Straight G, out on a robbin’ spree
| Posted by Chill on 28 Feb 2008 at 12:12 pm |
I just don’t get this idea that many website operators have that blocking ads is “stealing” from them.
Look, when I visit your website, I didn’t sign any contract that says I have to do anything in particular. I am in no way obligated to view your obnoxious ads. I understand completely that your website, like many others, depends on ads for revenue. I don’t care. I have no interest in being marketed to, cajoled into consumerism, insulted by unexpected sounds, and otherwise annoyed by asinine affixations found on your page.
If there were some way to fund deserving website by micropayments, I’d gladly sign up for that. For example, if I were charged $0.02 every time I visited Ars Technica (one of the worst whiners, link goes to a comment of one of the prime whiners), I’d sign up for this in a heartbeat. Why micropayments haven’t taken off yet, I have no idea, as ads are just not a good model for most of the Internet. Don’t get me wrong; I do want to support sites that I like. I learn much from them, and depend on them for many things in my life. However, I will not view ads, ever, if I can help it.
I truly hate that, taking the lead of the RIAA, many people are asserting that anytime anyone does something unexpected or that they do not like with their product, that someone is “stealing” from them.
That’s some heinous high-horse those people are riding upon.
These same website operators who complain about people blocking their crappy ads are probably going home and fast-forwarding through the commercials on shows they’ve got on their TiVo — which I don’t have a problem with. What I do have a problem with, obviously, is the hypocrisy. If blocking ads is stealing, an idea that I find utterly laughable for so many reasons, then not watching commercials (or even changing channels when a show goes to commercial — no way those Turd Fergusons can tell me they’ve never done that) is also stealing.
I haven’t seen an ad on the Interent in several months now, nor will I start. Don’t like that, try to block me, if you can. (Hint: You can’t.)
But don’t call me a fucking thief because of your dumbass, broken business model. Don’t even go there; think of a better business model or close your ad-infested site. Calling me a thief just makes me just want to write a script that loops wget -m and point it at your page all day from the various IP addresses I have access to.
Update: This is a rant blog. I’d never do the above action with wget, as, first of all, it’s not worth my time. It was just a dark thought caused by being called a thief.
Well said and I couldn’t agree more. I hate ad infested websites and block everything ad related using FireFox & AdBlocker Plus.
-Dave
I’m afraid I’m with the advertisers on this one… I run ABP in firefox and love it but i respect a sites right to block my access if they choose.
Blocking ads may not be ’stealing’ but it is certainly breaking the sites Terms Of Service. I would think someone with a blog dedicated to criticizing capitalism would know better than to have the retailer assume blame for withholding services simply because the consumer doesn’t approve of the business model.
CJS,
I don’t sign any contract when I visit a site. Do you?
I get to control what hits my eyeballs. Do you think I should be required to look at billboard when I’m driving down the highway? To look at catalogs that direct mailers send to my house? (Which, by the way, is far, far more expensive than running a website, doing direct mailing.)
Sorry. If it’s on my computer, I get to control it. End of story.
The problem is that you and everyone else are not going to join a 100 websites that charge $10 a year to use. Blocking ads are not stealing and you are free to do so. But bandwidth costs money. If you like a site, you should click on an ad or two that interest you to support the site instead of bitching.
Blocking ads isn’t stealing, nor is it immoral. Those who go to the trouble of blocking advertisements tend not to be the ones who would click on an ad or, once said ad is clicked on, purchase the product advertised.
But DDOSing a site is immoral, and can be illegal. Shame on you for suggesting it. It absolutely ruins what could otherwise been a decent argument.
The revenues earned by a web site for displaying ads is based on the sites traffic statistics, not how many people actually view the ad(s).
Even a pay per click model is only a potential revenue to the hosting site.
If blocking adds is stealing, who is the victim?
I don’t think it is stealing!
If i could develop eyeglasses that would digitally block out any known advertisements in front of my eyes, then would i still be stealing? Nazz has the right idea though.. just click a few every now and then.. they get micropayments for those clicks. ;)
Dan Hulton,
I didn’t suggest that anyone, including myself, DDOS a site. I said it “made me want to,” which is quite a different thing.
I’ve never done that, nor would I ever. First of all, it’s not worth my time. Second, have you never had any dark thoughts that you haven’t acted on, and had no intention of acting on?
If you say you haven’t, I know you’re not telling the truth. This is a rant blog, not a PhD thesis. As such, it has many rants, this one included.
The only thing I can tell you, there is a service coming where they’ll pay you .50 cents to a dollar if you watch their ads and they will put that money into your debit card. No catches. Watch as many ads as you’d like, get your money. You can make at least 30 bucks a month. Hell, give me a dollar per ads and I’ll watch/read them all day long!!
I will keep you posted once it’s launched. maybe you like making money on the side
Certainly I have dark thoughts I don’t act on. But I also don’t blog about them like they’re reasonable. It detracts from the strength of your argument.
For example, would you consider seriously the political ideas of a pundit who ends an article about the troubles caused by George Bush with “and sometimes I’d like to shoot that guy in the head”?
For the record, looping wget is not DDOS. DDOS by definition requires distributed clients.
So, what if I’m not using adblock or other browser based ad blocking schemes and I have a 26000+ line /etc/hosts file that says more ad serving sites are 127.0.0.1?
