Is GMail adsense blocker unethical ?
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
I don't know if I get it right, but I think that the tool blocks the text based Google ads placed on various web sites (you have surely seen it already), not the GMail ads? There is no reference to GMail in the description, did anyone try the tool? But the question is still open - is it ethical to block ads that cover the running costs of the websites that you visit, when you use the valuable content published on those websites for free? (As long as they don't use pop-ups or other obtrusive methods.) Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
Well, it is the same as any other form of advertising blocker. That is revenue for the company providing the service. If everyone blocks the ads, the company will not receive revenue. It is funny, how many people think that file sharing of music or programs is piracy, but blocking ads is acceptible. Hypocrisy is what it is really called! People will argue, but there is no difference in a web site having all its ads blocked or a programmer losing thier sales to people pirating their software. It costs both of them! The companys that live on advertising revenue though, have abused people with thier popup ads and fly over ads. So many people find it fair to take away the company's revenue stream with blockers. I run a popup blocker, since I do not want to go to a site and lose control of my system. I do not know of any sites though, that I block ads to and visit them more than once. If they are running popups, I try not to go back. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
I don't know if I get it right, but I think that the tool blocks the text based Google ads placed on various web sites (you have surely seen it already), not the GMail ads? There is no reference to GMail in the description, did anyone try the tool? But the question is still open - is it ethical to block ads that cover the running costs of the websites that you visit, when you use the valuable content published on those websites for free? (As long as they don't use pop-ups or other obtrusive methods.) Rado
Radoslav Bielik http://www.neomyz.com/poll [^] - Get your own web poll
You are right its Google text-based ads and not GMail ads. :-O //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
Someone else already made the comparison to file sharing, so let's finish the thought: It's your computer. You're paying for the bandwidth. If you wish neither the bandwidth nor the computer to be used for the purpose of advertising, then it is your choice to make. I can mentally ignore billboards while driving down the highway - this is not unethical, nor is it theft. Ad blockers are not the same as walking into a store and driving customers away from the merchandise; [music] file sharing is not the same as breaking into your car and stealing your CDs. It's all just bits. Now, i choose to leave ads up on CP, Google, and a few other sites, as they occasionally advertise something useful to me, and can be ignored (most of the time) otherwise. YMMV. The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
-
Someone else already made the comparison to file sharing, so let's finish the thought: It's your computer. You're paying for the bandwidth. If you wish neither the bandwidth nor the computer to be used for the purpose of advertising, then it is your choice to make. I can mentally ignore billboards while driving down the highway - this is not unethical, nor is it theft. Ad blockers are not the same as walking into a store and driving customers away from the merchandise; [music] file sharing is not the same as breaking into your car and stealing your CDs. It's all just bits. Now, i choose to leave ads up on CP, Google, and a few other sites, as they occasionally advertise something useful to me, and can be ignored (most of the time) otherwise. YMMV. The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
Shog9 wrote: It's your computer. You're paying for the bandwidth. If you wish neither the bandwidth nor the computer to be used for the purpose of advertising, then it is your choice to make. Absolutely, do not bother going to sites that have advertisements, that is your choice! Blocking them is nothing more than stealing their content since those ads are what pays their bills. Even if you see the ads and ignore them, that is your right and that is all they are asking you to do, is have them shown to you. That is the only price for thier content and their bandwdith, but you want to rob them of that one thing. The simple fact is, they pay their bills by offering ads for you to see no matter if you ignore them or not. They would hope that if you enjoyed their content and services, they LEAST you could do for eating at their table is to see if any of the sponsors offer something you are interested in checking out. That should not be much to ask, but in today's world, it seems people do not feel they should pay for anything, even if it is only a couple seconds of their time. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
Shog9 wrote: It's your computer. You're paying for the bandwidth. If you wish neither the bandwidth nor the computer to be used for the purpose of advertising, then it is your choice to make. Absolutely, do not bother going to sites that have advertisements, that is your choice! Blocking them is nothing more than stealing their content since those ads are what pays their bills. Even if you see the ads and ignore them, that is your right and that is all they are asking you to do, is have them shown to you. That is the only price for thier content and their bandwdith, but you want to rob them of that one thing. The simple fact is, they pay their bills by offering ads for you to see no matter if you ignore them or not. They would hope that if you enjoyed their content and services, they LEAST you could do for eating at their table is to see if any of the sponsors offer something you are interested in checking out. That should not be much to ask, but in today's world, it seems people do not feel they should pay for anything, even if it is only a couple seconds of their time. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
Rocky Moore wrote: Absolutely, do not bother going to sites that have advertisements, that is your choice! Blocking them is nothing more than stealing their content since those ads are what pays their bills. Is it then stealing content from the producers of television programs if i leave the room for a snack while the commercials are playing? How about switching between radio stations to keep music playing rather than listening to the ads? Should i be morally obliged to read every ad in the magazines i subscribe to? No. Whether i block it, or just ignore it, i'm not stealing anything. :| The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
-
Someone else already made the comparison to file sharing, so let's finish the thought: It's your computer. You're paying for the bandwidth. If you wish neither the bandwidth nor the computer to be used for the purpose of advertising, then it is your choice to make. I can mentally ignore billboards while driving down the highway - this is not unethical, nor is it theft. Ad blockers are not the same as walking into a store and driving customers away from the merchandise; [music] file sharing is not the same as breaking into your car and stealing your CDs. It's all just bits. Now, i choose to leave ads up on CP, Google, and a few other sites, as they occasionally advertise something useful to me, and can be ignored (most of the time) otherwise. YMMV. The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
Shog9 wrote: file sharing is not the same as breaking into your car and stealing your CDs. It's all just bits. Good, when you (if ever) release shareware/software for profit, I'll be the first to pirate it - seeing that you don't care and all. I don't intend to pirate anything; I'm just illustrating a point. Jeremy Falcon
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
Would I consider it *unethical*? Probably not. I don't think blocking ads is unethical. No matter what, you can always "mentally" block them, or simply not buy what they are advertising. So what's the difference? Would going to the bathroom during the commercials while watching TV be considered unethical? That being said, it doesn't take a business school grad to realize that if GMail doesn't make any money, Google will probably stop offering it. What Google is (probably) banking on is that since the ads are targetted, people will *want* to see them, at lest some of the time, and they will generate revenue for the companies advertising. So I guess my answer is, I wouldn't consider it unethical to block the ads. But if everybody does it, it means there is something wrong with the GMail business model, and they'll either shut it down or try something else. "Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
-
Shog9 wrote: file sharing is not the same as breaking into your car and stealing your CDs. It's all just bits. Good, when you (if ever) release shareware/software for profit, I'll be the first to pirate it - seeing that you don't care and all. I don't intend to pirate anything; I'm just illustrating a point. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't intend to pirate anything; I'm just illustrating a point. Touche :) Though i have some doubts as to how much longer the "software as a product" concept can last, i get your point. We as a society have agreed that certain practices (writing software/web content) should be encouraged (by requiring that the authors be compensated), and to go against this is socially immoral. Still, the fact remains - neither piracy nor ad-blocking equate to stealing. I can set my computer up to burn off copies of MS-Office and block Google ads all day and all night, and this costs Microsoft and Google a grand total of Nothing (USD). IF there is the potential that i would read an ad, or use MS-Office, then you might make the case that i'm stealing "potential revenue"... but that's merely a hypothetical. The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
-
Rocky Moore wrote: Absolutely, do not bother going to sites that have advertisements, that is your choice! Blocking them is nothing more than stealing their content since those ads are what pays their bills. Is it then stealing content from the producers of television programs if i leave the room for a snack while the commercials are playing? How about switching between radio stations to keep music playing rather than listening to the ads? Should i be morally obliged to read every ad in the magazines i subscribe to? No. Whether i block it, or just ignore it, i'm not stealing anything. :| The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
Well, you still miss the point. If you made a product that skipped every commercial from your TV or radio, they would problaby find a way to put you in jail for it or at least sue you into oblivion. This kind of thing has already happened with some PVRs that said they could remove commercials. It is not about you ignoring and not paying attention to anything, it is that you are blocking they chance that you "might" notice it. Shog9 wrote: Whether i block it, or just ignore it, i'm not stealing anything. You can comfort yourself however you like. The fact is that if everyone had an ad blocker, there would be almost no Internet and if it was for TV or Radio, they would not exist. Someone has to pay, they do not produce things just because they want to please you. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
In every society there is some behavior that is unacceptable even though the participants consent: lets call these rules immutable: don't have children with your sister, don't shoot the prez, etc. Beyond these, everybody is free to enter any agreement just as long as he honors it. Different societies draw this line at different places. So from this, the remaining question is: Does ad-freeness belong to immutable rights? If yes: blocking them is ethical. If no: if you don't like it don't use it. But wait - there is more.... Context. Societies are complex beasts, and the many aspects are not independent of each other. We are not talking only about getting one service (e-mail) for another (exposing yourself to advertisements). We are also talking about the fundamental role of advertisement in our society, we are talking about where google's freedom to spy on me ends, and where my freedom to tell them to bugger off starts. Does google have an immutable right to spy on me? Do I have an immutable right to control what others know about me? Further: If google violates an immutable rule, are we in turn allowed to dishonor contracts towards google? (Somehwere there, righties get lost: answering any of these questions with a "yes" or no is besides the point, at least you hav to hug a few trees before you understand their range) But for the question being it's simple: If you want to stop the decay of society, if you want to bite a thumb at the prevalent intrusion of markedroids into every corner of society, and if you want to impress chicks with medieval, knightly sense of morale, and a completely nonmilitant judgement of good and bad, just don't use GMail. If you think this is just bogus blurb and you could use a 1GB web mailer (and that "free" means "free" even if it comes with ads), go ahead.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don't intend to pirate anything; I'm just illustrating a point. Touche :) Though i have some doubts as to how much longer the "software as a product" concept can last, i get your point. We as a society have agreed that certain practices (writing software/web content) should be encouraged (by requiring that the authors be compensated), and to go against this is socially immoral. Still, the fact remains - neither piracy nor ad-blocking equate to stealing. I can set my computer up to burn off copies of MS-Office and block Google ads all day and all night, and this costs Microsoft and Google a grand total of Nothing (USD). IF there is the potential that i would read an ad, or use MS-Office, then you might make the case that i'm stealing "potential revenue"... but that's merely a hypothetical. The bees will find their honey; The sweetest every time...
That’s the excuse most people that pirate use; “I wasn’t going to buy it anyway, so it’s not costing them money.” But, my belief is that if you don’t intend to buy the product you should not have access to it in the first place – just like at the store. Also, on the off chance someone is considering purchasing the software, most will be a lot less likely to do that if is handed to them for free. Jeremy Falcon
-
This tool[^] claims that along with blocking pop-ups, it also blocks the text-based ads from Google. My first reaction was great tool. But then I thought, wouldn't it be unethical since by subscribing to GMail, one is agreeing to its privacy policy which clearly states that user will see text ads and links to relevant ads. Moreover, companies will pay to show their ads. What do you think, is it really unethical or there is no reason for the user to care as long as such tools serve its purpose. //Start of joke Never comment ur code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand !!! //End of joke
I started to use ad-blockers (google bar and spybot) when advertisers started to use those full/ half screen flash/whatever animations and pop-up windows. I guess that advertises wanted to get more reaction and visibility for their ads... in my case reaction was negative: no more ads. I don't have nothing against banners like the Code Project is using (and I can still see code project's banners - and I have clicked them several times). But when you need to actully do something to remove ad, it is starting to be really annoying. Yes, I think that it is unethical to remove those ads that doesn't need extra actions from user. Googles ads are excelent: They don't use much bandwith, and they don't use much area in my small screen. Instead being annoying, they might be informative in some rare cases.