Why FireFox is Blocked

[GFree678]

http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/

Something I read recently on Slashdot. Made close to a thousand comments so far.

I think it's total BS, but discuss anyway. Since I don't use ad blocking extensions I figure it's discriminatory and over the top, but zealots exist everywhere I suppose.

[riven0]

But I'm using Opera and the page won't come up. :(

[Sporkman]

Got it:




How to block FireFox • Firefox Myths • The Firefox Cult



You've reached this page because the site you were trying to visit now blocks the FireFox browser.

The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software. Many site owners therefore install scripts that prevent people using ad blocking software from accessing their site. That is their right as the site owner to insist that the use of their resources accompanies the presence of the ads.

While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft, the real problem is Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in. Blocking FireFox is the only alternative. Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..

Since the makers of Ad Block Plus as well as the filter subscriptions that accompany it refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property, and since FireFox actively endorses Ad Block Plus, the sites linking to this page are now blocking FireFox until the resource theft is stopped.

Netscape users can simply set their browser to IE mode to continue to enjoy the site that sent you here. FireFox users can use Internet Explorer, Opera or Netscape (in IE mode) to access it. FireFox users also have the option of using the IE Tab plug-in which uses the IE rendering engine to display pages, but also disables the Ad Block Plus plug-in.

If you are offended by the Mozilla Corporation's endorsement of dishonesty please contact the Mozilla Foundation and ask them to stop empowering internet theft.

Other comments on ad blocking...

PopularTechnology.net—Why Adblock is bad for the "free" Internet

Adblock effectively robs these free sites of their revenue. If Internet Explorer came with a feature such as Adblock, you would effectively wipe out thousands of websites, maybe more. These are the same free sites users of Adblock frequently visit. The irony is how this is self-defeating.

Information Technology and the Law—Firefox Adblock a Contributory Infringer?

Judge Posner, elucidating the holdings of WGN v. United Video (1982) among others, reasoned in Aimster that:

“[Commercial-skipping] amounted to creating an unauthorized derivative work, namely a commercial-free copy that would reduce the copyright owner’s income from his original program, since “free” television programs are financed by the purchase of commercials by advertisers.”

Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.

[GFree678]

Thanks for that Sporkman. :)

[kerry_s]

oh, boo hoo. i site with ad's is a site not worth visiting. if they want to use ad's have a separate link for people who care.

[Epilonsama]

That guy should kill himself, right now im using opera nut I also use firefox and someone promoting to block firefox is just an ******* and should be banned form the internet, anyway if a site blocked firefox, i will never enter that website again.

[Nikron]

I don't understand. These guys make a directory of their computer accessible to anyone on the internet. These are just mainly text pages which I download, and my program renders. Additionally, I have to pay to be able to access these servers. (not the server owners). So, they have a couple of lines in their text file telling me to grab some content off another server. Well, what if I don't want to?

[PHuN]

I was just surfing to a new site (and I had read "./slashdot"'s article), but thought that it would be a long time coming, maybe 1-6 months before the code would be all over......

Granted I have never been to this site before, but I was amazed at what the dialog box said (posted below)

(I had to create a flickr account to post a picture, that is how mad I am about this)

Does it have something to do with DRM? (i believe it was a vid that I was trying to access)
If not, what is the issue preventing this, so that I can create some type of work around?

[juxtaposed]

Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers.

Not at all.

You have a right to try to make me see ads, nomatter how annoying they are. I have a right to try not to see ads, nomatter how annoying it is to you. That's the way it should work. But then someone will bring the law into it when they are loosing...


Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing.

Much less then stealing, actually.


While blanket ad blocking in general is still theft,

This person is just like the anti piracy lobby, changing the meaning of the word theft to suit them.

About the article: This is a joke or something!?! It's just stupid! Blocking ads is not theft. I can close my eyes and plug by ears when commercials are on TV; Is that theft too?

[FuturePilot]

Well maybe I should block IE because I don't agree with Microsoft.......

[starcraft.man]

I thought this was funny when I first saw it on Dvorak's Blog. (http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=13237) I have to quote the poster who raised some good points.


This was the same debate the TV broadcasters raised with TIVO. Do viewers have legal duty to watch advertisements? Should we be arrested because we look the other way or go to the bathroom? I’m hoping blind people are exempt from all this, because they’ve been avoiding banner ads since the web was started!

But it’s not enough for them to bad mouth the Firefox browser and call its users criminals. They go a step farther and contradict themselves with this line of BS:

Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers.

If Firefox users make up a “small percentage” of web users how can blocking them create “tremendous financial rewards”?! That makes no sense! And one last thing, according to John a whopping 65% of our readers use Firefox! Hardly a “small percentage” by any standard.

I highlighted in bold the important things. The stupidest thing I find is they can't even make a logical argument. If Firefox represents such a small market, then how could there be substantial financial reward for blocking Firefox from their sites? I am certain there won't be 100% of Firefox users opening an IE browser to see these sites (I won't) and I feel it will be very low, probably around 25%. The rest of the users of other browsers will go on unaffected. So even then there will be little recoup.

I honestly don't think this "coalition of sites" thought this through and they (if I happen across their sites) will be on my black list indefinitely, even should they remove their ban. I've little patience to waste on such obvious stupidities.

Edit: Oh and one extra thing. I am uncertain, but you may be able to use the User Agent Switcher (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59)add-on to bypass this. Whether you want to try and circumvent such sites is up to you, I'm not interested. I just know about that plug in for other useful sites that checked for IE only before this idiocy.

[King_Critter]

Edit: Oh and one extra thing. I am uncertain, but you may be able to use the User Agent Switcher (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59)add-on to bypass this. Whether you want to try and circumvent such sites is up to you, I'm not interested. I just know about that plug in for other useful sites that checked for IE only before this idiocy.

Yup. I did a quick test (http://kingcritter.pyrom.net/fftest.php), and I got through masquerading as IE 7. :P

Funny thing, though, is that their site (whyfirefoxisblocked.com) doesn't seem to have that code in effect -- you get the same page even if you're running IE.

[Sp4cedOut]

Not at all.

You have a right to try to make me see ads, nomatter how annoying they are. I have a right to try not to see ads, nomatter how annoying it is to you. That's the way it should work. But then someone will bring the law into it when they are loosing...

But it is their site, don't they have the right to decide in what context their page is viewed?

I'm an avid Firefox user so I certainly don't like it, but I don't see anything unethical or illegal about putting a script into a site to block certain browsers you don't like.

EDIT: And I have every right to get the UserAgentSwitcher plugin.

[dasunst3r]

Ad-blocking has been around when Internet Explorer was still king and other alternatives were practically non-existent. This is about as mature as a Firefox zealot blocking IE users from his/her site (a better alternative is to make something that says "Page doesn't look quite right? Get Firefox! Here's why."). The only ads I block are those Flash ads (they are pretty notorious for being mean to my laptop's battery).

[DjBones]

well, just hypothetically..
if this becomes more widespread, and people would be forced to use the the user-agent-switcher to bypass this crap, would the windows/netscape/opera rendering engine be slower or worse in regards to firefox's native rendering?

[starcraft.man]

Look what I found folks. (http://www.ie7pro.com/)

Just figured I'd point that out, complete with an ad blocking solution. Wonder how long it will take to block it or IE7? *hopes it's soon*

I also wonder how long it will take for the coalition to give up this protest... Any takers? A month? 2?

[loudnlownoma]

Look what I found folks. (http://www.ie7pro.com/)

Just figured I'd point that out, complete with an ad blocking solution. Wonder how long it will take to block it or IE7? *hopes it's soon*

I also wonder how long it will take for the coalition to give up this protest... Any takers? A month? 2?

Now that's just funny right there!

[pluviosity]

What gives anyone the right to bombard the public with pervasive advertisements ad infinitum? It's rather difficult to get away from them when they are everywhere: TV, Internet, newspapers, roadsides, radio, etc. Not everyone is a sheep. I, for one, don't go by ads when I make a purchase. Most ads these days, especially on TV, are rather fake anyhow.

