Ad Block in WP

[Laura Knotek]

And even for ads that aren't benefitting the content creator (those who don't have an adsense account), Google is benefitting. Hmmm... You're paying for use of their service. To block the ads is to steal the service.

Face it. You are standing on quicksand while trying to convince yourself that it is concrete. You're going to drown.

That is not true. Google changed its terms of service. YouTube did not have any ads originally. So a content creator who uploaded videos prior to the change in TOS never agreed to the ads. Now the content creator is the loser, not Google, as a result of the ads. The ads might mean that the content is pulled, or fewer people view the content due to the ads.

 

[thed]

When I provide ads, I expect that those ads are going to be shown. Why else is Google upset with Microsoft - in fact sent a cease and desist order - for not showing ads in the former YouTube client on Windows Phone? Your argument holds no water.

I'm trying to tell you that you shouldn't have that expectation, because it's incorrect. Google sent the takedown notice to MS because they violated the Terms of service for Youtube's API, not because of some nebulous allegations of theft.

 

[hopmedic]

That is not true. Google changed its terms of service. YouTube did not have any ads originally. So a content creator who uploaded videos prior to the change in TOS never agreed to the ads. Now the content creator is the loser, not Google, as a result of the ads. The ads might mean that the content is pulled, or fewer people view the content due to the ads.

You're still on quicksand, arguing with yourself over the solidity of it. It doesn't matter who the beneficiary is of the ads. If you block those ads, you are stealing from that party. Whether it is Google, which uses them to provide a revenue stream for the service they provide, which they provide for one reason only - to generate revenue - or the content creator, who, if they are a partner, generates a revenue stream with said ads in exchange for the content they created. Block the ads and you're either stealing a service or content. Doesn't matter which.

You're sinking.

 

[Laura Knotek]

You're still on quicksand, arguing with yourself over the solidity of it. It doesn't matter who the beneficiary is of the ads. If you block those ads, you are stealing from that party. Whether it is Google, which uses them to provide a revenue stream for the service they provide, which they provide for one reason only - to generate revenue - or the content creator, who, if they are a partner, generates a revenue stream with said ads in exchange for the content they created. Block the ads and you're either stealing a service or content. Doesn't matter which.

You're sinking.

Google doesn't care at all about supposed theft of content. If it did, none of these apps would exist.

 

[hopmedic]

I'm trying to tell you that you shouldn't have that expectation, because it's incorrect. Google sent the takedown notice to MS because they violated the Terms of service for Youtube's API, not because of some nebulous allegations of theft.

One of their allegations in the C&D was that they were not showing ads. Your statement is not completely correct.

 

[hopmedic]

Google doesn't care at all about supposed theft of content. If it did, none of these apps would exist.

You're still trying to convince yourself that you're not on quicksand. You're not arguing with me, but with your own conscience, because you know that you're wrong. Attempting to justify it only intensifies that knowlege.

Google may choose to assign their legal resources only to the deepest pockets, but that does not equate to "Google doesn't care at all".

PS: I find it absolutely disgusting that a moderator on a site like this one is advocating theft of service or content at all. Ironically, one of the methods that Mobile Nations makes money is through ads....

 

[Laura Knotek]

You're still trying to convince yourself that you're not on quicksand. You're not arguing with me, but with your own conscience, because you know that you're wrong. Attempting to justify it only intensifies that knowlege.

Google may choose to assign their legal resources only to the deepest pockets, but that does not equate to "Google doesn't care at all".

PS: I find it absolutely disgusting that a moderator on a site like this one is advocating theft of service or content at all. Ironically, one of the methods that Mobile Nations makes money is through ads....

iMore did an article about a similar iOS app. http://www.imore.com/daily-tip-download-itunes-videos-ios-device-jailbreak

 

[hopmedic]

You're still arguing with yourself?

 

[Daniel Rubino]

That's one opinion.