Most people don’t host their own ads, and they come from these various ad hosts. I haven’t seen too many ads in 8+ years ;)
I totally agree. Not loading any content is the end users option. I block ads because I refuse to load most javascript files. I am doing this because I know how evil javascript can be and only allow certain known sites. If you use javascript to display your ads I block them.
I have no problem with image based ads like on the side of TechCrunch. I have taken no steps to block them, they are decent ads and add a bit of value to the site.
A 26000 lined hosts file will dramatically increase your system startup time and memory costs. All that is held in memory and you will likely experience an overall slower browsing system on every single dns lookup. A far better method is just to use an adblock file with regex/lists.
I’m an online ad and I’m really getting a kick out of these replies…
Wouldn’t it also be stealing to click on an ad when you have no intention of buying?
I forgot that there used to be advertisements on the Internet. If I had a rant blog I’d have posted something along these lines too.
Anyone who doesn’t agree: http://sennoma.net/main/edits/Hicks.html
This is a stupid argument.
No, blocking ads is not stealing. But if a site decides to block your access to their site, its perfectly acceptable. Just like you block ads, they can block you. Its a fair exchange.
Now, suggesting DDOS’ing a site just because it blocks access to ad blockers is both childish and criminal. I will be reporting you to your web host.
Have a great fucking day douche bag.
Ars Technica has 2 ads on a page. How is that an infestation? What is so wrong with you that you cannot ignore adverts?
And for the record: you do agree to a contract every time you enter a website, the terms of service agreement.
Steve,
I wasn’t referring just to Ars Technica, merely about their perpetual whinging about ad blocking.
Terms of service have never been proven to be legally enforceable for general access websites, and as such, I treat them to be just as valuable as the paper they are printed on.
When I sign a contract, then that means something to me. Terms of service in this context is meaningless.
But, first and foremost, no one can force me to download something that I don’t want to.
It’s my computer, not theirs; if they want my money, think of a better business model, the outlines of which I hinted at in the selfsame post.
I am glad to support the sites I like. But I will not deal with ads.
So what if I view a website with Lynx (text only web browser)… is that stealing as well?
Cheers for your article. I agree 100%.
Hey “Doesn’t matter” — Paying people to see ads does not work. Talk about broken business plans! It immediately leads to a proliferation of bots that pretend to be human users. The bots “browse” and “click” like humans would, and quickly rack up lots of ad views/clicks. Advertisers subsequently lose confidence in the system. Any business that tries this will quickly go out of business. AllAdvantage, Agloco, the recent past is littered with examples.
I just don’t get this idea that running out on the bill is “stealing” from restaurants.
Look, when I visit your restaurant, I didn’t sign any contract that says I have to do anything in particular. I am in no way obligated to view your obnoxious bill. I understand that your restaurant, like many others, depends on billing people for revenue. I don’t care.
I truly hate that, taking the lead of the NRA, many people are asserting that anytime anyone does something unexpected or that they do not like with their food, that someone is “stealing” from them.
Don’t call me a fucking thief because of your dumbass, broken business model. Don’t even go there; think of a better business model or close your bill-infested restaurant.
Congrats to Millstone for coming up with an actual good counterargument to my post rather than name calling, always an effective argumentative technique.
Here’s where Millstone’s argument fails, though: When I go to a restaurant, I go there with the intention of getting food, and paying for the privilege.
When I go to a website, I do not go there with the intention of getting ads, and paying for them with my bandwidth, time and annoyance.
@Millstone: what if a waiter we’re to try to sell you something from Home Depot or Target 5 times during your meal?
What if his sales method consisted of something like this: “HEY MILLSTONE!@!@! BUY THIS@!# CHECK THIS OUT IT’S FOR REAL! YOU’RE THE 100000TH VISTOR TO THIS RESTAURANT AND YOU’VE WON A FREE GLASS OF MILK!!!!”
Would not not kick (read: wget -m) the guy in the junk (read: webserver) and leave the restaurant (read:site)?
.. And what if it we’re a fantastic restaurant and there was a hat you could wear that would make that guy leave you alone?
That’s what I thought.
Agree. Completely. For years I was forced to watch obnoxious ads, flashing wildly or whatever to get my attention. Then I discovered AdBlock. Haven’t put up with an ad, obnoxious or otherwise, since.
No one can or should force me to look at their freakin’ ads. What I load onto my own screen is my choice. If the provider decides to block me for that reason, so be it and fukk’em.
It’s not a coincidence that a major weekly magazine recently (this week) listed WhineyHieny Ars as one of the five most over-rated sites on the internet. Just a matter of time before they’re gone. Guess that what drives all the whining.
Hey, if the food is shit, I should have the right to walk away from the Bill. I also should have the right to slander the restaurant for feeding me crap.
Anyone defending capitalism should be shot.
Hey Chill,
You’ve also made your own argument fail there as well. Someone who visits a restaurant already thinking the bill is an annoyance because they never signed a contract is likely not at the restaurant with the full intention of paying either. Just because your mind set is such, doesn’t mean the argument fails my friend.
Your analogy is a little off. Fast forwarding tivo ads isn’t the same, because with TV, you have no choice but to view these ads. On a website you can simply ignore them, and continue reading/watching the content that is already there.
No, I don’t think that blocking ads is stealing. But I think that letting them load is a common courtesy. Chances are the website in question has provided you some form of entertainment, and your visit to the site has cost them some (albeit fractional) form of bandwidth and CPU processing.
You probably weren’t going to click them in the first place, and that’s fine. But letting them load at least provides more impressions, which is still good for the site to report to their publisher.
