Business Facebook Is About Make Your AdBlocker Useless

[Barry-xlovecam]

Facebook Is About to Render Your Ad-Blocking Software Useless | Vanity Fair

Facebook users who have installed ad-blocking software on their browsers will now be served with ads on the social network?s desktop Web site, the company announced in a blog post Tuesday. Programs like AdBlock will be rendered useless, effective immediately, according to Andrew Bosworth, the vice president of Facebook?s ad and business platforms.

A New Way to Control the Ads You See on Facebook, and an Update on Ad Blocking | Facebook Newsroom

Addressing Ad Blocking

When they?re relevant and well-made, ads can be useful, helping us find new products and services and introducing us to new experiences ? like an ad that shows you your favorite band is coming to town or an amazing airline deal to a tropical vacation. But because ads don?t always work this way, many people have started avoiding certain websites or apps, or using ad blocking software, to stop seeing bad ads. These have been the best options to date.

We?ve designed our ad formats, ad performance and controls to address the underlying reasons people have turned to ad blocking software. When we asked people about why they used ad blocking software, the primary reason we heard was to stop annoying, disruptive ads. As we offer people more powerful controls, we?ll also begin showing ads on Facebook desktop for people who currently use ad blocking software.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/09/fa...ting-opt-outs/

Facebook is making the HTML of its web ads indistinguishable from organic content so it can slip by adblockers. But in exchange for taking away this option for controlling ads from people, its allowing them to opt-out of ad targeting categories and Custom Audience customer lists uploaded by advertisers. Today all desktop users will see an announcement atop the News Feed explaining that while web adblockers may no longer work, they can visit their Ad Preferences settings to block ads from particular businesses.

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/320647...xIhkZuZpSY7rU6

?Online Control in the era of Ad Blocking?


Facebook is taking a yin yang approach to the problem. Facebook is doing Billions a year selling display ads. Read the source code and see what they are doing differently on their new ads with the code injected/embedded on other websites -- that seems to be what they have planned and what would be relevant to adult ad networks and their advertisers.

[_Richard_]

for a site that does sponsored posts, one has to wonder why a 280x150 banner is such a show stopper

[woj]

those adblockers should be illegal, when you think about it, it's really a tool circumvent paying for content... but instead they come preinstalled in some browsers...

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by woj

those adblockers should be illegal, when you think about it, it's really a tool circumvent paying for content... but instead they come preinstalled in some browsers...

i was curious so took a look:


'Websites that detect your ad blocker could be breaking EU law'!

wow.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Some websites refuse to show any content if you are using an adblocker -- that is their policy decision.

From a user's point of view -- they are paying for the data transmission. The ads on a most websites are more KB than the text content that that site has to offer.

It's is a yin yang thing as I said.

The user with the ad block on has a choice; [x] or disable that adblocker.
Smart websites adapt to this.
Dinosaurs do not -- this doesn't mean that they die necessarily but advertising on those websites;
1.] yields a lesser return
2.] and is worth a lesser price

There is the alternative of the pay wall (or paysite).
There is the donation model like Wikimedia/wikipedia. I donate $50/ year to support Wikipedia because I find that information useful and want it to be there for reference.

Websites do cost money to operate and need revenue. But being the billboards of the Internet is the cause of the problem. Those reasons are outlined in that last PDF link -- interesting read if you are spending $1,000s a month on Internet ads like we do.

[woj]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Some websites refuse to show any content if you are using an adblocker -- that is their policy decision.

From a user's point of view -- they are paying for the data transmission. The ads on a most websites are more KB than the text content that that site has to offer.

It's is a yin yang thing as I said.

The user with the ad block on has a choice; [x] or disable that adblocker.
Smart websites adapt to this.
Dinosaurs do not -- this doesn't mean that they die necessarily but advertising on those websites;
1.] yields a lesser return
2.] and is worth a lesser price

There is the alternative of the pay wall (or paysite).
There is the donation model like Wikimedia/wikipedia. I donate $50/ year to support Wikipedia because I find that information useful and want it to be there for reference.

Websites do cost money to operate and need revenue. But being the billboards of the Internet is the cause of the problem. Those reasons are outlined in that last PDF link -- interesting read if you are spending $1,000s a month on Internet ads like we do.

