AdBlock Plus wins in court
bbc.com
bbc.com
However, I aggressively use ad blockers. Here is why:
* the majority of the ads I see on the Internet are of the sort that I use to find in the back of magazines. Crap I would never read is now force feed to me front and center
* nearly every single web page is OVERLOADED with ads. Take a look at a print copy of the New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, etc. Feature articles often have few or even NO ads. In fact, feature articles often start with two pages of JUST content.
* the way the ads work often kills my battery life. NOT COOL. You have no right to kill my battery life.
* You track us with no way to really opt out with out using ad blockers.
* You use the tracking info to target people. Including targeting children and at-risk (mentally impaired) adults. It is very different to have a scam artist with a small ad in the back of a magazine, compared to a phishing web ad that is trying to take advantage of an elderly grandma whose bank account is a click away.
* you burn my bandwidth. this is bad on WiFi, evil on cell data. You have no right to rack up cellular charges on my behalf.
* I don't trust the Kirby vacuum sales person in my home, I don't trust your javascript laden ads on my computer.
While I blanket block ads on the Internet, I do allow ads on sites that only use simple graphics and text for ads. And who demonstrate that they respect me as a reader and potential client.
edit: clarified I was referring to the "print" editions of the New Yorker & SI
Only slightly less worse is the same thing happening on my laptop after I have had a few seconds to start reading the first paragraph, then the whole page dims and a full-page ad appears.
Adblock gets rid of this stuff and it's why I use it and will continue to do so in the future, but I do leave the whitelist on for unobtrusive advertising.
I just wish AdBlocker could get rid of that awful Forbes "Thought of the Day" page that always opens. Unfortunately the best it can do it get rid of the ad on that page, but still annoying.
I have to advise them to use ad blockers as part of their privacy tools.
* Battery life, privacy invasion are real issues.
* the over the top clutter of ads on many sites is a really problem. I try to avoid such sites, but it is not always possible.
* I have been on the Internet since 1991. I am expecting to be on it for another 30 or more years. I am weighing a life time of risk, not a single page visit.
This last point is key. One bad actor, using one Zero Day exploit could cause a huge amount of personal pain for me. As a web developer for 20 years, I learned long ago to do everything in my power to prepare and to the extent possible prevent being hit by a Zero Day.
You may feel differently, but I personally see huge risk over the course of a lifetime.
The main thing for me isn't even blocking ads as such. The main thing is blocking the absurd amount of crappy javascript that clogs up my browser, in which I have no interest.
I find the unfiltered web insufferable these days.
If you want a suggestion for an alternative, I really don't have one. I'm currently using µBlock, which isn't bad, but requires a bit more setup than Ghostery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock
...If you voluntarily opt into that program (Ghostrank), after reading the straight-forward description.
I don't understand why people find their business model so abhorrent when its entirely opt-in and they don't weasel around what ghostrank does. Surely you must find every service on the internet that you use for free, particularly Google, to be horrible as well?
This is what the ghostery options screen says about the data they (optionally) track:
> This data is about tracking elements and the webpages on which they are found, not you or your browsing habits.
You can find more information here: https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads
Copying from that page, the rules for ads to not be blocked include:
1. Static advertisements only (no animations, sounds or similar)
2. Preferably text only, no attention-grabbing images Ad placement:
a. Ads should never obscure page content (e.g. require users to click a button to close the ad before viewing the page).
b. For pages featuring a reading text ads should not be placed in the middle, where they interrupt the reading flow. However, they can be placed above the text content, below it or on the sides. The same applies to search results pages: paid search results cannot be mixed with organic results.
c. When ads are placed above the content of a main page, they should not require the user to scroll down. The available vertical space is likely to be at least 700 pixels. Advertising should not occupy more than one-third of that height. Paid search results on search pages are allowed to occupy more space, but they should never outnumber organic results.
d. When placed on the side ads should leave enough space for the main content. The available horizontal space can be expected to be at least 1000 pixels, and advertising should not occupy more than a third of that width.
