Adblocker plus is theft

[growse]

3. This thread is full of bad analogies about TV advertising. Completely different setup to how Internet advertising works.

But the comparison with TV is valid, because it's a content production with funding supported by ad revenue. Just because the mechanisms by which those ads are made, delivered, tracked etc. is different between each medium does not mean that the experience and habit of the viewer should also be treated differently.

If a user *chooses* to not consume an advert, that is their perogative. The mechanism by which they choose to do that and its effect on the revenue to the content provider is immaterial, the end user has that same choice to make in both instances. Labelling one as 'making a sandwich' and the other as 'theft' is massively inconsistent.

Call people who use adblockers 'freeloaders' if it helps you through the day, but don't forget to include those of us who get up and make a cup of tea when the ads come on the telly.

Personally, I reserve the right to alter the bits and packets travelling across my network on my equipment how I see fit.

 

[Rainmaker]

Why are you equating 'free' with 'advertisement-free'?

If looking at ads denotes some sort of currency exchange then methinks billboard companies 'owe' me a lot of money up until now...

Because if it's 'free' as in speech AND beer (kinda) then I don't need to look at ads. If you want to put ads on, fine - just don't whine about me blocking them.

However, if you don't WANT your content to be truly free (as in you'll whine if I block ads because you want monies) then at least just have the balls to ask for cash up front instead of moaning I blocked your ad. Or:

* Have ads for some incidental revenue, but don't moan that some people block them.

* Have no ads, because you have no need for money and it's a site for its own sake.

* If you're the type to moan at people blocking ads because it's "theft" then simply switch to a more honest approach to your business and ask for cash at the door and let people decide if it's worth paying for.

I get the impression people like the guy in the OP (not *THE* OP obviously) only moan about adblock because (1) ads provides them revenue where (2) people wouldn't otherwise pay for the crap they're pedalling, and if people had to pay they'd avoid the content completely rendering the argument moot.

 

[Glaucus]

^^^
And is exatly why tv producers at looking at alternative advertising like scrolling at the bottom all the way through the show.

 

[guyfawkes5]

Again, it's not quite the same though.

'Making a sandwich' means the hardware is still delivering advertising media to its end point. Once it enters your perception area, regardless of whether you're there or not, this penetration is 'sucessful'. The television analogies would be accurate if you ignored the internet advertising while browsing, or left to do something while an unskippable video was playing.

A more apt analogy would be a Sky+ box or recording device that had software that actively sought out and removed commercial content from recorded or even live television. Even more aptly if this hardware became widespread this would probably lead to advertisers looking at their contributions to commercial television stations again, as per the post you quoted.

 

[growse]

^^^
And is exatly why tv producers at looking at alternative advertising like scrolling at the bottom all the way through the show.

Which will cause some people to just stop watching altogether.

Again, it's not quite the same though.

'Making a sandwich' means the hardware is still delivering advertising media to its end point. Once it enters your perception area, regardless of whether you're there or not, this penetration is 'sucessful'. The television analogies would be accurate if you ignored the internet advertising while browsing, or left to do something while an unskippable video was playing.

A more apt analogy wourld be a Sky+ box or recording device that had software that actively sought out and removed commercial content from recorded or even live television. Even more aptly this would probably lead to advertisers looking at their contributions to commercial television stations again, as per the post you quoted.

But the penetration is only recorded as successful because that's the limit of the network's knowledge. If they had a mechanism which meant they could detect if the TV was actually being watched when an advert was played, they'd sure as heck use that instead.

Just because the TV network has no way of knowing if I'm sat on my sofa when an advert plays, doesn't mean it's suddenly morally ok for me to choose to not consume a TV advert, as opposed to the supposedly morally dubious practice of blocking internet adverts.

 

[Glaucus]

Which will cause some people to just stop watching altogether.

A few but more likely lots of people just getting annoyed and bleating on about freedoms. When it affects most content you cant then go and look else where.

 

[Rainmaker]

^^^
And is exatly why tv producers at looking at alternative advertising like scrolling at the bottom all the way through the show.

Which is up to them. If the BBC can make a profit charging a flat fee equivalent to less than your average cable subscription, and yet turn out several excellent channels, new shows, website content on demand etc - and make extra cash selling via the worldwide arm - then I don't see why other channels can't do the same.

If we paid £140 for the BBC, and had the choice to pay £140 for ITV's franchise and then £140 for Sky's franchise of channels then that'd still "only" be £420 a year for all the ad free TV you could eat. Compared with £140 TV licence + £200 plus for Sky/Virgin which is still full of ads on top of my subscription money at the moment anyway.

 

[growse]

A few but more likely lots of people just getting annoyed and bleating on about freedoms. When it affects most content you cant then go and look else where.

Let them bleat. There's always good quality content available ad-free if I want it. I might have to pay for it, but I've always had to. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

[Energize]

^^^
And is exatly why tv producers at looking at alternative advertising like scrolling at the bottom all the way through the show.

Given that lcd tv's can crop the image that certainly won't be effective.

 

[guyfawkes5]

Because if it's 'free' as in speech AND beer (kinda) then I don't need to look at ads. If you want to put ads on, fine - just don't whine about me blocking them.

However, if you don't WANT your content to be truly free (as in you'll whine if I block ads because you want monies) then at least just have the balls to ask for cash up front instead of moaning I blocked your ad. Or:

I still don't get where you're coming from.

It is free to people like you and me, unless you think your time is that valuable.

Maybe 'uncluttered' would a better word, but just like the term 'thief' or similar I don't think the word 'free' in this context is helpful or clear to what point you may be trying to make.

Advertising generates revenue for the site-holder to pay towards the site maintenence. The advertising company values the general exposure of its product towards a general audience and pays for it. But would you say the exposure that you individually grant online advertising by perceiving it would bear any value in terms of currency? I wouldn't consider it to have any.

I may not like the intrusiveness of some ads but then again I wouldn't go as far as to label such sites as being 'unfree' or coming at some 'cost' in the typical sense of the word.

 

[guyfawkes5]

But the penetration is only recorded as successful because that's the limit of the network's knowledge. If they had a mechanism which meant they could detect if the TV was actually being watched when an advert was played, they'd sure as heck use that instead.

Just because the TV network has no way of knowing if I'm sat on my sofa when an advert plays, doesn't mean it's suddenly morally ok for me to choose to not consume a TV advert, as opposed to the supposedly morally dubious practice of blocking internet adverts.

I don't think any poster in this thread save that quoted in the original post used any moral argument about adblockers, other than if the practice became prevailant then it would affect the service that those who use it are availing of.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Products I have bought via online advertising - 0.

'nuff said.

 

[Rainmaker]

I still don't get where you're coming from.

It is free to people like you and me, unless you think your time is that valuable.

Maybe 'uncluttered' would a better word, but just like the term 'thief' or similar I don't think the word 'free' in this context is helpful or clear to what point you may be trying to make.

Advertising generates revenue for the site-holder to pay towards the site maintenence. The advertising company values the general exposure of its product towards a general audience and pays for it. But would you say the exposure that you individually grant online advertising by perceiving it would bear any value in terms of currency? I wouldn't consider it to have any.

I may not like the intrusiveness of some ads but then again I wouldn't go as far as to label such sites as being 'unfree' or coming at some 'cost' in the typical sense of the word.

I'm not sure what I've written is so hard to understand? I may not pay directly (unless I'm on my mobile and the ads are eating away my £10-per-GB allowance ).

However sites with ads are not FREE as in FREELY GIVEN. The content provider is expecting to be paid, via advertising. I'm referring to those who bleat and moan, shouting 'Thief!' if someone uses AdBlock or similar btw, not the ones who have a couple of small ads but say "Hey use AdBlock if you like, but if you thought my stuff was worth it the ads are almost invisible and will buy me a day's hosting if you'd be kind enough to add me to your white list in future".

As I've said all along, either contribute to the internet as a forum for the sharing of knowledge with Mankind, not needing to make your users' eyes bleed and cost them money; or be honest about wanting to make the monies and charge up front. Don't just bombard me with annoying ads, that often cost ME money to view, and then have my 'experience' on your site spoiled anyway.

As I said: Either be free in every sense of the word (meaning no ads required) or else have the balls to charge up front and see how much you moaning on about how Aunt Murgatroid is visiting for supper tomorrow is REALLY worth to the denizens of the interwebz. Then you'll see if your content is worth paying for or not.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[Dave85]

haha reading some of that guys twitter posts is great entertainment. Remember were only defending blocking ads that are annoying as hell to make ourselves feel better.

Could he cry any harder poor wee lamb

 

[guyfawkes5]

If you mean 'free' in the liberal sense then you can hold that opinion fine, but I do think a lot of the internet is run on the assumption that these advertisements will help the running costs of the sites in the first place and a transition to this 'advertise by consent' notion* would require a large reset of the financing of an awful lot of what we watch daily, both directly and indirectly.

And I never got the whole automatic association of the internet with freedom of information by the way, especially since it started as what was essentially a military intelligence intranet, who you would assume wouldn't be the greatest friends of any and all information being free.

*Which I do think is iffy as an aside, especially given the advertising standards in the corporal world.

 

[Rainmaker]

If you mean 'free' in the liberal sense then you can hold that opinion fine, but I do think a lot of the internet is run on the assumption that these advertisements will help the running costs of the sites in the first place and a transition to this 'advertise by consent' notion* would require a large reset of the financing of an awful lot of what we watch daily, both directly and indirectly.

And I never got the whole automatic association of the internet with freedom of information by the way, especially since it started as what was essentially a military intelligence intranet, who you would assume wouldn't be the greatest friends of any and all information being free.

*Which I do think is iffy as an aside, especially given the advertising standards in the corporal world.

I've explained myself three different ways, not sure how many others I can try. The internet itself may have been a military intelligence network at first, but it developed in the civil world into the WWW and its founders, most assuredly, support freedom of expression and state they intend it to be a medium of sharing for the benefit of all.

As I said, I'll continue to block ads. If anyone has a problem with that (they want the money), they're free to charge a fee 'on the door' to see if their content's actually worth it in the first place.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

A few but more likely lots of people just getting annoyed and bleating on about freedoms. When it affects most content you cant then go and look else where.

AH what makes you think advertisers won't go for more aggressive avenues of advertising anyway?

Nate

 

[steve-h]

I allow google adverts... it's all the random popup crap I don't want.

And I'm pretty sure you're not stealing their bandwidth as your browser would parse the html, figure out what's an advert and not bother requesting it. If he actually means the rest of the page... then his site's probably terrible anyway if his main motivation for the website is money from adverts.

 

[mufc802]

If they want to charge for using their content then fine, there will always be websites that are free because they want more of the market share. I'm sick of ad's never anything of use just annoying. I always have ad block on because of many websites that are overloaded with ad's making it harder to browse, if a website requires me to close ad block then so be it if I really wanted to view that website.

 

[platinum87]

Just read a comment from an online personality who shall remain nameless for now, who thinks running an adblocker is "theft of bandwidth for which you are not compensating the owner".

What are peoples thoughts on this?

In todays world of capped BW and billing for excess, is adblocker a legitimate way of improving your browsing experience, or is it unethical?

My own view, I have a right to control what I view, and as I will NEVER buy anything as a result of a random internet ad, I am not costing anyone anything, and am infact saving them a BW cost.

In theory it is..

For example the whole you will never buy anything as a result of a "random ad", is the same thing like saying i will never pay to watch.. random film, but i would download it for free.

So if i would absolutely under no circumstances pay to watch the film, then im not costing anyone anything by downloading it.

Anyway, while probably some people above have some deluded sense of ethics and morality that suits their opinions and perspective, i will stay true to my core principle.. I will do whatever I want.

As for ad blocking, i dont use one, i did but it was blocking too many things, and it is far more of a hassle to set exemptions than to just leave ads there.