Blocking Ads is it Wrong?

[mamamia88]

I was just wondering if blocking ads takes away revenue from your favorite sites? Was just curious because I thought advertisers paid premiums on hit to page containing ad and not how many people click the ad

[Bachstelze]

I don't know whether it takes away revenue or not, but either way, it is definitely not wrong. What is wrong IMO is putting them in the first place.

[skierkyles]

Another site I visit says that if your using a ad blocker they dont get money from page loads or clicks (Obviously :))

So if your using a free site then yea, you probably shouldn't be using an ad blocker.

[macem29]

I don't consider it wrong on any level: legal or ethical...the internet ad industry are disgusting sneaks
in trying to trick us into clicking on stuff, without that crap maybe we wouldn't need filters

[Rasa1111]

nope, not wrong.
I block every ad i possibly can.
Quit trying to sell me garbage. I wont buy it.
Simple. lol

I do think throwing ads in everyones face, is wrong though.

I stopped watching television a long time ago, and with it, got rid of BS ads and commercials..
and now I cant even go on the internet without commercials and ads thrown at me constantly..?
I don't think so.

I have chromimum set so that I never see a single ad...
on any site. ;)

[Sporkman]

Advertising pays the bills for all the free internet content and services that we enjoy.

Just saying. :)

[skierkyles]

Advertising pays the bills for all the free internet content and services that we enjoy.

Just saying. :)

Thank you, servers, developers, etc. Are not cheap.

[QIII]

I don't click on the links anyway, so nobody is losing any revenue if I block the ads.

There is no law that compels me to click on those links, just as there is no law that compels me to respond to print advertising or TV advertising.

[KiwiNZ]

It's a vicious circle, sites like this need to be funded, they cost a lot to run and the money must come from somewhere and Advertising is a good source of revenue to keep the wolves from the door.However as soon as a suggestion is made to place small Ads all hell breaks lose.

For some bizarre reason folks seem to think the internet should be a free ride for everything, it's not.

I see nothing wrong with small unobtrusive Ads that can fund a site and there is no compulsion to click on them.

[kevin11951]

Thank you, servers, developers, etc. Are not cheap.

Yes, especially since the alternative is "Freemium" crap.

Freemium is where you get access to "most" of a site, but you have to pay out of pocket for the rest. News sites for example will show you the first paragraph of a news article, and then make you pay $.10 or so to see the rest. Not a lot of money, but it is a hassle.

[chris200x9]

I think yes, especially free sites. Let's make it racing you have a race car driver that has sponsors but he only gets paid based on how many people watch the race (and his car). Somehow you have a magic tv that just makes his car a white blob, also it let's his sponsors know it's a white blog so you watch the race, but didn't see his car so he does not get paid for you watching.

[Calash]

Yes, especially since the alternative is "Freemium" crap.

Freemium is where you get access to "most" of a site, but you have to pay out of pocket for the rest. News sites for example will show you the first paragraph of a news article, and then make you pay $.10 or so to see the rest. Not a lot of money, but it is a hassle.

Agree 100%. I put up a few ads on my site to try and offset the server and domain costs. Much rather do than than force people to subscribe to content.


I think it is wrong but a necessary wrong given how many "bad" advertising is out there.

[tghe-retford]

Broadcaster ITV in the UK has now started blocking users who use ad-blocker software from using some of its services.

It's a dilemma, it isn't unknown for viruses and malware to come through adverts on one website I use daily (although that isn't really an issue for Linux, it is for the vast majority of users who use Windows) - and it's a very well known and reputable entertainment and media website owned by a multi-national company. Plus, many advertisements can be very intrusive, loud and obnoxious...

...but, advertising pays for the website to remain free, and I am sure we'd all be up in arms if every website we visited levied a charge of £/$/€1-5+ a visit/day/month in order to view it, like what Rupert Murdoch wants to do with his newspapers and beyond that, online news content.

Difficult. There needs to be a sensible balance where advertisements are not in your face and to ensure that bad things cannot get through the ad servers. I have to admit to being annoyed by consistent pop up flash ads with full blazing sound - I feel sorry for those on capped broadband packages, these adverts must use a fair bit of that allowance!

[Rasa1111]

Advertising pays the bills for all the free internet content and services that we enjoy.

Just saying. :)

well sorry,
I'd rather pay for content and services that are truly useful to me, than have infinite ads for garbage thrown in my face for meaningless content/services/sites that I visit once in a blue moon..

If people can't afford to put up sites without spamming the hell out of people to buy worthless junk,
they shouldnt even bother.

I will gladly block ads.
aka internet commercials.

I already pay for the internet..
Now Im supposed to pay to visit sites that others wanted to put up in the first place?
lol, right.

(I also consider having my PC slow to a crawl.. or slower.. because there are soo many adds all over the place, when Im simply trying to read something.. as 'Paying'. )

Just saying.

[Bachstelze]

Advertising pays the bills for all the free internet content and services that we enjoy.

Not true. As far as I'm concerned, the only service this applies to is Facebook.

My take on this is: if your website/blog is big enough to cost a significant amount of money in hosting, charge a subscription fee for it. If it's good, people will pay. If it's not, do yourself a favour and stop it.

[Frogs Hair]

I feel no guilt what so ever blocking ads, an example is the " you are the 999th visitor click here to claim your prize". If I visit Cnet I see almost all the software advertised except for the rented spaces on the side which I never investigated before I had adblock.

If want go crazy I visit toms hardware with no adblock on , almost every sentence has word which is a link to an ad.

[lisati]

I feel no guilt what so ever blocking ads, an example is the " you are the 999th visitor click here to claim your prize".
If those ads weren't so annoying they'd be funny: most of the time you're probably NOT the 999th (or whatever) visitor.

[Rasa1111]

I feel no guilt what so ever blocking ads,

and you shouldn't. <3

it's just more manufactured feelings/thoughts due to imaginary money. lol
paper.

[grahammechanical]

My niece has just got a Blackberry. How do I know? Every email comes with a "I sent this on my Blackberry" message at the bottom of the email. Is my niece showing off? Or is Blackberry putting a not asked for advert in the emails?

regards

[Calash]

Would the internet be better if sites offset revenue by locking premium content via a micro-transaction system?

Personally I am happier being able to get to the information I need and just ignore the ads.


Side question: Do you ever click on an ad to support the site owner?

[Sporkman]

Friggin commies. :P

[KiwiNZ]

and you shouldn't. <3

it's just more manufactured feelings/thoughts due to imaginary money. lol
paper.

The cost of running the sites that give you so much pleasure and service are not imaginary ;)

[Bachstelze]

Would the internet be better if sites offset revenue by locking premium content via a micro-transaction system?

IMO yes. We'd have much less crappy sites ala omgubuntu that run on ads.


Side question: Do you ever click on an ad to support the site owner?

Sometimes, when I personally know the owner and know that they really need the money (and I mean really, not some extra pocket money).

[Rasa1111]

Side question: Do you ever click on an ad to support the site owner?

Sometimes I do, [or 'did', i guess] when i use firefox.
mostly if it's a site ive visited for a long time,
or if the site is actually for a good, meaningful cause.
.. and honestly i havent done that in awhile,
not for a couple/few months probably,
mostly because I hardly open firefox anymore. lol

that is a cool thing to do though.
good on mentioning it. <3

[Rasa1111]

The cost of running the sites that give you so much pleasure and service are not imaginary ;)

lol, This I understand. ;)

[mamamia88]

Would the internet be better if sites offset revenue by locking premium content via a micro-transaction system?

Personally I am happier being able to get to the information I need and just ignore the ads.


Side question: Do you ever click on an ad to support the site owner?

no i never actually click on any of the ads. I just want to make sure that whoever is hosting the site gets paid for it. Sometimes if a site I visit often has a reasonable fee for extra content I will support them. When I say reasonable I mean about $10-20 a year or so.

[immoweichert]

I block ads - just as a shut my eyes when I'm driving by a billboard :---)

[Sporkman]

Side question: Do you ever click on an ad to support the site owner?

You shouldn't do that - such bogus clicking costs the advertiser (the one paying for the ad) money, and if it becomes a pattern can get the site owner in trouble with the ad server.

[Sporkman]

that is a cool thing to do though.
good on mentioning it. <3

No, not cool.

If you want to help site owners, stop promoting ad blocking. :)

[Phrea]

Well, we have the freedom to block ads. Nothing wrong with it.

[tghe-retford]

My take on this is: if your website/blog is big enough to cost a significant amount of money in hosting, charge a subscription fee for it. If it's good, people will pay. If it's not, do yourself a favour and stop it.
Rupert Murdoch tried this with the Times and Sunday Times newspaper websites. Readers have moved to other free, ad-funded news sources, journalists detest it and I know one lawyer on The Times have defected to the Guardian newspaper.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/16545310903.shtml

Another example, a major local newspaper company trialled a paywall plan. Subscriptions were in even digits, double digits if they were lucky. Truly disastrous, the idea was dropped pretty quickly and the websites are now back to a free, ad-funded strategy.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-johnstons-local-pay-site-trial-has-been-a-disaster/

If a local newspaper and even a influential media tycoon with a desire to paywall everything can't make a subscription fee for online content work, a blog certainly will not.

[dv3500ea]

I do not believe that blocking ads is wrong. I'd much prefer it if free websites used donations (some already do), allowing you to support them if you think the content is good. I personally think that flattr (http://flattr.com/) is a brilliant idea.

[Calash]

You shouldn't do that - such bogus clicking costs the advertiser (the one paying for the ad) money, and if it becomes a pattern can get the site owner in trouble with the ad server.

If it is a referral type add then there is no risk at all. In these cases there is only a cost at time of purchase

CPC type ads can be a bit more tricky but in general, and this is personal opinion, the ad provided gets way more exposure than they pay for to the site owner. A click once or twice a week is healthy both to the site and to the add provider to see what ad format catches peoples eyes.

Over clicking a CPC type add is a bad thing and can raise abuse flags very quickly. Google can be very sensitive to this, but I have heard of other adds triggering abuse as well.

Of course the best way to support a site you enjoy is a donation.

[fatality_uk]

I hope when I setup my new site (Golf related) you lot wont block it :-)
I need you all to be click happy ;-)

[murderslastcrow]

I think supporting your favorite, most useful sites, so that they don't need to put ads in your face in the first place is a good idea.

I don't think you should just say 'it's wrong' without considering the context. You don't know which websites are doing it just for some extra cash and which ones need it to run the site in the first place.

If you run a website or web application, please tell me about how easy it is to offer everything free of charge, especially if you want to make a business from it.

I certainly think there are better attitudes and ways to avoid doing this, and it should be a last resort, but for us to dismiss them just because WE find them annoying, when they try to keep them out of your way, is a bit disrespectful.

We can't rationalize every single instance of this here. We need to accept that there's a legitimate need sometimes.

[coffee412]

Ever since television or radio started we have had ads. The big difference is that programming has gotten shorter over the years and the ad spaces have increased dramatically. Now, If you listen to radio you hear mostly ads sprinkled with what you actually tuned into to hear. Its the same with TV. But it goes a step further. Now when your watching a tv show you have the annoying ads covering up to a third of the show when your trying to watch it. Everyone sees them at the bottom and they are very annoying!

I realize that content must be paid for. However, If you have cable TV your paying for the content already. Then come the ads. If your on the internet its the same thing.

I use ad block plus and dont feel any remorse about it. What I do find very annoying on the internet is waiting for a page to load just because some ad server is slow. Heaven forbid they load the site first and then the ad. Its always the other way around.

If you feel compelled to watch the ads fine. But then where do we draw the line? In the case of tv should we - out of devotion sit thru the commercials? How about quit surfing with the remote?

Having ads is fine. But in my opinion they have abused the media to the point where its not fun anymore. I read posts every day about people dropping TV subscriptions or TV all together because the ads are so obtrusive.

Block em. Block em often. That is what I say!

:)

[Bachstelze]

Rupert Murdoch tried this with the Times and Sunday Times newspaper websites. Readers have moved to other free, ad-funded news sources, journalists detest it and I know one lawyer on The Times have defected to the Guardian newspaper.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/16545310903.shtml

Another example, a major local newspaper company trialled a paywall plan. Subscriptions were in even digits, double digits if they were lucky. Truly disastrous, the idea was dropped pretty quickly and the websites are now back to a free, ad-funded strategy.

http://paidcontent.org/article/419-johnstons-local-pay-site-trial-has-been-a-disaster/

If a local newspaper and even a influential media tycoon with a desire to paywall everything can't make a subscription fee for online content work, a blog certainly will not.

Here we have an news site (http://www.mediapart.fr) that is doing it and seems to be doing pretty well.

