Question...

[blissfish]

I've seen lots of outrage on LJ lately about the pay or see ads policy.  Isn't this exactly what every other membership-leveled site on the internet does?  Hell, on most of them, you can pay and still see ads.  Get adblocker.

What's the ache?

Comments

[octos.livejournal.com]

You must be new to the internet. It's just a reason to argue and be indignant. Like you said, some kids that know know about ad-blockers will have to see ads or pay some allowance money to be emo.

Damn I sound old. Stay off my lawn!

[salembroomrider.livejournal.com]

I didn't even know about it.

This just means I'll block more ads.

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

For me, it's a matter of "I can have it free, and see ads" or "I can do it myself without ads." I'm leaning towards the latter, personally.

[bambina-cricket.livejournal.com]

I've been on LJ for so long, that I would be annoyed if I had to see ads all the sudden.

I would either learn to ignore them, or go ahead and get a paid account, although I already have one, so it's a moot point.

I can see why it would be annoying to some people.

How can you block ads that are built into the page? Are you talking about pop ups?

[telophase.livejournal.com]

The outrage I'm seeing on my f-list is not over the ads. It's that they made a huge policy change without announcing it.

Which results in huge outrage every time they do it, and they do it often, and then issue an apology afterwards. They are either really that stupid, or they made it corporate policy to change things without alerting the users.

[serendipitygirl.livejournal.com]

Apparently, I've missed out on the latest LJ outrage.
Not terribly upset by this really....

[lisbethk24.livejournal.com]

I think the real outrage is that they are no longer going to allow anyone to create a new free account.