Adblocker plus is theft

pingwing · 2 May 2011 at 18:08

You dont own bandwith, you pay to use it like roads.

So having adblock on is like ignoring cyclists (bad analogy), ruining it for a few people but making your overall use much better.

I think the argument is more interesting the other way round, that by running adblock you are stealing from advertising companies... Much like not looking at a billboard should then be theft

Strife212 · 2 May 2011 at 18:09

Erm, it blatantly is, don't see the anger here? Doesn't mean you can't do it.

The site owners get paid depending on how many people see ads.

davestar_delux · 2 May 2011 at 18:10

AcidHell2 said:
Do you really believe this I can't see how anyone can suggest this.

Yes I believe it. It was designed as an information sharing protocol. How is it not? Do you have a counter-argument?

Dewotter · 2 May 2011 at 18:10

JaFFa said:
No 'adverts' or banners would have been used but the site would have no income. To say "and as I will NEVER buy anything as a result of a random internet ad" is actually pretty hard these days.

I honestly don't.

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:11

davestar_delux said:
Yes I believe it. It was designed as an information sharing protocol. How is it not? Do you have a counter-argument?

It's no longer that and hasn't been for decades. Most websites are a business to make money and have the right to put what ever they want on their own webpage(within the law). Should we ban ecomerce and everything else not in the information sharing ideals.

m4cc45 · 2 May 2011 at 18:12

JaFFa said:
No 'adverts' or banners would have been used but the site would have no income. To say "and as I will NEVER buy anything as a result of a random internet ad" is actually pretty hard these days.

Not really, it's quite easy. I have an ad-blocker (TPL to be precise) so I never see the adverts now. So on that basis I won't buy from them as I've never seen them.

Let's face it. People have shops they buy from (Amazon, OCUK, Play, Ebay, etc.) and that's all they will buy from. Chucking up an advert that suggests a 50" LCD TV is going for £50 is normally only going to get the same response from most people '****** spam!'.

Should I also be cautioned by the internet police for running an e-mail spam filter which means I don't read the e-mails from the African prince I am related to and needs help moving money?

M.

toon_mad · 2 May 2011 at 18:12

Whatever happend to unlimited bandwidth? 7 years ago or so you could get unlimited internet, truly unlimited, no throttling, no charges for going over or anything, one monthly fee for unlimited usage.

I get 30GB per month, sites that include ads are annoying but I can live with some of them, its when the ads are animated or flash videos that are like 3MB in size it becomes a problem. Although 30GB is a good amount per month, all the large pages with ads soon start making that 30GB less and less.

If web sites are going to show ads, at least make them small.

m4cc45 · 2 May 2011 at 18:13

AcidHell2 said:
It's no longer that and hasn't been for decades. Most websites are a business to make money and have the right to put what ever they want on their own webpage(within the law). Should we ban ecomerce and everything else not in the information sharing ideals.

They have that right much as we, as a consumer, have the right to view what we want. If the advert is on there site advertising other parts of the business then most ad-blockers would allow that. It's the fact that they're trying to cash in on Google, etc. where it becomes the problem.

How did the internet survive prior to all of these adverts?

M.

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:14

Content grew massively in size and ISPs can't afford to give you unlimited at prices people are pre pared to pay as it would cripple the network.

BloodyL · 2 May 2011 at 18:14

I wonder how many times this learned person has had to clean up the computer after a compromised ad server has dished out malware to the legitimate site said person was browsing?

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:15

m4cc45 said:
They have that right much as we, as a consumer, have the right to view what we want. If the advert is on there site advertising other parts of the business then most ad-blockers would allow that. It's the fact that they're trying to cash in on Google, etc. where it becomes the problem.

How did the internet survive prior to all of these adverts?

M.

I never said you didn't have the right to block, what I said is if enough people do it, they will change there method and the same people who used add blockers will be the most vocal complainers.

It's not the same Internet it once was. It's big business.

bledd · 2 May 2011 at 18:15

Each site that I use that has 'donate' buttons, I use them

I suggest to the ones that don't have them to add them, if they don't, then tough cookie

m4cc45 · 2 May 2011 at 18:18

AcidHell2 said:
Content grew massively in size and ISPs can't afford to give you unlimited at prices people are pre pared to pay as it would cripple the network.

You can still get free web-space hosted on servers. That's not changed.

I know it's big business, advertising always has been. Who prefers watching a film on BBC compared to ITV? Who records on Sky+ and fast forwards the adverts?

It's the same principle. If they want me to view adverts they had better be something I want to see on there own website (i.e. new saving account offering x% when visiting my banking site).

M.

davestar_delux · 2 May 2011 at 18:21

AcidHell2 said:
It's no longer that and hasn't been for decades. Most websites are a business to make money and have the right to put what ever they want on their own webpage(within the law). Should we ban ecomerce and everything else not in the information sharing ideals.

It is that. If commercial entities want to use it in some other way that is their prerogative and technology exists to do that in e-commerce like you state.

But that is still what they are using, the request based method so if the user does not request the adverts then that is within their rights. If the technological capability exists to circumvent viewing what the user doesn't want to view then they are effectively using the honour system - i.e. not making money.

Yes they can put whatever they want but that doesn't mean the user has to view it.

The e-commerce point is moot as it's a different business model that actually has contracts, laws (copyright, IP, services) and most importantly technology that makes it significantly harder or impossible to circumvent so actual transactions are carried out with the users consent on agreed terms.

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:21

It is the same principle as my first post says. As I said, it can not be seen as theft or anything else. Simply that if enough people do it, they will change the way they generate money and the same people will be the biggest complainers.
As for free web hosting, how do you think that is paid for.

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:23

davestar_delux said:
Yes they can put whatever they want but that doesn't mean the user has to view it.

s.

again I never said otherwise, read what I wrote.
So we agree hosters can host what they want including adverts.

m4cc45 · 2 May 2011 at 18:26

Some of the old sites like Geocities used to use adverts. I know that BT / Telewest / etc. give you webspace for becomming a customer with no advertising. So it's paid for buy your internet connection (though there are still truly ad-free webhosting places out there if you look around).

If there is a subscription for content then users aren't stupid - they'll go elsewhere. I know some papers are charging to view online (Times?) so, where as I may have viewed there pages in the past, I'll just skip to BBC news or some other tabloid. Same with everything else I view. The thing with making a system closed is that, when you rely on people viewing it to generate revenue, you completley close that off. Before they may have been able to go to partners and say 'We've had 2 million hits this month do you want to partner with us and we'll promote you online?' now it will be a tenth of that if they're lucky.

M.

SiD the Turtle · 2 May 2011 at 18:27

I have an ad blocker running. To be honest I was happy with simple banner ads but these days they take up the whole screen if you roll over them or waste bandwidth playing an ad for a car I'm never going to buy so ad blocker goes on, ads disappear.

Dave M · 2 May 2011 at 18:27

Advertising funded web services are massively beneficial for the average consumer, think of what we get 'free' now that we used to have to pay for (or just didn't have).

I doubt it will ever happen but if ad-block did become common enough advertisers would lose interest in the web and take their money elsewhere.

The sites you use will then either shut or come up with a pay model, either which way the consumer loses.

I can understand the dislike for adverts which slow page loads, or that obscure page content, but the vast majority of ads are completely benign and the only cause complaint people can have is idealogical.

Glaucus · 2 May 2011 at 18:29

m4cc45 said:
Some of the old sites like Geocities used to use adverts. I know that BT / Telewest / etc. give you webspace for becomming a customer with no advertising. So it's paid for buy your internet connection (though there are still truly ad-free webhosting places out there if you look around).

If there is a subscription for content then users aren't stupid - they'll go elsewhere. I know some papers are charging to view online (Times?) so, where as I may have viewed there pages in the past, I'll just skip to BBC news or some other tabloid. Same with everything else I view.

M.

And if 99% of users use add blockers and all non paid for sites close, then what sites do you go to? Many sites only source of revenue Is adverts. Many don't have backing from sales of physical goods or tv license to fund them.