Also, a lot of very good blogs are just self-funded or sponsored (Bruce Schneier's, Avery Lee's, Matt Blaze's, Freedom to Tinker, etc.) But of course here we're talking about people who know their stuff, not omgubuntu. :p

[samalex]

Blocking ads on a website is just like turning the channel or muting the TV when a commercial comes on or ignoring billboards on highways or buses.

It irritates me to see a site where 20-35% of the screen is covered in ads, or the top 15% of the screen is one huge banner ad. What the heck?? I don't mind ads that are embedded more gracefully, but when they're stealing so much screen real estate or waking the kids up at night, they've crossed the annoyance line and need to be blocked.

[cra1g321]

I dont see anything wrong with blocking ads. I shouldnt waste bandwidth on stupid ads like "i got ripped in 4 weeks" or some other ad, which anyone with a bit of sense is a scam or way to spread malware.

Adblock Plus FTW :twisted:

[Sporkman]

If you are offended by the ads, then you should not visit the site. :P

How about this: If a site clearly stated: You are licensed to view this content if you do not block the ads, otherwise you are not granted access to this page.

Would you honor that? :P

[dv3500ea]

If you are offended by the ads, then you should not visit the site. :P

How about this: If a site clearly stated: You are licensed to view this content if you do not block the ads, otherwise you are not granted access to this page.

Would you honor that? :P

I wouldn't honour that. It is not enforceable anyway. However, I would probably stop visiting a site that wanted to take away my freedoms like that. I do not want the web to become closed like proprietary software is.
(Which I suppose would mean I was following the licence). If I needed to visit the site for some reason I wouldn't hesitate to use it with full ad blocking.

Also, I am not offended by ads, I just think it is the users' freedom to block them.

[cra1g321]

If you are offended by the ads, then you should not visit the site. :P

How about this: If a site clearly stated: You are licensed to view this content if you do not block the ads, otherwise you are not granted access to this page.

Would you honor that? :P

I would block and keep blocking.
I hate ads that play music or popup over the existing window(desperate to grab my attention), rather would look at a ad that was more like a banner or picture on a website.

Personally i think ads resemble spam mail

[KiwiNZ]

I wouldn't honour that. It is not enforceable anyway. However, I would probably stop visiting a site that wanted to take away my freedoms like that. I do not want the web to become closed like proprietary software is.

So you are not willing to pay for the services you receive in any way?

Why should the providers be out of pocket ?

[Naiki Muliaina]

Blocking Ads isnt wrong, but I wont block Ads myself as I like to help revenue wise for a few websites.

[puzzler995]

I was just wondering if blocking ads takes away revenue from your favorite sites? Was just curious because I thought advertisers paid premiums on hit to page containing ad and not how many people click the ad

I do block those annoying Flash Ads (stupid things eating my CPU... >:( ) but I dont have a problem with text ads, like Googles. Those dont bother me.

[dv3500ea]

So you are not willing to pay for the services you receive in any way?

Why should the providers be out of pocket ?

In principle, I am willing to pay for services I receive. I would prefer this was voluntary though (through donations). In seeing the ads I would not be paying anyway.

[Sporkman]

In principle, I am willing to pay for services I receive. I would prefer this was voluntary though (through donations).

That's not "paying". :)



In seeing the ads I would not be paying anyway.

Which makes the ad-revenue economic model superior IMO.

[Spice Weasel]

I don't care if people block ads on my site, as long as I get £10 a year from the ads to pay for the domain name I'm happy. :P

[mamamia88]

I have no problem with ads as long as they are on a site i trust. I do alot of googling and you never know what is out there. maybe i can just whitelist my favorite trustworthy sites?

[Rasa1111]

I wouldn't honour that. It is not enforceable anyway. However, I would probably stop visiting a site that wanted to take away my freedoms like that. I do not want the web to become closed like proprietary software is.
(Which I suppose would mean I was following the licence). If I needed to visit the site for some reason I wouldn't hesitate to use it with full ad blocking.

Also, I am not offended by ads, I just think it is the users' freedom to block them.

+1
Yup.

[dv3500ea]

That's not "paying". :)

Which makes the ad-revenue economic model superior IMO.

I don't click ads anyway (because when I buy things it is an informed decision based on research I do), so the site would not get any money from me. I block ads because they are an eyesore and use resources (bandwidth, memory, CPU ...).

I also like pay what you want schemes. The Humble Indie Bundle is a good example showing that this system works. It's a shame I didn't find out about this particular scheme until it had ended and the games where ~£30 each.

[lovinglinux]

I do not believe that blocking ads is wrong. I'd much prefer it if free websites used donations (some already do), allowing you to support them if you think the content is good. I personally think that flattr (http://flattr.com/) is a brilliant idea.

I agree, Flattr is brilliant.


Ever since television or radio started we have had ads. The big difference is that programming has gotten shorter over the years and the ad spaces have increased dramatically. Now, If you listen to radio you hear mostly ads sprinkled with what you actually tuned into to hear. Its the same with TV. But it goes a step further. Now when your watching a tv show you have the annoying ads covering up to a third of the show when your trying to watch it. Everyone sees them at the bottom and they are very annoying!

I realize that content must be paid for. However, If you have cable TV your paying for the content already. Then come the ads. If your on the internet its the same thing.

I use ad block plus and dont feel any remorse about it. What I do find very annoying on the internet is waiting for a page to load just because some ad server is slow. Heaven forbid they load the site first and then the ad. Its always the other way around.

If you feel compelled to watch the ads fine. But then where do we draw the line? In the case of tv should we - out of devotion sit thru the commercials? How about quit surfing with the remote?

Having ads is fine. But in my opinion they have abused the media to the point where its not fun anymore. I read posts every day about people dropping TV subscriptions or TV all together because the ads are so obtrusive.

Block em. Block em often. That is what I say!

:)

Other day I tried to watch a very good movie on Warner Channel (paid channel here) and they stretched the movie from 2:20 to 3:30 with 15 breaks that repeated the same commercials over and over. It was simply unbearable and unacceptable. I'm paying for the channel, so I don't want commercials. Even if the channel was free, 15 commercial breaks is just too greedy.

I can't stand commercials on TV anymore. They make me really angry and take all the fun away.

About Internet ads, is a dilemma for me, but I block them anyway.

[Hexster71FD]

I use Adblock Plus and Noscript addons for Firefox to block ads.

I don't feel bad about it at all.

Why?

Because, in the past I've gotten viruses on my Windows machines from ads on legitimate sites. Somehow the ad server was hacked and ads were put in the mix that would put a dropper on Windows machines causing multiple infections until the dropper was removed (It would also hijack the web browser and tell you that your computer was infected, and that you needed to pay for a anti-virus). This was no easy thing to just run a scan and get rid of. For a lot of people their AV scanners would go nuts on the viruses and completely miss the dropper.

I'm sure that Linux would be immune to the dropper and viruses, BUT I'd bet that it could still hijack the browser unless you had a java script blocker like Noscript.

If that's not bad enough, the ads now take up so much screen space, and are so distracting that it makes it even harder to focus on the content you actually came to the website for. Not to mention it's using your computers resources to load and run on your machine.

[NightwishFan]

I do prefer to support some sites, though I wish there was a better way. I usually have ad-block and just manually purge anything I find annoying.

[Paul820]

I block all ads, if a site i visit is a free software site then i unblock it. Even if i didn't have adblock plus on i still wouldn't click on the ads. So why do i have adblock plus? Beacuse all those sliding, flashing ads are distracting to what i am trying to view/read. They are annoying.

Everyone is starting internet sites these days and say they need the ads to run the site. Me, i wouldn't start an internet site in the first place if i couldn't afford to run it. Moaning that you have done a website and everyone blocks the ads to pay for it isn't my problem. Why should we have to click something to pay for it. It was your choice to make the site in the first place. And anyway, half of the sites out there are pure junk.

[Sporkman]

Everyone is starting internet sites these days and say they need the ads to run the site. Me, i wouldn't start an internet site in the first place if i couldn't afford to run it. Moaning that you have done a website and everyone blocks the ads to pay for it isn't my problem. Why should we have to click something to pay for it. It was your choice to make the site in the first place. And anyway, half of the sites out there are pure junk.

So what's the incentive for putting the effort into making a good site in your reality? What does the site creator get out of your visit?

[puzzler995]

Everyone is starting internet sites these days and say they need the ads to run the site. Me, i wouldn't start an internet site in the first place if i couldn't afford to run it. Moaning that you have done a website and everyone blocks the ads to pay for it isn't my problem. Why should we have to click something to pay for it. It was your choice to make the site in the first place. And anyway, half of the sites out there are pure junk.

Or they could just use free hosts, like i do.

[Bachstelze]

So what's the incentive for putting the effort into making a good site in your reality?

A good site doesn't take any effort to make. All it takes is a smart person writing about something interesting. And if the person is smart, they probably have a day-job with a nice paycheck, and are able to pay for their website.

[Sporkman]

A good site doesn't take any effort to make. All it takes is a smart person writing about something interesting. And if the person is smart, they probably have a day-job with a nice paycheck, and are able to pay for their website.

So the only free sites on the internet should be hobbyist websites, that people work on for free on their spare time?

And nice to know that writing is "effortless". :roll:

[Bachstelze]

So the only free sites on the internet should be hobbyist websites, that people work on for free on their spare time?

Yes, that's what the Internet was made for.


And nice to know that writing is "effortless". :roll:

I can't say for sure, but I'd think when you've written a 70-page PhD thesis, writing a hundred lines on a blog must feel like a walk in the park.

[dv3500ea]

So what's the incentive for putting the effort into making a good site in your reality? What does the site creator get out of your visit?

For the best websites, the incentive is the website itself, not any financial gain that can be made from it (although that is an added bonus).

A hint: this principle applies to almost everything in life, not just websites.

[Sporkman]

I think we're done here. Shark has been jumped. :)

[madjr]

For the best websites, the incentive is the website itself, not any financial gain that can be made from it (although that is an added bonus).

A hint: this principle applies to almost everything in life, not just websites.

you need to get real...

at first it may be , but then the owners have to eat and pay server costs

they either need to quit the site and get a job

or keep the site and reduce any content/updates dramatically

many distros are also ad+donations supported

many ads are indeed annoying, but if a site is good, i occasionally will disable my adblock until i find an ad that really interests and click on it. It may not be right away but 1 day a month i can do it np

many people on this thread ("tech savvy") are a LOT more GREEDY than the site owners themselves,
they TAKE TAKE TAKE and dont give anything back.I would call them
"Greed-savvy" or free-ride vampires instead.

dudes, try to give back one day and not just expect everything given to you.

good thing they dont rely on you for funding, but instead on NORMAL non tech people without the darn adblock. If everyone used adblock, there would be almost no sites/blogs and the internet would not have as much power as it does.

ALSO, i would like to add, that not only sites are going the "free" route, many online Games/rpgs/virtual worlds are doing the same

the whole subscription model (like WoW) is beginning to crumble. 3 big mmos have already gone the free route and many others to come. ads, premium content and item-shops are giving them more funds than subscriptions

thank God most of the internet is ad funded and not subscription based, i would not like it become like cable tv where you get 100 CRAPPY channels for like $40/mo. Imagine getting just 100 sites....

that sux

[puzzler995]

you need to get real...

at first it may be , but then the owners have to eat and pay server costs

they either need to quit the site and get a job

or keep the site and reduce any content/updates dramatically

many distros are also ad+donations supported

many ads are indeed annoying, but if a site is good, i occasionally will disable my adblock until i find an ad that really interests and click on it. It may not be right away but 1 day a month i can do it np

many people on this thread (specially the tech savvy) are a LOT more GREEDY than the site owners themselves,
they TAKE TAKE TAKE and dont give anything back.

dudes, try to give back one day and not just expect everything given to you.

good thing they dont rely on you for funding, but instead on NORMAL non tech people without the darn adblock. If everyone used adblock, there would be almost no sites/blogs and the internet would not have as much power as it does.

ALSO, i would like to add, that not only sites are going the ad/premium content and item-shop route, many online Games/rpgs/virtual worlds are doing the same

the whole subscription model (like WoW) is beginning to crumble. 3 big mmos have already gone the free route and many others to come

thank God most of the internet is ad funded and not subscription based, i would not like it become like cable tv where you get 100 CRAPPY channels for like $40/mo

that sux

Good points. but like i said before. the hobbists can just use free web hosts (like i use SF's dev web

[dv3500ea]

they either need to quit the site and get a job

or keep the site and reduce any content/updates dramatically


You're limiting the options here. People can can maintain a website/blog and have a job - in fact this is the most common scenario.

[Bachstelze]

or keep the site and reduce any content/updates dramatically


I'd take two quality articles per month (freedom to tinker) over two crappy ones per day (omgubuntu) any day.