I never said it was a spectacular business model, but it’s the best we have right now. I do not see microtransactions working, at all. The internet should be free and open. Back to your TV example- would you want to be charged 2 cents each time you changed the channel? I wouldn’t. We already pay for the service of being able to view channels (or sites), do we really need to pay on a per-capita basis? There are many young internet users who browse the internet and don’t have credit cards to setup microtransactions- such a thing would have to be integrated at the ISP level, where they are charged alongside the service itself.
You can block my ads, I don’t really care- plenty of people do, but I still make money. And if the business model collapses, something will replace it. If a site is drenched in ads, don’t go to it. All I’m saying is that letting the ads load is such a simple task. Is having a sponsored section of a website viewable to your delicate eyes really going to kill you?
Millstone’s argument is fallacious. The comparison made would only work when talking about a paid membership website. The argument in general is more suited toward comparisons with those free magazines on the rack at most grocery stores. Or, really, like TIVO users fast forwarding through the commercials. How dare they, right?
Look, if you have an unwavering expectation of making money from your website, and think it is worth the money you expect to make, then charge for it. If you’re going to serve ads, live with the fact that some people are going to block them. Kind of ironic that this manner of argument is taking place at the same time that so many web services are going for the freemium model, and many newspapers are switching to showing their articles free of charge online.
That said, I don’t block ads. And I don’t block visitors who block them, either.
Steal: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
The only possible argument for theft is that you are “taking” some of their bandwidth. What does web hosting cost again? About $7 for 2,000 GB per month easy? So if viewing the website used a GB of Bandwidth (Wow) you stole about a third of a penny… being VERY generous with the definition of stealing. So at a GB a visit (Again, wow) you would have to have approximately 1500 visits without making a single cent to cost roughly $5.25. I’m sorry, but if your business model is that bad, give up.
I didn’t sign anything saying I wouldn’t call you a selfish dick so: you’re a selfish dick.
I also enjoy drinking all my friends beer while at their house… you know, ’cause I didn’t sign anything.
I suppose you’re looking forward to more embedded advertising (i.e. the star wears Nike) or less content. And, this is your problem, not the websites. If everyone did this – there’d be no free websites and we could look forward to really fun shopping carts 24/7.
Grow up.
the best ad blocking out there
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
“You can use a HOSTS file to block ads, banners, 3rd party Cookies, 3rd party page counters, web bugs, and even most hijackers. This is accomplished by blocking the connection(s) that supplies these little gems.”
I’M STEALING…!? Websites hijack MY equipment to display their commercial messages without my permission and when I block them I’m “stealing!?” Damn right! I’m taking back control of the equipment I paid for!
Are you so mentally weak that merely seeing an advertisement will force you to open up your wallet and buy something you don’t otherwise need? Do you think people don’t offer free services in ads? Did you ever think that advertisements that pay .01 or .02 per display ARE a form of micropayments?
If you really wanted to contribute that penny or two, you could let the ads run and ignore them. Probably not, you’re too busy being self-righteous to realize the absurdity of your argument. Enjoy your undeserved sense of superiority – someone has to.
I totally agree with Dr. Anon. These sites start out with 1 or 2 ads and then next thing you know it just takes over the whole webpage.
Like http://www.tuxme.com/ is a great example of one of these lame websites. I enjoyed reading it and then they started forcing it down your throat and redirecting you to the advertisers sites.
What is really lame is that they just rip off other peoples RSS feeds. When greed takes over as a business model those people shouldn’t be surprised when their traffic takes a nose dive, because if we can’t ban the majority of ads being forced on us then we will just stop coming to their site, like I did with Tuxme.
Couldn’t we have an option in Adblock Plus that invisibly “clicks” the ads behind the scene, just to let these websites get their money without bothering the users?
“If everyone did this – there’d be no free websites.”
And that would be a problem… why?
I run a website that relies on a $10 per month service charge to get access to all the articles. As a writer and someone trying to develop a community, I hate it. It’s exclusionary… we want everyone to be able to read our stuff. Among other things, it would make it harder for bloggers and so-called legit reporters to steal our scoops if they’re available for everyone to read instead of a select few.
Then again, I’d hate throwing pop-up/under or rollover ads at people as well.
People complain about the subscription-based model. They complain about ad-based models. The only reason they don’t complain about micropayments is that they don’t exist to complain about.
The expectation has been set that the internet is a vast reservoir of something-for-nothing. If you try to monetize your efforts, in any fashion, it will rub someone the wrong way. This is just an example. I read this and all the comments, but found no answers.
Here’s the deal.
I agree that sites plastered with 50 ads, where half are animated and making noises… those need to be blocked.
There are sites out there, though, who would like to provide a service for free. But the problem is that it’s not free is it? It costs somebody money.
Now, the internet used to be all about being open and sharing information, etc. How can it be open and shared if everyone blocked off their content and instead decided to charge for access? Are you going to block any form of someone making a buck off of you?
You’re using the resource… if you want to be fair about it then install a plugin that redirects you to your homepage if advertising is detected. That way you’re not using as many resources. Oh, don’t like that idea? I didn’t think so.
Here’s something you don’t understand. People like you think that since you don’t like banner advertising you’ll never click on an ad, so what does it hurt to have it blocked? This is a bullshit argument. Nobody thinks they’ll click on an ad. It’s that one “gotcha” every 10,000 people that gets me a few cents.
If that’s too much for you and you’re looking for a free ride, then fuck off. You’re not wanted on the internet.