Saying someone is "stealing" more often than not implies a legal standing i.e. that it is an actual crime.

Unless I missed something, blocking ads on a site, while perhaps unethical, is not illegal. Therefore calling it "stealing" or "theft" is a bit hyperbolic, IMO.

Regardless, people should make room for exception e.g. sites they support they can often "disable for this site" or in case of WPCentral, just buy something from our store.

You're all adults in this forum, I assume, and I'm not here to give you my moral code (and TBH, I'm not interested in yours). Debate amongst yourselves, .keep it cordial and recognize that whatever your position, you probably won't prevail in convincing the other person).

 

[hopmedic]

Where I come from, if you're taking money from someone, it's stealing. I don't need legislation to tell me if I've stolen something. But since you agree with me, Daniel, that it is unethical, thank you. That has been my point all along.

 

[ucyimDa_Ruler]

hopmedic,

I registered just to comment.

hopmedic

It's really simple if you are actually willing to be honest with yourself, and not succumb to the greed that is inherent in us all. Instead of putting your desire for an ad-free environment first, ask yourself this question: How does the content creator generate revenue which motivates him to create the content that I enjoy? If you actively block the method by which he creates that revenue stream, and still consume the content, then you are stealing. Plain and simple. No difference between that and walking into Walmart and walking out with a watermellon, bypassing the registers.

Netflix offers content. But I cannot see the content unless I pay for their service. I can get a tour of the available content and if I see something I like I may opt to purchase it. You have the choice, you chose to make it readily available without a subscription or proof of purchase.

Your Wal-Mart analogy is flawed. It doesn't cost me anything to enter Wal-Mart, whereas it costs me an internet subscription or data plan to access an ad-infested website. If you want to be paid then ask the internet providers for a cut based on how long I spent on your site from all sources (which is fair). There are no laws governing blocking advertisements because the law makers don't agree with your point of view. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. This applies to the internet as well as TV. The HOPPER blocks ads and there is nothing the ad companies can do about it except complain.

If you don't agree with the model, then you should offer go with a subscription model. At that point you'll know how valuable your content really is. Which may not be worth more than free.

Oh and I'm coming for you on Greed City :winktongue:

 

[hopmedic]

hopmedic,

I registered just to comment.



Netflix offers content. But I cannot see the content unless I pay for their service. I can get a tour of the available content and if I see something I like I may opt to purchase it. You have the choice, you chose to make it readily available without a subscription or proof of purchase.

Your Wal-Mart analogy is flawed. It doesn't cost me anything to enter Wal-Mart, whereas it costs me an internet subscription or data plan to access an ad-infested website. If you want to be paid then ask the internet providers for a cut based on how long I spent on your site from all sources (which is fair). There are no laws governing blocking advertisements because the law makers don't agree with your point of view. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. This applies to the internet as well as TV. The HOPPER blocks ads and there is nothing the ad companies can do about it except complain.

If you don't agree with the model, then you should offer go with a subscription model. At that point you'll know how valuable your content really is. Which may not be worth more than free.

Oh and I'm coming for you on Greed City :winktongue:

Don't register just to comment. Join in and become a part of the community.

My Walmart analogy isn't flawed. How you get there doesn't matter. But you probably drove, which did cost money. Regardless, the money you pay for an internet subscription goes to ATT, Charter, Comcast, or any of the numerous other service providers. Not to the creator of the content you consume, or the providers of the services you use. Those are the people that the ads are providing a revenue stream for. You pay internet providers for the privilege of connecting to the internet. Which sites you consume is up to you. If you don't like a site that has a lot of ads, shop elsewhere, and don't consume that content. But if you consume that content, and block the stream of revenue that the content provider is looking for (his incentive for creating content, in many cases), then you're stealing from him. You're consuming his content without providing him the return that you owe him for it. That return is simply to have an ad on a page - you don't even have to look at it - it just has to be there.

So Daniel thinks it's hyperbole for me to use the word "stealing" - that's fine - he can think that - but really, if you're taking something without paying for it, it's stealing. Since payment is in the form of placement of an ad on a page, blocking that ad while you consume the content really is stealing. If not, then what's the difference between that and software piracy? Software doesn't cost anything to produce another copy of (assuming downloads), so who's it hurting, right? Wrong. If you're not going to pay for something that isn't offered free, then don't use it. When you're talking about services, it's even more true, since consuming a service often costs the service provider money, so that's not just "not giving money that wouldn't be there anyway" (a common argument for piracy), but it is actually taking money OUT of the pocket of the service provider.

As for Greed City - meh - I'm not one of those psychopaths who is out to get anyone, as it is just a game. In fact, if someone comes after me and takes a bunch of my businesses, as has happened several times, I'll just avoid that person. I'm not out for anything but to play the game. Have fun, though. :wink:

 

[ucyimDa_Ruler]

I personal don't use an ad-blocker. In-fact I use the built-in IE Tracking Protection feature provided by Microsoft. It filters out known advertisers that unethically tracks your movements across the internet without offering some type of written privacy policy. An offending advertiser should seek a reevaluation after submitting a valid privacy policy. As a content creator, you should seek out advertisers that adhere to said policies if you wish to reach a wider audience.

I participated in a study for advertisers about a decade ago and I was labeled the worst kind of visitor. I suffer from banner blindness which is a term coined by the fact that I do not see or interact with advertisement banners. I naturally block them out and will never click on a single ad. Impressions are the only way to generate income for that type of visitor. Great for me but that makes me bad for business.

To keep the thread on topic, I'd also be interested in Tracking Protection for IE on WP. Application driven ads are valid business models for developers and should never be blocked by the underlying OS architecture.

 

[ucyimDa_Ruler]

Don't register just to comment. Join in and become a part of the community.

My Walmart analogy isn't flawed. How you get there doesn't matter. But you probably drove, which did cost money. Regardless, the money you pay for an internet subscription goes to ATT, Charter, Comcast, or any of the numerous other service providers. Not to the creator of the content you consume, or the providers of the services you use. Those are the people that the ads are providing a revenue stream for. You pay internet providers for the privilege of connecting to the internet. Which sites you consume is up to you. If you don't like a site that has a lot of ads, shop elsewhere, and don't consume that content. But if you consume that content, and block the stream of revenue that the content provider is looking for (his incentive for creating content, in many cases), then you're stealing from him. You're consuming his content without providing him the return that you owe him for it. That return is simply to have an ad on a page - you don't even have to look at it - it just has to be there.

So Daniel thinks it's hyperbole for me to use the word "stealing" - that's fine - he can think that - but really, if you're taking something without paying for it, it's stealing. Since payment is in the form of placement of an ad on a page, blocking that ad while you consume the content really is stealing. If not, then what's the difference between that and software piracy? Software doesn't cost anything to produce another copy of (assuming downloads), so who's it hurting, right? Wrong. If you're not going to pay for something that isn't offered free, then don't use it. When you're talking about services, it's even more true, since consuming a service often costs the service provider money, so that's not just "not giving money that wouldn't be there anyway" (a common argument for piracy), but it is actually taking money OUT of the pocket of the service provider.

So let's dig deeper. What does the payment entitle? In order words, the visitor isn't giving you money out of his/her pocket. So what does the visitor have to do or give to ensure you get paid?

 

[hopmedic]

The advertiser is paying to have an ad displayed. Having that ad displayed is all that is required. You don't even have to look at it.

Some ads pay per click. In those cases, the service provider or content creator knows this ahead of time. The difference is that the pay per click ads generally pay more for clicks than the display-only ads pay for a view. But the implied agreement when you consume the content isn't necessarily that you'll click, but that the ad will be displayed so that there is the opportunity to click if the ad is something that interests the consumer.