[Naiki Muliaina]

A good site doesn't take any effort to make. All it takes is a smart person writing about something interesting. And if the person is smart, they probably have a day-job with a nice paycheck, and are able to pay for their website.



I can't say for sure, but I'd think when you've written a 70-page PhD thesis, writing a hundred lines on a blog must feel like a walk in the park.

Cant help but think your saying only smart people should have websites... Damn your an elitist rugger aint ya! ;)

[MasterNetra]

I don't know whether it takes away revenue or not, but either way, it is definitely not wrong. What is wrong IMO is putting them in the first place.

Sites get money from them usually per click/load some ads might require users to actually purchase something from them though either way for free sites ads are their life blood and where their income is coming from.

Having ADs isn't wrong. Overloading the page with them on the other head wouldn't be a good thing.

[KiwiNZ]

So my Salary should subsidize others :rolleyes:

Life is not all a free lunch

[kaldor]

I don't know whether it takes away revenue or not, but either way, it is definitely not wrong. What is wrong IMO is putting them in the first place.

It keeps sites going. What's wrong is when they're disruptive or (in a friend's case) resource hog on old machines. I have a friend who can't even browse websites without using Adblock and blocking all the adds.

[Paul820]

I couldn't ask people for money if i had a website.
Let's say i woke up one morning and thought to myself, i think i will make a website and share a bit of knowledge i have about some specific subject. I then go ahead and make said website sharing this knowledge. I could not then start asking people to donate to help with the running of it, it was my decision to start making the webstie so it should be up to me to pay for it. It should not be anyone elses responsability to pay for something i chose to do even though they are gaining something from it.

Relying on an internet site as a sole source of income is another thing, it's mad, websites come and go all the time. Having a steady job and a website is a better idea then you can do the funding yourself, then there is no need for the ads and no need to moan because people are not clicking on them.

[MasterNetra]

So my Salary should subsidize others :rolleyes:

Life is not all a free lunch

Oh? If you have a problem with going to ads and paying for stuff, then why are you doing it? No one is forced to go to ads, (minus those auto-redirecting sites which are usually no good and/or up to no good.) TV Channels do the same thing. Ads and/or donations are their only source of income. You cable bill money doesn't go to them after all its goes to the cable company for watching the channels through them.

[KiwiNZ]

Oh? If you have a problem with going to ads and paying for stuff, then why are you doing it? No one is forced to go to ads, (minus those auto-redirecting sites which are usually no good and/or up to no good.) TV Channels do the same thing. Ads and/or donations are their only source of income. You cable bill money doesn't go to them after all its goes to the cable company for watching the channels through them.

I support Advertising

[Naiki Muliaina]

I don't feel that can be blanketed across all websites. I have seen small good intention websites with a forum, pootle along and build a nice little community, suddenly grow where another forum on the same topic closes, or just a general shift of people arrive on it.

Suddenly they need to upgrade forum software cause there's to many people looking it. Asking for donations works sometimes, but most definitely not all the time. Ad's are a simple and easy route to take to help out.

If you dont like seeing Ad's dont visit the website. Not like there isnt a few billion other pages on the tinterwebs for you to look at ;)

[Paul820]

Suddenly they need to upgrade forum software cause there's to many people looking it.

That should have been thought through before starting to build a site. It's called planning.

[BigCityCat]

I block mostly because of security and speed. I'm going to go with only noscript for a while and see how that works but I already know even if I see adds I won't click on them.

[tjeremiah]

ads on the INTERNET have become increasingly annoying that I have no choice but to block em. I also hear that they now could carry cookies and other trackers to see where you go. I only allow ads to be shown for sites I frequent and trust.

[MasterNetra]

That should have been thought through before starting to build a site. It's called planning.

People miss things, it happens. And even at that, it might be considered but be left out because there is no foreseeable need for it, then later down the road future circumstances may prove otherwise.

[QIII]

I block ads - just as a shut my eyes when I'm driving by a billboard :---)

I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did. Not screaming and crying like the passengers in his car.

[MasterNetra]

I block mostly because of security and speed. I'm going to go with only noscript for a while and see how that works but I already know even if I see adds I won't click on them.

No-script blocks more then ads. It can get annoying unblocking parts of every website you want to go to. A trade off I suppose.

[Rasa1111]

No, not cool.

If you want to help site owners, stop promoting ad blocking. :)

Nah , Ill continue to block ads.
Actually, chromium does all the work for me now.
I already said I dont bother with that anymore.
Id rather save what system resources I have for things I need,
rather than for SPAM/commercials/ads.

Thanks for caring,
but I truly dont care about ads.
Ive already stated my feelings on it,
they won't change.

Have a good one.

[Sporkman]

That should have been thought through before starting to build a site. It's called planning.

Wow. :roll:

[malspa]

How can it be "wrong" to black ads that I'll never click on anyway? Is it wrong to toss aways the ad section that comes with the newspaper, or are you obligated to look at those ads just because the newspaper includes them?

[Merk42]

For some bizarre reason folks seem to think the internet should be a free ride for everything, it's not.

You're on a forum about a Linux distribution. There area lot of people that seems to think anything related to computers should be a free ride for everything.

[Sporkman]

You're on a forum about a Linux distribution. There area lot of people that seems to think anything related to computers should be a free ride for everything.

No, I think there's just a general rejection of the concept of intellectual property among this crowd. Content on webpages falls under that category, so they reject any assertion of ownership over the content, including the rights of the copyright holder to not have his/her works modified (such as having the ads stripped out).

[Chronon]

If you are offended by the ads, then you should not visit the site. :P

How about this: If a site clearly stated: You are licensed to view this content if you do not block the ads, otherwise you are not granted access to this page.

Would you honor that? :P

I voluntarily disable ad blocking on sites I wish to support if they ask it. Conversely, an abundance of flashy and/or noisy ads makes me not want to support a site and I may enable ad blocking again.

I am not aware of any protections that can prevent me from looking at something. I am only aware of copyright, patent and things of this nature. In any case, if the content owner does not wish me to view content then they should simply prevent access rather than delivering it and complaining that I am violating their rights.

[Chronon]

they reject any assertion of ownership over the content, including the rights of the copyright holder to not have his/her works modified (such as having the ads stripped out).

That's an interesting argument. However, copyright of the ads does not belong to the content owner of a website. Thus, they can't reasonably be considered part of a unified creative work in a fixed form. Additionally, the modification only happens in private on my end, not to a publicly displayed version of the work. I can also wear tinted glasses or lenses to view copyrighted works without violating the rights of the copyright holder.

[Calash]

Does a website owner have any right to make a profit from the work they produce? If so, how should they be allowed to gain that profit?

[madjr]

i actually tried this addon the other day:

dogooder
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/54200/?src=api

"Replace regular online ads with green and philanthropic ones."


i think that if ads where more like it, the net would be cooler

also if people could vote on ads (up or down), the bad / crappy / tricky / annoying ads would get voted down and off the system. We would get much better ads

and if google inplemented a "dont show this ad to me again" or dont show me ads on this site for a week, that would be cool and many people would not need or want adblock, better for google in the long run too

[Merk42]

Does a website owner have any right to make a profit from the work they produce? If so, how should they be allowed to gain that profit?
A lot of times it's not even profit, it's just to pay the bills for hosting (larger bills due to the increased bandwidth of more popular sites).

I'd still like an answer from people about your question though. I feel 'yes'. I'd also say that ads are the best form because of people's sense of entitlement you'd have to offer something REALLY GOOD to have a paid barrier.

[wewantutopia]

I have no problem blocking Ads just like I have no problem DVRing tv and fast forwarding through the commercials.

If you start a website as a business to sell stuff you make $ from the transactions made. No ads/donations should be needed.

I you start some blog because you had the urge to say something to the world, its not the readers obligation to pay for you to spew your thoughts. If you actually have something decent to say and gain a following, ask for donations Wikipedia style. Same goes with community sites: ask for donations.

I am a member of a WVO/SVO/Biodiesel forum that has 1 add at the top paid for by a vendor who is also a regular user of the forum. There is regularly a post/sticky asking for donations. The hosting/tech costs are stated as is the due date. There is then a status bar showing how close to the goal they are. This works quite well.

[KiwiNZ]

How would people feel about small Ads on this site to defray the costs of providing this service?

[MasterNetra]

How would people feel about small Ads on this site to defray the costs of providing this service?

Couldn't careless if they are added or not. I'm used to them.

[wewantutopia]

How would people feel about small Ads on this site to defray the costs of providing this service?

If they are small and unobtrusive that would be fine... text only better.

If you don't click on the add though the site owner doesn't get $ right? So if you don't intend on clicking on an ad (like another poster said, I don't impulse buy, I research for the "perfect" product) then what does it matter if you see the ad or not?

[tgalati4]

I use Ad-Art. Replaces ads with artwork.

[MasterNetra]

I use Ad-Art. Replaces ads with artwork.

nice. Wish they made one for chrome/chromium and chrome/chromium supported add-ons.

[lykwydchykyn]

If I put a link to paypal on my website with a statement of "you must pay me $1 if you have read anything on my website", would you feel obligated to pay?

If I set up loudspeakers in the street and started playing one of my songs, then told everyone in earshot that they owed me 50 dollars for the entertainment, do you think they should be required (morally or legally) to pay me?

If I decide that someone's publicly-presented original work is worth reading/seeing/hearing, does that automatically mean I'm required to remunerate him in any way or amount he decrees?

[pwnst*r]

Thank you, servers, developers, etc. Are not cheap.

But, I use free software - why aren't the above free as well?

[formaldehyde_spoon]

Ads do support sites.
I block any ads that are animated, moving, flashing, audible, cursor-grabbing, huge, flash, or otherwise obtrusive (ie embedded into user posts!), but small static images or text ads I'm very happy to leave, because I know it does help the site I'm viewing.
If I put a link to paypal on my website with a statement of &quot;you must pay me $1 if you have read anything on my website&quot;, would you feel obligated to pay?

If I set up loudspeakers in the street and started playing one of my songs, then told everyone in earshot that they owed me 50 dollars for the entertainment, do you think they should be required (morally or legally) to pay me?

If I decide that someone's publicly-presented original work is worth reading/seeing/hearing, does that automatically mean I'm required to remunerate him in any way or amount he decrees?

I agree with this: no-one is *entitled* to revenue just because people are using their site.

If people don't want to provide you with income that's your own problem, and if people feel that way about you they aren't likely to care if your site disappears.

I won't allow annoying ads from any site, no matter how good it is, but I do consciously try to allow non-annoying ads from sites I like.

[Khakilang]

By not clicking the ads is almost the same as blocking the ads. I block certain ads especially the one uses Flash because its take up my internet bandwidth and I got bandwidth cap. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

[Exershio]

Advertisements are pollution. I don't need my mind being bombarded every minute of the day with companies trying to sell me things. This (among other reasons) is why I don't have cable television.

Long ago, there was a time when the world was quiet and peaceful. Now everything everywhere is flashy, loud, and annoying. I can't drive down the road without seeing flashy billboards, and that absolutely disgusts me. This world used to be a beautiful place, and people are destroying it with their hideous logos and loud banners. Blocking advertisements on the internet is one small way to reduce this unnecessary noise, visual, and mental pollution from my world.

I honestly don't care about the lost revenue to the website owners. The internet was created with the purposes of sharing information and communicating. Building websites, in my opinion, is much like writing music, or painting a picture. You should do it because you love to do it, not because you can profit off of it. People pay to enter the studio and record their music, people pay for the materials used to create a piece of art. Why shouldn't people pay for the resources used to create a website? If the only reason you're creating a website is to make money, and not because you love to do it, you should find another source of income. (Yes I understand some people make money off of music and art, but I doubt most of them picked up a guitar or a paintbrush with their main goal to make money.)

[Rasa1111]

Some intelligent folks here.
I already knew that,
just saying..
Nice to be amongst you.


Originally Posted by KiwiNZ
How would people feel about small Ads on this site to defray the costs of providing this service?

What difference would it make if I (or anyone else), wasn't going to click on them?

but to answer your question without asking another question...

If this site had small, unobtrusive ads, that I knew were going to help pay to keep this site up and going,
~(and/or/but)~

and that they would help the site simply by 'existing'...
I would gladly disable all ad blocking (on this site).

or~ If the ads were to help keep this site up and running,
but they would only help by people actually clicking on them,

Then I would also, gladly disable ad blocking and click on as many of the ads as I could, when time permitted.

But if the ads were there to simply "raise a few extra bucks for pocket money", or just to raise a few extra bucks because one can...
or because people feel they deserve to be paid for their time
(that they happily volunteered)
I would gladly keep ad blocking enabled.

