Ad Block in WP

[thed]

What I find shameful is that developers who use ads in their apps are admitting to blocking ads in websites. How is it that the website provider makes money again? How is that different from what you (and I) do in our apps? To block the ads is to steal from the developer, whether that developer writes apps or a website.

I'm a web developer and I block third party ads when browsing the internet. I don't feel bad about it either. When I visit a website, I want my computer talking only to that server, not 15 other servers from all kinds of ad services that are building a profile of all my internet browsing activities. I'm not opposed to the idea of ads on websites in general. But host your own damn ads if you want me to see them.

It's amazing how much faster web sites perform when you're not waiting for ads from all kinds of third party ad services to load.

 

[Laura Knotek]

I'm a web developer and I block third party ads when browsing the internet. I don't feel bad about it either. When I visit a website, I want my computer talking only to that server, not 15 other servers from all kinds of ad services that are building a profile of all my internet browsing activities. I'm not opposed to the idea of ads on websites in general. But host your own damn ads if you want me to see them.

It's amazing how much faster web sites perform when you're not waiting for ads from all kinds of third party ad services to load.

Beside Ad-block, I also use Request Policy and Ghostery in Firefox.

 

[lasm2000]

Indeed, as you have mentioned, an adblocker is usually the only way one can enforce some sort of elementary privacy on the web. The "do no track" request is only that, a request. Google goes as far as burying that option deep in the options menu of its own browser followed by a disclaimer "most sites don't comply with this request, starting with us".

 

[hopmedic]

I'm not a developer. I don't pirate. However I don't see anything different with blocking ads in websites or recording a TV show on a DVR and skipping the commercials.

I pay for my Internet service, so if I don't want to see ads on websites that's my option, just like if I don't want to see TV commercials.

Out of curiosity, how much of your internet subscription money goes to the host/developer of the websites that you visit?

Fact is that blocking ads steals from those people. Justifying it doesn't make it right.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Out of curiosity, how much of your internet subscription money goes to the host/developer of the websites that you visit?

Fact is that blocking ads steals from those people. Justifying it doesn't make it right.

What about DVR? Does that "steal" from companies that pay for advertising? And this doesn't apply to subscription payments when one doesn't pay for cable -- one can get broadcast TV only and use something like Windows Media Center to record broadcast TV and skip commercials.

What makes websites more special than TV stations or TV shows?

 

[hopmedic]

My first reaction is that yes, it does. However, upon second thought, whether you view the commercial or not, the TV station is getting paid by the advertiser. Not so with websites. Although..... The advertiser is paying to have an ad placed in front of you, and you're denying them that opportunity. They're getting ripped off.

 

[EchoRedux]

Website developers chose to put their content on the web and give people free access. Blocking ads is in no way shape or form stealing.

 

[hopmedic]

Website developers chose to put their content on the web and give people free access. Blocking ads is in no way shape or form stealing.

That's one opinion.

 

[Nimdock]

Beside Ad-block, I also use Request Policy and Ghostery in Firefox.

I didn't know about Ghostery. Thanks for that.

 

[Laura Knotek]

My first reaction is that yes, it does. However, upon second thought, whether you view the commercial or not, the TV station is getting paid by the advertiser. Not so with websites. Although..... The advertiser is paying to have an ad placed in front of you, and you're denying them that opportunity. They're getting ripped off.

It all depends on the websites. YouTube TrueView advertisers only pay for their ads when viewers watch the ads in their entirety or for at least 30 seconds, whichever comes first. Therefore, blocking YouTube ads doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Then there is the question of ads in email. One sees ads in web-based email if he does not use ad-block; however, if a person chooses to use an email client, there are no ads. So is someone stealing money from Google by using Outlook, Thunderbird or Apple Mail and avoiding web-based Gmail?