3. Advertising should be clearly marked as such with the word "advertising" or its equivalent, and it should be distinguishable from page content, for instance via a border and/or different a background color.
4. Marking and placement requirements do not apply for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs embedded in the content of the page. Additional criteria for hyperlinks with affiliate referrer IDs:
a. Redirects originating from the hyperlink should not present any other webpage than the destination page.
b. In texts, not more than 2 percent of the words can be hyperlinked for monetization purposes.
c. Hyperlinks should not be formatted or behave differently than other links.
d. Hyperlinks should not be misleading, in either content or placement.
Personally, I never want to see ads, and I've always blocked all ads. But I can empathize with the people who are fine with seeing this kind of ad.
This is tiring.
Adverts make it impossible to read the web - they are designed to catch the eye - even when still they are eye catching.
To concentrate on text near an advert takes extra mental resources and I tire very much quicker.
Not to mention loading hangs as pages wait for badly overloaded ad-servers before they show the page.
So I am getting exhausted so websites can get $0.003 - this model is a lame duck.
My attention is worth a lot more than $0.003 so figure out a better way because I cannot afford look at that dross.
Text Ads in a similar font - that attract my interest because they are relevant - no problem - your site is unblocked.
Subtly Sponsor content I want then I will look favorably on your brand.
When I am teaching I have ad blocker installed because I don't want to get in trouble for what advertisement will be shown, especially YouTube.
AdBlock Plus and their paid white list is the worst and I don't know why people use them.
Sadly, I'm going to have to assert that's indicative of a dull mind. Controversial I'm sure but
So what's your view on sites blocking people with AdBlock?
They should attempt to use technical means, though, as it's unlikely that a simple 'Do you use adblock?' prompt is going to work very well.
It's the web equivalent of an a entitled-feeling child throwing a tantrum.
People who use ad-blocking software, and temporarily disable it on your page just to view the content, are not going to click on the ads.
Furthermore, if you take additional measures to make them click on the ads ("please visit our sponsor first"), that constitutes click fraud. Users who click on an ad just to view the content are not interested in what is being advertized at all, and will not convert to buyers.
Morally, it is within a hair's breadth of sending Javascript to the user's browser which simulates that user clicking on the ad (so that it looks like a real visit, as the ad syndicate knows), which would be blatant click fraud.
In other words it's not stealing unless you get caught?
Edit: Relax people. Let's not get into another debate on copying vs. theft. I was merely pointing out that the parents analogy (which was the one that referenced stealing) was bad.
No, I am not. It's not stealing whatsoever, ever. Even if they detect you're not loading in all the content they want you to load. If they manage to detect this, then they can choose to block your access to the content. Or perhaps rework their revenue model if it turns out it isn't working.
Edit: that said, I do still keep adblock on for sites with rather abusive or obnoxious ads.
Interesting observation: ad networks collect data about us, they can clearly identify us as individuals (which is why you see those sex toy ads after visiting a sex toy site, for hypothetical example). But there was never a privacy statement involved.
And as I said, adblock has it's uses. If you don't want your kids to see ads for sex toys, nothing wrong with using adblock when visiting those types of sites.
Websites rely on ad revenue. If the ads are blocked the website or streamers on Twitch do not receive the revenue. Just because it doesn't go into my pocket doesn't mean it isn't stealing in my own personal view.
For example if you take a sapphire from the Museum of Natural History and than throw away or lose the golf ball size 563 carat Star of India. You gained nothing from taking it but you still are guilty of stealing a diamond.
PS I am extremely conservative in my person morals. I am also fairly liberal in my view of society (At least that is what my Tea Party Inlaws and Libertarian friends say)
And I'm perfectly happy with that.
It is not my responsibility to download webpages in such a way as to maximise the revenue of the site owner.