"cause of the problem"...

it's a "solution" to a made up "problem", if you feel that for example that cnn.com has too many ads, go to a different site? Where exactly is the problem?

the whole logic is kinda like bitching about toll roads... "there is a toll booth every 5 miles, and I don't like it!".... "so instead of going through each toll booth and paying, I'll drive offroad circumventing each one... I'm so clever!"

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i was curious so took a look:


'Websites that detect your ad blocker could be breaking EU law'!

wow.

Interesting twisted logic.

Websites are private property. Even the right to refuse service is protected to private business as long as it is allowed by law. Adblockers give public broadcast data -- that data has no expectation of privacy as it is broadcast -- like info from a browser that it is JavaScript enabled or the user's screen size or color depth -- that data is rather benign to consumer privacy -- I think in any EU court he would lose his claim for that reason.

It is sort of like caller ID ... Unless you have blocked it, your phone number is public information to the party you are calling.
Google G-A stats collects a lot of browser data that might be subject to that claim if upheld by the courts. Same thing really ...

That would a part my counter-argument.

[Barry-xlovecam]

woj -- if your shit stinks I leave the room you are in. You get nothing and I lose nothing.

If Tube 1 won't let me in I can find the same content somewhere else.

Question is: where to buy that ad?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Adblock Plus Claims It Already Beat Facebook's Ad-Blocking Force Field

Adblock Plus said on Thursday that its community had already found a workaround to the anti-ad-blocking tech that Facebook announced just Tuesday, though Facebook countered that the fix erases more than just ads.

Adblock Plus Claims It Beat Facebook's Ad-Block Force Field | Digital - AdAge[/url]
This was just an early counter-strike in what is likely to be a drawn-out contest between Facebook engineers and the pesky ad-blocking community. The fix that Adblock Plus disseminated also might prove to be lacking, because it could trap content that's not even ads, filtering out publishers and other organic posts, users might otherwise want to see.

Adblock Plus warned its users of that possibility: "You should be aware that this filter has not been heavily tested," the company wrote in its blog post, adding that if people find the software blocking more than it should to let them know.

Early tests showed the Adblock Plus software was working smoothly.
Adblock Plus Claims It Beat Facebook's Ad-Block Force Field | Digital - AdAge

That didn't take long ....

[kane]

It is an interesting escalating cycle. More and more people are using ad blockers which means less revenue for some websites. Those websites want to make up for those loses so they add more ads to the site making the site harder to use and less appealing hence driving more people to use ad blockers.

I think we will eventually see a situation where many sites either won't allow you access if you have an ad blocker on or they will only give you limited access until you turn the ad blocker off.

[JD]

Stop serving 400 ads, 900 trackers, and 14 auto play video ads and I'll disable ad blocker.

[kane]

Originally Posted by JD

Stop serving 400 ads, 900 trackers, and 14 auto play video ads and I'll disable ad blocker.

Exactly. The other day I went to a site and it loaded three auto play video ads at the same time. All three were playing so you couldn't see or understand what any of them were saying. All that does is piss off the visitor and rip off the advertiser.

[woj]

Originally Posted by kane

Exactly. The other day I went to a site and it loaded three auto play video ads at the same time. All three were playing so you couldn't see or understand what any of them were saying. All that does is piss off the visitor and rip off the advertiser.

don't go to that site anymore? when I go to a restaurant and food/service/etc is bad, I don't go to it anymore... don't you do the same? why would it be any different online?

[money biz]

if it really works it will drive alot of people off the site. I know people that wouldn't even use a computer if it wasn't for adblock.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

don't go to that site anymore? when I go to a restaurant and food/service/etc is bad, I don't go to it anymore... don't you do the same? why would it be any different online?

I won't be going back there. I was searching for something and found the site via Google. I was just pointing out that it is sites like this that drive people to use adblockers.

[woj]

Originally Posted by money biz

if it really works it will drive alot of people off the site. I know people that wouldn't even use a computer if it wasn't for adblock.

that's nonsense dude, 80-90% people use internet without adblockers and it's just fine... ads existed before adblockers, and 100% used the internet back then without any issues too...

some relatively small percentage of sites do indeed have excessive ads, but it's mostly those bullshit "you won't believe won't happened next" clickbait sites or some seo trap sites, but those usually have crap content anyway...