[Dimitriid]

We should take note of all sites that are doing this directly or indirectly and make a Firefox boycott plug in that treats this web sites as phishing. 10 to 1 most of them are just pissed they cant infest you with spyware to force you into adds and they are taking it out on Firefox.

No goddamn way, Id go so far as to boycott ANY SERVER OR ISP THAT ALLOWS THIS, blocking entire domains. I think we should do that in fact, send a message to ISPs so they think twice about doing business with discriminatory, spyware ridden sites that dare to talk about illegality.

[Sp4cedOut]

I think we should also try to look at it from their perspective. For many people, their website is their source of income. If advertising agencies stop buying space on their site, they'll be out of a job. What would you do if someone threatened your livelihood?

People today have an expectation that certain things should be free, such as websites and TV programs. People talk about how much they don't like commercials, but when presented with the alternative: pay for every program you view, most of us would choose to deal with commercials. The fact is, advertisements make services that in the past would have cost money, free. For example, I like to play chess on yahoo for free.

As for the people who say "I don't buy things based on advertisement", the odds are you have. Any advertiser will tell you it's impossible to sell anything to anybody, but certain people can be encouraged to buy from you under the right conditions. For example, I love RTS games. I've heard about this RTS series, called Total War, which was supposed to be good. Then I saw an advertisement for the newest installment "Rome: Total War" which promised awesome graphics and good gameplay. I read some reviews, looked on some forums, and eventually bought it. Another good example would be car commercials. If you are in the market for a car, and then a commercial comes on offering one for a good price, with good interest rates, and the features you're looking for, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't consider it?

Do I use Firefox and the AdBlock plugin? Yes. Will I use the UserAgentSwitcher plugin to circumvent any attempt to block me? Yes. Adblocking technology is a natural course in technological progress and it'd be foolish to think it will go away. Do I understand why people are trying to stop it? Yes. Do I think they're evil for doing so? No.

[Spr0k3t]

Even if I used another browser, I'd still block advertising whether it was through proxy, my own filter, or by use of text only. With that said, I hope they get the publicity they deserve.

[kerry_s]

We should take note of all sites that are doing this directly or indirectly and make a Firefox boycott plug in that treats this web sites as phishing. 10 to 1 most of them are just pissed they cant infest you with spyware to force you into adds and they are taking it out on Firefox.

No goddamn way, Id go so far as to boycott ANY SERVER OR ISP THAT ALLOWS THIS, blocking entire domains. I think we should do that in fact, send a message to ISPs so they think twice about doing business with discriminatory, spyware ridden sites that dare to talk about illegality.

click on help> report broken site in firefox. set the firefox corporation on them. as users it's are job to make them aware & if necessary take action against bad sites. :mad:

[starcraft.man]

click on help> report broken site in firefox. set the firefox corporation on them. as users it's are job to make them aware & if necessary take action against bad sites. :mad:

You know, I've never done that in all the time I've been a Firefox user... I'll make sure to remember in future to do that.

[FuturePilot]

Look what I found folks. (http://www.ie7pro.com/)

Just figured I'd point that out, complete with an ad blocking solution. Wonder how long it will take to block it or IE7? *hopes it's soon*

I also wonder how long it will take for the coalition to give up this protest... Any takers? A month? 2?

Hahaha, now that's funny. Wait until they start complaining about that.:lolflag:


click on help> report broken site in firefox. set the firefox corporation on them. as users it's are job to make them aware & if necessary take action against bad sites. :mad:
I've done that many times. I hate when a site says IE only or something like that.:mad:

[Dimitriid]

I think we should also try to look at it from their perspective. For many people, their website is their source of income.

I have no sympathy from somebody who decides to annoy and harass people on a regular basis as a "source of income" just as im sure nobody would have any sympathy towards a guy who makes a living of beating people up or cutting in front of you in the car crash and sue you or anything like that.

The mere fact that they have the audacity to act with indignation should tip you off as what kind of persons you're dealing with here: scum.

[Dimitriid]

click on help> report broken site in firefox. set the firefox corporation on them. as users it's are job to make them aware & if necessary take action against bad sites. :mad:

Done and thanks for the tip.

[kerry_s]

click on help> report broken site in firefox. set the firefox corporation on them. as users it's are job to make them aware & if necessary take action against bad sites. :mad:

Oh crap, i just remembered, i switched to using DSL's firefox 1.0.6 cause it's built for low resource systems like mine. i haven't had a single freeze since i started using it. anyway's in this version they don't have the reporting feature. :(

[likemindead]

The entire argument is built on a logical fallacy. Ludicrous. Absolutely moronic.

Will billboard companies be suing us soon if we don't read their signs in their entirety each time we pass them?!

People like those behind whyfirefoxisblocked.com are fascists.

[Sweet Mercury]

But it is their site, don't they have the right to decide in what context their page is viewed?

I'm an avid Firefox user so I certainly don't like it, but I don't see anything unethical or illegal about putting a script into a site to block certain browsers you don't like.

EDIT: And I have every right to get the UserAgentSwitcher plugin.

To a point, yeah. A right is an enforceable interest. They have a "right" to design their sites as they see fit, which includes putting ads on it, but once they put it on the market, they don't have the right to ensure the end user takes in the site in it's entirety.

That's like a musician saying he can block people from listening to his or her albums if they ONLY listen to the first few songs. And like a few people have said, am I violating this guys rights if I just ignore the ads on his site? I never use ad-blocking programs because they are blunter instruments than my ability to ignore that crap anyway.

[Sweet Mercury]

The entire argument is built on a logical fallacy. Ludicrous. Absolutely moronic.

Will billboard companies be suing us soon if we don't read their signs in their entirety each time we pass them?!

People like those behind whyfirefoxisblocked.com are fascists.

I'd call them mercantilists, but they suck regardless of what we call them.

[cmat]

I'm going to lose my cable because I change channels during commercials.

[Sp4cedOut]

I have no sympathy from somebody who decides to annoy and harass people on a regular basis as a "source of income" just as im sure nobody would have any sympathy towards a guy who makes a living of beating people up or cutting in front of you in the car crash and sue you or anything like that.

The mere fact that they have the audacity to act with indignation should tip you off as what kind of persons you're dealing with here: scum.

You're the one going to their site, not the other way around. If you don't like it, don't go.

EDIT (an addition):


To a point, yeah. A right is an enforceable interest. They have a "right" to design their sites as they see fit, which includes putting ads on it, but once they put it on the market, they don't have the right to ensure the end user takes in the site in it's entirety.

And if they see fit to add a script that blocks Firefox users from seeing their site?

[loudnlownoma]

Just a question... Do the people paying hosts to place the ads on the website generate their revenue based on ad-clicks, page loads, or some off-the-wall system of finding out how many times the ads are used/viewed? The way I see it is that if it's either of the first two - the whole argument is even more pointless than it would seem at first glance. Two scenarios:

1) They pay by the number of clicks on the ad. I'm sure there are going to be the random missed clicks and such that get counted to skew the results, but in general... If someone is going to the trouble of finding, installing, and configuring a plug-in in their browser to block the display or loading of ads - they probably aren't that likely to click on them in the first place - no real money lost there.

2) They pay by page loads. So every time the page loads - they get a penny or two they add to pay the host. Whether you see the ads or not, wouldn't the page still be loading, thus hitting the counter, and ultimately still giving them the money whether the end user sees the ad or not. This would be the most ridiculous of all if it were the case, since they are effectively running themselves out of business by deterring users from the site in saying those with FireFox can't play here.

Either way, no matter what side you stand on or how you feel about it, I don't see it being something lasting too long, short of the few die-hards that will refuse to give up forever. The general Internet population(i.e. "the masses") are lazy. If the choice is switch browsers/install add-ons that will let me see this site, or ignore it, move on, and view one of hundreds of alternatives with the same info - they will just move on to the next. Because of this, I really can't see how this is going to stop or help anything they are complaining about any more than coming up with random facts or double-standard arguments about why they are right, even tho tons of other mediums have been losing the same argument for years - Tivo comes to mind, as mentioned earlier, among many....