As an aside, if I want you to see ads, there’s not a damn thing on the planet that will stop me from serving them to you. It’s going to take more than your crappy firefox plugin. The truth of the matter is that right now, ad blockers aren’t a serious problem. If you want to block ads on skinnyr, my weight tracking graph site, fair enough (for now). But as you can see, I can even advertise on your own page without your permission.
And feel free to “wget” me. Not only do I know exactly who is responsible, but I’ll use the traffic stats to sell ads at a higher price. I didn’t have a problem about your immature, baseless rant until you decided to preemptively threaten anyone with your “various IP addresses”. Everyone online thinks they’re a hacker… shit is pathetic nowdays.
“And that would be a problem… why?”
Because it’s the basis of the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t use it… and I’m referring to the free sites that have ads on them.
Tasteless ad filled sites, I can agree with. However, for some of us a single banner ad isn’t asking too much.
I started blocking ads when they used to fake windows boxes, and put various error messages in to make you download spyware. Since then, it’s adblock all the way, and I recommend to everyone.
WRONG
The revenue is based on those ads tracking their own impressions(views).
Site traffic stats and ad traffic stats are two separate things.
They’re close, but not the same.
“Dick
The revenues earned by a web site for displaying ads is based on the sites traffic statistics, not how many people actually view the ad(s).
Even a pay per click model is only a potential revenue to the hosting site.
If blocking adds is stealing, who is the victim?
I don’t think it is stealing!”
You’re a hypocrite, because I guarantee you if starting tomorrow sites started charging micropayments to view them, you would use some kind of blocker to avoid all sites that require micropayments.
HINT: AD’s *ARE* micropayments and you are avoiding them.
If we could throw a switch tomorrow on the internet so that all websites automatically accepted micropayments, then you would bitch about that too, and you would bitch about sites that CHARGE TOO MUCH.
This stuff costs money. Blocking AD’s is the equivalent of pulling over in your car and spray painting the huge billboard on your block with black paint. Legal??? No its not.
The fact that you can use Ad block is nothing more than a technicality that allows you to spray paint the billboard without getting caught or arrested. Its immoral because it robs people of their revenue who have put a lot of time and money into building websites.
So I presume that when they block your browser for not viewing ads, you have no problem with that either, since it is also their choice whether to blip data over to you? This is the natural extension of the whole ad-based support model, and it will happen.
Dave,
My whole point was that I would gladly use micropayments, but I will not view ads. Read it again.
Akatsuki,
I think the ad-based model is doomed in the long run for most content, so I doubt it will happen — and if it does, not for very long.
Ok listen up. Everybody that thinks there HAVE to be ads and page viewers HAVE to see them for the internet to function, shut the hell up. Believe it or not, there was an Internet before Google put it’s Ad Sense dick in it’s mouth. There will be an Internet, with free access sites even if Google, MS, and every ad site in the world goes belly up.
People used to put things on the internet because they were genuinely interested in sharing information. The bandwidth is cheap and as technology improves will only get cheaper. In the WORST case scenario people host there own sites, costs go down, and MAYBE they limit the number of visitors so that Digg doesn’t send hundreds of thousands of people to their site just because they’re bored. Or you can keep Google’s dick firmly planted in your mouth… maybe you like that?
A couple people said it, but it bears repeating: If you’re suggesting “just click the ads a couple times” even though you have no intention of purchasing a product, you’re promoting “stealing” from the advertisers. And they’re paying *real* money to run those ads, not just fractions of a penny in bandwidth for each page load.
Some of the top Adwords phrases cost upwards of $50/click. Think “personal injury lawyer” or “student loan refinancing” (yeah, really, that one). Now clicking on *those* with no intention of buying is still not *stealing*, but it’s far more expensive to *someone* than looking at a page with ads blocked…
By the way, actual eye tracking usasge data shows that most people don’t even look at the ads on a webpage. Is *that* stealing?
Check http://preview.tinyurl.com/6etbkg — if that link is blocked, Google “Washington Post Homepage eyetools” to see an actual eyetools analysis of how people look at the Washington Post Homepage. Not a lot of focus on those shiny advertisements, is there? They must have used a bunch of THIEVES as their test users when doing this analysis, huh?
I don’t block ads, except Flash — those lowermybills ads bring my older computer to its knees. But… yeah, I definitely don’t really “see” them all that often, either.
“ads are just not a good model for most of the Internet”
Hilarious. Ever heard of this small company called Google? Or do they get to be one of the sliver of sites for which, in your estimation, advertising is a good model?
I’ve seen this argument time after time. It’s traditionally made by people who have little idea how revenue on the internet actually works.
The fact is, most of the internet is ad-supported. That means Ars Technica and thousands of useful sites like it exist solely because their advertising covers their hosting and development costs.
This also means that if everyone took your advice and either switched business models or closed down, many of the sites you use all the time would simply go away. Some of them would be able to diversify. But most wouldn’t, because there isn’t a revenue model that works. This leaves us all with a bunch of crappy free sites made by hobbyists for fun and a few subscription sites you have to pay to see.
Here’s the shorter version of what you’re saying:
“The very thing that makes most of the internet worth people’s time and effort is broken. I will continue to reap the benefits, but I will not take part in the process.”
So block ads all you want. But stop acting like the system is broken just because you have trouble overlooking them.