So, I guess the best answer would be..
'it depends.'

[formaldehyde_spoon]

By not clicking the ads is almost the same as blocking the ads. I block certain ads especially the one uses Flash because its take up my internet bandwidth and I got bandwidth cap. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

It depends. In some cases money changes hands just for the number of ads viewed (not clicked).
... I honestly don't care about the lost revenue to the website owners. The internet was created with the purposes of sharing information and communicating. Building websites, in my opinion, is much like writing music, or painting a picture. You should do it because you love to do it, not because you can profit off of it. People pay to enter the studio and record their music, people pay for the materials used to create a piece of art. Why shouldn't people pay for the resources used to create a website? If the only reason you're creating a website is to make money, and not because you love to do it, you should find another source of income. (Yes I understand some people make money off of music and art, but I doubt most of them picked up a guitar or a paintbrush with their main goal to make money.)

AFAIC everyone has every right to block ads if they want to. It's up to websites to make people want to allow ads.

But things aren't as black and white as you make them out to be. People who make websites out of love (not money) may have to stop purely for financial reasons. Websites that exist to make money might be losing money, or just be breaking even, and they may be loved by their readers/users.

Don't get me wrong; I love my adblocker/flasblocker, and I make no apologies for the level of blocking I use, but if every single person blocked every single ad the web would lose vast numbers of sites, many of them wonderful, fascinating, informative and useful.

[blueturtl]

I think it's justified in cases where the advertising is all over the place and very intrusive. Pop ups and flashing banners give sensitive people seizures and keep us less sensitive constantly irritated. Google for example has mastered proper internet ad etiquette; the ads are text based and are actually related to the thing you're searching for.

[mr_luksom]

Advertising is surely the lowest form of marketing. If marketing was akin to wooing the opposite sex, then advertising would be tanned dark brown, with bleached blonde hair, a constant look of surprised indifference flexing their muscles yelling out "who wants to go to my car for some funtime."

I personally think that blocking advertising is my good deed towards humanity. The people who click on those gaudy displays deserve what they get - more invasive advertising.

[slackthumbz]

If I'm interested in acquiring something I'll look into it of my own accord. I don't appreciate sites wasting my screen real estate trying to sell me things I don't want. I go a tad further than just adblocking, I also block javascript and cookies from all adservers as well. Screw them.

[Sporkman]

If I'm interested in acquiring something I'll look into it of my own accord. I don't appreciate sites wasting my screen real estate trying to sell me things I don't want. I go a tad further than just adblocking, I also block javascript and cookies from all adservers as well. Screw them.

Strangely enough though, you're happy to leave unblocked the useful content on the page that somebody put hard work into... ;)

[slackthumbz]

Strangely enough though, you're happy to leave unblocked the useful content on the page that somebody put hard work into... ;)

Actually I tend to use adblocking software to also remove superfluous cruft from the sites I view, such as banners and the like. The result is a less cluttered web experience, and that's the beauty of F/OSS. I can even tailor the internet to suit me :wink:

[t0p]

When I'm watching TV, I don't pay much attention to the ads. Quite often I use the ad break to go to the loo, put on the kettle, etc. I certainly don't feel compelled to watch the ads in order to support the TV station. And the TV stations and ad creators know that many viewers do the same.

I consider the use of ad-blockers to be similar. When I use someone else's computer to browse the web, I get pretty irritated by those ads that appear right over whatever it is I'm trying to view. These ads are invasive; just imagine, when you're watching TV and an ad break comes up, you go to the bathroom and the TV follows you, or it interposes itself. between you and the kettle when you're trying to make a cup of tea. I'm sure you'd find that pretty irritating.

Unobtrusive ads are fine: they don't get in the way and they help finance websites so I don't have to pay to use them. And who knows, maybe I'll see an ad for something I actually want. But as long as ads continue to spoil my web browsing, I'll use ad-blocking add-ons.

[Sporkman]

You all are going to do what you're going to do, but you definitely don't want usage of ad-blocking software to go mainstream. It would change your internet experience dramatically, and not for the better.

[Dragonbite]

I was just wondering if blocking ads takes away revenue from your favorite sites? Was just curious because I thought advertisers paid premiums on hit to page containing ad and not how many people click the ad

For sites I don't mind "supporting", like Pandora Radio, I turn off the Ad Blocker. They also "get it" because the ads are not obtrusive or otherwise get in the way and are annoying.

I block out the ads in Pandora the old-fashioned way. I open it in a browser (Google application if you must know) and then shrink the browser so all I see is the music-portion of the application.

AT home, I use Pithos, because it takes less resources than the browser and I don't have to worry about the browser being redirected or advertisements.

[madjr]

I'd take two quality articles per month (freedom to tinker) over two crappy ones per day (omgubuntu) any day.

u dont need adblock for that, you need mindblock. Just ignore the posts that dont interest you or simply hit the unsubscribe button.

every blog i know has its share of posts that i dont care about, so i dont know why u keep complaining only about omgubuntu



You all are going to do what you're going to do, but you definitely don't want usage of ad-blocking software to go mainstream. It would change your internet experience dramatically, and not for the better.

+1
as long as is just a portion of the tech crowd, then there should be not too much harm

[Calash]

Many webmasters are all about money. They saturate their pages with more ads than content. The results are bitter users who block all ads out of spite.

Personally I limit my sites to very few ads. I make no money and slightly offset my costs with the income but it is better than nothing. My Pay Per Click ads get just about no income while my Pay Per Month ads are slightly more steady but requires a set amount of views to keep advertisers.

It is an argument that can never be won. Some people just don't think you should make any money for a hobby, others think the internet should not be a business opportunity. Nothing is free..not even the things you enjoy.

[Bachstelze]

u dont need adblock for that, you need mindblock. Just ignore the posts that dont interest you or simply hit the unsubscribe button.

every blog i know has its share of posts that i dont care about, so i dont know why u keep complaining only about omgubuntu


I'm not complaining, I'm saying that omgubuntu is an example of a blog that is both ad-supported and bad. I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but it is a fact that the best blogs are ad-free. That's why ads are bad: they allow bad blogs to exist.

[Sri Lanka]

A very popular newspaper which I read every day for the last three decades has now become subscription only. I stopped buying the paper because I wanted to help save the environment and reduce the use of paper which is why I started reading it online.

But this year, because the paper is operating at a loss they have decided to cut staff which includes good reporters, and now make their website only available to paid subscribers.

This will become the norm if people view advertising as a nuisance.

We go to these great websites which are offered free to us but costs money to operate, but we can';t click on a couple of ADS and now we complain about them too.

It's a crazy world we live in.

My first post! Ha ha! I read the forum a lot but never posted till I saw this thread.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I'm not complaining, I'm saying that omgubuntu is an example of a blog that is both ad-supported and bad. I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but it is a fact that the best blogs are ad-free. That's why ads are bad: they allow bad blogs to exist.

Why cant bad blogs exist? Just ignore the website if you don't like what you see...

People that write blogs, good or bad, should have the choice of what they do with it. Also, as people looking about the web, we should have the choice of what we want to look at.

[kvant]

For example: I make a site, a good linux site, a good technology site and I put some ads on it offering fair deals, nothing related to malware etc. and I earn my living.

Now that I've put it that simply above, you tell me if you think it's fair. I think it's more fair than not.

[wewantutopia]

A very popular newspaper which I read every day for the last three decades has now become subscription only. I stopped buying the paper because I wanted to help save the environment and reduce the use of paper which is why I started reading it online.

But this year, because the paper is operating at a loss they have decided to cut staff which includes good reporters, and now make their website only available to paid subscribers.

This will become the norm if people view advertising as a nuisance.

We go to these great websites which are offered free to us but costs money to operate, but we can';t click on a couple of ADS and now we complain about them too.

It's a crazy world we live in.

My first post! Ha ha! I read the forum a lot but never posted till I saw this thread.

Key concepts in this post... You were BUYING the paper for 3 decades then got it for free online but are not willing to pay for it in its digital form. Why? Same goes with GOOD tech blogs... isn't that essentially a digital tech "magazine" which a monthly subscription would be paid for in its tangible form. The fee should be substantially less than its tangilble form of course since no printing or mailing takes place..

[Bachstelze]

Why cant bad blogs exist? Just ignore the website if you don't like what you see...

I didn't say they can't. That would be stupid because obviously, they can. I said that I think they shouldn't. Luckily, they don't care about my opinion.

[madjr]

I didn't say they can't. That would be stupid because obviously, they can. I said that I think they shouldn't. Luckily, they don't care about my opinion.

there is no good without evil

good websites would not exist without bad ones

if everything were "good", than nothing actually would be "good", because all that "good" would be taken for granted


ok, u think omgubuntu is crap, thats ok, i think at least 50% of the posts are not that interesting too, but i would like to know an example of a blog/site where "all" posts are good and posts 3/4 times per day.

please mention a few. Am sure that out of millions of sites there should be some

yea i figured...
as you can see, is not that omg ubuntu lacks good posts, is actually the number of times they post

is impossible for all posts to be of good quality when you post 3/4 times a day.
Quality = time and less quantity.

But since they are funded by search engine searches, is logical they would post more since it gets them more visits.
more content = more visits

[perspectoff]

The problem is that most ad-placement software uses cross-scripting.

That is one of the biggest security headaches, because hackers infiltrate the cross-scripting code extremely frequently (it is probably the biggest security risk on the Internet).

In the old days, a website had a static ad, and the risk was minimal.

Nowadays, most websites have no idea what is happening in the frames in which their ads appear.

As a matter of security, I never allow scripted ads.

The theory that ads support free services is ridiculous. I am very against tobacco smoking. If tobacco ads supported Ubuntu, would I want my kids to see them? No way.

Similarly, I don't want my users/clients exposed to security risks with the rather flimsy proposition that it supports "free services."

Further, many ads nowadays have embedded streaming video or animated graphics that significantly increase network traffic exponentially.

That is highly irresponsible. I automatically block all embedded video and animated graphics merely in order to keep my networks efficient.

Lastly, many ads install cookies, homing beacons, and other privacy intrusion techniques that are not of benefit to my users/clients and introduce another level of security risk. (Of course, this is how Google makes its living, and others like Microsoft have stepped up their efforts in this arena well).

It is a good time to re-read 1984 by George Orwell.

[Bachstelze]

is impossible for all posts to be of good quality when you post 3/4 times a day.
Quality = time and less quantity.

But since they are funded by search engine searches, is logical they would post more since it gets them more visits.
more content = more visits

My point exactly. Ad-funding hurts quality, and that's why it's bad.

[madjr]

My point exactly. Ad-funding hurts quality, and that's why it's bad.

is not all because of ad-funding. Anything "funded" is done in a similar way. Take newspapers. More content = more chances of people finding something they like and sub to it. 95% of other posts you dont care about, but at least that 5% did get your attention

Omgubuntu may solve this by:
splitting the RSS feeds ("all posts" and breaking news posts) or if people just ignore the small news stuff (like i do)

Suggesting something as simple as splitting the RSS feeds, would probably relief your rant/complain about it.

They are not annoying on purpose, simple you are not given them the suggestions directly.

is UF getting crappy because not many big interesting/controversial posts lately??

Same with Ubuntu as a distro, it needs feedback to fix stuff
So is it a bad distro because they "should read your mind"?? nope! is getting better and better, thanks to people that complain less and actually do something about it

--------

Edit:

anyone can go sub to breaking news if they go to:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/category/breaking/

or to any other category of interest, can sub directly

am not sure what you're looking in a linux blog, but thats probably a start...

[markp1989]

</snip>

because people feel they deserve to be paid for their time
(that they happily volunteered)
I would gladly keep ad blocking enabled.

So, I guess the best answer would be..
'it depends.'


so every ones time is worth less, even your day job, which you chose to do, shouldn't be paid for?

I have google ads on my site, just to pay for hosting (about £25 a year) , which isn't free. I have made £1.12 in the last month on the ads, so its not like it a big money spinner. I do try to keep the ads as unobtrusive as possible

Personally i think there should be a ban against ads that have sound in them, nothings more annoying to me when im quietly browsing the web, and out of no were music shows up and makes me jump out of my skin.

[Bachstelze]

is UF crappy because no big interesting/controversial posts lately??

UF is not a blog (even though some people use it as their own blog), it is primarily a tech support forum, and it's very good at it.

[Denis Krajnc]

It's not wrong to block them.
Sites that have ads (almost all) are bad sites usually... Except YouTube, Facebook for me. Because those two are actually giving you something useful.
Internet would be a lot cleaner without ads.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I didn't say they can't. That would be stupid because obviously, they can. I said that I think they shouldn't. Luckily, they don't care about my opinion.

I still find your opinion appallingly elitist. Your entitled to it though.