I can't think of a single popular quality site that has excessive ads... can you?

[mineistaken]

You mean useless for facebook url?

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by woj

don't go to that site anymore? when I go to a restaurant and food/service/etc is bad, I don't go to it anymore... don't you do the same? why would it be any different online?

Because lots of websites do that now. It is greed of webmasters that made many people use adblocker. Serve decent ads (not aggressive) and nobody would want to use it...

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by woj

some relatively small percentage of sites do indeed have excessive ads

Not small percentage... Almost most of them does sliding, popping etc ads. Only static ads are acceptable in my eyes.

[woj]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Because lots of websites do that now. It is greed of webmasters that made many people use adblocker. Serve decent ads (not aggressive) and nobody would want to use it...

you are sounding like some surfer... "greed of webmasters"
seriously? you actually typed in "greed of webmasters" on a business forum that is supposedly filled with webmasters/businessmen...

[woj]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Not small percentage... Almost most of them does sliding, popping etc ads. Only static ads are acceptable in my eyes.

name a few examples of popular quality sites that you think have excessive ads? there aren't actually many at all, if any, cause sites that offer poor user experience don't tend to become/stay popular....

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by woj

those adblockers should be illegal, when you think about it, it's really a tool circumvent paying for content... but instead they come preinstalled in some browsers...

Maybe hijacking a browser is illegal? Those scripts that disable the adblocker or bypass it, I dunno.

Sites that force the user are always on the wrong side of history.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

that's nonsense dude, 80-90% people use internet without adblockers and it's just fine... ads existed before adblockers, and 100% used the internet back then without any issues too...

some relatively small percentage of sites do indeed have excessive ads, but it's mostly those bullshit "you won't believe won't happened next" clickbait sites or some seo trap sites, but those usually have crap content anyway...

I can't think of a single popular quality site that has excessive ads... can you?

https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/ad-blocking-report/

It's a good site that shows adblock usage in 2015. It looks like it ranges from 0% to upper 30's depending on the country. They estimate about 198 million people worldwide use it. Pretty interesting stuff.

[money biz]

Originally Posted by kane

https://pagefair.com/blog/2015/ad-blocking-report/

It's a good site that shows adblock usage in 2015. It looks like it ranges from 0% to upper 30's depending on the country. They estimate about 198 million people worldwide use it. Pretty interesting stuff.

Check out the actually plugin for firefox they show all the data.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...stics/?last=30

[Phoenix]

This should be good news to everyone....

[brassmonkey]

who clicks those stupid ads??

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

those adblockers should be illegal, when you think about it, it's really a tool circumvent paying for content... but instead they come preinstalled in some browsers...

Do you really believe that by removing Adblocker those people will buy something?

This is a stupid approach and excuse to lazy selling.

The problem is not enough people use adblockers. Do I need to explain why?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

woj -- if your shit stinks I leave the room you are in. You get nothing and I lose nothing.

If Tube 1 won't let me in I can find the same content somewhere else.

Question is: where to buy that ad?

Oh the irony!!!

Someone trying to sell a product is happy to destroy the business of others who are hurting because of you buying ad space on sites that have pirated content.

So don't moan when MFC, Chaturbate, and others give away free cam shows. Paid for by ads and tips.

[Paul Markham]

Do I need to remind anyone here why ad-funded sites are the reasons so many here can't make the money I was able to?

No matter how little you claim I made. The fact is the turnover of porn has been devastated by ad sales.

Quick Facts:
Ad blocking estimated to cost publishers nearly $22 billion during 2015.

Bullshit. The publishers leech off real publishers for their content or pay pennies on the dollar for it.

[Klen]

Well this is really turning into cat and mice game - day 1 - i see ads day 2 - dont see them anymore day 3 - i see them again

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by woj

that's nonsense dude, 80-90% people use internet without adblockers and it's just fine... ads existed before adblockers, and 100% used the internet back then without any issues too...

some relatively small percentage of sites do indeed have excessive ads, but it's mostly those bullshit "you won't believe won't happened next" clickbait sites or some seo trap sites, but those usually have crap content anyway...