I use ads in my WP apps. The most I've made on them is around $50 for a month, and only came close to that twice that I can recall. Generally, I'm getting between $10 and $30 a month. I don't have the greatest apps in the world, but I'm using them to learn, and they'd be better if I had time to implement all the things I want to implement. But what this thread is telling me is that if there were a way for people to block ads in WP, I wouldn't make anything at all.

Is it asking too much to allow the creators of content or providers of services to make a little bit of money for their efforts, especially since that money isn't coming out of the pockets of the consumers? There's no difference between free, ad-supported apps, and free, ad-supported web sites, except for the fact that people have found a way to rip off the websites, and haven't yet figured out a way to rip off the app builders. Whether the law has decided that it is against the law or not, it is still stealing if you take away the revenue stream while consuming the content.

 

[ucyimDa_Ruler]

But what this thread is telling me is that if there were a way for people to block ads in WP, I wouldn't make anything at all.

I cannot exactly tell you what the expectations of the OP are, but it is my understanding that AdBlock Plus is a plugin for a browser. Their request was to allow similar functionality to the browser in IE for WP. I agree with this functionality. Allowing the OS to block ads from free application is something I don't agree with. Blocking ads in Internet Explorer is my main goal.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I cannot exactly tell you what the expectations of the OP are, but it is my understanding that AdBlock Plus is a plugin for a browser. Their request was to allow similar functionality to the browser in IE for WP. I agree with this functionality. Allowing the OS to block ads from free application is something I don't agree with. Blocking ads in Internet Explorer is my main goal.

Internet Explorer (desktop) will continue losing market share if it lacks features available in Firefox and Chrome.

And as I've mentioned earlier, my solution for elimination of ads in apps is to buy the apps. I've opted for the paid version of most apps in order to support developers and eliminate ads. Weave was $10, which I had no issues paying, since it was worth it to me.

 

[thed]

But what this thread is telling me is that if there were a way for people to block ads in WP, I wouldn't make anything at all.

Is it asking too much to allow the creators of content or providers of services to make a little bit of money for their efforts, especially since that money isn't coming out of the pockets of the consumers? There's no difference between free, ad-supported apps, and free, ad-supported web sites, except for the fact that people have found a way to rip off the websites, and haven't yet figured out a way to rip off the app builders. Whether the law has decided that it is against the law or not, it is still stealing if you take away the revenue stream while consuming the content.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but my main goal is to prevent ad services from tracking me. I'll do what I can to prevent that. If I can pay to remove ads then I'll do that as long as the price is reasonable. Heck, android makes it possible to block ads in apps but I don't bother because you can usually pay to remove them.

By the way, there actually is a way to serve ads in such a way that I'll see them. You can host the ads on your own web server and put them directly on your pages. I won't block those, and as far as I know there isn't even a way to block that. Maybe its more work than just using a third party service but I don't really care. Just please don't track me.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using WPCentral Forums mobile app

 

[Bjorn Cattoor]

Theft
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

As I am not taking anything from anyone, you can not consider it theft.

It's like walking into a Walmart, and "choose" not to look at the advertisement posters, it's my choice, and it is NOT theft!

Edit: What I'm trying to say is: it is a choice to not see, or click on ad's (using ad blockers or not), and that it is NOT a illegal act in it self. If it is fair?? I think not, users of applications and websites, should consider when doing this, the service of those content providers will slowly fade ... And that is just a no-win situation.

 

[hopmedic]

Wow, did someone troll through some old stuff to dig up this thread that is largely irrelevant...

Theft
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

As I am not taking anything from anyone, you can not consider it theft.

But since you did dig it up, I'll comment. Really, you are taking from someone. You are taking content that they created, consuming it for your purposes and you are denying them the revenue that they expect to get through the ads that they intended to have displayed with their content. In the strictest sense of the word, this is theft.

Could this very website exist if everyone blocked the ads and stole the content? My guess is no.