 

[hopmedic]

It all depends on the websites. YouTube TrueView advertisers only pay for their ads when viewers watch the ads in their entirety or for at least 30 seconds, whichever comes first. Therefore, blocking YouTube ads doesn't hurt anyone.

The content creator is being robbed of the income that he would have made from the ads that you didn't watch.

Then there is the question of ads in email. One sees ads in web-based email if he does not use ad-block; however, if a person chooses to use an email client, there are no ads. So is someone stealing money from Google by using Outlook, Thunderbird or Apple Mail and avoiding web-based Gmail?

Since your example profits Google, and Google allows you to connect with a client, I would lean toward no.

 

[Laura Knotek]

The content creator is being robbed of the income that he would have made from the ads that you didn't watch.

But the advertiser didn't pay if the ads weren't watched, so nothing was spent.

Since your example profits Google, and Google allows you to connect with a client, I would lean toward no.

I just used Google as an example. However, the same could apply to any free email provider.

It also applies to email clients on smartphones. No ads appear when one views email using smartphones.

 

[hopmedic]

But the advertiser didn't pay if the ads weren't watched, so nothing was spent.


I just used Google as an example. However, the same could apply to any free email provider.

It also applies to email clients on smartphones. No ads appear when one views email using smartphones.

Exactly. The advertiser didn't pay the content creator for ads not displayed. The content creator who is using advertising revenue to earn money from the video that he created got ripped off.

With email - doesn't matter which email provider - if they are allowing connection by POP or IMAP, then they know people are going to use clients that don't show ads. That's their choice, and they are choosing to allow it.

It doesn't matter how you justify theft, it is still theft. Whether the law would bother to prosecute it or not is of no importance - you're still taking/viewing/seeing/hearing/whatever content that was intended to make the content creator money through advertising, and you're robbing him of that opportunity. Plain and simple, it is theft.

 

[thed]

Exactly. The advertiser didn't pay the content creator for ads not displayed. The content creator who is using advertising revenue to earn money from the video that he created got ripped off.

With email - doesn't matter which email provider - if they are allowing connection by POP or IMAP, then they know people are going to use clients that don't show ads. That's their choice, and they are choosing to allow it.

It doesn't matter how you justify theft, it is still theft. Whether the law would bother to prosecute it or not is of no importance - you're still taking/viewing/seeing/hearing/whatever content that was intended to make the content creator money through advertising, and you're robbing him of that opportunity. Plain and simple, it is theft.

Your idea of "theft" doesn't hold up when you apply your email provider logic to the rest of the internet. Think about it. As a website owner, all you're doing is providing files to the client when they ask for them. The nature of the web is that you have no control over what the client does with those files. The client can choose not to request anything else from you like images, scripts, and yes, ads. So yes, when you're running a website, you know that people are going to use clients that don't show ads. That's your choice, and you're choosing to allow it.

 

[hopmedic]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Laura Knotek]

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.

Google is not the 'content creator' though. YouTube videos are uploaded by mainly by individuals, with no payment from Google. If I upload a video that I created, and Google throws in an ad, I am not losing anything whether or not someone sees the ad. As the content creator, I'm not benefiting financially. Google is benefiting whether or not the ads are viewed, since Google is getting its content free of charge. If everyone stopped giving Google content due to dislike of ads, YouTube would fold, not because of loss of ad revenue, but due to loss of content.

 

[hopmedic]

Google is not the 'content creator' though. YouTube videos are uploaded by mainly by individuals, with no payment from Google. If I upload a video that I created, and Google throws in an ad, I am not losing anything whether or not someone sees the ad. As the content creator, I'm not benefiting financially. Google is benefiting whether or not the ads are viewed, since Google is getting its content free of charge. If everyone stopped giving Google content due to dislike of ads, YouTube would fold, not because of loss of ad revenue, but due to loss of content.

You're splitting hairs in order to justify your position, since your position can't be stood upon without splitting hairs. Google did this on behalf of the content creators.

DUH.

 

[hopmedic]

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.