If it has text, it can be blocked based on the text. If it has links, it can be blocked based on the link.
But let’s suppose for a moment that the claim is actually true, and those pieces of advertisement can’t be blocked at all. Well, aggressively pushing unblockable advertisement decreases the information/noise ratio, thus decreasing the perceived usefulness of the platform, thus triggering exodus. It might turn into short-term profits but decreases the overall value of the platform.
In fact most decisions that the tinfoil man took once he got control over Twitter can be described as either the above or “what the fuck was he smoking?”.
If it has text, it can be blocked based on the text. If it has links, it can be blocked based on the link.
But let’s suppose for a moment that the claim is actually true, and those pieces of advertisement can’t be blocked at all. Well, aggressively pushing unblockable advertisement decreases the information/noise ratio, thus decreasing the perceived usefulness of the platform, thus triggering exodus. It might turn into short-term profits but decreases the overall value of the platform.
In fact most decisions that the tinfoil man took once he got control over Twitter can be described as either the above or “what the fuck was he smoking?”.
The article makes less a stink about blocking the ads than it does about the quality of the ads. They are basically your classic click bait style ads.
I’m aware - my focus was on why the decision was bad, not the same focus as the article.