Facebook Showing 10 Ads Per Page: Would You Pay for an Ad-Free Internet?

thezilch 2012/07/11 23:18:20
Related Topics: Facebook, Myspace, Ads
Add Photos & Videos
Penny Arcade is running a Kickstarter campaign pledging to run their site without ads for a year. On the flip side, sites like Facebook are displaying more and more ads, hopefully not leading to their own demise like we saw with MySpace. Does it even matter to you? Or would you pay for an ad-free internet?

VENTUREBEAT.COM reports:Remember when Facebook only showed three ads on each page? And when the company moved to four in 2010? More recently, the company has been at six, and I'm currently seeing seven, but Facebook is now testing up to 10 ads per page ... and I'm thinking of some ancient history.
companymoved 2010 company facebook testing 10 ads thinking ancient history

Read More: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/11/facebook-please-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • ★Calliope★ 2012/07/13 19:04:08
    I would NOT pay.
    Internet was free. Internet is supposed to ALWAYS be free.

    Get an adblocker.
  • mallobarb 2012/07/13 13:29:47
    I would NOT pay.
    it gives opportunity to people less fortunet.
  • Eyes See Wide North 2012/07/13 09:06:17
    I would NOT pay.
    Eyes See Wide North
    I should get paid to look at adverts?
    But seen as some of the nice guys were nice enough to provide me with Facebook, I can tolerate a few adds.
  • beach bum 2012/07/13 07:33:39
    I would NOT pay.
    beach bum
  • The Logical Canadian 2012/07/13 03:03:34
    I would NOT pay.
    The Logical Canadian
    Because I use something called AdBlocker...
  • I would NOT pay.
    I all ready get adds & popups blocked for free. I haven't seen any in three years.
  • PandahSixx 2012/07/13 02:24:06
  • gaylehelen 2012/07/12 23:04:27
    I would NOT pay.
    Since I already have to pay, why would I pay more? I don't use facebook and have learned to ignore the ads where I do go. I've been doing it so long I barely notice the ads there anymore.
  • Bigbrowneyes 2012/07/12 21:59:01
    I would NOT pay.
    The ads don't really bother me.
  • stevegtexas@aol.com 2012/07/12 21:34:23
  • Rob Williams 2012/07/12 21:26:06
    I would NOT pay.
    Rob Williams
    I manage to ignore them all quite easily!
  • Elementer 2012/07/12 20:59:28
    I would NOT pay.
    Ad blocker plus, bitch.

  • JackoClubs 2012/07/12 20:49:28
    I would NOT pay.
    Why do you think the internet's free? All you pay for is your access.
  • janet 2012/07/12 20:36:47
    I would NOT pay.
    It does not bother me tbat much, well not enough to pay to have them removed : )
  • BellaLuna 2012/07/12 19:57:19
    I would pay...
    Sick of ads
  • BigKwell 2012/07/12 18:21:45 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    I shouldn't have to pay for Facebook or Google .

    (EDIT) Just cracked level 16!
  • Beat Magnum True Hero 2012/07/12 18:21:03 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    I honestly don't even notice them. They're not in the part of the screen that I'm focusing on and therefore aren't interfering. They keep the page free and I can live with that.

    Sodahead is just as guilty. The only one that really bothers me is that stupid ad with the Horse-Faced girl that says "How will you look Old?" every time I log in.
  • kiaflow 2012/07/12 18:15:29
    I would NOT pay.
    No cuz how else am I gonna get my 1 cent per click on my websites?
  • spencerc143 2012/07/12 17:55:44
    I would NOT pay.
    I dont hate them that id PAY for them gone
  • Seeker of Truth - War Wizard 2012/07/12 17:45:46
    I would pay...
    Seeker of Truth - War Wizard
    I'd pay small amounts to a particular site if the content was useful enough and the ads too intrusive. I have previously been a donor to slashdot.org, which was something like $5 for about a years worth of ad-free browsing. But the fee would have to be very small like that, and I would be very picky about what sites I would be willing to pay for.