“If you don’t like it, don’t use it…”
James Thomas is either an idiot or a fool or booth. If you knew how the Internet worked, you’d know it’s not possible to know ahead of time whether a website or service uses ads. Once there, there’s no choice but to consume the crappy images onto my hard disk, clogging my network because you just decide to stuff down the pipe before I can see and decide whether I want it or not. On top of that, many websites use nefarious means to force ads onto my screen.
How about some useful suggestions instead of “it’s the basis of the Internet”. If you knew the “basis”, you’d never be talking about ads. You’d not be asking end users to subsidize web sites.
Go find a good basic economics course and learn the principles of commerce. And next time you say Internet is for commerce, remember it was my taxes that paid for the R&D that begat the net in the first place.
No ads here either; guess I qualify to join the Thieves Guild….
Take a look at Google. No go look a Yahoo.
Which one is ad infested and which one isn’t?
Which one is failing…and which one is going through the roof?
As long you don’t complain when I make my ads look like content then I won’t accuse you of stealing if manage to block my ads. Deal?
Bravo! Thank you for saying this!
I used to believe that adblocking was evil. I thought it would bring an end to the “free” web.
But the ads kept getting more and more obtrusive. First pop-ups. Then pop-unders. Then animated, flashing GIFs. Then flash – with *sound*!
I couldn’t take it anymore. First I used a local /etc/hosts file to direct the worst to localhost. Then came Adblock. Then Adblock Plus!
I love it. I’ll never go back. I’m sorry, advertisers, but you pissed me off enough that I had no choice.
I’ll do micropayments. I donate to sites I like (that have a donate button). But I’ll never look at those god-awful ads again.
I agree that they shouldn’t call you a thief, however, if you have the right to block their ads, they have the right to block you from accessing their site. I don’t beleive it is currently necessary or worth the trouble as a publisher, but it may be someday. Also, I doubt micropayments will be viable in the near future, or ever.
Both sides have convincing arguments. Both sides seem to have common ground as well: Sites that have one or two small test based ads are not bothersome while sites with audio ads, flashing ads, javascript ads or sites with lots of ads are annoying and can be block with a clean conscious.
The users try to fix this problem with software to protect them from these annoying ads, it just also happens to have the side effect of also blocking the ones we wouldn’t mind being there.
The content providers try to fix this problem by telling the users to change their process (not visiting sites with too many/annoying ads). There are two problems with this approach though. 1) Users already have a fix that suits their needs, even if they sorta feel bad for preventing income for sites with reasonable advertising. 2) Users cannot be expected to know ahead of time which sites will contain ads that they would like to block.
What it boils down to is that its the responsibility of the content provider to provide a better solution or adjust their model. Perhaps the short term solution is to deny access to the content if the advertisements are blocked, but a better idea is needed in the long term and the users sure as heck aren’t gonna lose any sleep over it.
I was thinking along the same lines as Arthur: add an option to ABP to automate the process of loading, and clicking on ads in the background. It could even be smart about it: keep a list of interesting keywords, and only load/virtually click on those ads that you would have an interest in, if only you hadn’t decided that you prefer not to be interrupted while reading/learning. Perhaps it could even collect the ads, and display a sort of “This blog/article sponsored by:” page when you reach the end of the article (and want to see what you’re automated assistant ad viewer has kept from you). That way, you’ve met any obligations you may or may not have. And as an added bonus, now you’ve used to wonders of computer automation to take care of yet another unpleasant task.
hah. check out all these pissed-off losers who financed their car with banner ads. nice.
You are correct. You are free to block ads on my website. I am also free to block you from accessing my website.
You see, the traffic stats my advertisers see only cover people who view the ads (regardless of whether anyone clicks the ads). I get paid for “page views,” not “ad clicks.”
If you’re not loading the ads, then to me you are a parasite that serves only to leach bandwidth required to serve you my content.
So kindly take no offense if you find yourself unable to access my website.
The bottom line is adblock exists because the advertisers went too far. Flash ads, blinking, animation, and even sounds. That’s not even mentioning pop-ups, pop-unders, and malicious scripts that install malware onto your computer.
If I’m reading an article and a strobe light is flashing orange and green into my eyes from off to the right, I can’t read. I’m sorry. Call me a thief, or whatever you want, but the fact is YOU are the one who broke the trust. If your ads were sensible (read: static images) it would not be worth the effort to block them. But that wasn’t good enough for you. You had go go all firehose-in-the-face on me. Since I have no way to predict which websites will do that, I choose to just use adblock. Then I don’t have to worry about it.
Now. If you want things to change, you are going to have to tone down your ads and make them less intrusive. Period.
The way I look at it, if there’s ads, I’ve got selective blindness. They gain nothing, even if I block the ads…
Also, I really dislike going to my favorite sites and on the banner ad or something, by some sad mistake of algorithms, I get a porn ad that’s blinking in my face, VERY LOUDLY…with voice even.
A middle ground!
I will view your ads, if you pay me for the bandwidth it takes to look at them. I’ll tell you what.. I’ll “look” at your ads all day! Imagine the money you will make!
Otherwise.
quit crying. It’s *my* bandwidth and *my* computer, and I will damn well do as I please with it.
Here’s why micropayments aren’t taking off:
If you use Visa or Mastercard, you as the “merchant” are charged 35 cents, plus 2 to 5% of the transaction. This is true if you’re a website, a store operator, a restaurant owner or a mobile locksmith.
So effectively, your 2 cent “tip” to the site nets the merchant negative-32 cents.
Then again, a $1 transaction nets the merchant anywhere from 60 to 63 cents.
