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

  • TKramar 2012/07/12 10:25:31
    I would NOT pay.
    Really? that many? I never notice ads unless they pop up and cover the screen. Then I just close them.
  • Rebellion 2012/07/12 10:06:26 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    Why even paying? Use AdBlock if you have Chrome and your life becomes easier. Oh and guess what? It's completely free. (:
  • VannaXVon 2012/07/12 09:01:47
    I would NOT pay.
    I have AdBlock on Chrome... Who needs to pay lol
    And FRICK no!!! XD
  • BAMCIS 2012/07/12 08:37:09
    I would NOT pay.
    why would I pay when there are completely free programs to block them all?
  • AskZilla 2012/07/12 08:24:02 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    So there are still people that have never heard of ad blocking software??? But even so, the ads on Facebook don't grab my attention
  • blissful 2012/07/12 08:10:01
    I would NOT pay.
    I don't to much mind the aids I hate the ones that are in video form! they are a real pain in the A-s! As soon as you open the page you get this loud annoying talkin video! Ugh-h-h! that's nerve racking!
  • MadWorld 2012/07/12 07:40:09
    I would NOT pay.
    i would pay for ads on tv ... it is boring when u watch interesting movie ..
  • Carson 2012/07/12 07:17:33
    I would NOT pay.
    I want adds they tell me about new products.
  • Ishmael 2012/07/12 07:15:42
    I would NOT pay.
    I'm a cheap ass and I have a very good filter for ignoring advertising crap.
  • Michelle 2012/07/12 07:01:42
    I would NOT pay.
    Because I've learned to ignore adds. Face it, when you're on the internet long enough, you've seen them all... and can tune them out until they start speaking to you. If all adds become vocal ones that fill up the whole screen when your mouse slips over them, then yes. But the current adds aren't obnoxious enough to be worth my money to get rid of.
  • Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/12 06:44:55 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    Why? I also use Adblock Plus - no need to pay for annoyance-free and considerably more malware-free internet browsing anymore. And you know the cool thing is, if Adblock Plus were to stop working tomorrow for one reason or another, some other kind soul would come along and fix it or create something new that does the same thing again. Beautiful isn't it? Just serves to prove the old adage "where there's a will, there's a way".

    But for those who don't mind the inconvenience and the malware, more power to them - they're the ones keeping the sites on the internet. Bravo.

    For me, I just got sick and freaking tired of the sea of malware from the ads (and don't believe I should have to pay even more money than I already am for my internet to enjoy it WITHOUT said malware and risk to my system and data), and that's also even before considering the IMMENSE slowdowns they cause as well... sorry.

    And you know something else, blocking all of those ads REALLY does eliminate a hell of a lot of malware. I do not even have to use a live-scan AV program anymore, just MBAM periodically (usually returning nothing) and I get maybe ONE low-grade threat a year now. It's a real improvement as opposed to all of those years before when I wasn't using Adblock Plus (dozens of malware a month back then). =P

    low-grade threat year real improvement opposed years adblock dozens malware
  • Myagooshki 2012/07/12 06:23:30
    I would NOT pay.
    Ads aren't even a big deal anyway!
  • strange_armour 2012/07/12 06:14:51 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    It is extortion to expect people to pay for something for which they never asked to begin with to be removed. The internet was getting along just fine until corporate greed encroached on the digital frontier. Adverts can kiss my arse.
  • MOMMA THOMAS 2012/07/12 06:03:40
    I would NOT pay.
  • Psicolabis 2012/07/12 04:59:09
    I would NOT pay.
    I use adblock
  • V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/12 04:31:19
    I would NOT pay.
    One way or another, someone has to pay for the Internet. The monthly cost to consumers pays for the transportation of data (upload and download) from their home, phone, or office to a tier-1 provider. The other half of the connection is paid for by the owner of the computer (usually a server) on the other side.

    Ads are sometimes how the owner of the computer on the other side is paying for their cost of allowing you to connect. There are some pay-only sites that have no advertising (e.g. Netflix), and anyone is free to use them.

    The attraction of the Internet is flat-rate access to every computer in the world, irrespective of distance or any other factor. Take that away, put a paywall behind every meaningful site, and the Internet becomes a lot less useful.

    Facebook's excessive use of advertising will prove to be counterproductive, but a pay-only version would be dead on arrival. If they can't survive on a reasonable amount of advertising, they shouldn't have valued the company at billions of dollars in that awful IPO.
  • Beat Ma... V~POTL~... 2012/07/12 18:26:57
    Beat Magnum True Hero
    It amazes me how the internet-age has made it possible for people to complain a bout a product that they don't actually pay to use.
  • V~POTL~... Beat Ma... 2012/07/12 19:13:29
    Even more amazing is that there is competition between free websites to see who can do the best job of giving away their content.
  • Michael=Constitution & Liberty 2012/07/12 04:16:01
    I would NOT pay.
    Michael=Constitution & Liberty
  • Karl 2012/07/12 04:09:19
    I would NOT pay.
    It's called an adblocker.
  • David 2012/07/12 04:08:27
    I would NOT pay.
    I usually don't notice.
  • Zeruke 2012/07/12 04:06:31 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
    why pay when you have one of the greatest Ad blocking file on your computer called "hosts" http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/h... (shows where windows host file is plus has an already made list to copy and paste to the host file) .... linux host file is at /etc/hosts ... and I believe Mac osx one is at /private/etc/hosts
  • caius madison 2012/07/12 03:59:12
    I would NOT pay.
    caius madison
    The internet was not intended for anything we've turned it into. It was initially an elite group of people sharing binary, then whole programs, then tv and flash and soon Napster and Facebook, Youtube and Cracked would follow. It's not supposed to cost anything, yet we all pretty well have or still do pay for internet access already, why continue to do this? It makes zero sense.
  • AskZilla caius m... 2012/07/17 06:58:42
    You don't have to pay for internet access if you are in a public place. It's the home internet services that cost money.
  • caius m... AskZilla 2012/07/18 00:53:47
    caius madison
    Yes, and the majority of the lifeless are on the internet, thus most of us pay for it. I believe it ought be free because it's too big for anybody to rightfully charge for in my opinion.
  • AskZilla caius m... 2012/07/22 07:22:12 (edited)
    What kind of poppycock logic is that? And most people have cell phones and televisions too, so you think people shouldn't have to pay for those either?

    Lay off the meth and bud dude. Really.
  • caius m... AskZilla 2012/07/26 18:23:01
    caius madison
    Wow, state an opinion, receive an insult. Your last reply was so assinign that I expected to be blocked. What I mean is it wasn't supposed to be a big social network circle-jerk like it is now(internet). It was originally to replace secured lines for communications that where done via radio by the government. This thing is a mutt now, and is capable of making us all rich withour charging for it. Was that more in depth or should I continue my bing into illicit substances. Don't forgrt to remind me to not share needles and wrap it up with my prostitutes you juvenile tool of a prude underacheiver. Hey, baselessly judging you was fun, I see why you did that now. Your turn.
  • Shadow_Wolf 2012/07/12 02:53:30 (edited)
    I would NOT pay.
  • Gregaj7 2012/07/12 02:40:04
    I would NOT pay.
    I just continue to use ad-block plus. Commerce, as we know it, needs to truly end.
    hell no
  • Nekosarethebest 2012/07/12 02:33:12
    I would NOT pay.
    Haha, what is facebook? *sarcasm*
  • Lexi 2012/07/12 02:30:20
    I would NOT pay.
    I have ad-block for chrome! And the best part is... ITS FREE!! :D
  • ILuv2worshipU 2012/07/12 02:26:42
    I would NOT pay.
    I just don't pay any attention to the adds.
  • ~TheDreamer~ 2012/07/12 02:23:49
    I would NOT pay.
    I don't even pay attention to them anyway.
  • Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO 2012/07/12 01:47:23
    I would NOT pay.
    Joe Shwingding BN-ZERO
    that is the same line of crap they shoved out when cable TV first came out, the same line of garbage with XM/Sirius ....

    You can thank Ronald Reagan for making sure we get marketed to 24/7. The gift that keeps on giving
  • ☆ElenaDiamond☆ 2012/07/12 01:42:49
    I would NOT pay.
    I don't mind the ads.
  • Ozymandias 2012/07/12 01:39:48
  • Fef 2012/07/12 01:37:58
    I would NOT pay.
    I would stop using most of the websites -- I already pay for access to the internet through my ISP. I don't want for content. I don't mind the ads
  • being me 2012/07/12 01:28:52
    I would NOT pay.
    being me
    It would get too expensive
  • Happy 2012/07/12 01:25:15
    I would NOT pay.
    ads are very easy to ignore....
  • Zeruke Happy 2012/07/12 04:09:17
    except for the flash and java ones that has all of the talking and covers the whole screen for a while

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/09 20:43:35

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals