Adblocker plus is theft

Dr Who

Dr Who

Dr Who

Soldato
Joined
11 Nov 2004
Posts
8,183
Location
Couvains, France
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.
 
what a dork - going by that logic, if i go and make a brew when the ads come on during a game of footie then that would be theft also?
 
It's not theft, but you are depriving them of money and as such if enough people do it, they will be forced to implement more strict revenue policies like pay on demand.

I can't see it being to long until tv goes though such a transformation, with +boxes becoming standard. Probably scrolling adverts on screen permanently.
At that point everyone will complain, but all they can do is blame themselves.

I really don't see the point of add blocker most sites do not have adverts in the main page and are eIther at the top or sides, which are outside your focal point, so I don't even notice them.
 
It goes both ways, too many sites use really annoying ad setups and while probably not entirely their control some of the ads can be a bit off putting visually... images of rotten teeth, mank feet or some ugly mug on the debt relief ads I really don't need to see.

Personally I don't outright block ads but I do use such tools to make pages somewhat better to navigate.
 
To be fair, it's kind of like watching BBC but not paying for your TV license. However, if that's the revenue method the website owner wishes to take they should be aware that not all of the users will view their adverts. They should look at other methods of revenue generation instead (although usually not profitable).
 
Kemik said:
To be fair, it's kind of like watching BBC but not paying for your TV license. However, if that's the revenue method the website owner wishes to take they should be aware that not all of the users will view their adverts. They should look at other methods of revenue generation instead (although usually not profitable).
Click to expand...

TV licenses would be better compared to the money you pay your internet provider every month.
 
I'd say them putting up ads is theft of my bandwidth that I pay for. I pay for my internet so that I can look at what I want and play what I want. Not so that somebody else can force their product upon my screen. They are taking up my bandwidth and that is theft. THEFT OF MY BANDWIDTH!!!!

So basically, this online personality is talking out of their rear end. We don't make them rely on that means of advertising.
 
J-FRO said:
I'd say them putting up ads is theft of my bandwidth that I pay for. I pay for my internet so that I can look at what I want and play what I want. Not so that somebody else can force their product upon my screen. They are taking up my bandwidth and that is theft. THEFT OF MY BANDWIDTH!!!!

So basically, this online personality is talking out of their rear end. We don't make them rely on that means of advertising.
Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish and hope you are joking, you pay for your bandwidth. You dontpay for the servers or the web hosting bandwidth. Thus by choosing to visit such sites you agree to the adverts.
 
AcidHell2 said:
I really don't see the point of add blocker most sites do not have adverts in the main page and are eIther at the top or sides, which are outside your focal point, so I don't even notice them.
Click to expand...

I had no issues with adverts (apart from popups) back when they were standard images and text. When nearly every advert started becoming flash animations that make sounds and follow your cursor slowing your computer down then I took action. Unfortunately for the web content creators I will not be going back to a ad littered web.
 
The Internet is for publishing, they have no right to make their readers view ads and fund their commerce.

They don't like it then they can decide not to publish on the Internet.

Although obviously they wont, they will do as previous posters have suggested and figure a new method to force their ads to be viewed. I guess I have a slightly hippy ideal of how the Internet should be and be used.
 
As I said it's not wrong, but if enough people do it, then you will only be hurting yourselfs when they implement another form.

As for pop ups and music again virtually no sites do that. The odd few which you find by searching and never go back to again.
 
But that's the thing, by visiting those sites I don't agree to view pop ups. There is no obligation thrust upon me to agree to them (most of the time) and if there was they could easily block me from viewing the rest of their web content if they really wanted to.

My bandwidth is still my bandwidth, and I don't pay for it to view adverts. I pay for it to view what I want. Yes the websites that hold the content that I want to view pay for their own bandwidth too, but that is a service they offer. If they want to take that away from me they are at liberty to do so. That is their means of protecting their service. My way of protecting my own purchased services is to use an adblocker.

so no, no I'm not joking.
 
AcidHell2 said:
What a load of rubbish and hope you are joking, you pay for your bandwidth. You dontpay for the servers or the web hosting bandwidth. Thus by choosing to visit such sites you agree to the adverts.
Click to expand...

I'd say the above was rubbish. When you visit a website, usually by googling / binging / yahooing / etc. then you don't sign up to any terms and conditions. To pull the advert down you have to use your own bandwidth. I notice there are thousands of sites out there that play little movies. I haven't consented to that and that's several MB downloaded - okay I may have an unlimited package but there are thousands of users out there who have a 5GB a month limit.

ITV supplement there online ITV player by having adverts before the program starts and then the usual adverts whilst playing - I don't mind that. Trying to advert-farm me isn't going to work, I buy the cheapest most-reputable item I can find. I'm very unlikely to buy some google advert rubbish based on a webpage I have previously visited.

The internet managed to survive fine prior to all of this online spam and I'm sure I read somewhere that 70%+ of the internet traffic was spam / adverts.

Not forgetting that some advert sources are hiding malicious code in there.

Anyone not running some kind of advert blocker really needs to be educated.


M.
 
You have no idea what is on thee website and no idea how much bandwidth you will use that is a silly argument.
As I said if enough people use it, that exactly what will happen. Just like news has started to go to pay per view. It's there site they have a right to put adverts on if they want to argue otherwise really is silly.no you don't sign an agreement and as such it isn't any sort of theft or depriving them like I said.
 
even though I do run it myself, it is morally a bit dodgy, internet advertising is more complex than just a banner ad.

Say you used a review site foa all your computer ifo and you rad it everyday. Then you used it to compare a load of products - you then click an outgoing link to a hardware shop and buy that product, from all the value add the review site deserves a commission. Ad blocking tech will stop that form working.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom