7 ms·

The solution is simple: websites just need to start detecting adblock and refusing let someone use the site with it enabled. If you don't like it...go pay for a

The solution is simple: websites just need to start detecting adblock and refusing let someone use the site with it enabled. If you don't like it...go pay for an ad free service. Nobody deserves to get something for nothing. Edit: Additionally, using someones server resources that they pay for without contributing anything to their revenue, if ads are in fact an important source of their revenue, is effectively stealing. Just because the ads annoy you doesn't justify screwing the people who pay to run the site you're using.

LocalPCGuy 13y ago
I disagree that it is stealing. That is their form of monetizing, but as you said, they can choose not to provide an AdBlock user with service if they want. It's my computer, and I choose (well, for the most part) what I download to my computer. It's on the website owner to decide not to allow that behavior. Completely different from downloading copyrighted material, for instance, or from walking into a store and walking out with something. Closest analogy I could make is maybe reading a magazine at the rack instead of buying it and taking it home.
- jsmith0295 13y ago
  Yeah stealing was a strong word. As for downloading copyrighted material, at least that doesn't necessarily have a direct cost to the content creators/providers, where as for example streaming a video from YouTube while ignoring all of the ads is bad for both Google as well as the people who rely on ad revenue to make YouTube videos full time as it actually costs Google money in addition to not generating them any revenue. In fact I would say the example of reading the magazine in the store is more applicable to copyright violation, and that using AdBlock is more like going into a Starbucks to use the WiFi without buying anything, except worse, as with AdBlock one generally wouldn't turn it off, so every time someone with AdBlock visits the site they're basically just sucking up resources.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Mechanically, my browser is asking for index.html. At that point, your server can decide what it's going to send, but I'm not obligated to ask for any other data from you - nor am I obligated to execute arbitrary client-side code. Web site operates make a calculated risk when they offer service the way they do, in the same way that Starbucks does in offering free wi-fi. And a lot of people don't do it that way - for instance a lot of coffee shops give you the wi-fi password with a purchase and I suspect in the future we may see a move to using enterprise WPA2 and "purchase enables x hours of access" policies. Saying things should work differently gets absurd quickly: you don't earn money just for showing ads, you need click-throughs. If no one clicks through, are they still stealing? What if my browser renders the ads and I just tape up my screen so I can't see them etc. etc.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  "Closest analogy I could make is maybe reading a magazine at the rack instead of buying it and taking it home." Another analogy might be recording a TV show and fast-forwarding over the ads when you watch it - which is perfectly legal to do.
radmuzom 13y ago
I wish I could upvote this a 1000 times. As most of the commentators do not care about the business model of publishers, publishers should actively fight back and prevent these people from viewing any of their content at all.
- linker3000 13y ago
  Imagine if every time someone went to buy a newspaper or magazine they had to sign a contract confirming that they will read every advert and not flip over pages containing adverts, and if they refused to sign they would not be allowed to buy the publication. Likewise with televisions - a contract confirming no channel hopping during ads or the most favourite channels will be disabled remotely. Publishers should engage with their audience to find out what advertising would work and engage with the advertisers to make them comply.
  - radmuzom 13y ago
    Given that you have used the newspaper analogy, flipping over is not same as blocking ads - most of the time I do not even care to look at what Google shows me as ads as part of search results - that is the equivalent of flipping over. Blocking ads is akin to asking a guy to cut out the ads before the newspaper is delivered to you.
- serge2k 13y ago
  I'm fine with that, then those sites can die. Then those publishers can die. Then the world will end up a better place.
  - radmuzom 13y ago
    Your comments are hypocritical - you are ok to allow companies with big budgets (e.g. Google) to pay off the makers of Ad Blocking software and continue to pay for these big budgets, while you are not ready to view a couple of ads on a small publisher's page who may have put hours to create their content.
marcosdumay 13y ago
Well, it's their right (the same way that it's my right to not download the ads). They can do that any day they want, and live with the consequences. That said, I wouldn't visit most of them. I don't use AdBlock, and I do like (unobstrusive) ads, but I use NoScript that has the side effect of blocking most ads. I wouldn't start running code from any random 3rd party just because a site asked for that.
edmccard 13y ago
_>Additionally, using someones server resources that they pay for without contributing anything to their revenue, if ads are in fact an important source of their revenue, is effectively stealing._ Since most website ad revenue is based on cost-per-click and not cost-per-impression, am I a thief every time I view an ad without clicking on it? (And evidently clicking an ad without intending to buy anything is "click fraud", so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't) I see that in a later comment you admit that stealing might be too strong a word; I think any word is too strong if it attributes moral failure to anyone who doesn't respond to advertising. Whoever said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half", he didn't go on to say "therefore, half the population are thieves and freeloaders." _>If you don't like it...go pay for an ad free service. Nobody deserves to get something for nothing."_ What you call "getting something for nothing" used to be just part of what was called "the cost of doing business." But anyway, "deserving" has nothing to do with it. Publishers can decide who gets to view their content (maybe by refusing adblockers) and users can decide what content they want to view (maybe even by paying for it). And more to the point, if a publisher decides that anyone, "freeloader" or not, can view their content, they can still use whatever tactics they want (including moral pressure with language about "stealing" and "deserving" and "something for nothing") to convince people to move from potential sources of revenue to actual sources of revenue. And users can decide whether or not to respond to those tactics. tl;dr: if a website needs its viewers more than its viewers need its content, complaining about the mean, naughty users is not very productive.
pdkl95 13y ago
So I'm sure you'll be reimbursing me for the bandwidth you unwanted, unasked for ads are using, right? Or are you going to insist on stealing my bandwidth? Do note that while your attempt to imply that there was some sort of contract or implicit agreement that required viewing of ads, the idea that you're stealing my bandwidth has some precedent: fax/cellphones/SMS. So keep pushing that nonsense - I'd love to see the laws restricting ads due to costing the recipient money/resources extended into other areas.

LocalPCGuy 13y ago

I disagree that it is stealing. That is their form of monetizing, but as you said, they can choose not to provide an AdBlock user with service if they want. It's my computer, and I choose (well, for the most part) what I download to my computer. It's on the website owner to decide not to allow that behavior. Completely different from downloading copyrighted material, for instance, or from walking into a store and walking out with something. Closest analogy I could make is maybe reading a magazine at the rack instead of buying it and taking it home.

jsmith0295 13y ago
Yeah stealing was a strong word. As for downloading copyrighted material, at least that doesn't necessarily have a direct cost to the content creators/providers, where as for example streaming a video from YouTube while ignoring all of the ads is bad for both Google as well as the people who rely on ad revenue to make YouTube videos full time as it actually costs Google money in addition to not generating them any revenue. In fact I would say the example of reading the magazine in the store is more applicable to copyright violation, and that using AdBlock is more like going into a Starbucks to use the WiFi without buying anything, except worse, as with AdBlock one generally wouldn't turn it off, so every time someone with AdBlock visits the site they're basically just sucking up resources.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Mechanically, my browser is asking for index.html. At that point, your server can decide what it's going to send, but I'm not obligated to ask for any other data from you - nor am I obligated to execute arbitrary client-side code. Web site operates make a calculated risk when they offer service the way they do, in the same way that Starbucks does in offering free wi-fi. And a lot of people don't do it that way - for instance a lot of coffee shops give you the wi-fi password with a purchase and I suspect in the future we may see a move to using enterprise WPA2 and "purchase enables x hours of access" policies. Saying things should work differently gets absurd quickly: you don't earn money just for showing ads, you need click-throughs. If no one clicks through, are they still stealing? What if my browser renders the ads and I just tape up my screen so I can't see them etc. etc.
greenyoda 13y ago
"Closest analogy I could make is maybe reading a magazine at the rack instead of buying it and taking it home." Another analogy might be recording a TV show and fast-forwarding over the ads when you watch it - which is perfectly legal to do.

radmuzom 13y ago

I wish I could upvote this a 1000 times. As most of the commentators do not care about the business model of publishers, publishers should actively fight back and prevent these people from viewing any of their content at all.

linker3000 13y ago
Imagine if every time someone went to buy a newspaper or magazine they had to sign a contract confirming that they will read every advert and not flip over pages containing adverts, and if they refused to sign they would not be allowed to buy the publication. Likewise with televisions - a contract confirming no channel hopping during ads or the most favourite channels will be disabled remotely. Publishers should engage with their audience to find out what advertising would work and engage with the advertisers to make them comply.
- radmuzom 13y ago
  Given that you have used the newspaper analogy, flipping over is not same as blocking ads - most of the time I do not even care to look at what Google shows me as ads as part of search results - that is the equivalent of flipping over. Blocking ads is akin to asking a guy to cut out the ads before the newspaper is delivered to you.
serge2k 13y ago
I'm fine with that, then those sites can die. Then those publishers can die. Then the world will end up a better place.
- radmuzom 13y ago
  Your comments are hypocritical - you are ok to allow companies with big budgets (e.g. Google) to pay off the makers of Ad Blocking software and continue to pay for these big budgets, while you are not ready to view a couple of ads on a small publisher's page who may have put hours to create their content.

marcosdumay 13y ago

Well, it's their right (the same way that it's my right to not download the ads). They can do that any day they want, and live with the consequences. That said, I wouldn't visit most of them. I don't use AdBlock, and I do like (unobstrusive) ads, but I use NoScript that has the side effect of blocking most ads. I wouldn't start running code from any random 3rd party just because a site asked for that.

edmccard 13y ago

_>Additionally, using someones server resources that they pay for without contributing anything to their revenue, if ads are in fact an important source of their revenue, is effectively stealing._ Since most website ad revenue is based on cost-per-click and not cost-per-impression, am I a thief every time I view an ad without clicking on it? (And evidently clicking an ad without intending to buy anything is "click fraud", so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't) I see that in a later comment you admit that stealing might be too strong a word; I think any word is too strong if it attributes moral failure to anyone who doesn't respond to advertising. Whoever said "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half", he didn't go on to say "therefore, half the population are thieves and freeloaders." _>If you don't like it...go pay for an ad free service. Nobody deserves to get something for nothing."_ What you call "getting something for nothing" used to be just part of what was called "the cost of doing business." But anyway, "deserving" has nothing to do with it. Publishers can decide who gets to view their content (maybe by refusing adblockers) and users can decide what content they want to view (maybe even by paying for it). And more to the point, if a publisher decides that anyone, "freeloader" or not, can view their content, they can still use whatever tactics they want (including moral pressure with language about "stealing" and "deserving" and "something for nothing") to convince people to move from potential sources of revenue to actual sources of revenue. And users can decide whether or not to respond to those tactics. tl;dr: if a website needs its viewers more than its viewers need its content, complaining about the mean, naughty users is not very productive.

pdkl95 13y ago

So I'm sure you'll be reimbursing me for the bandwidth you unwanted, unasked for ads are using, right? Or are you going to insist on stealing my bandwidth? Do note that while your attempt to imply that there was some sort of contract or implicit agreement that required viewing of ads, the idea that you're stealing my bandwidth has some precedent: fax/cellphones/SMS. So keep pushing that nonsense - I'd love to see the laws restricting ads due to costing the recipient money/resources extended into other areas.