4 ms·

Allowing websites to pull in revenue with advertisements isn't worth it if I get dragged through optimized layouts for better ad-CTR, links which look like gene

Allowing websites to pull in revenue with advertisements isn't worth it if I get dragged through optimized layouts for better ad-CTR, links which look like generic website content but are ads, all sorts of pop-ups with hard-to-find close buttons (this bold red cross which looks like it will close another Javascript pop-up? Here comes browser tab #43, maybe this advertisement interests you!) and other nasty tricks. It might be selfish but it is part of the freedom I have.

untog 13y ago
The part you didn't address: if those things are such a pain for you (and I have no idea what sites you're reading regularly because I get a popup like that very, very rarely) then close the tab and don't read the site.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  Why would I do this if I have the option to read the site without the annoying parts? You are implying I owe website owners my screen estate to display the ads they run which simply is not the case.
  - untog 13y ago
    There's a store down the road that has really bad security. I could take a bottle of Sprite from their fridge and walk out with it. Should I? Before this descends into a "this isn't stealing" circular debate, my point is that just because you can get something for free that you would normally have to pay for (be it in money or screen real estate) doesn't mean you should. I am not implying that you owe them your screen real estate, I am outright stating it.
    - ckrailo 13y ago
      That's... not really how the web works, man. These companies can't enforce that their ads are shown at the other end, so they make a business decision regarding revenue fully knowing that some people use technology to block the ads.
    - thatswrong0 13y ago
      All a website is doing is giving me a bunch of bits for free. I can do (mostly) anything I want with those bits. I can leave them how they are, or I can modify them so that the presentation is more appealing to me. The owners of these websites understand that they cannot do anything to prevent me from modifying the way the bits are presented to me. There was no agreement between me and them that I won't modify the bits: they just send me the bits when I ask for them. A better analogy would be a pizza company that gives out free pizzas, no questions asked. However, they get money every time a customer eats an olive on the pizza. When they give me the pizza, they know very well that I can just pick off the olives (I hate olives). So I am well within my right to pick off olives. The problem is their business model, not me picking off the olives.
    - pearjuice 13y ago
      It has nothing to do with security or stealing, you are really making comparisons up now just to prove your point. You are actually stealing from a store because in a normal situation it is obligatory to pay. You are taking something away the store owner normally should get paid for. Now, imagine this store would offer the Sprite free-to-fetch BUT there is a man singing next to the fridge which sells CDs of his recordings. It is not obligatory to buy a CD before you fetch a Sprite. However, the man ocassionally jumps in front of the fridge and tries to make eye-contact to give you his best shot at convincing you to buy a CD of his. Annoying, isn't it? This man adds no value to the Sprite you can get for free yet he tries to sell you a CD you didn't ask for! Well, apparently the store owner made a deal with the man: for every CD he sells, he gets a nice commission. Would you steal the Sprite if you put on sunglasses (to avoid eye-contact) and wore earbuds (so his singing doesn't bother you) every time you get a free Sprite from the fridge? If you know the answer, you know whether ad blocking is stealing. Now, if the set-up would be "Buy a CD and get a Sprite" (a pay wall) you would indeed be stealing if you got the sprite without paying.

untog 13y ago

The part you didn't address: if those things are such a pain for you (and I have no idea what sites you're reading regularly because I get a popup like that very, very rarely) then close the tab and don't read the site.

pearjuice 13y ago
Why would I do this if I have the option to read the site without the annoying parts? You are implying I owe website owners my screen estate to display the ads they run which simply is not the case.
- untog 13y ago
  There's a store down the road that has really bad security. I could take a bottle of Sprite from their fridge and walk out with it. Should I? Before this descends into a "this isn't stealing" circular debate, my point is that just because you can get something for free that you would normally have to pay for (be it in money or screen real estate) doesn't mean you should. I am not implying that you owe them your screen real estate, I am outright stating it.
  - ckrailo 13y ago
    That's... not really how the web works, man. These companies can't enforce that their ads are shown at the other end, so they make a business decision regarding revenue fully knowing that some people use technology to block the ads.
  - thatswrong0 13y ago
    All a website is doing is giving me a bunch of bits for free. I can do (mostly) anything I want with those bits. I can leave them how they are, or I can modify them so that the presentation is more appealing to me. The owners of these websites understand that they cannot do anything to prevent me from modifying the way the bits are presented to me. There was no agreement between me and them that I won't modify the bits: they just send me the bits when I ask for them. A better analogy would be a pizza company that gives out free pizzas, no questions asked. However, they get money every time a customer eats an olive on the pizza. When they give me the pizza, they know very well that I can just pick off the olives (I hate olives). So I am well within my right to pick off olives. The problem is their business model, not me picking off the olives.
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    It has nothing to do with security or stealing, you are really making comparisons up now just to prove your point. You are actually stealing from a store because in a normal situation it is obligatory to pay. You are taking something away the store owner normally should get paid for. Now, imagine this store would offer the Sprite free-to-fetch BUT there is a man singing next to the fridge which sells CDs of his recordings. It is not obligatory to buy a CD before you fetch a Sprite. However, the man ocassionally jumps in front of the fridge and tries to make eye-contact to give you his best shot at convincing you to buy a CD of his. Annoying, isn't it? This man adds no value to the Sprite you can get for free yet he tries to sell you a CD you didn't ask for! Well, apparently the store owner made a deal with the man: for every CD he sells, he gets a nice commission. Would you steal the Sprite if you put on sunglasses (to avoid eye-contact) and wore earbuds (so his singing doesn't bother you) every time you get a free Sprite from the fridge? If you know the answer, you know whether ad blocking is stealing. Now, if the set-up would be "Buy a CD and get a Sprite" (a pay wall) you would indeed be stealing if you got the sprite without paying.