1. “I did not sign a contract”: If you prefer, we can set up a system where you have to acknowledge a EULA every time you visit a site – however, I like the arrangement we have now, where we just assume that if you don’t want to see the ads, you will go get your content elsewhere. You also didn’t sign a contract with anyone you randomly meet, but that doesn’t mean you just go up and be an asshole to them. Blocking ads is at best unethical and rude, and at worst, possibly illegal.
2. “Think of a better business model”: Really? Is that really your answer. I don’t think the per-issue business model is good for the local paper, so I go steal them from the homeless guy on the corner every day. I truly hope you are more intelligent than to push that as a response to the legitimate question of ad-blocking’s ethics.
3. Why not micropayments: Because they are not feasible. The transaction costs will always cost more than the payment itself. Who cares though? This is not a model that is offered. You have a choice between accepting the service and payment, or rejecting both. You do not have the option to take the service and avoid the payment. That is, without question, without doubt, unethical.
4. It is my bandwidth: It is just as much their bandwidth too. You are sucking down content from their server which they pay for as well. Sorry, but this is about the worst argument I have ever heard.
5. It is like the RIAA: No, it isn’t. Webmasters aren’t suing college kids left and right for using Ad-Block, or trying to shut down Ad-block altogether. For every Ars Technica, there are tens of thousands of smaller publishers who are getting screwed left and right. You are the guy who sneaks in the back of the club to avoid paying the cover required to listen to the band you like.
6. Fast forwarding through commercials: This argument would make sense if you were paying a monthly subscription to these webmasters to watch their content. Unfortunately, television “royalties” are akin to pay-per-impression advertising, which Ad-Block blocks as well. Moreover, television places advertising directly into the show itself via the products characters are using – if you like, webmasters like myself can start stuffing advertising directly into our posts which we wrote using THE WORLDS BEST BLOG SOFTWARE, WHICH YOU CAN GET HERE FOR $9.95.
Face it, you are wrong. You are unethical for blocking ads. That is ok, but at least be a man and own up to what you are doing. Your excuses are embarrassingly weak and contrived.
Hello, i am not aware at ho well it works, but there is a micropayment website called http://tipjoy.com/ I just found about it on Paul Graham’s site
James Thomas – As our host says, ads don’t have to be “the basis of the Internet.” People would be willing to do micropayments that would add up to just as much or more income than the ads they’d replace.
So, let me get this straight.
I’ve been stealing since the my family got their first television because we turned the sound down (a lot of the time) during the show? Then continued to steal by using my remote to mute the ads? And now I’m still stealing because I don’t look at the ads in the newspaper? And not looking at the ads in the magazines, even though they are full-page ads? And still a thief because I don’t look at the ads on websites or even (gasp) get AdBlock.
It seems that in each of these cases, the advertisers are hoping I will look, and that by looking I will become interested and buy their product. But it’s a gamble on their product and their salesmanship. They’re betting that a certain percentage of the viewers will by the product, I’m betting I won’t be one of the buyers. TV, being sound and moving picture, demands even harder that I see and hear, that I notice them. Pretty soon everybody knows exactly where that mute button is.
Where in this long tale did become a thief?
They wouldn’t be thinking about making me buy the product would they? Or giving a testimonial?
If you want to get mad at someone for blocking ads, you should be mad at the website operators that put so many ads on the page that everyone is annoyed at looking at them.
People didn’t go to all the trouble to write ad blockers because of 1 or 2 ads on a site. They did it because over half the sites you go to are so cluttered by ads that you can’t stand to look at them. People install the ad blockers because of the same sites. If your angry that people are blocking your ads (and your not one of the abusive sites) get angry at the ones causing the problem.
“Congratulations! You’ve won an iPod”
“Sorry. If it’s on my computer, I get to control it. End of story.”
If it is on their server, they get to control it. If they don’t want to give you content because you block ads – so be it. End of story.
If they start making us pay for bandwidth in the US I may start logging advertisement content/downloads and then sue the advertisers for my expenses. Because it’s like they are siphoning my gasonline from my car, forcing me to buy more.
I agree. But, why block harmless unobtrusive text ads?
DMac,
I would have no problem if sites refused service to me if they knew I blocked ads. With the amount of geeks that block ads, most of those sites would shrivel up and die shortly thereafter anyways.
A geek site taking a hold stance such as that should also be fully prepared to close up shop and leave –or– change their business model.
Personally, I don’t mind Google ads — they aren’t invasive however because most other advertisers don’t follow such such rules, I have to choose to block none of them or block all of them. Guess which one I’m going to pick?
If the site is so important, they need to have fund raisers like Wikipedia and accept donations on some schedule. That is, of course, if they feel their content is worth it. Ars is worth it. Many other sites are not.
Changing a business model doesn’t mean ’stop trying to make money’ it just means ‘find another way’. Too many people don’t want to change. Much like the RIAA. We have the tech to pretty much exclude them — they better choose wisely and quickly which path to take. Moral or immoral — people will find a way to get rid of crap that is annoying.
I feel we are missing the point. The primary reason that ad supported business models don’t work is that the ads themselves are ineffective. James Thomas said it all “It’s that one “gotcha” every 10,000 people that gets me a few cents.” This all came about because advertisements are so ineffective that sites started placing more and more ads per page in hopes of increasing click through. This is why AdSense is what it is. Instead of number of ads, Google focuses on targeting ads to what the viewer is looking at. I don’t mind seeing an advertisement for Intel processors when I am reading an article about processor density in the datacenter. I might even be moved enough by the article to click on the Intel ad. But when I am reading an article about green computing on Ars Technica and are presented with an ad for GM Trucks… I am a little annoyed but also amused at the irony. So in short, instead of more ads, we need better, relevant ads. Then this whole issue may go away.
So that my position is clear. When I use Firefox, I use AdBlock. When I use Safari, I avoid sites that have more then 1 or 2 ads per a page or place ads in annoying spots like the middle of an article. The bigger problem for the news sites I visit regularly is that I don’t visit them at all. I catch up with RSS and usually don’t see any graphics at all or even visit the site. Is this “steeling” too? How absurd a notion.
I do think the ad supported web site in its current form is a flawed business model if you are out to make millions/billions of dollars. I also think that equating ad blocking to steeling is flawed logic. I also think it is deplorable for sites that “syndicate” or “consolidate” other peoples blog articles to mention any word related to theft.
The bitter truth in the digital age is that if you don’t want people to see it, don’t put it on the web. Further, if you can’t afford to give it away for free… don’t put it on the web.
There is more value to web ads then people give them credit for. When you place ads in a news paper, you have no idea when a person sees it until they inquire or purchase what your are pushing. They also have to call or visit your store. On a web site, You know exactly how many people were intrigued enough to click on the ad and there is a single step involved to allow them to find out more information and potentially purchase an item. This provides a proven metric of ad success that is not available in traditional media. There is value to this that is forgotten. I don’t think advertisers and sites that display their ads use this metric enough and I use the continuous flow of ineffective ads as support for this argument. This contributes to less revenue for the site operator and more tendency to increase the number of ads.
There is a paradigm shift in advertisement in progress. Not just web but TV, radio and I suspect every other form of advertisement. The internet brought a wealth of information. I don’t have to rely on some coked up celebrity or steroid-using-rapist-athlete to endorse a product to convince me it is good. I go to the net and find reviews from real people that tell me it is good… aka Amazon. This goes double for corporate, mine-is-bigger-better-faster-than-yours advertising.
I have no problem with an ad supported business model. But don’t expect me to do everything within my power to ignore/avoid your obnoxious ads. Maybe if you didn’t try so hard to get my attention, you could show me what I want to see…
The rest of the web should take a hint from Amazon and Google, and others that “get it,” as to how to increase click-through and sales. Sorry for the long winded post.
You are all crackpots. Websites don’t have adverts anymore.
But don’t expect me *not* to do everything within my power to ignore/avoid your obnoxious ads
I think there is a problem here. There are two sides of the extreme here. One side is pushing lots of annoying ads and demands that visitors swallow them all. The other side is refusing any and all ads. I think both sides would benefit if webmasters agreed to some sort of standards among ads, and the users agreed not to block them.
Its fine, we will all have to pay per content as soon as the revenue model is perfected. Like how many news organizations do it… “a little for free- pay for the rest”. Or content channels like the cable company does it. I personally rather have annoying ads with free content but if everyone is willing to pay $.05 for each page they visit or every time they use google maps, so be it. Its kind of naive to think you can still get content without ads. Hosting, bandwidth and programmers don’t grow on trees. I am personally tooling up to charge for most content and have a little content for free. Welcome to not free internet.
[...] by Chill on 11 Apr 2008 at 09:00 am | Tagged as: Uncategorized One of my old rants got 15,000 hits in the past 24 hours, mostly from [...]
“I think there is a problem here. There are two sides of the extreme here. One side is pushing lots of annoying ads and demands that visitors swallow them all. The other side is refusing any and all ads. I think both sides would benefit if webmasters agreed to some sort of standards among ads, and the users agreed not to block them.”
I think as a fair amount have mentioned, they don’t mind unobtrusive targeted ads. I personally run Safari, but I beg for the day when I can block the highly obnoxious ads. It’s certainly telling by statements who runs a site and who doesn’t. I’ll take a google adword or something but if I get a noisy ad or a pop up/under I’m more likely to block all of it because of a few bad apples.
Okay, here’s the deal. I have ADHD. Pretty colors and shiny object distract me. It’s a neurological disorder, I can’t help it.
If I choose to block those stupid, annoying, flashing ads, then that is my choice. Someone should sue these asshat companies that block viewers for having ad blockers.
ADHD is a poor reason to block and “annoyance. I have to deal with the inconvenience of easy distractions as do others with ADHD.
Nothing is free, even the internet. So what if we have to deal with a few ads. What we take for granted as “free” is paid for by whom ever is so generous to run and maintain the website.
I will agree the adds are getting more annoying such as an ad that will dominate more than 50% of your screen by simply moving your mouse over it, not to mention talking ads.
I agree the ads can be a pain but they are a necessary evil to keep what we take for granted free. It is just something we are going to have to deal with.
If not, stop browsing and go to the library to find your free information. Thats all there was before the “internet” anyway.
Claiming “I didnt sign a contract” is equally as lame as the ADHD excuse. We as Americans have come to expect way too much in the things that are given to us. We are given a an inch but expect a mile. I can say this becuase I have seen myself expect more than what I am rightfully due.
If you want to use an AD blocker, then do so. Just know that some websites are not going to allow you to browse with one. Its just as simple as taking your business elsewhere so to speak. You’ll just have to dig a little deeper to find that ever elusive website that doesnt give a damn about the software that is installed on your computer. But please dont complain, you brought on yourself.
[...] http://www.michaelalanmiller.com/?p=128 [...]
That’s some powerful rationalization you’ve got going on there in this post. So, when you were a kid at Halloween, and you went to one of those places that left out a dish and a sign saying “take one”, did you take the whole bowl? Hopefully you didn’t, because they *asked* you not to and you’re not a jerk (right?).
If a website owner says, please don’t visit my site unless you’re willing to view the ads, you’re some kind of jerk to say, ‘nah, I’m going to use the resources you pay for, regardless of your condidtions.”
You can rationalize it all you want, but what it boils down to is that you know you can get away with it, and you’re invisible on the Internet.
Way back when (the Betamax foo-for-raw) some suits claimed that not watching the ads was “stealing”: queried further, one CBS exec admitted his stance meant that if you watched CBS you were “stealing” from NBC and ABC because you were not watching their advertisements.
Now, I don’t mind static ads (picture with a link) and sometimes click on them. And animated GIF ads I can right-click to kill “loop” and then “rewind” if I want to hang onto the site (as a tabbed occurence).
I HATE FLASH ADS – these cannot be stopped/paused, and some use an amazing amount of CPU and video-card time. At least they seem to have changed the “default” option — perhaps never implemented, but there in the right-click menu — to turn on your webcam, if you have one.
here’s what i believe —
1. the fact that someone creates an ad in no way obligates me to watch/read/listen to it.
- for print ads, I can skip the full page ad and ignore everything else.
- for TV/radio ads, I can go to the bathroom or channel surf.
- I ignore billboards and daydream thru my commute instead.
2. the fact that i choose to ignore ads does not make me an unethical user. the people who came up with the idea of advertisements knew from the start that their ads can be willfully ignored — that’s why they try their best to catch our attention.
3. a technology that allows me to ignore ads is in principle no different from me ignoring ads in more primitive ways
- fast forwarding my Tivo or going to the bathroom achieve the same thing. it’s just it a lot more efficient and makes the advertiser’s efforts to create more eye-catching ads more difficult.
- advertisers are quick to jump on new tech to help them sell their products; I should have the same privilege
4. i am in no way obligated to make an advertiser’s job easier. it’s their job to sell to me, not my job to be receptive to be sold to.
I realize this means that a kind of advertising arms race will ensue. For instance, a lot of the text in web articles are beginning to have links to advertisements. In all honesty, I wish content providers Good Luck. I’ll still try my best to ignore most of the ads; content providers will continue to try their best to shove their products down my throat.
[...] Advertising on the Internet Filed under: Uncategorized — Daniel @ 3:13 pm I’m in ur tubz, blockin’ ur adz [...]
I hate ads. Do it, block them…
…however DDOS and DOS attacks are what douche bags do. Don’t be a douche bag!
[...] the best one I’ve seen. And read the comments for a nice review of the various [...]
I think it’s weird that people promote products that they know nothing about. That’s why I hate most ads…like google ads.
No integrity in that.
I put very specific ads on my site, but they’re not just ads…I want people to buy the products I use because it’s good stuff.
Keep blocking ads if you like. I think it’s a good stick in the eye of ridiculous, overzealous sales sales sales. I don’t block ads partly because I don’t like switching between blocking ads and unblocking ads. Also, I steer clear of websites that host too many ads.
Ads give me a sense of just how much integrity a site and its owners lack (or have- nice work not having ads here).
Hi. I read a few of your other posts and wanted to know if you would be interested in exchanging blogroll links?
I know men love porn and I can’t even stop my husband from looking at it either, but do you think viewing extreme porn (women down on their knees sucking, women spanked and bondaged, forced bisexual, etc) makes men degrade women more in real life? Or do you think men are smart enough to distinguish reality from porn?
You don’t appear to be a spambot, but not sure why you chose to comment on such an old post.
Why would you want to stop your husband from looking at porn, if he wants to? What’s so crucial about stopping it? And why is it your job to do so?
If my partner decides she wants to look at a passel of porn, my attitude is, “Have at it!”
If you think “women down on their knees sucking” is “extreme,” then, well, I don’t really know what to tell you. Many women enjoy that — I know one myself! Or spanking, or bondage, for that matter. I don’t really get into those latter three, but I think if both people are consenting adults, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those things.
Also, I don’t watch porn that is misogynistic. And a lot of it is. But I don’t classify consensual BDSM, spanking, etc., as misogynistic by nature. If any of the hundreds of thousands of women who greatly enjoy being tied up and spanked (many of whom are feminists, as are their partners) were told that they were participating in misogynistic acts, both parties would tell you what’s what.
I think most men easily distinguish reality from porn. Also, as a corollary, in the internet age I think a heck of a lot more women view and consume porn than will admit to it. There will always be sociopaths. They are an unavoidable component of any population, and will exist whether there is porn or not and their behavior would be much the same in any instance.
Porn gets blamed for a lot of things that would occur just as much in its absence, because it’s an easy scapegoat.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen ‘forced bisexual’.
(Women giving blowjobs in a kneeling position is Extreme Porn? I had no idea several of the relationships I’ve been in were Extreme Porn. I doubt the women knew either.)
“I think most men easily distinguish reality from porn.”
For the record, I cannot. When I order pizza, I expect a good hour of well-lit sex photographed from multiple angles to occur.
“Why yes, I would like extra sausage.”
Good to know that you and I and both of our half-dozen current and past girlfriends are Extreme Porn stars.
I am as surprised as you are!