It is the business' responsibility to make money. Not mine. If they are employing ineffective methods then it is up to them to alter them. It is not up to me to change my behaviour to suit their business plan.
I am perfectly within my rights to download web pages using whatever software I like, whether that be lynx, wget, curl, a screen-reader, or Firefox with add-ons or Firefox with javascript or images or widgets or cookies blocked. I use the software that suits me. I am under no obligation - legal or moral - to use the software that suits companies serving websites.
The idea of advertising is to get people interested in some product or service; not to provide an income stream for websites that can't persuade users to pay for their content.
Not everything that causes a system to break down is stealing. "Stealing" has a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean 'a bad thing happened'.
"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."
If you want to get around the gates to enter a station without a ticket, you can just ask the staff. I've done it a couple of times in Japan. You can get inside to look for a lost item or whatever. They even let people in to access the station shops. I watched one tourist ask for that and be granted.
Also, one time I entered a station without swiping my Suica card through the machine. I explained that at the destination station and where I had boarded; they cheerfully fixed it up and let me exit. There is room for mistakes without being automatically branded a thief just for being there.
>My definition of stealing includes theft of services.
That's fine. You can go off and speak your own private language.
The rest of us don't get to redefine words arbitrarily. This is necessary for us to be able to communicate in a common language.
This is more like watching the trains come and go, from outside of the station, but ignoring the ads which are painted on the train.
Speaking of looking at printed ads, imagine you had a car which, instead of a windshield, had a high resolution camera and a display. This display would contain image processing which identifies billboards and blackens them out, while leaving traffic signs intact.
Would that be stealing?
Basically, the argument is that not looking at something is stealing.
Where does it stop? What if you're looking, but not processing it congnitively? That must be, in Orwellian terms, a "thought crime": you're looking at the ad, but staring blankly, and its semantics isn't sinking in; you're not allowing the ad to turn into meaning in your mind make you want the product.
Not comparable. Try: In other words, it's not stealing when you don't donate to a street performer, especially one who gets in your way and impedes normal use of the street (like auto play videos with sound).
I use AB Edge. I've visited Reddit, they posted a "we notice you use an ad blocker, if you like us, please think about whitelisting us." They could have just refused to serve the content. Either way would have been acceptable; it's my browser and I control what I see, it's their content and they control where it goes.
In that case I whitelisted Reddit. Nothing on Reddit remote-controlled my machine, it just initiated a brief "conversation."
For that matter, wrap your primary content in a div with a class of "ad" ... then users won't even see the content, and you can replace it with a notice to disable adblock and refresh the page.
Much harder to get right than you'd think and if you're a big site it's worse: the block lists will be updated to "whitelist" your test ad.
It's difficult for publishers to even accurately measure what impact ad blocking is having on their business.
For example:
http://www.cnet.com/news/malware-delivered-by-yahoo-fox-goog...
I think that when I click on a link I agree to see the content they provide. I'm not sure I really want to agree to third-party stuff without knowing what it is - and I'm very sure I don't want to start loading third party scripts automatically.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wordpress+hacked+malware&t=ffnt
If an Ad Blocker is the only thing standing in the way of you and an exploit, you're gonna have a bad day.
Because they actually fight to protect our freedoms in courts. A "paid white list" is a small price to pay (considering you can turn it off entirely).
I use it because it works and has worked for a long time. I tried µBlock but it was leading to weird short lockups of my Firefox after a longer session.
Ads use your resources to download more content. They use your resources for animation and sound.
They also track you.
Content providers are free to not serve you content if they detect ad blockers. If they have trouble detecting ad blockers, they are free to not be in business.
They are free to move to a subscription model.
They are operating willingly on the current open web. It's not your problem.
How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links. Thanks to blocking software working on your behalf, the browser picks and chooses what of that cruft it should activate and what it should ignore.
Nobody has a right to make your computer fetch unwanted content and throw it in your face.