    For sites like facebook, where the content is all provided by other "customers", I would not likely be willing to pay a fee to avoid ads. In that type of environment they're basically just supplying the platform, not content. If they end up having their ads become intrusive to encourage people to pay for removal, then the company will die, and a bunch of new sites will spring up to fill the void.
  • Mecynogea 2012/07/12 16:49:17
    I would NOT pay.
    One word: Adblock
  • PatWhosoever 2012/07/12 16:30:04
    I would NOT pay.
    I wouldn't. I'm on facebook a lot and I don't have any trouble with ads.
  • Osk 2012/07/12 16:08:33 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    Ad? What Ads on Facebook? I use Firefox where I can ACTUALLY Block Ads on ANY Website... it is called AdBlock AdBlock
  • SOUL4REAL 2012/07/12 15:50:58
    I would NOT pay.
    Hell 2 the naw!!
  • Michael 2012/07/12 15:36:34
    I would NOT pay.
    the "Proof is in the pudding". People do not pay for anything anymore, directly that is. Do not pay for music, news, information, email accounts, etc. etc etc...
  • Oli 2012/07/12 15:31:52
    I would NOT pay.
    I don't see any Ad's thanks to ad-Block.
    ads ad-block
  • émilie✿ 2012/07/12 15:14:45
  • "Run-A-Way Bill" 2012/07/12 15:03:12
    I would NOT pay.
    "Run-A-Way Bill"
    "Somebody" has to pay ... us or the advertisers! Personally, I'd rather it be the advertisers.

    Ads may suck, but without advertisers, there would be no quality social or communication networks. Ads on the web are a necessary evil!

    Happy Thirst-day!

    pARTy On! ...

    ad logos
  • Seonag 2012/07/12 14:56:03
    I would NOT pay.
    At least for Facebook!
  • Kigan 2012/07/12 14:21:15
    I would NOT pay.
    After paying for internet service every month, why would I pay extra to remove ads?

    Especially when there are free...solutions...to this problem.
  • Bulanova (Team Hargitay) 2012/07/12 14:11:08
    I would NOT pay.
    Bulanova (Team Hargitay)
    "Pay me for the service! Okay, now pay me to make the service less annoying!" Yeah, barking up the wrong tree on that one.
  • DizziNY 2012/07/12 13:33:57
    I would NOT pay.
    I pay for the net so why do we have ADs anyway? I mean, even cable, which in the beginning had no commercials, have way too many ADs. One of the great things about cable was there were NO commercials. Now you pay out the yazoo and u get channels you don't use and you get a million commercials. Thank God I haven't had cable in almost 2 years.
  • Beat Ma... DizziNY 2012/07/12 18:25:52
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    You're paying for your access, not for the content. As long as the internet ad doesn't scream at me from a location that I can't find, I can live with it.
  • Sodahead Founders are Fascists 2012/07/12 13:17:02
    I would NOT pay.
    Sodahead Founders are Fascists
    I already DO pay for internet access, and besides, you can get rid of ads for free anyway.
  • Nameless 2012/07/12 13:11:23
    I would pay...
    The problem is that most of us pay for internet access. It's kind of like cable. It used to be that you paid for cable and didn't have to see commercials. Now, you pay for cable and have to see commercials.
  • Radical Ed 2012/07/12 12:16:58
    I would NOT pay.
    Radical Ed
    ad blocker, woot.
  • Chancy99: Plague Rat 2012/07/12 11:34:46
    I would NOT pay.
    Chancy99: Plague Rat
  • missnamecaller 2012/07/12 11:27:04
    I would NOT pay.
  • Nish 2012/07/12 10:56:33
    I would NOT pay.
    I use free ad blocker
  • chamchamgal 2012/07/12 10:31:47
    I would NOT pay.
    Ab blocker is free.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/12 09:53:28

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals