With The New York Times picking up the recent story of the (mostly minor) anti-Adblock Plus protest, its worth looking into the subject and seeing just where a Webmaster/ad-block developer arms race could take us.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
%20blockers?&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8601-10784_3-9770502-0.html?communityId%3D2066%26targetCommunityId%3D2061%26blogId%3D7){kind=small}
So tell me, do you go to the bathroom during commercial breaks when you're watching television? Or get a snack? Or channel surf? Or do you do the moral thing and watch every moment of every ad?
Chris, AdBlock Plus is not like Tivo. Tivo doesn't skip commercials for you. Also, the CSS link you provided detects IE, not useful in my case since I was trying to block FF, not allow only IE. RSnake's trick also doesn't work since Ad Block Plus disables detection of chrome elements directly related to AdBlock Plus. Theft of resources is illegal, and there is more than adequate legal precedent for AdBlock Plus to be found guilty of copyright infringement. EFF may not like the concept of copyrights (few Socialists do) but their article was only opinion, not legal advice, therefore not "proof" that this is an "unwinnable" arms race. Odd that in our phone conversation you continued to use that term and I continued to explain that it isn't about any sort of "arms race" yet you still used the term. Why interview someone if you're simply going to ignore the facts any write what you want?
Finally, a new block for AdBlock Plus has been found, so I am, for the time being, not blocking Firefox. Hopefully Wladimar Palant and the ABP filter writers have realized that their own ethics are now under scrutiny for their insistence on not allowing site owners to detect and block ABP. Even when it was allowed only a handful of sites bothered to do so, so hiding AdBlock Plus is more about pettiness than protecting people from "bad ads". Let' see if they will allow the block, or continue the pettiness.
Rubbish. When I surf web sites, I'm under no obligation to allow any of that site's content onto my computer unless I want to. That includes ad content, dirty words, ActiveX controls, or anything else served to my browser which is housed on my computer. My browser, my rules. If you put content on the web that is freely available to anyone typing in your URL, then you need to accept that once the pages are served and the content is sitting in someone's browser cache, you no longer control how that content is displayed. What you call stealing I call freedom of choice. There are, of course, certain limits; it's not permissible for someone to redistribute your copyrighted work without your permission, nor would it be OK for someone to hack into content you charge a subscription for accessing. But for freely available content, nobody is obligated to help you pay for your bandwidth or costs of publishing by viewing your ads or doing anything else.
Now it is perfectly valid for you to put ads on your pages, and it is also perfectly valid for you to block certain browsers. You absolutely have the right to control access to the content. But once the content is served, once the content has reached the host machine, the choice of how that content is displayed, or whether the content is displayed in whole or in part, is not yours to make. You are defining "stealing" as "I don't make any money if the ads aren't displayed, therefore those who choose not to accept the ads are stealing from me."
There are other options for you. Many blogs solicit donations from their readers, and if the content is valuable enough to them, then they may choose to donate money. Or if you think the content is valuable enough that people should be paying to read it, then put it behind a password-protected paid subscription firewall.
Either of those options are better for you than your current tack of alienating users of a certain browser simply because a small handful of people who are also using that browser choose to control what is and is not displayed on their monitor when they browse your site.
But as long as we're talking about it, you indicate that software that strips ads from sites is unethical and people who use such software are stealing. What is your stance on settings in browsers that block popups, or do not automatically load images? These seem like they would be similar enough to such software to merit comparison. From a hardware standpoint, and shifting the model to television, would the remote control be in that same league, because it allows a person to change the channel or mute the TV, thereby "blocking" the reception of ads.
The point of my earlier post was not to insult, but to merely point out that there are plenty of methods people can choose to use to avoid what they consider annoying, and that many of those methods are universally accepted as fine (no one, I would hope, would attempt to mandate a "no bathroom breaks" law.) When people start classifying some of these techniques as immoral, I wonder out loud why other techniques are not classified as such.
Whn an ad appears on a web page, it's a passive message that you are then completely free to ignore if you so wish. It doesn't force you to waste time. The amount of bandwidth it uses to download is inconsequencial since A. most broadband accounts have unmetered bandwidth and B. you are using the publisher's bandwidth to view his or her content.
That there are some ads that present an active "presence" (pop-ups, certain flash ads, etc.) does not excuse blocking all ads. It's not difficult to block pop-ups, nor to block Flash ads. Of course a more proactive response would be to take the time to complain, or simply note the site and not return. The shotgun approach to bad-ads fails to address any problem past your own nose, and creates problems for others.
My argument all along has been that all ad blocking software should be able to be recognized so those publishers which wish to restrict access to those visitors that are viewing ads, may do so.
Snarler, in context...
"In the end, a few things are clear: Users of advertisement-skipping technology are essentially engaged in theft of resources. Web site owners have not, yet, wrapped their Web sites in shrinkwrap contracts, and so while the ad-skipping may be immoral, it certainly isn't illegal."
The context denotes technology which skips advertising, not an individual chopice to skip and individual ad.
I find pop-ups annoying and note sites which use them, and avoid them. I still hesitate to go to any page at about.com because they were one of the worst pop-up abusers at one time. I intentionally do not click on pop-ups regardless of how intersting they may seem, becuase I don't want to reward unethical makreting tactics. An active approach to marketing produces results. A passive approach, such as ad blocking, is ineffective, becuase you build o negative image and therefore they turn to other methods, perhaps even more unethical. You don't solve bad behavior with bad behavior. If bad ads are unethcal, blocking good ads is not a valid solution.
Trting to equate the individual choice to not watch an individal ad with ad blocking is comparing apples to bricks. It's nowhere near a fair comparison.
Someone got greedy for our attention. Getting greedy tends to work out badly, in the end.
I do not watch TV channels that increase the decibel level of their commercial to a noticeably louder level. I do not visit websites more than once that push ads needlessly "in my face".
I have the right to find a way to stop unwanted media from entering my life? An advertiser wanting me to see an ad does not have the right to force me to view it. A website that makes it's money from ads will no doubt find a way to continue the push. As a consumer who is tired of the barrage of ads comming from everywhere I will use every means available to block "ALL ADS".
Morality? Where is the morality of the advertiser?
Those poor bastards who wrote that virus or spyware need to eat too?
To the writer: You are an unbelievable ignoramus.
- You (or your ad company) are not having to pay for the bandwidth to deliver them.
- I'm not wasting my time or paying for the bandwitdth to receive them.
If someone is paying you per impression, work with someone else. They know their ads are crappy already.
Personally, I use AdBlock Plus, but I don't subscribe to any lists of domains to block.
As soon as I am irritated by ad an (content covering, pop ups, have sound, do anything on cursor-over, blink rapidly or shake), I block the entire domain from which it originated, on the basis that any company willing to send crappy ads like that doesn't deserve my business.
Let's have a look at the advert hosted on Danny's page, for SpywareBot. This is a typical internet forum question regarding the product:
'I accidentally downloaded SpywareBOT thinking I was getting Spybot Search&Destroy. When they wanted money to remove the results of their scan, I realized my mistake and declined. However, their software is still on my computer. It pops up at startup and preforms scans on its own at inappropriate times. Does anyone know how to get rid of it?'
This product employs two 'unethical marketing tactics': the name of the product plays on the name of an established and well-respected product, and the program pops up warnings of spyware infestation and demands money. (The more disreputable of anti-spyware aps will do this even on a clean system; others grossly exaggerate any infection. While it's true that some legitimate products like Spyware Doctor and Spy Sweeper will detect but not remove malware in a trial version, running unrequested scans and popping up warnings is simply a scare tactic: I am also extremely doubtful that a program recently listed as a rogue product at Spyware Warrior is going to have effective spyware detection or removal capabilities.)
Danny Carlton is not being honest: he not only rewards unethical marketing tactics, he attempts to profit from them by hosting such an unethical ad on his page. Anyone naive enough to purchase the product he advertises will most likely come to feel they have been robbed, and a part of the profit from that robbery is ending up in Danny's pocket.
- by harrytheboy September 25, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
- help i am 80yrs old and just started on this computer lark and need help to stop the following from popping
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)and forcing me to read it, and telling me what it will cost if i carrying on installing it, when i did not want it in the first place. WINDOWS WARNING MESSAGER
WIN/32ADWARE VIRTUMODE DANGER
WIN/PRIVACY REMOVER M64 DANGER
THERE IS NO PLACE TO CLICK OFF, AND WHERE THEY DO TELL YOU TO CLICK OFF YOU CANT.
my Bullgard protection is working OK, so why cant i get rid of it, can any one contact me at.
irihar77@ntlworld.com and tell a old wrinkley how to do it harrytheboy