for me without somehow tracking me as a side effect. (Would it work in a Firefox private window?) So, no go.
I actually support the notion of advertising revenue keeping sites alive – conceptually. But I use an ad-blocker anyway. Why? One reason: the damned advertisers can’t simply present an ad for me to look at. They have to go to great lengths to gather my attention, so we get stuck with obnoxious ads full of annoying animation, pop-ups/pop-outs, etc. Net result for them is a loss, because rather than a chance that I MIGHT overlook their advetisement it is now guaranteed that I will miss it.
i like the idea however i only want to “contribute” for google’s services, such as “youtube.com”.. i am not interested in contributing to google in order to support websites that don’t belong to google..
some webpages are horrible, with all of the ads that they have..
Google is dishonest to say that “Today’s internet is mostly funded by advertising” because there are an enormous number of sites that are “funded” by efforts of those who build and publish them, either for no pay or paid by educational and other institutions.
NO WAY! AdBlockPlus works perfect! 🙂
With so many alternatives why use Google? It is just another way they can fill their coffers.
I never look at ads – I’ve trained myself to only look in the middle of page and avoid any looking at the top, bottom or sides where the ads reside. Pop up? Click away without looking at them. Obnoxious videos? Turn sound off and do something else until they are finished. I NEVER buy anything I see advertised, especially on the web. I am not going to waste time and money on the “ad mafia” paying them to not show me something I don’t look at anyway.
I’ve recently been coming across a few web sites that will not show me video content or allow me to use them, Photobucket for one, unless I disable AdBlock Plus on them. What I do resent however is having to watch 30 to 60 seconds of ads to be able to watch one 90 second news video because a written article is not available. I’d avoid those sites before paying to block any ads though.
Interesting I had to “disable” my Disconnect extension in order to see your poll. 🙂
I feel some clarification around this is needed.
I do use an ad-blocker because of the high quantity of extremely obnoxious, annoying and malware-ridden “ads” that track, trick or otherwise cause problems (not to mention the bandwidth saved by not loading these things in the first place).
I would not pay Google to have them display a message in place of ads, which would likely prove as annoying as the ads they replace. I would be more inclined to support this if they were simply removing all presence of themselves, scripts, tracking etc from the sites I visit (unlikely). Also, Google is not the only source of ads on the internet, therefore even that proposed solution would not provide me with an ad-free browsing experience.
I prefer to have the option to pay a site I like directly to no longer serve ads to my account – this also ensures that the funds directly support the service intended in their entirety. For all other general (safe) browsing, use a blocker.
Two problems:
I find Adblock Plus works pretty well.
I don’t use the sites mentioned.
I would rather increase my contribution to the author of Adblock.
I’ve said it before – I’d like to use google’s services but won’t because of the surveillance. Far worse than anything carried out on ordinary people by NSA/GCHQ.
If they offered an option to pay e.g. $25 a year to just pay for the service with money – rather than paying with my personal information – I would give it a go.
For me, the surveillance is the issue – turning off ads does nothing for me if google was still accessing all my mail etc etc.
(Payment would need to be by google gift voucher bought for cash – no way google gets even more of my personal information via a credit card purchase)
I’d rather directly contribute to sites to remove ads. At least then I know who the money is going to – and it isn’t one of the richest companies on the planet.
I’d be far happier if Google gave me some control over what sorts of ads I saw. I can deal with static text and images–I won’t click on them intentionally, but I can deal with. I use Adblock mostly because my poor brain can’t deal with things moving and flashing and making noise when I’m trying to focus on reading. The dyslexia and ADD get hopelessly tangled up and I just end up staring at the screen unable to process anything on it. Better to just block all the ads and be productive.
Google’s continued failure to stop malvertizing is another reason I block ads. As annoying as it is to set up per user, installing Adblock Plus on everyone’s browsers at work substantially reduced our malware infection rate. Better to just block the ads and not worry about it.
So no, I’m not going to pay extortion money to a company with gold-lined pockets that can’t get it’s act together.
The ads don’t bother me that much. They serve a good purpose.
AdBlock and Ghostery… done.