[madjr]

UF is not a blog (even though some people use it as their own blog), it is primarily a tech support forum, and it's very good at it.

exactly
i dont need tech support, so i use UF as a way to relief boredom (similar to how i use a blog)

things are not "good" or "bad", people just have different needs. Either it "currently" fulfills your needs with the current setup or it needs tweaking.


It's not wrong to block them.
Sites that have ads (almost all) are bad sites usually... Except YouTube, Facebook for me. Because those two are actually giving you something useful.
Internet would be a lot cleaner without ads.

once you stop visiting pr0n sites the Internet does get cleaner :)

[wewantutopia]

I still find your opinion appallingly elitist. Your entitled to it though.

If someone decides to publicly express their thoughts through a blog it is because they WANTED to, not because there was a demand they were fulfilling. I would even argue it is the AUTHOR that is gaining via attention/self-worth/notoriety by having people read their thoughts. Filling the site with ads is akin to the readers "paying" twice. If the author actually has something decent to say and gains a following then it is a different story. If they don't have anything decent to say it is like the digital version of a crazy person on the corner warning the end is near and don't care if their coffers are refilled. Heck, some sites on the web should reimburse their readers for wasting their time...

[Bachstelze]

If the author actually has something decent to say and gains a following then it is a different story.

Sadly, you don't need to have anything decent to say in order to gain a following... And if you don't have anything to say but also have a following, that's when you use ads. Otherwise, you have your blog hosted by your company/university because they will appreciate the publicity of having a good blog hosted by them, or self-funded.

[Naiki Muliaina]

As long as some crazy person in the corner is not harming anyone, why cant they sit in the corner and be crazy? :)

I am just firmly of the opinion that as long as someone isn't forcing their decisions / actions / lifestyle on other people, people should be able to do what they choose.

You are not forced to look at their website. You have the choose to hit a back button, close a tab, use flashblock, use noscript or whatever else. So why cant they have the choice of they do with their website?

You are effectively saying people shouldn't have choice in their lives because they are not on 'your level'. *shrugs* Pretty damned elitist IMHO...

[IAmWhatWasDavidBowman]

The problem is that most ad-placement software uses cross-scripting.

That is one of the biggest security headaches, because hackers infiltrate the cross-scripting code extremely frequently (it is probably the biggest security risk on the Internet).

In the old days, a website had a static ad, and the risk was minimal.

Nowadays, most websites have no idea what is happening in the frames in which their ads appear.

As a matter of security, I never allow scripted ads.

The theory that ads support free services is ridiculous. I am very against tobacco smoking. If tobacco ads supported Ubuntu, would I want my kids to see them? No way.

Similarly, I don't want my users/clients exposed to security risks with the rather flimsy proposition that it supports "free services."

Further, many ads nowadays have embedded streaming video or animated graphics that significantly increase network traffic exponentially.

That is highly irresponsible. I automatically block all embedded video and animated graphics merely in order to keep my networks efficient.

Lastly, many ads install cookies, homing beacons, and other privacy intrusion techniques that are not of benefit to my users/clients and introduce another level of security risk. (Of course, this is how Google makes its living, and others like Microsoft have stepped up their efforts in this arena well).

It is a good time to re-read 1984 by George Orwell.

This is, in my opinion, the most well-reasoned argument for blocking ads that I've seen in this thread.

That said, I support organizations and websites that I feel deserve my support. I have donated to many authors of useful free and open-source software and to organizations such as Wikipedia, and I will continue to do so.

Like most everyone else, I despise ads that are obtrusive, audible, and interrupt my web-browsing experience. No radio, television or billboard ads are really capable of causing me the same headaches that these sort of web ads can. Not to mention the security and privacy concerns perspectoff offered above.

A well-placed ad is okay with me, and I support the reasons behind it. Like it or not, everything comes with a cost, and I have no problems with web developers (etc.) trying to at least cover their costs. I also do not have a problem with trying to turn a profit. Most of the world does live on the concept of capitalism, after all.

For those website owners who need ad revenue, I would offer the following: Instead of whining that your visitors are taking money out of your pockets through blocking ads, simply ask them for a (emphasis on) small donation. How much money is really generated from each individual user? I'd be willing to bet that if you asked politely for even a dollar (or whatever other small denomination in whatever currency with which you operate), you would get at least 10% of those ad-blocking visitors to do so.

If I had more discretionary income, I would certainly be willing to donate more often than I do. I simply can't.

This thread has made me reconsider my usage of adblock. I am going to white list several more of the websites which I frequent. That is, of course, as long as they do not cause me any headaches. ;p

(And it's always a good time to re-read 1984)

[Bachstelze]

You are effectively saying people shouldn't have choice in their lives because they are not on 'your level'.

No. I'm saying that they shouldn't do it, not that they should be forbidden to. I don't have a blog, because I wouldn't have anything interesting to say on it. So I choose not to have one, that's just common sense. I wish more people had that kind of sense.

RMS says proprietary software shouldn't exist, not that it should be outlawed. Same reasoning here. People should get out of it on their own free will, not under constraint.

[Naiki Muliaina]

No. I'm saying that they shouldn't do it

That still says to me that you feel your opinion is above somebody's else's choice.

[Bachstelze]

That still says to me that you feel your opinion is above somebody's else's choice.

Well, you are wrong.

[madjr]

This is, in my opinion, the most well-reasoned argument for blocking ads that I've seen in this thread.

That said, I support organizations and websites that I feel deserve my support. I have donated to many authors of useful free and open-source software and to organizations such as Wikipedia, and I will continue to do so.

Like most everyone else, I despise ads that are obtrusive, audible, and interrupt my web-browsing experience. No radio, television or billboard ads are really capable of causing me the same headaches that these sort of web ads can. Not to mention the security and privacy concerns perspectoff offered above.

A well-placed ad is okay with me, and I support the reasons behind it. Like it or not, everything comes with a cost, and I have no problems with web developers (etc.) trying to at least cover their costs. I also do not have a problem with trying to turn a profit. Most of the world does live on the concept of capitalism, after all.

For those website owners who need ad revenue, I would offer the following: Instead of whining that your visitors are taking money out of your pockets through blocking ads, simply ask them for a (emphasis on) small donation. How much money is really generated from each individual user? I'd be willing to bet that if you asked politely for even a dollar (or whatever other small denomination in whatever currency with which you operate), you would get at least 10% of those ad-blocking visitors to do so.

If I had more discretionary income, I would certainly be willing to donate more often than I do. I simply can't.

This thread has made me reconsider my usage of adblock. I am going to white list several more of the websites which I frequent. That is, of course, as long as they do not cause me any headaches. ;p

(And it's always a good time to re-read 1984)

i agree with this

many of my sites do not allow ads in the members area

or you can disable or hide a block if the ads are repeating themselves or annoying you in some way.

i did this not because users requested it, but because am very polite and belief in user friendliness :)

also my sites are funded in a majority by anonymous or first time visitors. Returning members give me the less income, but i still consider them the most for their loyalty :)

i seen a small group of sites do the same, but the number is extremely limited, i hope this small trend may catch up..

so is this good, bad. Thoughts?
[i like this Qb]
yea thats a thumb lol

[Rasa1111]

so every ones time is worth less, even your day job, which you chose to do, shouldn't be paid for?

No, I didn't say that.

Trust me, I wouldn't work if I didn't have to. lol
Not in todays sense of the word.

and do people (most people) actually choose their jobs because they like them? Do they work where they work, because they actually want to?

The majority (of the world) would vote No.

But still, that is not the same as willingly putting up a website, (or volunteering on a website) because you like/ want to ~ and then decide you should get paid for it,
When you are the one who wanted to do it in the first place,
knowing darn well that you werent getting paid for it.

That is not the same as a day job.

People are pretty much forced into working day jobs,
but they are not forced to volunteer on websites.

That was my point.
Not that "everyones time is worthless"



Personally i think there should be a ban against ads that have sound in them, nothings more annoying to me when im quietly browsing the web, and out of no were music shows up and makes me jump out of my skin.

Agreed! :KS

I did forget to add...

That I often visit a site that is now full of ads, banners, flash, sounds, etc..
[never used to be, and the content isnt any better now, than before]
and if someone on the site tells the mods/admins that they use ad blocking..
they will ban you straight up! :lol:

Well, I make a point to block the hell out of absolutely everything on that one. :lol: ;)

[Naiki Muliaina]

Well, you are wrong.

I am not about you being elitist. ;)

[wewantutopia]

As long as some crazy person in the corner is not harming anyone, why cant they sit in the corner and be crazy? :)

I am just firmly of the opinion that as long as someone isn't forcing their decisions / actions / lifestyle on other people, people should be able to do what they choose.

You are not forced to look at their website. You have the choose to hit a back button, close a tab, use flashblock, use noscript or whatever else. So why cant they have the choice of they do with their website?

You are effectively saying people shouldn't have choice in their lives because they are not on 'your level'. *shrugs* Pretty damned elitist IMHO...

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to, but rather, I'm not going to pay to hear (read) their drivel by viewing ads.

Again, even if I do like a site, I don't click on ads anyway so it doesn't mater if they're blocked.

[NightwishFan]

Can I be an elitist too? :)

[KiwiNZ]

OK OK OK

There is no plans currently to help fund this site via advertising revenue. I wanted to gauge opinion and to get a sense of realism of the cost involved in bringing this service it is not cheap.

It may well be something that needs to be considered in the future if we are to raise the capital for growth and capex .

This message was brought to you by the letters A and B and by the number 7

[Maheriano]

Anytime a commercial comes on television I mute it, anytime I see a sign selling something I look away, anytime someone wants to give me something for free I refuse. I won't be a slave to corporate advertising, I'll buy things that fit the needs of my lifestyle. Besides, they're annoying as balls. Imagine you were trying to watch a movie and some guy comes up to you and starts pushing something in your face trying to sell you something.....while you're trying to enjoy the movie. Go away man, leave me alone.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Anytime a commercial comes on television I mute it, anytime I see a sign selling something I look away, anytime someone wants to give me something for free I refuse. I won't be a slave to corporate advertising, I'll buy things that fit the needs of my lifestyle. Besides, they're annoying as balls. Imagine you were trying to watch a movie and some guy comes up to you and starts pushing something in your face trying to sell you something.....while you're trying to enjoy the movie. Go away man, leave me alone.

If you had the choice to turn on 'guyblock' and 'noguy' to never be bothered by him ever again... Would it matter?

[KiwiNZ]

Anytime a commercial comes on television I mute it, anytime I see a sign selling something I look away, anytime someone wants to give me something for free I refuse. I won't be a slave to corporate advertising, I'll buy things that fit the needs of my lifestyle. Besides, they're annoying as balls. Imagine you were trying to watch a movie and some guy comes up to you and starts pushing something in your face trying to sell you something.....while you're trying to enjoy the movie. Go away man, leave me alone.

So you would so no to a free TV or free Trip ;)

I hope you don't drive behind buses looking away for several KM's is a recipe for disaster

[Rasa1111]

So you would so no to a free TV or free Trip ;)

I hope you don't drive behind buses looking away for several KM's is a recipe for disaster

I dunno about him,
but I would definitely say no to a free TV. :lol:
Free trip.. I could use that..
but if it's to some big city, id say no. lol

[puzzler995]

there is no good without evil

good websites would not exist without bad ones

if everything were "good", than nothing actually would be "good", because all that "good" would be taken for granted


ok, u think omgubuntu is crap, thats ok, i think at least 50% of the posts are not that interesting too, but i would like to know an example of a blog/site where "all" posts are good and posts 3/4 times per day.

please mention a few. Am sure that out of millions of sites there should be some

yea i figured...
as you can see, is not that omg ubuntu lacks good posts, is actually the number of times they post

is impossible for all posts to be of good quality when you post 3/4 times a day.
Quality = time and less quantity.

But since they are funded by search engine searches, is logical they would post more since it gets them more visits.
more content = more visits

lifehacker.

[Calash]

If there was a browser add-on that would sent 1 cent for every page viewed to the site owner and in return you never saw an ad again, would you use it?

[Bachstelze]

If there was a browser add-on that would sent 1 cent for every page viewed to the site owner and in return you never saw an ad again, would you use it?

No, donation should be voluntary.

[Naiki Muliaina]

No, donation should be voluntary.

What he said. Automatic donations would remove choice.

[Sporkman]

What he said. Automatic donations would remove choice.

No - you could choose not to visit the site & consume its content.

[Calash]

No, donation should be voluntary.

But we are not talking donation, but operating cost. When you visit a site and view the information you are the customer and the information displayed on your screen is the product. Bandwidth, server space, and CPU usage for delivering that product to you is a service.

These things have costs associated with them and in turn value.


