I don't use AdBlock Plus but i do use AdBlock. I think its my decision to choose which ads i watch and which i don't. It's not stealing, Webmasters can detect if someone is using AdBlock or not.
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.
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.
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).