Adblocker plus is theft

Dave85 · 2 May 2011 at 18:32

What a silly statement. Its my browser I decide what I want to see. If you want to shove stupid ads all over a website feel free its your choice as long as you know I will choose to block them all.

Dont like it...then tough. Who is this online personality?

EdwardTeach · 2 May 2011 at 18:36

I use adblocker. Even if I wasn't using it I would never click on adverts - presumably this is the crucial part -> therefore if you don't click on click thru's is it not the same thing?

Pawnless Endgame · 2 May 2011 at 18:39

I never warmed up to internet ads, especially pop-ups, so I don't feel guilty about using an ad-blocker. On the other hand, I find that billboards is an effective way of advertising, to the extent where I have actually followed some of them up and bought the product.

Spook187 · 2 May 2011 at 18:44

My great friend adblock

it would not be as bad if the adverts where of something that were slightly interesting,its just spam and i aint having that on my pc.

sanaxe1 · 2 May 2011 at 18:50

DAvE18 said:
What a silly statement. Its my browser I decide what I want to see. If you want to shove stupid ads all over a website feel free its your choice as long as you know I will choose to block them all.

Dont like it...then tough. Who is this online personality?

No it should be tough for you. If you dont want to view adds you dont get the benefit that the sites are providing for you. A trade is made there service be that information , pictures or videos for a minor inconvenience. They are using adds to cover costs , other wise you would have to pay a subscription for every site.

Its like me saying you can have this laptop for free instead of £399 but you have to fill out a questionnaire every month. And then you turn around and say im not filling out the questionnaire tough **** im keeping the laptop.

jp_bl_68 · 2 May 2011 at 18:54

EdwardTeach said:
I use adblocker. Even if I wasn't using it I would never click on adverts - presumably this is the crucial part -> therefore if you don't click on click thru's is it not the same thing?

I'm guessing that you don't have to click on an advert, sites hosting ads probably benefit from hits not clicks. AdBlock prevents the ads from loading. It doesn't matter how many people visit that site if no one loads the ads. Does that make sense?

Lightnix · 2 May 2011 at 18:57

Is it weird that I somehow find ad-blocking more abhorrent than piracy?

Randomface74 · 2 May 2011 at 18:58

It's not theft, it's upto the recipient of the advert what they do with it. Just like junk mail through your letter box, you can burn it if you like. That's the risk an advertiser takes.

Greenlizard0 · 2 May 2011 at 19:01

I can understand their point of view.

I always make a point to never click on ads (mostly because KIS blocks the throughput anyway), but I have to admit I have bought products before just by seeing them.

But these are far and few between. I only buy what I want when I need something. Furthermore when I get e.g. free webmail nowhere in the terms and conditions that I used to sign up with did it say I had to view their ads. So tough. I have an unlimited internet connection but I enjoy surfing slightly faster and cleaner without something flashing on my screen.

Advertisers will adapt I'm sure. 'Free' services will I'm sure, or they'll simply die out.

Koalaboy · 2 May 2011 at 19:03

Lightnix said:
Is it weird that I somehow find ad-blocking more abhorrent than piracy?

Yes. Weird, and very wrong.

Gackt · 2 May 2011 at 19:04

If I buy a newspaper or magazine, and don't look at the ads, is that also theft? Because logic would draw that conclusion based on what this 'personality' is claiming.

Ridiculous.

Read: "wahwahwah I spent money on trying to get people to buy my crappy product wahwahwah they didn't look at my ad wahwahwah I want my money wahwahwah"

I use an adblocker because I don't like popups, nor do I like being spammed with targetted advertising on every single webpage. What's next? Forced adverts on your desktop? Adverts under your eyelids? Wouldn't want to deprive us of our advertising!

wannabedamned · 2 May 2011 at 19:05

I'll stop using Adblocker when they start securing advertisements across the web. Viruses and Porn where its not wanted, No thanks.

Not that I mind the odd eye full of boob, its just not always appropriate

fidget · 2 May 2011 at 19:07

Playing devils advocate:

I wonder how may of you using ad-blockers are against internet censorship?

How many would be against your ISP automaticallcy censoring websites & web pages?

What about adult content filters?

What about if they just filtered out ads? Would you still complain?

Now, consider Adblock Plus. Who is deciding what is or isnt an ad? You? No, it's them - they are censoring your browsing be decising what you see and what you don't in deciding what is or isn't an ad.

It's the same difference - you are still having your Internet session censored.

Gackt · 2 May 2011 at 19:08

fidget said:
It's the same difference - you are still having your Internet session censored.

But rather than censoring content, it's censoring brainwashing advertising.

sanaxe1 · 2 May 2011 at 19:09

Gackt said:
If I buy a newspaper or magazine, and don't look at the ads, is that also theft? Because logic would draw that conclusion based on what this 'personality' is claiming.

Ridiculous.

Read: "wahwahwah I spent money on trying to get people to buy my crappy product wahwahwah they didn't look at my ad wahwahwah I want my money wahwahwah"

Thats not the same. Its not the advertisers this effects its the site provider.

Using your paper analogy its like you stop the paper from printing the advertisement to begin with. The paper would just have blank spots where if you did not look at the adverts then the paper still gets paid. With it being blank the advertiser turns around and says im not giving you any money it was just a blank box. So now this paper has all the costs associated with it but can not afford to continue without its main source of income.

Energize · 2 May 2011 at 19:12

Adverts are a theft of my bandwidth!

Dr Who · 2 May 2011 at 19:13

OP delivers

http://twitter.com/#!/Totalbiscuit

http://www.tweetdeck.com/twitter/Totalbiscuit/~kSCf7

Totalbiscuit
@SuperShammii It's effectively theft. It's taking bandwidth without compensating the owner of said bandwidth for it.
@SuperShammii No, I do not get income if an ad does not display.

Pinkribbonscars · 2 May 2011 at 19:15

fidget said:
Playing devils advocate:

I wonder how may of you using ad-blockers are against internet censorship?

How many would be against your ISP automaticallcy censoring websites & web pages?

What about adult content filters?

What about if they just filtered out ads? Would you still complain?

Now, consider Adblock Plus. Who is deciding what is or isnt an ad? You? No, it's them - they are censoring your browsing be decising what you see and what you don't in deciding what is or isn't an ad.

It's the same difference - you are still having your Internet session censored.

By choice, so it isn't censorship at all

.

Dr Who · 2 May 2011 at 19:16

fidget said:
Playing devils advocate:

It's the same difference - you are still having your Internet session censored.

Except I am exercising choice, that isn't censorship.

EDIT: Beaten to it

toon_mad · 2 May 2011 at 19:17

How many people get pizza / chinese leaflets through the doors, probably everyone. How many people rip them up and throw them in the bin? Any crap I didnt ask for that comes through my door gets thrown away, in a way this is the same as blocking ads on the Internet. I didnt ask to see it, so dont force it on me.