[jrusso2]

What a bunch of crap! First of all Firefox has nothing to do with adblock its an independent open source plugin.

Second of all ads can transmit malware, and flash ads can often cause browser crashes.

Third of all I am capable of not looking at Ad's even without adblock and its not stealing.

I don't watch the ads on TV, I change channel or get up.

If there is a bill board I don't look at it. I don't usually read magazine ads either.

Its not stealing! Get over it we have enough of this piracy silliness.

[Dr. C]

Any website that makes money of advertising would be crazy to block Firefox. Why give up 15%+ of your revenue?

[leathco]

Guess I'm gonna play devils advocate for this one.

A web site is typically copyrighted by the coder or the corporation that created it, effectively owning it. Ads create a small amount of revenue. Even though it makes no sense, they have every right to ban a browser from viewing their content, since they own it and created it. It's just like if I created an engine that runs on water, build a car around it, and drive it, it's still my car. I am under no obligation to give this design to someone else to use. It may not be a good decision, but I have the right to it, just like the people blocking Firefox due to an add-on in Firefox not contributing to their revenue.

I just wonder, what if the same blocker was available for IE, would they make an attempt to block it?

Yes, I think their decision is stupid, but I will defend their right to make that decision. It's one of the founding principles my country was based on.

[mrgnash]

Well maybe I should block IE because I don't agree with Microsoft.......

That's pretty easy. The next time you author a webpage, simply don't write the hundreds of workarounds in the code you would otherwise have to in order for it to run in IE :P

[DarkDancer]

ad infinitum

Hehe, infinite ads... ;)

[Sp4cedOut]

2) They pay by page loads. So every time the page loads - they get a penny or two they add to pay the host. Whether you see the ads or not, wouldn't the page still be loading, thus hitting the counter, and ultimately still giving them the money whether the end user sees the ad or not. This would be the most ridiculous of all if it were the case, since they are effectively running themselves out of business by deterring users from the site in saying those with FireFox can't play here.

Until the advertisers start looking at the statistics. If the numbers show that X% of internet users are blocking ads, they'll be less interested in buying space on websites, why pay for something that users are blocking. Unless the website has some way of guaranteeing that everyone who loads the page will see their ad.

For example, the price of radio ads has gone down when it was shown people often switch stations during commercials.


Look, I'm not saying that their tactic will be effective, or that I think it's wrong to block internet ads, I use adblock. All I'm saying is that they have every right to do so. Some of you guys are acting like they're tying you to a chair and forcing you to view their advertisements. You're the ones visiting their site, expecting to view their content for free. If you don't like it, just don't go to their site.

[steven8]

any debate about rights is an endless circular debate.

[Quillz]

It's true that a web site operator has the right to display ads on their pages, but it's also my right to choose to view a web page how I want, and that would include blocking ads if necessary.

[EdThaSlayer]

So this is the secret plan that the undercover Microsoft agents have come up with.

[loudnlownoma]

Until the advertisers start looking at the statistics. If the numbers show that X% of internet users are blocking ads, they'll be less interested in buying space on websites, why pay for something that users are blocking. Unless the website has some way of guaranteeing that everyone who loads the page will see their ad.

For example, the price of radio ads has gone down when it was shown people often switch stations during commercials.


Look, I'm not saying that their tactic will be effective, or that I think it's wrong to block internet ads, I use adblock. All I'm saying is that they have every right to do so. Some of you guys are acting like they're tying you to a chair and forcing you to view their advertisements. You're the ones visiting their site, expecting to view their content for free. If you don't like it, just don't go to their site.

I just wasn't sure how they were generating the visits. If they are going on pageloads alone, are they using the loads of their specific ad hosting, or the page the ad is tied to that we block it from? If it's the latter, whether the ad loads or not, the page still generates a hit and should be tallied the same as if you viewed it in IE. That's where I was unsure about it.

And I wasn't trying to argue or anything, was just saying that I'm not clearly understanding how it would really help them that much... But I'm the same way - have used AdBlock for sometime and will continue to. I completely agree that they have every right to do what they want on their page, just as mentioned above we could all create pages and put in scripts to block IE. My biggest problem is the way they are doing it, and the way they present it.

[loudnlownoma]

any debate about rights is an endless circular debate.

Very true. Everyone will have their own opinions, interpretations, etc. and we could probably go on for pages about how I'm right or you are right or whatever. Of course, what else do we have to do at 3 in the morning? lol

[Sp4cedOut]

It's true that a web site operator has the right to display ads on their pages, but it's also my right to choose to view a web page how I want, and that would include blocking ads if necessary.

I agree with you, that's why I use adblock. But I also feel it's the website designers right to design the site how they want, including writing scripts to block certain browsers.

I'm calling it a night, I'll check this thread in the morning.

[GFree678]

Of course, what else do we have to do at 3 in the morning? lol

It's 5 in the afternoon here, you insensitive clod! :lolflag:

[angkor]

About the article: This is a joke or something!?! It's just stupid! Blocking ads is not theft. I can close my eyes and plug by ears when commercials are on TV; Is that theft too?

+1. I think it's a joke...it has to be...right?

I hardly ever notice google ads on some sites because I'm focusing on the real content...I never realized I could go to hell for that. From now on I will look at every ad they're trying to force on me!

[xc3RnbFO8P]

The reason why I use Adblock is: on a labtop Compaq Evo N620c 256 ram Pentium-M (Banias) 1.6GHz, this site http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/ uses 40%-60% of the processor.

[steven8]

It's 5 in the afternoon here, you insensitive clod! :lolflag:

He has the right to be an insensitive clod. :lolflag:

[loudnlownoma]

He has the right to be an insensitive clod. :lolflag:

Hahahaha!

And the biggest reason I use AdBlock is because of my connection at home. I currently use my cell phone tethered to connect. While in some areas this reaches speeds up to 800k, at home I'm lucky to top 80 or 90k... Because of this browsing is painfully slow (spoiled high-speed user before I moved) anyway, let alone when 80% of what I load on pages is ads. So it works out nicely for trimming the fat on the pages that I don't need, and allowing me to only load the content I am there for. And that's even before I have a chance to go into how little I care about what new ******-clone or how many crazy, naughty girls in my area are online right this second, or whatever other useless crap is posted on the sides of a page I am trying to find whatever information on...

[Tom Mann]

Well, I just clicked Help > Report Broken Web Site

Chose reason as 'other' and put 'Closed-Mindedness' as the issue.

:KS

[DimitrisC]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen and I've seen some weird sh*t going around the internet from time to time.

As already mentioned in this thread, how is blocking so few (yeah right) firefox users have a tremendous financial effect on the stupid website? If someone makes an IE ad block script (I'm sure there is one already) what are they going to do then? Block IE as well? I'm sure that would defeat the whole idea of having their stupid ads in the first place if nobody is allowed to see them!!!

http://www.whyisfirefoxblocked.com/ ---> This should be our response.
If they don't want us we sure as hell don't want them.

[der_joachim]

So this is the secret plan that the undercover Microsoft agents have come up with.

LOL I am not a Microsoft lover, but I do not think that this is MS's doing. They have many bad habits, but they are not that moronic. ;)

Anyhoo, these idiots have had too much attention already. I'd say we ignore them.They're just trolls.

[Backharlow]

I hit this on Slashdot and became enraged too. Unfortunately, no one wants to listen because all Firefox users must be brainwashed hipsters in the "Save the Web" campaign.

Someone said here earlier, (sorry I forgot your name)..
"Until the advertisers start looking at the statistics. If the numbers show that X% of internet users are blocking ads, they'll be less interested in buying space on websites, why pay for something that users are blocking."

This is just one example in a general trend that a free market enterprise model holds the mainstream back a few years from where the real ideas are. Sure, advertisers are losing X% because of the Adblock extension but I will wager that that X factor is less than 1%. They only complain because they believe that nothing can stand in the way of capitalism. But that 1% of web users are us (Ubuntu)- and other's who take control of browsing the web ourselves. As the web evolves Site Admins will realize that the purpose of their sites are more important than the advertising they sell, and advertisers will realize that changing their methods to be less intrusive will make them more money. Until then I'm going to encourage more people to use adblock plus, and hopefully increase that pressure on the market.

[insane_alien]

The reason why I use Adblock is: on a labtop Compaq Evo N620c 256 ram Pentium-M (Banias) 1.6GHz, this site http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/ uses 40%-60% of the processor.

sweet jesus that took up 70% of my processor. thats bad web design there.if thats the sorts of site we're going to be missing out on then i welcome the move :P

in reality, i'll use User Agent Switcher all i want. i'm not stealing because i ignore the ads anyway

[kerry_s]

sweet jesus that took up 70% of my processor. thats bad web design there.if thats the sorts of site we're going to be missing out on then i welcome the move :P

in reality, i'll use User Agent Switcher all i want. i'm not stealing because i ignore the ads anyway

oh my god, 99%-> 100% on mine, but my systems a measly 450mhz 256ram. i have flashblock(older version) but apparently that don't work there.

[kerry_s]

okay, took me alittle looking for the flashblock that works with my ff version, i'm all set now. :)

[aysiu]

I have mixed feelings about ads.

I realize many websites use ads to stay financially afloat. At the same time, a lot of ads are extremely obnoxious.

Google text-based ads off to the side are cool with me. Flashing ads that scroll in front of text are not cool.

[insane_alien]

yeah, i get where your coming from. i have seen some good adds, they're un obtrusive, relevant to the site and there when you want them. and i've seen the most horrible, flashy, noisy(smiley central) and obnoxious adds(follow the screen blocking what your trying to read and don't close).

if its a good add, it won't ruin your web experience. sadly, these ads are few and farbetween.

[izanbardprince]

I think we should also try to look at it from their perspective. For many people, their website is their source of income. If advertising agencies stop buying space on their site, they'll be out of a job. What would you do if someone threatened your livelihood?

People today have an expectation that certain things should be free, such as websites and TV programs. People talk about how much they don't like commercials, but when presented with the alternative: pay for every program you view, most of us would choose to deal with commercials. The fact is, advertisements make services that in the past would have cost money, free. For example, I like to play chess on yahoo for free.

As for the people who say "I don't buy things based on advertisement", the odds are you have. Any advertiser will tell you it's impossible to sell anything to anybody, but certain people can be encouraged to buy from you under the right conditions. For example, I love RTS games. I've heard about this RTS series, called Total War, which was supposed to be good. Then I saw an advertisement for the newest installment "Rome: Total War" which promised awesome graphics and good gameplay. I read some reviews, looked on some forums, and eventually bought it. Another good example would be car commercials. If you are in the market for a car, and then a commercial comes on offering one for a good price, with good interest rates, and the features you're looking for, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't consider it?

Do I use Firefox and the AdBlock plugin? Yes. Will I use the UserAgentSwitcher plugin to circumvent any attempt to block me? Yes. Adblocking technology is a natural course in technological progress and it'd be foolish to think it will go away. Do I understand why people are trying to stop it? Yes. Do I think they're evil for doing so? No.

Here's how I look at it, if they would quit using banners that took up half the screen/popped up/popped under, blinked like a strobe light, tried to install malware, and tried to sell ***** pills and mortgages, I might be inclined to stop blocking them.

If you run into a site that won't display in Firefox, send the owner an email telling him he's a pecker head and why you won't be coming back in Internet Explorer.

There's also user agent switcher add-on too.

[Nekiruhs]

I think we should also try to look at it from their perspective. For many people, their website is their source of income. If advertising agencies stop buying space on their site, they'll be out of a job. What would you do if someone threatened your livelihood?

People today have an expectation that certain things should be free, such as websites and TV programs. People talk about how much they don't like commercials, but when presented with the alternative: pay for every program you view, most of us would choose to deal with commercials. The fact is, advertisements make services that in the past would have cost money, free. For example, I like to play chess on yahoo for free.

As for the people who say "I don't buy things based on advertisement", the odds are you have. Any advertiser will tell you it's impossible to sell anything to anybody, but certain people can be encouraged to buy from you under the right conditions. For example, I love RTS games. I've heard about this RTS series, called Total War, which was supposed to be good. Then I saw an advertisement for the newest installment "Rome: Total War" which promised awesome graphics and good gameplay. I read some reviews, looked on some forums, and eventually bought it. Another good example would be car commercials. If you are in the market for a car, and then a commercial comes on offering one for a good price, with good interest rates, and the features you're looking for, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't consider it?

Do I use Firefox and the AdBlock plugin? Yes. Will I use the UserAgentSwitcher plugin to circumvent any attempt to block me? Yes. Adblocking technology is a natural course in technological progress and it'd be foolish to think it will go away. Do I understand why people are trying to stop it? Yes. Do I think they're evil for doing so? No.
I do pay for all the TV shows I watch, its called paying the cable bill. Big Media just wants more money with the commercials. I guess $50 a month isn't quite good enough for them. Same with cable internet.

[loudnlownoma]

yeah, i get where your coming from. i have seen some good adds, they're un obtrusive, relevant to the site and there when you want them. and i've seen the most horrible, flashy, noisy(smiley central) and obnoxious adds(follow the screen blocking what your trying to read and don't close).

if its a good add, it won't ruin your web experience. sadly, these ads are few and farbetween.

Exactly. But something tells me that the ones who are so crazy about blocking Firefox are not the nice page-relevant ads off to the side. They are likely the same ads that don't have a problem blocking everything on the page you want to use, or flashing and going nuts trying to sell you the latest ringers and backgrounds for your phone, or telling you to click on such and such and win a free Xbox/PS3/whatever random electronics are popular that day...

[Wolki]

Blocking a browser is obviously short-sighted stupidity, but so is ad-blocking. I don't use Firefox, and I don't know whether this would also block Epiphany, if it did and I'd encounter one of these sites, I'd be kind of annoyed. But I doubt they'd have interesting content, so I'm not worried too much.

I'm much more worried about ad-blocking itself - ads aren't going away, and if enough people block them, these sites will have to find a way to still present ads to them. No matter how they do it (maybe by going to a flash-like format for complete sites? or going all-image?), it's going to be absolutely ugly, and may well destroy much of the conveniece we enjoy today.

[izanbardprince]

Blocking a browser is obviously short-sighted stupidity, but so is ad-blocking. I don't use Firefox, and I don't know whether this would also block Epiphany, if it did and I'd encounter one of these sites, I'd be kind of annoyed. But I doubt they'd have interesting content, so I'm not worried too much.

I'm much more worried about ad-blocking itself - ads aren't going away, and if enough people block them, these sites will have to find a way to still present ads to them. No matter how they do it (maybe by going to a flash-like format for complete sites? or going all-image?), it's going to be absolutely ugly, and may well destroy much of the conveniece we enjoy today.

Thats why I use Flash Block too. :guitar:

And for their information, I do buy things online, I love Newegg.

[Wolki]

Thats why I use Flash Block too. :guitar:


I flashblock as well (or the epiphany equivalent). My fear is that people will move the *content* to flash, then flashblock will only help you if you don't want to see anything in the site (and then why would you open it in the first place?).

[izanbardprince]

I flashblock as well (or the epiphany equivalent). My fear is that people will move the *content* to flash, then flashblock will only help you if you don't want to see anything in the site (and then why would you open it in the first place?).

I should start a site called "www.whynobodycaresifastupidoldgeezerwhorunsshittyw ebsitesblocksfirefoxandwasteaperfectlygoodipv4addr essintheprocess.com"

[Mrs Twaddle]

I can see both sides of this.
I run a website, and I have google text ads on it.
I've noticed quite a drop in income (which pays for all the sites I host, and domain names) to the point I'm considering pulling the ads all together.
I know the drop in income is due to more and more members/visitors using ad blocking software. ( I polled them)
Hell, I have it myself (though disabled on my sites), its the animated, flashy ads that made me get an adblocker. And I know it makes me a hypocrite.

I think something will have to change on the web at some point, small site owners can deal with the cost, I can just about manage it. But the web isn't free for most people. Someone somewhere has to pay. Advertising is a way of pulling in money, whether we like them or not they are a necessary evil.
I myself would NEVER force my visitors to use a type of browser though, or not to have an adblocker. I'd love them all to turn it off on my site though :D

I'll be interested to see what happens in the future, I think ad creators will get more and more inventive on ways of getting round ad blockers.
I do hope that more and more sites don't follow this route though, it's just plain wrong.

[Wolki]

I should start a site called "www.whynobodycaresifastupidoldgeezerwhorunsshittyw ebsitesblocksfirefoxandwasteaperfectlygoodipv4addr essintheprocess.com"

Maybe you should. And I share your impression that his websites are likely to be ******.

What I care about is that there are a number of interesting ad-suppported websites out there (not mine, I don't have any right now and my previous ones never had ads or any content for that matter). If there weren't, no-one would use adblock, because they'd never see any ads anyway. But if more and more people block them, it won't work out anymore, and that will mean either less interesting content, or a switch to a format where ads are not that easily blocked.

And ignoring ads isn't that difficult... in fact, training it on the web might well help you ignore annoying people IRL. ;)

[AlphaMack]

I use Privoxy on all of my computers so these guys have their work cut out for them. :p

[izanbardprince]

I had a couple ads on my website years back, it was a website about Windows and Linux and various pieces of hardware and this and that, I had a couple ads, one for 98lite and another for Red Hat Linux, I don't think they were out of place, considering, but you'd never catch me trying to use annoying ads and pop unders and crap like that,the ads paid for the bandwidth and my domain, and I might have $20 left over after a month, these site owners got greedy and brought all this down on themselves.

[phenest]

This denies my rights to view this site without ads!

[Nekiruhs]

I can see both sides of this.
I run a website, and I have google text ads on it.
I've noticed quite a drop in income (which pays for all the sites I host, and domain names) to the point I'm considering pulling the ads all together.
I know the drop in income is due to more and more members/visitors using ad blocking software. ( I polled them)
Hell, I have it myself (though disabled on my sites), its the animated, flashy ads that made me get an adblocker. And I know it makes me a hypocrite.

I think something will have to change on the web at some point, small site owners can deal with the cost, I can just about manage it. But the web isn't free for most people. Someone somewhere has to pay. Advertising is a way of pulling in money, whether we like them or not they are a necessary evil.
I myself would NEVER force my visitors to use a type of browser though, or not to have an adblocker. I'd love them all to turn it off on my site though :D

I'll be interested to see what happens in the future, I think ad creators will get more and more inventive on ways of getting round ad blockers.
I do hope that more and more sites don't follow this route though, it's just plain wrong.
The Google ads I never block, they are not obtrusive or annoying. And there often relevant. I know the owner is getting paid per impression with them, and I don't mind. Its those damn flash ads that I block. Anyone remember those Mosquito Ads?

[euler_fan]

I have mixed feelings about ads.

I realize many websites use ads to stay financially afloat. At the same time, a lot of ads are extremely obnoxious.

Google text-based ads off to the side are cool with me. Flashing ads that scroll in front of text are not cool.

+1

I also don't mind simple link-adds in articles like is done on any number of sites.

As far as the advertising thing? Well, so long as the advertiser is making more money than they are paying to advertise on a site there's no point in stopping.

Otherwise, I don't think I've clicked on a Google add more than a handful of times. A couple of sites lost have lost a fraction of a penny each. If I'm looking to buy something I usually go strait to the company's site bypassing all their adds anyway.

[phenest]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was a way to tell Firefox how it describes itself if queried by a web site?

[BigSilly]

What company on the net can afford to block any browser? It's a joke. If you block Firefox, more fool you, since the uptake of it is surging forward.

I wouldn't even go on the net if I had to put up with all the shite that pops up. And if I'm not on the net at all, I'm not spending my money am I? You work it out.

[Freddy]

If I ran a website and my income was from the ads on it alone, I would try to block Firefox with adblock to, I'm not sure I would block every Firefox browser though, but it's in their freedom to do so as it's in our freedom not not sponsor that site by visiting it.

/Freddan

[Sweet Mercury]

And if they see fit to add a script that blocks Firefox users from seeing their site?

Then they can, of course. I though I was clear that they have the right to build their website how they choose.

My criticism is more for their reasoning behind it, and the fact that they have to resort to calling people "thieves" instead of taking a second look at their failing business model.

They don't have a "right" to me seeing their ads. Unless they think it's prudent to establish as precedent that end-users of media content must take in the content in its entirety.

Again I would ask, what if I just ignore the ads? Am I violating his "intellectual property rights?"

[Freddy]

Then they can, of course. I though I was clear that they have the right to build their website how they choose.

My criticism is more for their reasoning behind it, and the fact that they have to resort to calling people "thieves" instead of taking a second look at their failing business model.

They don't have a "right" to me seeing their ads. Unless they think it's prudent to establish as precedent that end-users of media content must take in the content in its entirety.

Again I would ask, what if I just ignore the ads? Am I violating his "intellectual property rights?"
If a company behind a communitys (or something) only income is ads on their pages and most of their users block their ads, which according to you they should be able to, how do you figure that they would be able to keep their community gratis?

Calling it stealing is of course a lot of bullcrap, but never the less you are scamming them out of their only income, and it's within their rights to ban certain browsers, even if the reason behind it was just cause they doesn't like the look of it. It's not a human right to be able to visit every part of the internet, sorry.

[FuturePilot]

Well they might was well block Epiphany too. Its Ad Block extension works just as well as the Firefox one.

[reyfer]

There seems to be a little confusion here. Let me ask all of you this: if I visit a site that's full of stupid ads, but I don't click on ANY of them, is the site getting money from the ad owners for my visit? As far as I know, they only get money if I click on one of those ads. So I can be visiting the site, wait a million years for all the crap ads to load, and sort around them to get to the site I REALLY want to see, or get straight to the site without the ads. Personally, I choose the latter.

[Freddy]

Well they might was well block Epiphany too. Its Ad Block extension works just as well as the Firefox one.
The user base is to small for them to bother, if it grows they might ad it to their list.

[Freddy]

There seems to be a little confusion here. Let me ask all of you this: if I visit a site that's full of stupid ads, but I don't click on ANY of them, is the site getting money from the ad owners for my visit? As far as I know, they only get money if I click on one of those ads. So I can be visiting the site, wait a million years for all the crap ads to load, and sort around them to get to the site I REALLY want to see, or get straight to the site without the ads. Personally, I choose the latter.
That depends on what site, some sites gets paid just for showing ads on the pages.

And I agree with you I would to (and do) use adblock for smoother browsing. Am I a hypocrite? Well both yes and no, I won't bitch about sites that will ban my choice of browser in the future and I don't care all that much about me scamming them from their income, but then again my morals are low ;).

[bwallum]

Block on all you rednecks that want to exploit the net. If using Firefox means you get a free filter to weed our these net vultures then great! What a feature!

[aysiu]

There are ad blockers for Internet Explorer and Opera as well. So basically, by this rationale, websites that draw revenue from ads should block all the major web browsers. Maybe they should all be designed for Dillo?

Ad Blocker for IE (http://www.ie7pro.com/ad-blocker.html)
Opera Ad Filter (http://www.monroeworld.com/operafilter/readme.htm)

[wersdaluv]

Hahahahaha

The site, http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ is down!

[GFree678]

Hahahahaha

The site, http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ is down!
Not only that, the bastards are using open-source software as it is (Apache), yet they don't want open-source browsers? Hypocrites!

[aysiu]

Hahahahaha

The site, http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/ is down!
Maybe slashdot is geekinese for whyfirefoxisblocked.comisblocked?

[leathco]

It's true that a web site operator has the right to display ads on their pages, but it's also my right to choose to view a web page how I want, and that would include blocking ads if necessary.

I hate to say it, but no its not. You have the right to run an ad blocker, and if the site you are trying to view allows it you can still see it. However, if the web owner doesn't want you to see his/her PROPRIETARY CREATION if you use a web blocker, they have every right to deny you access.

Is it a silly way of handling it? Yep. Unfortanately, without this basic law, lots of stuff gets screwed up. The same law covers reverse engineering. If they don't want to let you see what they made because you run an ad blocker, that's up to them.

Limiting access to their site is insane, however, as the more people that see the site, the more people that visit it, and the more that maybe click an ad. A Firefox user could tell an IE user about the site, who would than maybe check out an ad.

But it's their right to be an idiot. And when their site goes down due to no one visiting it, thats the way of weeding the idiots out.

[Sweet Mercury]

If a company behind a communitys (or something) only income is ads on their pages and most of their users block their ads, which according to you they should be able to, how do you figure that they would be able to keep their community gratis?

Maybe their community won't be gratis then? When/If people start seeing their favorite websites disappear because of lack of ad revenue, then they'll either suddenly be willing to pay, or be willing to somehow make ad revenue profitable again. Something will have to give, or maybe an entirely new business model will be adopted.

However, I think what will happen is some sort of "arms-race" for a while.


Calling it stealing is of course a lot of bullcrap, but never the less you are scamming them out of their only income, and it's within their rights to ban certain browsers, even if the reason behind it was just cause they doesn't like the look of it. It's not a human right to be able to visit every part of the internet, sorry.

At what point did anyone claim that it's a human right to visit any part of the internet?

[init1]

Not at all.

You have a right to try to make me see ads, nomatter how annoying they are. I have a right to try not to see ads, nomatter how annoying it is to you. That's the way it should work. But then someone will bring the law into it when they are loosing...



Much less then stealing, actually.



This person is just like the anti piracy lobby, changing the meaning of the word theft to suit them.

About the article: This is a joke or something!?! It's just stupid! Blocking ads is not theft. I can close my eyes and plug by ears when commercials are on TV; Is that theft too?
Right. I use adblock. There is nothing wrong with that. I shouldn't have to see what I don't want to see. Even if it was "wrong", I would still use it.

[bobpress]

Just avoid these sites except to get a laugh... The author lists these links on his main webpage of http://dannycarlton.net and claims that many of them are his own. He as removed his main page of http://www.jacklewis.net/carlton/_index.htm.

Since I use Firefox, I needed to use IE tab to even view his home page. I will not visit again. There is too much comment about his vandetta against Mozilla/Firefox (and the need for Javascript for some). If someone blocks Firefox (or any other browser), they are not being smart (to be kind). Optimizing for your target audience is fine, his being IE6 or IE7 without any add blocker enabled.

[goumples]

These guys really have nothing better to do with life.

[bwallum]

I shouldn't worry, having checked out your link these people are going nowhere. We should not forget the freedom that open source brings. It cannot be denied. Last night I tried a dvd on Ubuntu and it worked. It has been sitting on a shelf because MS would not play it. It had been sent to me as a gift from a relative in Canada, bought and paid for authentic retail version. Why should MS control where it is seen? (or to be more precise, try to control). Of course they should not, commerce is not slavery and whilst MS build their power base on the back of the big boys, it is the open source peeps that will win the day.

I'm pretty computer illiterate but I can smell control and hence exploitation, when I see it. How can I help the cause?

Kind Regards
Bob

[GFree678]

I'm pretty computer illiterate but I can smell control and hence exploitation, when I see it. How can I help the cause?

Kind Regards
Bob
By being here. You're computer illeterate yet use Ubuntu. Bless you then. :)

[vexorian]

nevermind this guy:

http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/blockcode.html

The php code: it is totally bypassable using an agent switch

The javascript ones: Just use noscript, Noscript identifies those as XSS ...

[roderikk]

This is the most absurd stuff I have ever read:


15% of web pages aren't completely compatible with Firefox:
Firefox is not 100% Internet Explorer and ActiveX compatible. Web pages that depend on ActiveX or were only tested in Internet Explorer will only render and work properly in Internet Explorer based browsers. Web page features such as Menus, Web forms or other content may not function or behave differently then intended. This means that someone using Firefox may come across a website that does not look or work right. This is pretty significant information that is conveniently left out by the legions of Firefox followers.

From: http://www.populartechnology.net/2005/01/firefox-new-religion.html

The other day I was working with a guy who 'knew how to develop web-pages'. His sites where a complete mess in Firefox! I cannot for the life imagine any serious web-devoloper not working in Firefox... First make it standard complient and only then try to get the quirks of IE worked out...

[TheKid965]

[deleted - site is now back up]

[forrestcupp]

Just avoid these sites except to get a laugh... The author lists these links on his main webpage of http://dannycarlton.net and claims that many of them are his own. He as removed his main page of http://www.jacklewis.net/carlton/_index.htm.

I don't get what you're talking about. Those sites worked for me in Firefox.

About the whole original post. I can see a server's point about ad blocking. Ads are how revenue is generated and that is what pays for those websites to be there. If there weren't any ad-supported websites, then everyone would have to pay an arm and a leg to have a website. There are sites with great, useful content that have ads because the creator couldn't afford to have a website that wasn't ad-driven. I hate ads, but I understand their use.

What I don't understand is that there are ad-blockers for IE, too. So the whole argument is flawed.

[Depressed Man]

I don't think it's as much as adblockers exist for all browsers, as it is Mozilla opening supporting the ad blocker extension. I think if Microsoft started openly promoting ad blocking people would start raising a fuse about that too (the ad blocking, not Microsoft though no doubt somebody will blame Microosft and it'll lead to a rant).

I think Opera has one by default. But they don't actually do any work in blocking (you have to do it yourself). Though I also think there were problems with people trying to block Opera (though it comes with a user agent switcher too).

[Paul133]

I personally don't use adblock. I just ignore annoying ads, though some ads are relevant or interesting. I abhor what this guy is doing; first of all, because Adblock is not illegal and is not necessarily wrong; most people who install it wouldn't click on ads anyway and because not al FF users have adblock. The guy's crazy view on the situation really gets going when he says that Mozilla supports this "theft" because they don't ban/sue adblock.

All that said, I think a mod should move this into the Backyard. Don't you think it would be better suited there than in the cafe?

[init1]

I personally don't use adblock. I just ignore annoying ads, though some ads are relevant or interesting. I abhor what this guy is doing; first of all, because Adblock is not illegal and is not necessarily wrong; most people who install it wouldn't click on ads anyway and because not al FF users have adblock. The guy's crazy view on the situation really gets going when he says that Mozilla supports this "theft" because they don't ban/sue adblock.

All that said, I think a mod should move this into the Backyard. Don't you think it would be better suited there than in the cafe?
I never click on ads. I did click on that Minix ad, but that was different :D

[AlphaMack]

www.whyisfirefoxblocked.com :D

[~~Tito~~]

*Peter From family guy laugh* Hehehehehehehehe, Douche.

[Polygon]

AHAHAHAHAHAH

that basically sums up my opinion on blocking a web browser because it blocks advertisements. Bravo... bravo.

in case it gets taken down:

[jonathonblake]

I It's not a human right to be able to visit every part of the internet, sorry.

Based upon the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights, I can make a solid case that it is a Human Right to visit any part of the Internet.

xan

jonathon

[PartisanEntity]

I feel sorry for anyone who feels they have to look at advertising or for anyone who feels guilt for blocking ads. We live in societies that are constantly being trained to be little good consumers. Ads add to this and are part of this system. Everywhere you look there are ads, it is so damn tiring and annoying.

It is up to me to decide what part of a site I want to see and what part I don't. The problem with the advertising craze is that is overdone, it's too much, especially thanks to companies like Google who are pushing this and making it so attractive to site owners.

Actually, anyone who has not seen it, should watch The Century of the Self, a documentary by the BBC I think, there are many streaming versions available on the net. Shows how, thanks to the likes of Freud, most of us have been turned into obedient little consumers all buying the same stuff in order to be 'unique' and in order to 'express ourselves'.

/rant.

[Tundro Walker]

The cable companies have it where they can monitor the kind of traffic coming to/from your computer, so some ISP's (and even cable-companies that offer ISP/internet) are getting the bright idea to provide unlimited access to certain kinds of content (like html, txt, etc) but limited bandwidth to other content (like movies, avi, wmv, etc).

We've all heard the arguments over Net Neutrality, and the intent here seems to be slowly eroding the consumer's expectations of internet service; let folks have unlimited "low quality" product while giving them limited "quality" product that they'll eventually go over the limit on (the number of mb's they're allowed) when they spend all night watching movies on YouTube.

Now, some sites, especially news sites, have gotten the bright idea to tack on commercials into their movies. If you end up paying premium prices to d/l more movie content, then you're basically paying for commercials they tack on, since it increases the size of the movie clips you're downloading. This could be likened to you paying for cable TV, and end up with half the day being sucked up by informercials on the channels you want to watch.

I think the FireFox blockers are trying to use the Cable TV model of advertising as their basis for argument, which doesn't hold water on the net. The net and tv are not the same thing. You pay for cable TV, and as part of the package, you get commercials. You have the right to watch or ignore, but commercial companies pay the cable TV company FIRST to post the commercials, regardless of who watches or not.

The internet is different in that commercial/ad companies only pay if they can track sales from the ad..."click through". So, content providers (likened to cable TV providers) are angry because they get paid after, not before, people watch the ads, and only if the ads generate revenue.

Ultimately, it's the internet content providers fault for allowing the ad companies to evolve this method. If they're ticked folks are blocking their ads, they should tell the ad companies "look, I can't guarantee folks will see your ads, but if you want to advert on my site, you pay me up-front." But, the precedence is already set, so it's fat chance the business model will change anytime soon unless a lot of content providers can ban together and take action.

Regardless, I still find this funny. A site that would go so far as to block FireFox users is probably a site that resorts to really lame ad methods, like pop-ups, spam, email fishing, etc. They're probably doing YOU a service by blocking you. :)

So, to sum up...they decided they wanted to make a living off providing content to attract users, and hopefully generate ad revenue. And, as such, it's their own darn fault the ad method online pays them after-the-fact, rather than before. So they need to deal with it by addressing it with the ad companies, not the consumers. But, no, instead, they want to tick off the consumers.

And, gee, it's not like IE doesn't have it's own ad-block software. So, why don't they block IE, too? Because, most IE users are too inept (not stupid, just not techno-savvy) to install it, and thus they're preying upon the user's ineptness. See, you're not being a good little sheep, so you're being punished.

[euler_fan]

The cable companies have it where they can monitor the kind of traffic coming to/from your computer, so some ISP's (and even cable-companies that offer ISP/internet) are getting the bright idea to provide unlimited access to certain kinds of content (like html, txt, etc) but limited bandwidth to other content (like movies, avi, wmv, etc).

We've all heard the arguments over Net Neutrality, and the intent here seems to be slowly eroding the consumer's expectations of internet service; let folks have unlimited "low quality" product while giving them limited "quality" product that they'll eventually go over the limit on (the number of mb's they're allowed) when they spend all night watching movies on YouTube.

Now, some sites, especially news sites, have gotten the bright idea to tack on commercials into their movies. If you end up paying premium prices to d/l more movie content, then you're basically paying for commercials they tack on, since it increases the size of the movie clips you're downloading. This could be likened to you paying for cable TV, and end up with half the day being sucked up by informercials on the channels you want to watch.

I think the FireFox blockers are trying to use the Cable TV model of advertising as their basis for argument, which doesn't hold water on the net. The net and tv are not the same thing. You pay for cable TV, and as part of the package, you get commercials. You have the right to watch or ignore, but commercial companies pay the cable TV company FIRST to post the commercials, regardless of who watches or not.

The internet is different in that commercial/ad companies only pay if they can track sales from the ad..."click through". So, content providers (likened to cable TV providers) are angry because they get paid after, not before, people watch the ads, and only if the ads generate revenue.

Ultimately, it's the internet content providers fault for allowing the ad companies to evolve this method. If they're ticked folks are blocking their ads, they should tell the ad companies "look, I can't guarantee folks will see your ads, but if you want to advert on my site, you pay me up-front." But, the precedence is already set, so it's fat chance the business model will change anytime soon unless a lot of content providers can ban together and take action.

Regardless, I still find this funny. A site that would go so far as to block FireFox users is probably a site that resorts to really lame ad methods, like pop-ups, spam, email fishing, etc. They're probably doing YOU a service by blocking you. :)

So, to sum up...they decided they wanted to make a living off providing content to attract users, and hopefully generate ad revenue. And, as such, it's their own darn fault the ad method online pays them after-the-fact, rather than before. So they need to deal with it by addressing it with the ad companies, not the consumers. But, no, instead, they want to tick off the consumers.

And, gee, it's not like IE doesn't have it's own ad-block software. So, why don't they block IE, too? Because, most IE users are too inept (not stupid, just not techno-savvy) to install it, and thus they're preying upon the user's ineptness. See, you're not being a good little sheep, so you're being punished.

+1

[Colonel Kilkenny]

I'm not going to start a debate about this but most of you don't realize that tools like Adblock Plus & Filterset.G Updater (or what ever it is called) are blocking all ads. (If I have understood correctly) they don't only block ads which are annoying or something. Tools like that can block ads based on size of the image. Imho, it is a bit unfair for sites. I think that it is also a bit ridiculous to use tool like that. I understand perfectly fine if someone wants to block ads which float above text or do something as stupid as that (I do that myself) but blocking all banners, images, text ads and divs based on wildcards like */ad/* is pretty lame, IMHO.

But anyway, everybody has a freedom of choice: block ads, block images, block firefox users.
And it's pretty sad that people are celebrating because firefox blockers got hacked (although it turn out be totally different site and the original wasn't hacked after all). Everyone has to have their rights no matter what they are thinking. Firefox fans should know that...

If user can use tools that block all ads then the site owner definately has a right to block users. Their site, their choice.
It sounds a bit ridiculous but that is the way it should be. It doesn't matter if it's the most idiotic thing ever, it is their freaking right.
And yeah, browser headers can be changed and the block isn't block anymore. Who cares. If someone gets his/her pleasure from getting over some stupid block, I'd say let him/her have that false feeling of supremacy.

[@trophy]

If user can use tools that block all ads then the site owner definately has a right to block users. Their site, their choice.
It sounds a bit ridiculous but that is the way it should be. It doesn't matter if it's the most idiotic thing ever, it is their freaking right.
And yeah, browser headers can be changed and the block isn't block anymore. Who cares. If someone gets his/her pleasure from getting over some stupid block, I'd say let him/her have that false feeling of supremacy.

+1

He's a douche, but we have to let him be a douche. That way we're free to not be douches.

[jouka]

Here's how I look at it, if they would quit using banners that took up half the screen/popped up/popped under, blinked like a strobe light, tried to install malware, and tried to sell ***** pills and mortgages, I might be inclined to stop blocking them.


Morons who say Ads should not be blocked because it's illegal...

Yeah. We all know that 'u r teh lucky winnar!'-type of Ads are quite common. These are also just pure bullcrap. Somebody gets interested and follows that Ad they get to point when they should buy something to even have a slight chance in winning something..

This is called false advertising and I bet it's illegal almost in every country.

Advertisements may get somebody filthy-ritch but come on, lets be serious. Every single one of us has the right to decide, what kind of crap we want to read/look/hear. Force-Advertising is not acceptable.

It also makes me roflmao when this webmaster clearly does not understand that you can block ads even in Opera. You can also do it at host file level on M$ OS and on linux... Though the whole thing also makes me think it's a troll web site. If it's not, good luck to you guys. You and the Ad companies are the lowlife scum of the internet.

[Tundro Walker]

I guess I'm not very sympathetic, because a lot of folks complaining about the ad-block situation are merely capitalists who provide ads first, and content second. That's their priority. If they didn't have to provide content to get you on their site clicking on ads, they wouldn't bother with it. But, the jokers in the 90's that tried that (IE: made sites that were nothing but a bunch of ads and pop-ups) realized folks quickly ignore the site.