I can't think of a single popular quality site that has excessive ads... can you?

where do you get the 10-20% using adblocker? those were the percentages 3-4 years ago..

it's gotta be above 50% now

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

...
So don't moan when MFC, Chaturbate, and others give away free cam shows. Paid for by ads and tips.

Chaturbate's ads ARE BLOCKED.
The Pops vaporise.
The banners do not appear.
You don't have the experience to understand the difference in the mentality of the free cam token/tip buyer and the private cam show buyer -- every time you open your yellow toothed mouth -- your ignorance of the cam business is apparent.

With adblockers in use;
Tubes have few ads.
Adsense is blocked.
Network ads are blocked

JD has it right -- don't try to have a carnival of ads to distract for the content that the surfer is looking for. If there are fewer ads and less people using ad blockers -- the ads will be worth more because they are being seen

Stop using that obnoxious tracking and targeting. Just because I looked at a magnifying desk lamp I had magnifying desk lamp ads following me for weeks. The solution, Adblock Plus.

As I said before, content is everywhere on the web -- ban Adblockers and you are replaced with another content source.

I use an adblocker and I buy all the time online -- guess where I buy -- where I fucking want to and not from a blocked ad. 50% of the ads we buy for the cam sites are never seen and the ROI is showing.

I am looking to buy ads from selected good traffic websites, that are text or the source and the image/embed is in the parent adult website -- direct from site owners when the price is acceptable. I favor PPC/(CPC) . Fighting with adblockers head on is a losing battle -- I am trying to make an end run play

[woj]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Do you really believe that by removing Adblocker those people will buy something?

This is a stupid approach and excuse to lazy selling.

The problem is not enough people use adblockers. Do I need to explain why?

sometimes it's not about "selling"...

imagine you run an amateur car related blog... you put a couple of adsense ads on it... surfers come to your blog, like your site, click around various pages and for each page they visit you make $$$ on CPM basis (per impression) whether they click/buy or not...

surfers are happy, webmaster is happy, advertisers (car manufacturers) are happy...

now adblockers come along, suddenly that blog starts to make you 10-20% less, how exactly would you solve this problem? clearly you can't go to car manufacturers and offer an ad spot on your car blog, cause they will laugh at you...

so please Paul, spell out a game plan for a small blogger like that...

even if there is a solution, keep in mind that you are a car enthusiast not a marketing guru, you know cars, love to write about them, so you want to write about cars, not chase around different advertisers....

[candyflip]

I use an adblocker more because of all the trackers the sites try to load, not really because of the ads.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

sometimes it's not about "selling"...

imagine you run an amateur car related blog... you put a couple of adsense ads on it... surfers come to your blog, like your site, click around various pages and for each page they visit you make $$$ on CPM basis (per impression) whether they click/buy or not...

surfers are happy, webmaster is happy, advertisers (car manufacturers) are happy...

now adblockers come along, suddenly that blog starts to make you 10-20% less, how exactly would you solve this problem? clearly you can't go to car manufacturers and offer an ad spot on your car blog, cause they will laugh at you...

so please Paul, spell out a game plan for a small blogger like that...

even if there is a solution, keep in mind that you are a car enthusiast not a marketing guru, you know cars, love to write about them, so you want to write about cars, not chase around different advertisers....

Imagine you run a business selling a product that is now given away for free because people click on ads. The small blogger can go get a job selling the product properly.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Chaturbate's ads ARE BLOCKED.
The Pops vaporise.
The banners do not appear.
You don't have the experience to understand the difference in the mentality of the free cam token/tip buyer and the private cam show buyer -- every time you open your yellow toothed mouth -- your ignorance of the cam business is apparent.

With adblockers in use;
Tubes have few ads.
Adsense is blocked.
Network ads are blocked

JD has it right -- don't try to have a carnival of ads to distract for the content that the surfer is looking for. If there are fewer ads and less people using ad blockers -- the ads will be worth more because they are being seen

Stop using that obnoxious tracking and targeting. Just because I looked at a magnifying desk lamp I had magnifying desk lamp ads following me for weeks. The solution, Adblock Plus.

As I said before, content is everywhere on the web -- ban Adblockers and you are replaced with another content source.