The cost for this would be the option to view the ads or to have them removed for a nominal fee.

[Rasa1111]

No, donation should be voluntary.

^this.
+1

[Sporkman]

^this.
+1

Should the local grocery store, your electric company, and your landlord adopt the same donation-based economic model?

[Naiki Muliaina]

No - you could choose not to visit the site & consume its content.

What about forced pop ups? You would have no way of avoiding giving them a penny. Even with a pop up blocker I still get the odd one. IMHO it could be abused and force people to pay multiple times.

[Bachstelze]

When you visit a site and view the information you are the customer and the information displayed on your screen is the product.

Not true. You are a customer when you agree to paying for something. There is no formal agreement between the website owner and me, so I'm not a customer.

Besides, what about, for example, the graphics on a blog? Even if I'm only interested in the text, I will still download the graphics. I didn't ask for the graphics, they are forced on me, and they cost money to transfer, too. Should I pay for them? Sounds like forced purchase to me.

[Naiki Muliaina]

Should the local grocery store, your electric company, and your landlord adopt the same donation-based economic model?

Different business models, grocery stores, electric company's and landlords cant make money off ad's.

[IAmWhatWasDavidBowman]

Should the local grocery store, your electric company, and your landlord adopt the same donation-based economic model?

Yes.

[whiskeylover]

The attitude of most people in this thread - "I'm entitled to free stuff. GIMME FREE STUFFZ!!"

Ads are a way for the site owner to recover some of the costs. Nobody's forcing you to click on the ads. But saying that "putting ads on the website is wrong" is nothing short of selfish.

That been said, I agree that popups are evil.

[Sporkman]

Different business models, grocery stores, electric company's and landlords cant make money off ad's.

If pro-ad-blocking freeloaders had their way, neither could web content providers.

But my question isn't about ads, it about whether the above companies should provide things of value for free, and cover their costs via donations, as the pro-freeloading camp suggests.

[Bachstelze]

If pro-ad-blocking freeloaders had their way, neither could web content providers.

Define "web content providers".

[Rasa1111]

Should the local grocery store, your electric company, and your landlord adopt the same donation-based economic model?

lol,
you don't even want to get me started on that, brother. ;)

[wewantutopia]

But we are not talking donation, but operating cost. When you visit a site and view the information you are the customer and the information displayed on your screen is the product. Bandwidth, server space, and CPU usage for delivering that product to you is a service.

These things have costs associated with them and in turn value.


The cost for this would be the option to view the ads or to have them removed for a nominal fee.

People VOLUNTARILY provide said information for viewing knowing it will take their time, use their servers (or pay for hosting) etc. If this isn't doable then the site shouldn't be started. If people like the content and use the services then "hey i like what this guy is putting out there, maybe i'll help support his efforts." One shouldn't volunteer and then expect to be paid. Or if the effort isn't considered volunteering then perhaps the "business" model should be like that of a tangible magazine or newspaper.

[Sporkman]

Define "web content providers".

Define "evasiveness".

[Bachstelze]

One shouldn't volunteer and then expect to be paid.

This.

[Bachstelze]

Define "evasiveness".

That was a real question: what do you mean by "web content providers"? Because if you mean omgubuntu and the like, as I said, I would be very glad if they weren't able to publish their "content" because everyone blocks ads. Actually, that alone would make ad blocking a worthy cause.

[DoubleClicker]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

[IAmWhatWasDavidBowman]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

post++

[Naiki Muliaina]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

Perfect post. Everyone should be free to make their own choices.

[Bachstelze]

Perfect post. Everyone should be free to make their own choices.

No one said otherwise.

[Naiki Muliaina]

No one said otherwise.


No. I'm saying that they shouldn't do it

You did. You said some people shouldn't make a choice because you don't like the outcome. ;)

[Bachstelze]

You did.

Only in your imagination. I explained what I meant by that, but you decided to ignore it. Not my fault.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I did not ignore your explanation. My above post still stands.

[Bachstelze]

I did not ignore your explanation. My above post still stands.

No, it doesn't. Saying "people shouldn't <something>" is different than saying "people shouldn't have the right to <something>". I'm sure there are things you think peope shouldn't do (smoking, playing WoW all day, wearing their underwear over their clothes, whatever). Still I hope you don't think those should be outlawed. Same here.

[Calash]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

Beautiful. I agree 100%.

[dv3500ea]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

+∞

Exactly my position on the matter.

These rights are independent - by blocking ads, you are not infringing the rights of the website creators and website creators are not infringing our rights by displaying these ads. We have no moral responsibility to pay for the upkeep of a site, just as the creator has no moral responsibility to keep adding content to the site.

[Jaecyn42]

I do most of my web browsing on Lynx. Pages load faster, I get the info I want sooner.

Technically, I'm not "blocking" ads specifically, just everything that cannot be displayed as plain text.

That said, I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong.

What if I only had the hardware to run a Command-Line distro? Should I avoid every page on the Internet because I *MIGHT* be depriving them of advertising money by not accidentally clicking on ads that I can't even see?

[cguy]

After reading 4 or 5 pages, I must drop in and mention that when you pay your Internet bill you are not paying for the content, but for the hardware facilities that allow you to browse the Net. (installation + maintenance)

You ISP has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the sites' owners! Nothing!



And for those of you who strongly believe that donations are the way to go, I wonder how much has each of you donated to the sites that proved useful.
Don't answer; it will get embarrassing. :)




Blocking or allowing ads is, at the end of the day, a matter of personal preference. Some are extremely annoying and deserve to be blocked, others aren't.

I prefer to keep them on just in case I find one of those useful sites. I will click once or twice on a non-annoying ad to show my gratitude.

[Bachstelze]

And for those of you who strongly believe that donations are the way to go, I wonder how much has each of you donated to the sites that proved useful.
Don't answer; it will get embarrassing. :)

I have donated a total of roughly $900 (700 euros) to the Wikimedia foundation. None of the other sites I find useful ask for them (and none of them have ads, either).

[BigCityCat]

I am not about you being elitist. ;)

You shouldn't personally attack someone because you don't agree with their opinion.

Because of this topic I disabled adblock and will only use noscript for a trial period. I don't want to see any movement or hear any sound. I find it distracting.

[leef]

As a webmaster that was getting a lot of revenue from ad's on my website I can say that I don't mind that people use adblock. I used adblock myself at the time so couldn't blame anyone for using it. I made more than enough to pay for the hosting which needed to be a dedicated server due to the demand for the site (actually it probably needed more than one server as it frequently went down) and it was quite a technical site so I can only assume that most of the people who visited had adblock.

[BigCityCat]

After reading 4 or 5 pages, I must drop in and mention that when you pay your Internet bill you are not paying for the content, but for the hardware facilities that allow you to browse the Net. (installation + maintenance)

You ISP has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the sites' owners! Nothing!



And for those of you who strongly believe that donations are the way to go, I wonder how much has each of you donated to the sites that proved useful.
Don't answer; it will get embarrassing. :)




Blocking or allowing ads is, at the end of the day, a matter of personal preference. Some are extremely annoying and deserve to be blocked, others aren't.

I prefer to keep them on just in case I find one of those useful sites. I will click once or twice on a non-annoying ad to show my gratitude.

Do it with a paypal button and I would consider it. I am not wasting my time inputing personal information.

[Rasa1111]

People VOLUNTARILY provide said information for viewing knowing it will take their time, use their servers (or pay for hosting) etc. If this isn't doable then the site shouldn't be started. If people like the content and use the services then "hey i like what this guy is putting out there, maybe i'll help support his efforts." One shouldn't volunteer and then expect to be paid. Or if the effort isn't considered volunteering then perhaps the "business" model should be like that of a tangible magazine or newspaper.

Amen to that, bruv. lol

Cheers! <3

[marshmallow1304]

I can't believe everyone has forgotten about the plight of the corporations. Why should they have to pay some blogger to advertise a product I'll never buy? I should get a medal for saving them money. \\:D/

[geoken]

If you disagree with the methods a site uses for monetizing itself why don't you just refrain from using that site?

All your defenses are little more than rationalizations for your leeching.

[geoken]

Let the internet reflect the values of the free software movement; namely Freedom.

The website owners, have the right to put adds ads on their site, and viewers have the right to block those ads. But every choice has a consequence. If you block ads, don't complain when a favorite website goes down from lack of funding, and if you put ads on your website, don't complain when you lose viewers, who don't like your ads.

That completely ignores the argument. This isn't about complaining that users are avoiding sites with advertisements. It's about complaining that users are still using those sites but just blocking the ads.

If people took the moral high ground and simply stopped visiting site's with too many ads we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Merk42]

I can't believe everyone has forgotten about the plight of the corporations. Why should they have to pay some blogger to advertise a product I'll never buy? I should get a medal for saving them money. \\:D/

Because if they don't, and you don't, then the blogger can't blog anymore.


A lot of entitlement and ignorance when it comes to websites in this thread

[geoken]

These rights are independent - by blocking ads, you are not infringing the rights of the website creators and website creators are not infringing our rights by displaying these ads. We have no moral responsibility to pay for the upkeep of a site, just as the creator has no moral responsibility to keep adding content to the site.

I guess it depends on your morals. If someone offers something to the general public and there is an understanding that in return for using their product I will do something (view their ads in this case) than I think it's immoral to consume their product without conforming to their terms.

I don't see how it's any different from stealing. If someone sets up a fruit stand by the side of the road and there is no sign specifically denoting the price of the goods, is it OK for me to take stuff without paying?

[Rasa1111]

:lol:
ok, right..
then it's "stealing"..
enjoy being bent out of shape over such meaningless junk. lol

Pardon me, while I go "steal" some more. :P

what a crock.
:D

You know that 1 in 8 people on this Planet dont have clean water to drink?
:(

Maybe focus on something that actually matters!
good god man

[geoken]

:lol:
ok, right..
then it's "stealing"..
enjoy being bent out of shape over such meaningless junk. lol

Pardon me, while I go "steal" some more. :P

what a crock.


You know that 1 in 8 people on this Planet dont have clean water to drink?
:D

They don't!!

I'll get right on to stealing web content. That will fix the drinking water issue, right?

[Rasa1111]

yup! get on it! :D

[geoken]

yup! get on it! :D

In all seriousness, hey do you justify taking something from someone while ignoring the conditions they place on taking that thing?

[malspa]

I don't see how it's any different from stealing. If someone sets up a fruit stand by the side of the road and there is no sign specifically denoting the price of the goods, is it OK for me to take stuff without paying?

So if I don't click on any ads, is that also stealing?

Sorry, not buying it. Blocking ads is not the same as stealing.

[geoken]

So if I don't click on any ads, is that also stealing?

Sorry, not buying it. Blocking ads is not the same as stealing.

You can get ads that pay each time they're shown. Basically the ad code contains javascript that monitors when the ads are loaded.

Using a service, and subsequently causing the operator of the service to incur a cost, while ignoring the terms they have placed on that service is at least un-authorized usage and some would call that stealing.

[Rasa1111]

In all seriousness, hey do you justify taking something from someone while ignoring the conditions they place on taking that thing?

No, i don't need to justify anything,
if I am doing nothing wrong.

and Im sorry, but Im not going to play word games.

however, for your entertainment only~

am I under agreement, that If I am gong to visit a website,
that I have to look at, and click on the ads?

Was that agreement ever made?
No. Not by me,
nor was/is the stipulation given when visiting said sites.

Do said websites tell me,
" If you dont make use of our ads, you can't visit here!"

No again.

So , by me not seeing ads, (by simply not showing them)
that I would never click on in the first place...
that would get absolutely, nobody, anywhere
[other than make my PC slower]..

I am stealing?

Quite flawed 'logic' you have there mate.

But whatever you must tell yourself to feel better about whatever situation it is that you're in.

It's cool. :)



and some would call that stealing.
and some call money evil, is it?
Because "some", say so?
Some call technology the end of mankind, is it? because some say so?
lists of opinions could go on, but really, what's the point?

peace

[lykwydchykyn]

I have decided that my contributions to this thread are of immense value to humanity, and that anyone who reads or responds to my posts should pay me $25 US to compensate me for the time and thought I have put into them.

If you fail to do this, you are stealing.

[malspa]

Using a service, and subsequently causing the operator of the service to incur a cost, while ignoring the terms they have placed on that service is at least un-authorized usage and some would call that stealing.

And some people would say that equating ad-blocking to stealing is ridiculous.

[geoken]

No, i don't need to justify anything,
if I am doing nothing wrong.

and Im sorry, but Im not going to play word games.

however, for your entertainment only~

am I under agreement, that If I am gong to visit a website,
that I have to look at, and click on the ads?

Was that agreement ever made?
No. Not by me,
nor was/is the stipulation given when visiting said sites.