I think the ad companies and the site folks screwed each other early on. The site folks got paid just for posting the ad, and the ad company was stupid enough to pay them just to post the ad. THEN the ad company did research and realized that "hey, nobody is visiting your site, because it's nothing but a bunch of ads and pop-ups trying to farm click-through. There's no relevant reason why anyone would go to your site."

So, the site providers got bit. The ad providers withdrew their "pay first" offers, and now just want to post on sites they know are targeted to their audience and can prove that there is a traffic base that might be interested.

But, by now, everyone is so sick of ads on the internet, because some are done very underhandedly (like taking over your browser, resizing it, hiding the "close" button, etc), that folks just block ads out right. I mean, would you watch commercials if they disabled the power button on your TV? No! There is a line that keeps getting stepped over, and it's your right to privacy and personal control. When advertisers cross that line, consumers get ticked, and they feel the backlash of ad-blocking.

So, the ad companies started it all by being stupid and not researching the internet ad habits of consumers to begin with. Then the site minders were stupid thinking all they had to do was create a no-content site with nothing but ads on it and watch the money roll in. Then abusive/annoying ads turned everyone to ad-blockers, and ad companies realized just randomly tossing money at folks for a banner on a lame ad-only site was not doing much but driving customers away.

It's all quite humurous if you think about it, because the basic psychology was there to slowly integrate ads into the internet in a decent fashion (if some standard of rules were used, like no pop-ups or browser hijacking), but because they felt the net was "radically different" and treated it as such, they're in the predicament they're in now. Ultimately it comes down to pleasing your consumers, and that starts by not slapping them in the face with your ads. And it continues by not berating them when they don't look at your ads. And it continues further by not berating them when the DO look at your ad, but don't want to buy.

I'm reminded of a little kid who was selling lemonade on the street corner on summer. She was flailing around, jumping in front of cars trying to get them to stop to buy lemonade. Folks were getting upset, told her "no", then she had the audacity to say "well why WON'T you buy my lemonade?!" Well, probably because you're confrontational and annoying...much like most of the ads that show up on the net.

[PHuN]

I guess I'm not very sympathetic[/I], because a lot of folks complaining about the ad-block situation are merely capitalists who provide ads first, and content second. That's their priority. [sic...]

But, by now, everyone is so sick of ads on the internet, because some are done very underhandedly (like taking over your browser, resizing it, hiding the "close" button, etc), that folks just block ads out right. [I]I mean, would you watch commercials if they disabled the power button on your TV? No! There is a line that keeps getting stepped over, and it's your right to privacy and personal control. When advertisers cross that line, consumers get ticked, and they feel the backlash of ad-blocking.
...




if I was able to write so well that is exactly what I would have.
Thanks Tundro. (well said)

[Dropbear]

They really don't get it. Nothing turns me off a product more than intrusive and annoying advertising. I have no problem with banner ads or normal advertising as it allows the world wide web to exist to a large degree. But I object to having my browser being redirected to irrelevant products and services constantly with windows popping up everywhere offering to scan my hdd for "free". In my opinion firefox takes most of the BS out of the web.

Maybe I'm just weird for not being sold with this rubbish

[TBOL3]

I think that we have the right to stop ads, just as they have the right to show us them. However, I find that most of the sites that are full of ads aren't worth anything anyway. The only reason I have ABP is so that when I do stumble apon those sote, I can get off easily, and not have to fight with the site to let me out.

[phenest]

Here's how I look at it, if they would quit using banners that took up half the screen/popped up/popped under, blinked like a strobe light, tried to install malware, and tried to sell ***** pills and mortgages, I might be inclined to stop blocking them.

You have to ask yourself: If that's the sort of ads your seeing, what sort of site were you visiting?


If you run into a site that won't display in Firefox, send the owner an email telling him he's a pecker head and why you won't be coming back in Internet Explorer.

I wouldn't bother. Their loss.

I don't use an ad blocker. Never have, and never will. If I like a particular site, and their adverts were many and/or were a distraction from the main content, I would email the web master explaining this in the hope it would be redesigned. If I don't like the web site at all, I simply don't return.

[daverich]

you know what?

I really dont mind adverts, not at all.

What I do mind is these absolutely ridiculous FLASH ADVERTS that spread all over the damn screen and render incorrectly in firefox so they cover all the text even when they're not rolled over.

I use adblock to block those, but a Gif, even an animated one - I really don' t mind that - Just don't make the advert spoil the website.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

[karellen]

they're plain stupid. you can block ads in ie7, opera and so on. what would they do? block them all? :lolflag:

[DeusEx]

The company I am working for now is blocking many known ads with a firewall (for the whole network). So none of the employees (quite a few) actually see ads.

[Lster]

The logic I don't understand is, if (for example) 10% of Firefox users install an ad-blocker, the website blocks all Firefox users. What if 10% of all users install an ad-blocker - what a lot of commerce that would be...

I have many more points, but lets just leave it there - if I can't view a web page, I will just go somewhere else.

[TBOL3]

you know what?

I really dont mind adverts, not at all.

What I do mind is these absolutely ridiculous FLASH ADVERTS that spread all over the damn screen and render incorrectly in firefox so they cover all the text even when they're not rolled over.

I use adblock to block those, but a Gif, even an animated one - I really don' t mind that - Just don't make the advert spoil the website.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

Yes, I agree with you there, If it's just a picture ad (even slightly animated), or text ad, I don't mind it being on the site.

[Sweet Mercury]

Yes, I agree with you there, If it's just a picture ad (even slightly animated), or text ad, I don't mind it being on the site.

I'd say that most people don't mind those types of ads. They're easy as anything to ignore, and maybe some people find them helpful. It's loud, obnoxious flash ads that most people can't stand.

[SOULRiDER]

I'd say that most people don't mind those types of ads. They're easy as anything to ignore, and maybe some people find them helpful. It's loud, obnoxious flash ads that most people can't stand.

+1

[BoyOfDestiny]

I'd say that most people don't mind those types of ads. They're easy as anything to ignore, and maybe some people find them helpful. It's loud, obnoxious flash ads that most people can't stand.

I mind (well the graphical ads.) They still get at you (subliminal message and that type of thing.)

Personally, I use privoxy [free and open source] (works with any browser that can use a proxy... which I'd venture to say is most if not all), and it shows a nice link saying this was blocked, click here to see anyway, can deanimate gifs, and remove other junk if you want it to. So I can view ads by choice, and whitelist whatever I don't want to block.

I do LIKE text ads. I think they are smart, and not annoying. At least with google the ones I've seen are relevant (which is more than I can say about banners and big flashy stuff.)

As for blocking firefox, it's easily bypassable... However, I'm not going to bother. In my opinion any site that uses this and thinks 'Intellectual Property' is a good term (tries to pass the notion of physical property on things like copyright, trademark, and patents...) and advocating use of Internet Explorer isn't generally good advice either in my opinion... I certainly hope they take the time to ensure their pages work with the quirks of ie5/6/7 :lolflag:.
I'm not going to touch that site. It's honestly not worth visiting. They should change their ways, or just do without the "niche" (:lolflag:) users of firefox. Some of which might not be blocking ads at all...

P.S. What about people who surf with text only browsers...?

[slimdog360]

I was just thinking how much I miss ads, viruses, and a bloated, slow, ugly web browser. Wait a minute, thats actually why I switched.

[Celegorm]

Like most people who seem to be posting on this thread, if there weren't so many annoying, flashy, animated ads (or ones with sound, those are the worst) that distracted me so much from looking at the actual content of a site, I'd have never bothered with an ad blocker in the first place. Those are the sort of ads that make me want to boycott a product or company for life, and encourage everyone I know to do likewise. Whereas non-distracting text or banner ads I don't mind. I'll still ignore them the same way I ignore every ad I see, internet or not, but I actually don't mind them, especially if they help pay a site's server costs.

[Bothered]

Forwarding me to that page would be a good way to persuade me to shop some place else.

[mech7]

well most users dont even know how to use add-on's doubt it is very high percentage which use it (i do :p) anyways you can block ads on ie too..