I use an adblocker and I buy all the time online -- guess where I buy -- where I fucking want to and not from a blocked ad. 50% of the ads we buy for the cam sites are never seen and the ROI is showing.

I am looking to buy ads from selected good traffic websites, that are text or the source and the image/embed is in the parent adult website -- direct from site owners when the price is acceptable. I favor PPC/(CPC) . Fighting with adblockers head on is a losing battle -- I am trying to make an end run play

With adblockers in use;
Tubes and free porn sites don't exist.

And you can make money by employing real sales skills.

I can live without Youtube. You can't live without people buying webcam shows. And free webcam is killing your side of the business. As for where you buy ad space. Any of those sites rely on piracy? Don't get me started looking for your ads on sites. You will regret it.

Do I need to remind anyone here why ad-funded sites are the reasons so many here can't make the money I was able to?

No matter how little you claim I made. The fact is the turnover of porn has been devastated by ad sales.

It seems I do.

[Barry-xlovecam]

I will just stop buying network ads on tubes if there is no or too poor a ROI.
If free sites and tubes cannot sell their ads or have their ad revenue reduced they will be the ones dying.

What we make from tube ads is not that important now. XloveCam sells no ads on our site -- no ad revenue is jeopardized. My main concern is offering advertising websites and affiliates adblocker ''safe'' links and creatives.

Actually, this may be a good thing in the long run.
Paul -- FUCK YOU.
We advertise where the traffic is -- If more legit sites had the traffic we would advertise there. Troll threat -- fucking go for it.

I have 120K+ Referring domains today -- Have fucking fun looking

LOL messages for the seeing impaired

[Adnium_Ivana]

I'm glad is saying no to what is almost a form of blackmail. Popups might be annoying for regural people yes, but w/out someone clicking on them/buying into the ads how else would these ppl get access to Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc? Exactly. They'd have to pay for their content out of their own pocket

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Actually, this may be a good thing in the long run.
Paul -- FUCK YOU.
We advertise where the traffic is -- If more legit sites had the traffic we would advertise there. Troll threat -- fucking go for it.

I have 120K+ Referring domains today -- Have fucking fun looking

The stupidity is so revealing. Anyone who thinks the demise of Tubes will mean the demise of porn surfers and places to promote a porn product. Has no fucking clue about the business.

He's admitted to placing ads, his boss tells him to buy, pay for free pirated porn.

Imagine the billion people a day on blog sites where they have to read the reviews, or going straight to Webcam sites. Instead of rubbing one out for free on a piracy site your bosses ads pay for.

Anyone got a tool for tracking what sites traffic comes from? Not that it's needed now he's pleaded guilty. Even as an affiliate rep or ad buyer, you're not very bright.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Adnium_Ivana

I'm glad is saying no to what is almost a form of blackmail. Popups might be annoying for regural people yes, but w/out someone clicking on them/buying into the ads how else would these ppl get access to Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc? Exactly. They'd have to pay for their content out of their own pocket

If you can't see the difference Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc? And their advertisers. And the difference between Pornhub and their advertisers. You won't go far in life.

Does YT promote Vimeo? Not an exact parallel but most see the difference of a business that rapes the money making section of porn to scrape a $30 sale from 50,000 surfers. I'm talking surfers, not clickers.

[AdultKing]

Yet another thread becomes the Paul Markham show.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Bye Paul CLICK

Any respect I may have had for you is gone. A walking talking example of a loser.
You are on a downward spiral.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Paul is officially a non-person as far as I am concerned.

You can say whatever you want but you are talking to the hand permanently -- waste of energy --- FUCK YOU EAT SIT AND >>>

[The Porn Nerd]

People don't understand how "free" actually works. It's just there, like magic. It's, you know, FREE. How it got there, who put it there, how it stays there, etc - no one gives a fuck or even thinks about these issues. Business people do but not the average person. In fact, most people think Facebook IS "the Internet".

But when "free" suddenly disappears (or shrinks, or gets put behind a paywall, where it should be) THEN people will "get it". But by then there will be one helluva backlash from the Millenials.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Back to the subject, maybe the internet needs to be a smaller micro payment zone.

Is your content good enough that people will pay to see it?