Do said websites tell me,
" If you dont make use of our ads, you can't visit here!"

No again.

So , by me not seeing ads, (by simply not showing them)
that I would never click on in the first place...
that would get absolutely, nobody, anywhere
[other than make my PC slower]..

I am stealing?

Quite flawed 'logic' you have there mate.

But whatever you must tell yourself to feel better about whatever situation it is that you're in.

It's cool. :)



and some call money evil, is it?
Because "some", say so?
Some call technology the end of mankind, is it? because some say so?

peace

So as per my fruit stand argument above, would it not be stealing if the fruit stand owner failed to post signs specifically indicating the price of their products? Or is it still stealing because the implication is obvious?

If a store doesn't inform me at the door "You must pay for all product before leaving" do I have a valid defense for leaving the store without paying since the need to pay was merely implied and never directly stated?

[geoken]

And some people would say that equating ad-blocking to stealing is ridiculous.

Would you at least say it's un-authorized usage?

[malspa]

I have decided that my contributions to this thread are of immense value to humanity, and that anyone who reads or responds to my posts should pay me $25 US to compensate me for the time and thought I have put into them.

If you fail to do this, you are stealing.

Dang, I've read a lot of your posts! Thanks for ruining my day and turning me into a thief. :lolflag:

[malspa]

Would you at least say it's un-authorized usage?

No more than turning off the sound during t.v. commercials is unauthorized usage.

[geoken]

No more than turning off the sound during t.v. commercials is unauthorized usage.

The difference is that turning off the sound is still allowing the broadcasters to be paid, blocking an add will cause their CPI code to not report your visit as an advertising impression.

[Rasa1111]

So as per my fruit stand argument above, would it not be stealing if the fruit stand owner failed to post signs specifically indicating the price of their products? Or is it still stealing because the implication is obvious?

If a store doesn't inform me at the door "You must pay for all product before leaving" do I have a valid defense for leaving the store without paying since the need to pay was merely implied and never directly stated?


Again,
I'm not going to play word games with people.
If everyone here is as intelligent as I think we are..
We all understand quite well what each other is saying..
no need to play around with words just to throw someone off and get someone to "admit" to "stealing".

Not gonna happen mate.

Not with me anyway.
Call it what you like,
but I do know better.

and like the whole "stealing" 'logic'..
those examples are flawed.

But really, my friend..
There are far more important things to focus on, besides paper and electronic money..
I'll go spend some energy on one of those...
I've said my peace. /|\

Peace

[malspa]

The difference is that turning off the sound is still allowing the broadcasters to be paid, blocking an add will cause their CPI code to not report your visit as an advertising impression.

Oh, now I REALLY feel guilty! :P

So what about the point that someone else made earlier in the thread, about using text-only web browsers? Does that count as unauthorized usage as well, in your opinion?

Well, as long as there are ad-blockers available, and as long as they continue to work, I'm blocking ads. I don't really care if someone else thinks it's wrong, because I don't think it's wrong. Anyone that feels that ad-blocking is wrong, go ahead and knock yourself out viewing those ads.

[Rasa1111]

Oh, now I REALLY feel guilty!


as you should, Thief! lol ;)

ok, now Im really done here. :)

[malspa]

But really, my friend..
There are far more important things to focus on, besides paper and electronic money..
I'll go spend some energy on one of those...


Thanks for that comment. I'm gonna do the same!

[malspa]

as you should, Thief! lol ;)

No, it's Dirty Thief! :cool: Slimy, even!

[geoken]

Again,
I'm not going to play word games with people.
If everyone here is as intelligent as I think we are..
We all understand quite well what each other is saying..
no need to play around with words just to throw someone off and get someone to "admit" to "stealing".

Not gonna happen mate.

Not with me anyway.
Call it what you like,
but I do know better.

and like the whole "stealing" 'logic'..
those examples are flawed.

But really, my friend..
There are far more important things to focus on, besides paper and electronic money..
I'll go spend some energy on one of those...
I've said my peace. /|\

Peace

I asked a pretty simple, direct question. Is it possible for something to be wrong without someone implicitly outlining the terms?

It's really a simple question with a yes/no answer.

[KiwiNZ]

Ad blocking is stealing
what
what
what

I say what now?

Is not buying a newspaper stealing?
Is going out to make a cup of coffee during an Ad break stealing?

I am sorry , but , I am a supporter of free enterprise, I am a supporter of making a buck. I believe in profit. But where in the world of jolly green giants did the notion of Ad blocking become stealing ?

I say again .....What now ?

[geoken]

Oh, now I REALLY feel guilty! :P

So what about the point that someone else made earlier in the thread, about using text-only web browsers? Does that count as unauthorized usage as well, in your opinion?

Well, as long as there are ad-blockers available, and as long as they continue to work, I'm blocking ads. I don't really care if someone else thinks it's wrong, because I don't think it's wrong. Anyone that feels that ad-blocking is wrong, go ahead and knock yourself out viewing those ads.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just curious about your position because it's so different from mine. I'll outline my position because I just want a good discussion, I don't want to insult anyone.


I think that with an ad based website the relationship between the website user and the website operator is pretty clear. They put ads on to support their site. If I'm OK with that I use their site, if I'm not OK with it I avoid their site. I understand that circumventing the ads are against their wishes and it's unfair of me to take their content while willfully circumventing the method they set out for me to access that site.

[geoken]

Ad blocking is stealing
what
what
what

I say what now?

Is not buying a newspaper stealing?
Is going out to make a cup of coffee during an Ad break stealing?

I am sorry , but , I am a supporter of free enterprise, I am a supporter of making a buck. I believe in profit. But where in the world of jolly green giants did the notion of Ad blocking become stealing ?

I say again .....What now ?

What do you call it when I offer a service under the understanding that users of that service will follow certain terms, but they use that service (and incur expense to me) while circumventing my terms?

It's a serious question, I want to know what you would call that and I'll use that term because I don't want this argument to get stuck up on a minor semantic point.

[Rasa1111]

I asked a pretty simple, direct question. Is it possible for something to be wrong without someone implicitly outlining the terms?

It's really a simple question with a yes/no answer.

1,. Dammit, I said I was done. lol

2. Yes, It is indeed possible.

3> But tell me~

Are the terms of what a "store" is, and how to operate within one,
not already outlined, all across the world?

You walk in, you pay, you take home.

Everyone and their mother and newborn baby brother knows this.

if there is not a sign for a price.. you ASK!
Again, something everyone knows,
even small children who steal. lol

Hence why your examples were bad ones.

Kiwi~ chyeaa boii! lol ;)



Thanks for that comment. I'm gonna do the same!

No problem, my friend.. the dirty, slimy thief. lol ;)
[2 peas in a pod we are] :lol:
<3 thanks.

[geoken]

1,. Dammit, I said I was done. lol

2. Yes, It is indeed possible.

3> But tell me~

Are the terms of what a "store" is, and how to operate within one,
not already outlined, all across the world?

You walk in, you pay, you take home.

Everyone and their mother and newborn baby brother knows this.

if there is not a sign for a price.. you ASK!
Again, something everyone knows,
even small children who steal. lol

Hence why your examples were bad ones.

Kiwi~ chyeaa boii! lol ;)

So then the follow up question is;

Do you understand the reasons a website owner might employ ads (ie. to pay their hosting costs)? I'm sure you understand they pay for their bandwidth, and they pay for their storage and they pay for their domain, etc.

My point is, that just like everyone and their mother understands how a store works, you understand how an ad supported website works but you choose to circumvent their method of payment.

Is it not wrong for you to use their service while ignoring the method they set out for you to use that service?

[malspa]

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm just curious about your position because it's so different from mine. I'll outline my position because I just want a good discussion, I don't want to insult anyone.


I think that with an ad based website the relationship between the website user and the website operator is pretty clear. They put ads on to support their site. If I'm OK with that I use their site, if I'm not OK with it I avoid their site. I understand that circumventing the ads are against their wishes and it's unfair of me to take their content while willfully circumventing the method they set out for me to access that site.

Fair enough, geoken. My position is that I don't want to view ads. I have ad-blockers available to me, so I use 'em. If someone has a problem with that, then they can turn their site into a pay-only site. Then I will never visit their site.

I don't have any moral issues with blocking ads on websites. I have no concerns about someone earning a few cents less because I use an ad-blocker.

[Prohibited]

I have no intention of ever clicking on the adervisements and I know I certainly have not won anything so no, I don't think it is wrong to block advertisement.

[geoken]

I don't have any moral issues with blocking ads on websites. I have no concerns about someone earning a few cents less because I use an ad-blocker.

But don't you think it's selfish to say "I'm OK with doing x because I'm only one person and my impact in the grand scheme of things is virtually immeasurable"?

I guess the main reason I disagree with you is because I personally believe that if I disagree with a companies business model I simply don't patronize that business. I don't think it's right for me to choose the business model I would like them to abide by.

[geoken]

I have no intention of ever clicking on the adervisements and I know I certainly have not won anything so no, I don't think it is wrong to block advertisement.

I justed wanted to point out again that there are cost per impression ads were money is doled out when the ad is merely shown.

[malspa]

But don't you think it's selfish to say "I'm OK with doing x because I'm only one person and my impact in the grand scheme of things is virtually immeasurable"?

LOL! Maybe it IS selfish. I can't disagree with that! But is it wrong to block ads? Clearly, that's a matter of opinion.

[Bachstelze]

If you disagree with the methods a site uses for monetizing itself why don't you just refrain from using that site?

All your defenses are little more than rationalizations for your leeching.

Who was that directed to? I already said that all the sites I visit are not ad-supported. Ad-supporting causes bad content. Bad content causes my not visiting the site.

[geoken]

Who was that directed to? I already said that all the sites I visit are not ad-supported. Ad-supporting causes bad content. Bad content cause my not visiting the site.

Ars Technica has bad content?

In case you're unfamiliar with the site browse through the science section and click the names of the authors to jump to their profiles. Most articles are written by authors who have Phd's in the field the article is covering.

[Bachstelze]

Ars Technica has bad content?

I don't know, I never visited it, and don't plan to. All my tech news I get from very good (and not ad-supported) sources. I have named a few earlier in this thread.

[Bachstelze]

Also:


What do you call it when I offer a service under the understanding that users of that service will follow certain terms, but they use that service (and incur expense to me) while circumventing my terms?

1) If you don't explicitly state your terms, you can't blame anyone for not following them. Stealing someone's property is against the law. Blocking your ads is not.

2) Even if you do, what will you do if someone still blocks your ads? Sue them? Good luck with that.

So I would call that what it is: ad-blocking. Something there's nothing wrong with.

[geoken]

I don't know, I never visited it, and don't plan to. All my tech news I get from very good (and not ad-supported) sources. I have named a few earlier in this thread.

While I disagree that ad-supported sites and quality content are mutually exclusive, I applaud the fact that you choose to not visit site's who's monetization methods you disagree with rather than visiting those sites and circumventing their monetization methods.

[malspa]

1) If you don't explicitly state your terms, you can't blame anyone for not following them. Stealing someone's property is against the law. Blocking your ads is not.

2) Even if you do, what will you do if someone still blocks your ads? Sue them? Good luck with that.

So I would call that what it is: ad-blocking. Something there's nothing wrong with.

Good points.

[geoken]

Also:

1) If you don't explicitly state your terms, you can't blame anyone for not following them. Stealing someone's property is against the law. Blocking your ads is not.

2) Even if you do, what will you do if someone still blocks your ads? Sue them? Good luck with that.

So I would call that what it is: ad-blocking. Something there's nothing wrong with.

Yes you can. If someone understands the way something works and they choose to circumvent it I can blame them. Everyone in here (the one's who employ ad blocking) understands why these sites employ ads, but chooses to ignore the wishes of the site's owner.

While I agree it isn't illegal and there is nothing the site owner can do (in a legal sense) that doesn't make it right. I don't think legality is the final measure of what is morally right or wrong.

[malspa]

I don't think legality is the final measure of what is morally right or wrong.

Whenever you start talking about morality and right vs. wrong, you're gonna have different viewpoints. Who defines what is morally right or wrong?

[geoken]

Whenever you start talking about morality and right vs. wrong, you're gonna have different viewpoints. Who defines what is morally right or wrong?

Of course everyone has varying definitions.

[Bachstelze]

Yes you can. If someone understands the way something works and they choose to circumvent it I can blame them. Everyone in here (the one's who employ ad blocking) understands why these sites employ ads, but chooses to ignore the wishes of the site's owner.

Most people block ads not because they don't want the site owner to get the money, but because they are (as others pointed out) an outright nuisance, and most of the time even a security risk. I can't blame them for it. What if your favourite store required you to look through their whole catalogue while listening to Justin Bieber before you can buy something? You would probably go elsewhere, but what if you really like their stuff and can just take it without going through the hassle, legally?