It's like looking at a tray of hors d'oeuvres, and choosing a few that you like, avoiding ones you don't find palatable.
Anyway, not long ago, I obtained a full refund for a bag of apples that were rotten, even though I ate some of it. That is normal.
The "payment" is the implicit agreement to view the ads.
> How it works is that your browser downloads a page. That page contains scripts and links.
Thanks for the lesson on how Web browsers work. I wish I knew all of that when I worked at Netscape; maybe it would still be around.
One could bare people using adblockers from seeing content("free" pornsites are starting doing that). but then it will just be an escalation in technology. Adblockers will become smarter and ultimately defeat detection techniques.
One can appeal to user's "conscience" by displaying a message stating one relies on ad revenue. I think it's a good compromise if one promises that his ads are discrete like simple pictures or text.
Frankly, years of ad abuse, loud auto-play video ads and flash ads that take over the whole window have made users weary of online advertising.
As one such business (a school) which blocks ads on company computers, I can say it has drastically reduced our malware-related incidents from teachers/staff. My gut feeling is that search result ads and false download buttons were the source of many of our infections. Users do not think before they click, and it seems like most of them that expect to be able to find useful software behind an advertisement often pay a price.
There's been several occasions that BBC worldwide has had articles that I've been unable to read, or find on the standard BBC news website.
We can't get good content because corporations taught people to not pay for content and now we will not get good content because people will slice the income of those who use ads.
Only you hurt the creator more online, since the advertisers can now measure the views+clicks. Which is also perfectly fair - They should not have to pay for ads nobody sees. This would also be fair on TV - But there it's impossible to measure.
Also simply blocking something because you can but you should not is cheating.
If a website finds that their business model became unsuited for modern times, it's their responsibility to change it, not mine.
Offtopic, but Neilsen actually does measure whether people are changing channels during commercials.
It's easy to say that if the site is full of ads, I should not visit it again, however I also do not want to load pieces of Javascript doing the above by mistakenly visiting a website that I do not want to visit. This isn't just an issue of annoyance, but one of online safety as well. I now recommend to every friend I have to use ad blockers.
Therefore I cannot sympathize much with networks complaining or with creators complaining about ad blockers. They've brought this on themselves and unless they change their ways, ad blockers will get more and more popular.
No, I can't possibly agree with the line of thought of the parent comment. Its self-serving nonsense.
The fact is a majority of sites need to make money from their content. So they can sell ads, or related products, or paid access or just beg like wikipedia but there has to be some potential to make money or a majority of sites cease to exist.
For example, a year or so ago I saw that DuckDuckGo notices when you use ad blocking and very respectfully asks you to consider not blocking their ads.
A few months later, the ad blocking software that I use, added a feature to block those respectful messages too.
Note: I am not currently blocking ads on DDG
I worked on an SPA website a few years ago that used a time-based billing model for advertising, The three adslots for the given user session were for the same advertiser, this required locally delivered ads, and a JS/http ping to establish between min and max display time recording... It worked fine, and even got through the ad blockers.
There's no reason a publisher cannot do the same. Just like there's no reason a random website I visit should force me to download questionable content from third parties unknown to even the publisher.
People are willing to pay for content that is valuable. LWN [1] and the No Agenda Show [2] prove that you don't need ads to produce content that is leagues beyond any ad-supported content.
The underlying reason most newspapers are dying is because they aren't doing anything but regergitating the Associated Press and Reuters. There's no difference between a thoughtful, well investigated new article, and one that's a rehash of the Associated Press or Reuters. Why go through all the work of confirming with credible sources, looking through documents, and interviewing experts when you can get the same number of page views from a syndicated article.
I think rather, its not the value of the information that's at issue. Its the monopoly on the source that's valuable. Once the monopoly is gone, once you can get the same stuff for free somewhere else, then nobody pays.
And all information on the web is free somewhere.