If you had to pay a few cents to watch a Youtube vid would you pay the toll?
If you had to pay to see porn vids 10 cents a vid would you?

Which mainstream news (as an example) website would you micro pay to read articles on? An article for 5 cents from the Wall Street journal (a la carte) as an example. Internet micro payment may become a reality because of this adblocker phenomena ...


Advertising paid content is a double edged sword -- most of the content is crap for people that never pay - and the ads are less and less productive. The big shakeup will be in the internet advertising networks. As their buyers get a smaller and smaller return they will adjust accordingly.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Back to the subject, maybe the internet needs to be a smaller micro payment zone.

Is your content good enough that people will pay to see it?

If you had to pay a few cents to watch a Youtube vid would you pay the toll?
If you had to pay to see porn vids 10 cents a vid would you?

Which mainstream news (as an example) website would you micro pay to read articles on? An article for 5 cents from the Wall Street journal (a la carte) as an example. Internet micro payment may become a reality because of this adblocker phenomena ...


Advertising paid content is a double edged sword -- most of the content is crap for people that never pay - and the ads are less and less productive. The big shakeup will be in the internet advertising networks. As their buyers get a smaller and smaller return they will adjust accordingly.

Yes but this only works if you have VOLUME (heh, sorry couldn't resist).

If you run niche sites, or are a small-time player, you cannot generate enough volume to be profitable at $0.10 a video or whatever.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Facebook Is About to Render Your Ad-Blocking Software Useless | Vanity Fair



A New Way to Control the Ads You See on Facebook, and an Update on Ad Blocking | Facebook Newsroom


https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/09/fa...ting-opt-outs/



https://www.scribd.com/embeds/320647...xIhkZuZpSY7rU6

‘Online Control in the era of Ad Blocking’


Facebook is taking a yin yang approach to the problem. Facebook is doing Billions a year selling display ads. Read the source code and see what they are doing differently on their new ads with the code injected/embedded on other websites -- that seems to be what they have planned and what would be relevant to adult ad networks and their advertisers.

Circumvented, next.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

People don't understand how "free" actually works. It's just there, like magic. It's, you know, FREE. How it got there, who put it there, how it stays there, etc - no one gives a fuck or even thinks about these issues. Business people do but not the average person. In fact, most people think Facebook IS "the Internet".

But when "free" suddenly disappears (or shrinks, or gets put behind a paywall, where it should be) THEN people will "get it". But by then there will be one helluva backlash from the Millenials.

Especially in porn. Look at what people consume for free in huge amounts. Porn, film, TV, music, books, and social media. Which one of those would people not consume if they had to pay for it?

None and the proof is all those industries sold more than they do now.

Take out Ad-funded sites and the 99.9% of free surfers on Tubes would have to go back to buying or rely on a far inferior product. Did we sell a to a higher percentage of surfers in 2005 than 2016?

Barry is too lazy to earn more from consumers who pay for porn.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Advertising paid content is a double edged sword -- most of the content is crap for people that never pay - and the ads are less and less productive. The big shakeup will be in the internet advertising networks. As their buyers get a smaller and smaller return they will adjust accordingly.

Tubes are superior to paysites. Chaturbate is superior to Xlovecam. He numbers prove it.

Also with 99.9% of consumers mnot paying, how do you create a better product? Xlovecam hits a wall trying to get better models, because better models earn more elsewhere.

You won't learn, but others might. To get traffic one has to have great samples or ads, to turn clicks into $$$$ one has to have a great product. No one has ever had enough traffic to sell shit. It's a moronic catchphrase used by morons.

When people think that those who don't want to see ads, will suddenly start clicking on them, forcing up the bill for paid ads, are going to start buying. You know their business is struggling. Those who don't want to see ads, don't buy. Considering the ratio from those without can be 1-5,000. Forcing people to see ads it can only lower the ROI on ads bought traffic.

Or are there people who think those with adblockers are an untapped goldmine of customers?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Volume is no stranger in success.

You either have to be small and specialized or have scale to make money.

You only have to look at Walmart, Amazon and Department stores.
Supporting free porn or cams with ads has seen its day unless some new technology steps in to change the equation.

Adblocker may be the best thing that ever happened to the Internet as strategies monetizing content may become based more on merit.