Personally, it so happens that I also don't like the stuff, so I really go elsewhere. But others do, and I can't blame them if they don't want to listen to Justin Bieber.

[geoken]

Most people block ads not because they don't want the site owner to get the money, but because they are (as others pointed out) an outright nuisance, and most of the time even a security risk. I can't blame them for it. What if your favourite store required you to look through their whole catalogue while listening to Justin Bieber before you can buy something? You would probably go elsewhere, but what if you really like their stuff and can just take it without going through the hassle, legally?


I would try to avoid the content. It sucks that they aren't letting me get it with ease, by I don't think I have the right to take something on my terms because I am not the owner. It's the owners right to dictate the terms.

[Bachstelze]

I would try to avoid the content. It sucks that they aren't letting me get it with ease, by I don't think I have the right to take something on my terms because I am not the owner. It's the owners right to dictate the terms.

But the owners most of the time don't dictate anything. ;) They just put ads, they don't say "you should not block the ads". For all the user knows, maybe the owner doesn't really care. Now if the owner says "ads are very important, please don't bock them", that's another story, but I haven't seen a lot of sites that do it.

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

I have a hard time justifying not using adblock software for ANY site. If it was merely about supporting a site that would be another story, but all these advertising cretins are trying to put tracking cookies and worse on my pc.

[oobuntoo]

It's only wrong if you blocked pr0n ads :biggrin:

[lisati]

If there was a browser add-on that would sent 1 cent for every page viewed to the site owner and in return you never saw an ad again, would you use it?

I'm getting ideas here. :D

[Austin25]

It's a war of cleverness. We are cleverer than they are. Have no sympathy.

[dv3500ea]

I don't see how it's any different from stealing. If someone sets up a fruit stand by the side of the road and there is no sign specifically denoting the price of the goods, is it OK for me to take stuff without paying?

No, it is not OK for you to take the fruit. However this analogy is flawed - if I take someone else's fruit, they no longer have the fruit. If I view someone else's content but block the adverts, they still have that content. It is, therefore, not stealing. Even piracy of digital content is not stealing. Blocking ads doesn't even amount to piracy so I don't see how it can be called stealing.

[Barrucadu]

I see nothing wrong with blocking ads—I don't do it personally, but I know many people (perhaps even a majority in this sort of community) do.

I put Ad Bard advertisements on archhurd.org, along with a Flattr button, to help pay for the server costs. Flattr works only on clicks, whereas Ad Bard takes both clicks and impressions into account. However, I don't "lose" money by people blocking the ads—they wouldn't have looked at them anyway, so I have neither gained nor lost anything.

I don't maintain the delusion that putting ads on the website makes me entitled to earn money from them.

In fact, some people have disabled their ad blocking (selectively) so they do see the adverts, which grants me more money.

[Señor Banana]

It's your computer, do what you want with it.
You paid for it, you invested time in understanding the machine, do as you wish with it. We shouldn't be forced to see anything we don't want to. If they don't like that, then they can stop providing free services. Social Networking sites in particular are great got ads, but if every user had something blocking all ads, eventually the site would have to find a way around our methods of blocking ads, and if they cannot, then they will eventually lose value and close down. Personally, I like this idea, because I don't like people making money off of ads. Then again, I've wanted to make my own social networking site to compete with these leading sites of today, just to profit off of them. Now, here's the downside to blocking ads, and what I dislike, those who maintain the servers do not get paid if there is no money to pay them with. So, people lose jobs, and then you have a family who may end up homeless due to the economy. Then again, if you are a server administrator worth working for a major social networking site, I'm sure you can get a job somewhere. There's always a chance they can't though, and then you've got that family starving.

I won't get into detail on how to circumvent ad blocking, and what those people could do to get in on the social network site business, I've gotta use those ideas for myself, before it's implemented on another site who could try saying I steal ideas from them. :P

[Bachstelze]

those who maintain the servers do not get paid if there is no money to pay them with. So, people lose jobs, and then you have a family who may end up homeless due to the economy. Then again, if you are a server administrator worth working for a major social networking site, I'm sure you can get a job somewhere. There's always a chance they can't though, and then you've got that family starving.

Here you are talking about companies who make a lot of money with this. I don't think you need to worry about them, they know what they are doing. Totally different thing from three random guys starting a random blog.

[geoken]

But the owners most of the time don't dictate anything. ;) They just put ads, they don't say "you should not block the ads". For all the user knows, maybe the owner doesn't really care. Now if the owner says "ads are very important, please don't bock them", that's another story, but I haven't seen a lot of sites that do it.

I think most people in here can't honestly say they don't understand the implication of a site owner putting ads on there site.

It's why I used the fruit stand example above. It is never implicitly mentioned that the fruits are for sale, but if someone took some and walked their defense of "I thought he was just giving them away" probably wouldn't go to far.

I'm a strong believer in intent. If someone truthfully did something wrong without knowing then I can excuse their actions.

[geoken]

No, it is not OK for you to take the fruit. However this analogy is flawed - if I take someone else's fruit, they no longer have the fruit. If I view someone else's content but block the adverts, they still have that content. It is, therefore, not stealing. Even piracy of digital content is not stealing. Blocking ads doesn't even amount to piracy so I don't see how it can be called stealing.

This isn't about the content, it's about the bandwidth. When you use that bandwidth you have most definitely taken something that costs them money and they will need to pay money to get back.

The arguments used to justify downloading music aren't analogous to this situation. When you're downloading music you're typically doing it through a third party and the person who sells that music isn't being impacted in any way.

[Bachstelze]

This isn't about the content, it's about the bandwidth. When you use that bandwidth you have most definitely taken something that costs them money and they will need to pay money to get back.

Most of the bandwith is forced on the user with heavy graphics and... ads! If websites used only text, they would consume a lot less bandwith.

[geoken]

It's your computer, do what you want with it.
You paid for it, you invested time in understanding the machine, do as you wish with it. We shouldn't be forced to see anything we don't want to. If they don't like that, then they can stop providing free services. Social Networking sites in particular are great got ads, but if every user had something blocking all ads, eventually the site would have to find a way around our methods of blocking ads, and if they cannot, then they will eventually lose value and close down. Personally, I like this idea, because I don't like people making money off of ads. Then again, I've wanted to make my own social networking site to compete with these leading sites of today, just to profit off of them. Now, here's the downside to blocking ads, and what I dislike, those who maintain the servers do not get paid if there is no money to pay them with. So, people lose jobs, and then you have a family who may end up homeless due to the economy. Then again, if you are a server administrator worth working for a major social networking site, I'm sure you can get a job somewhere. There's always a chance they can't though, and then you've got that family starving.

I won't get into detail on how to circumvent ad blocking, and what those people could do to get in on the social network site business, I've gotta use those ideas for myself, before it's implemented on another site who could try saying I steal ideas from them. :P

You've already put yourself into an unrealistic situation when you assume every site is some mega corporation. Would you feel the same way if you assumed that the majority of sites you visited are actually run by a very small team, with one or more of those team members being the proprietor?

[Señor Banana]

Here you are talking about companies who make a lot of money with this. I don't think you need to worry about them, they know what they are doing. Totally different thing from three random guys starting a random blog.
Of course not, the big companies are the ones I am targeting specifically.
I don't care about a small website, I'm worried about those capitalizing off of people who just talk to their friends. However, I'm sure the majority of those users wouldn't care about the ads enough to block them.


You've already put yourself into an unrealistic situation when you assume every site is some mega corporation. Would you feel the same way if you assumed that the majority of sites you visited are actually run by a very small team, with one or more of those team members being the proprietor?
I'm not saying all sites are, you assume that I am assuming. I have my own website, I am the only one who runs it, but I do not try to profit off of it.
No matter the size of the team and who's profiting off of the site, I still think it's okay to block their advertisements.
See, I am targeting social networking sites, because they profit off of ads a lot.
I wouldn't feel any different based on the size of a staffing for a website.
If they give me something I want to pay for, I'll pay for it.
If they don't have what I want, then I'll just keep browsing around.
It's like online shopping, it's free to browse all you want, but you don't get anything out of the site unless you pay for a product you want.
For instance, buying thinkgeek, newegg, tigerdirect or buy.com
I block all of their ads as well, they can collect money from me when I pay for something.
The government is doing it anyways, with taxes, and D.C. has no representation.

As for the small group of people maintaining the site and a few people being the proprietors, if they have to fire someone, then their site performance may decrease.
If they provide me with something I feel they deserve money for, I will donate, or buy something from them.
I don't need an advertisement to tell me about the latest deal at papa johns, if I want papa johns, I'll ask them what their deals are, and I'll check their website for online order deals.

If this doesn't answer your question, please rephrase it so I may understand exactly what you are asking.

[geoken]

Most of the bandwith is forced on the user with heavy graphics and... ads! If websites used only text, they would consume a lot less bandwith.

But again, that's their business model and their choices for monetization can support that business model.

If a store decides to open in an area where rent is high, and by extension needs to charge more for the same products, that's their decision. I can't say "No I'm not paying for that. Here is 75% of the price and I'm leaving. Perhaps you should move your store somewhere where rent is cheaper". While the above comment may make business sense, it isn't my decision to dictate someones business model and it isn't my right to enforce it (unless you consider enforcing it refraining to patronize their business which I would do if I found some aspect of it disagreeable to me).

[Bachstelze]

But again, that's their business model and their choices for monetization can support that business model.

If a store decides to open in an area where rent is high, and by extension needs to charge more for the same products, that's their decision. I can't say "No I'm not paying for that. Here is 75% of the price and I'm leaving. Perhaps you should move your store somewhere where rent is cheaper". While the above comment may make business sense, it isn't my decision to dictate someones business model and it isn't my right to enforce it (unless you consider enforcing it refraining to patronize their business which I would do if I found some aspect of it disagreeable to me).

Your analogy is wrong. A better one would be when you ask for a water bottle, and the store says "Well, we do have water bottles, but they're made of silver and cost $200. You don't want to pay $200 for a silver bottle? No water for you."

That's their business model, please allow me to think they are crooks.

[geoken]

However, I'm sure the majority of those users wouldn't care about the ads enough to block them.

That again falls into the "It's fine because not everyone is doing it" realm. I don't think that's a healthy moral code to apply to a situation.

[geoken]

Your analogy is wrong. A better one would be when you ask for a water bottle, and the store says "Well, we do have water bottles, but they're made of silver and cost $200. You don't want to pay $200 for a silver bottle? No water for you."

That's their business model, please allow me to think they are crooks.

I don't think that's a better analogy because you're making it intentionally absurd. The downtown-stores-charge-more-due-to-rent is more realistic since it actually happens.

[dv3500ea]

But again, that's their business model and their choices for monetization can support that business model.


Why do you assume that every blog/website is a business?

[Señor Banana]

That again falls into the "It's fine because not everyone is doing it" realm. I don't think that's a healthy moral code to apply to a situation.
There's no need to apply it to morals.
If I want to block ads, I'll do so. If I don't want something being forced into my computer, I should have every right to block it out.

If they don't care, that doesn't really matter against morals.
That's simply their prerogative, as it is mine to block them.

[Bachstelze]

I don't think that's a better analogy because you're making it intentionally absurd. The downtown-stores-charge-more-due-to-rent is more realistic since it actually happens.

Price of a normal water bottle: let's say $1.
Price of a silver water bottle: $200.

Asked price vs. normal price ratio: 200.


Amount of information (i.e. text) on omgubuntu's homepage: 5821 bytes, obtained by Ctrl-A and copy/paste into vim
Size of omgubuntu homepage: 2,5 MB, obtained by File > Save Page As in Firefox

Consumed bandwidth vs. actually used bandwidth ratio: over 400.


Actually, omgubuntu is even a bigger ripoff than a $200 water bottle.

[markp1989]

Price of a normal water bottle: let's say $1.
Price of a silver water bottle: $200.

Asked price vs. normal price ratio: 200.


Amount of information (i.e. text) on omgubuntu's homepage: 5821 bytes, obtained by Ctrl-A and copy/paste into vim
Size of omgubuntu homepage: 2,5 MB, obtained by File > Save Page As in Firefox

Consumed bandwidth vs. actually used bandwidth ratio: over 400.


Actually, omgubuntu is even a bigger ripoff than a $200 water bottle.

what do you have against omgubuntu, i have seen that blog be slated the whole way through this thread, i just looked at there site, and there are a few adds on the right side, and 1 small one at the bottom, rest of it look all right to me.

and you "Text" vs "bandwidth" doesnt include any graphics, so its not like its just stripping out the adds.