5 ms·

These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a r

These sites should block users who are ad blocking rather than allow the users in and place a guilt trip on them. How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads?

CJefferson 11y ago
Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Sometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads. Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request. If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.
  - CJefferson 11y ago
    You are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use. I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information. If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.
kbenson 11y ago
Well, if a site displays ads, the expectation is that you will view them, or if not view them, they will at least be presented. I think to say otherwise is disingenuous. Yes, sites should block users that use ad-block if they care, but the ecosystem isn't to the point that something like that is tenable for most sites. I'm not fighting against ad-blockers here, I'm fighting against the entitlement that I see exhibited. I think it's counter-productive.
Goronmon 11y ago
How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads? Is this a serious question?

CJefferson 11y ago

Unfortunately (for this situation) ad-blockers are starting to enter a war, where they try to remove adverts while keeping websites functional. It would be nice to have an agreed way for websites to say "No ads? Go away", but I imagine most sites would choose to activate it, so ad-blockers would ignore it anyway, similar to do-not-track.

pdkl95 11y ago
Sometimes I read webpages with /usr/bin/curl. Sorry, but you aren't going to convince anyone that I am somehow morally obligated to copy the <img> URLs to a computer with a graphical web browser to see some ads. Much like how the "first-sale doctrine" limits a publisher's rights over a work after a copy first changes hands, you do not get to dictate how the client renders your HTML or if they choose to run your javascript after you've voluntarily handed the files over to them in the HTTP request. If your business suffers because of this, well, that's what happens to business models based on magical thinking and a misunderstanding of copyright.
- CJefferson 11y ago
  You are the one who introduced "moral obligation", and "dictating" to the conversation, please don't invent words I did not use. I simply said it would be nice for website owners to express their opinion on ad-blocking (some are pro, some are anti), and then users could choose to use that information. If this gets into a war, it won't be hard for website authors to start sending you webpages where you have to call the javascript for the content (with ads) to appear -- some websites already do. I would suspect however those who write ad blockers will be more motivated to block ads, than websites will be to write ad-blocker-blocers.

kbenson 11y ago

Well, if a site displays ads, the expectation is that you will view them, or if not view them, they will at least be presented. I think to say otherwise is disingenuous. Yes, sites should block users that use ad-block if they care, but the ecosystem isn't to the point that something like that is tenable for most sites. I'm not fighting against ad-blockers here, I'm fighting against the entitlement that I see exhibited. I think it's counter-productive.

Goronmon 11y ago

How am i supposed to know when i click on a random link that the owner of the page has a unwritten expectation that i should view their ads? Is this a serious question?