what do you think about ad blocking?
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
I'm not opposed to the idea, I appreciate that people need money to find their sites, however over time adverts have become so disruptive to the viewing experience, draining on the browser performance, and worse still ad networks have been proven to be bad at keeping bad agents from their services and the point at which I decided to start using an ad blocker was when a particular site I used would 1 time out of 10 direct me to a "THE FBI KNOWS YOU'RE A PAEDO, CLICK HERE TO PROTEST YOUR INNOCENCE" site. Being annoyed is one thing but being exposed to malware is something else. I disable it for YouTube though as I want to support the people who make the channels I enjoy and if it's a channel I really enjoy who doesn't have millions of subs I usually don't even skip the adverts.
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
MikeD 2 wrote:
how many of you block ads?
I do not but this topic has been here before and I can tell you a lot of people do. I find it odd that software developers in particular are OK with blocking ads. We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here. Granted, I don't go to sites that have lots of ads. If someone here links to a site with lots of ads that lock up my browser, I just close the site and move on. Most sites, that I go to, do not run enough ads to be a bother.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
MikeD 2 wrote:
Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them?
No, the contract is between the advertiser and the broadcaster. The broadcaster is obliged to play them but I am not obliged to endure them.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
The MVPS hosts file is all I use, and rarely see ads. They were initially supressed due to the chance of malicious content, and the fact that the distributors often do not take any responsibility for any damage it causes. Now I'm starting to understand that one's mind is limited, and that one cannot remember everything. That means that ads are stealing my brain-capacity without me ever consenting to that. ..and there's a rather large industry dedicated to that, lots of money is being poured into ads. Not even to generate more money, it's just to keep marketshare.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
I use an adblocker - uBlock - and it's default is "no ads." If the content is worthwhile, I'll add a site to the whitelist - CodeProject for example. But ... too many of them are AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.contentAD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD.AD and I don't see why I should bother to hunt for the tiny bit of relevancy. And when a site says "you're using an adblocker, you can't come in unless you disable it" Then I bugger off - chances are they don't give a sod about content, and there are loads of other sites that do.
MikeD 2 wrote:
Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them?
No. Why should I waste my time?
MikeD 2 wrote:
how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
Oh yes. I certainly do! If you want me to visit your site, then let me see what I'm getting and decide if it's worthwhile. Discrete, appropriate, non intrusive ads are fine, but too many sites just plaster anything all over the page and make it obvious that ad revenue is the only reason for the site existing.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
MikeD 2 wrote:
how many of you block ads?
That's impossible to answer, but I do what I can to block them.
MikeD 2 wrote:
I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave...
I've never had one regret by leaving a site and not looking back. There's not one site in existence that my life depends on.
MikeD 2 wrote:
I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file.
Same here. I'm sitting at around 121 lines.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
I'd unblock ads, if we could guarantee that they were all static images, with no flashing or annoying animation, and no scripts. No video or audio; no popups/popunders; no redirecting to malware or tech-support scams; no cryptocurrency mining; no tracking my every move across the Internet. Unfortunately, I suspect the horse has already bolted. There have been too many cases of even the best behaved ad networks being compromised and tricked into showing malvertising. No matter what promises they make, I'm unlikely to ever trust them enough to turn the ads back on. Something like Brave[^] seems like a promising alternative.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
MikeD 2 wrote:
how many of you block ads?
I do not but this topic has been here before and I can tell you a lot of people do. I find it odd that software developers in particular are OK with blocking ads. We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here. Granted, I don't go to sites that have lots of ads. If someone here links to a site with lots of ads that lock up my browser, I just close the site and move on. Most sites, that I go to, do not run enough ads to be a bother.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money
Yes; but we should also understand the need to keep our computers free of malware. Even if you know in advance which ad network a site is using, which network do you trust to never be tricked into publishing malvertising?
011111100010 wrote:
blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
Presumably you watch every second of every ad-break on free-to-air TV channels, then? Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content? ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
If we all block all ads then who is going to pay for the internet services that we all expect for free?
If you're a business and your only source of revenue is advertisements then you're business plan is horrible and your business is more likely to fail. There is a reason that successful businesses do not rely on one source of income.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
MikeD 2 wrote:
how many of you block ads?
I do not but this topic has been here before and I can tell you a lot of people do. I find it odd that software developers in particular are OK with blocking ads. We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority here. Granted, I don't go to sites that have lots of ads. If someone here links to a site with lots of ads that lock up my browser, I just close the site and move on. Most sites, that I go to, do not run enough ads to be a bother.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
I am the owner of my machine, I say what its resources are used for as I am the one paying the electricity bill. If the owner decides that ads are a good way to make money, that is his/her/its/the helicopters' decision. I am not required to look at ads, nor did I sign anything that would hold up in court. It's just as much "stealing" as it is when you close your eyes for an ad that is hosted next to the road. In that sense, it is rediculous to claim theft in the first place.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I'd unblock ads, if we could guarantee that they were all static images, with no flashing or annoying animation, and no scripts. No video or audio; no popups/popunders; no redirecting to malware or tech-support scams; no cryptocurrency mining; no tracking my every move across the Internet. Unfortunately, I suspect the horse has already bolted. There have been too many cases of even the best behaved ad networks being compromised and tricked into showing malvertising. No matter what promises they make, I'm unlikely to ever trust them enough to turn the ads back on. Something like Brave[^] seems like a promising alternative.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I just wish the sites wouldn't show me ads for the stuff I have just elephanting bought! Yes, I was interested in those neat little fold up glasses, but I bought 4 pairs and I think I don't need to see adverts for them any more!
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
011111100010 wrote:
We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money
Yes; but we should also understand the need to keep our computers free of malware. Even if you know in advance which ad network a site is using, which network do you trust to never be tricked into publishing malvertising?
011111100010 wrote:
blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
Presumably you watch every second of every ad-break on free-to-air TV channels, then? Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content? ;P
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
omputers free of malware.
Sure. Don't click bad ads. Have security software.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content?
No, I do not fast-forward. I have netflix. Never had a DVR. But even that is different. When you go to a website, do you leave it for 30 seconds so that the commercials can air and then come back to it when they are done?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
011111100010 wrote:
We, of all people, should understand the need for a website to earn money and blocking their ads is stealing because you get the content without paying for it.
I am the owner of my machine, I say what its resources are used for as I am the one paying the electricity bill. If the owner decides that ads are a good way to make money, that is his/her/its/the helicopters' decision. I am not required to look at ads, nor did I sign anything that would hold up in court. It's just as much "stealing" as it is when you close your eyes for an ad that is hosted next to the road. In that sense, it is rediculous to claim theft in the first place.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I am the owner of my machine, I say what its resources
So, you are not the owner of your radio? Or your TV?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It's just as much "stealing" as it is when you close your eyes for an ad that is hosted next to the road. In that sense,
The analogy is all wrong. Those ads do not pay for the roads.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
I go further than just blocking ads. I use an Ad-Blocker, Ghostery, No-Script (on Firefox), with an HTML5 Auto-Play Disabler. When it comes to websites with an Ad-Blocker wall, if I really want to see, I use a small program that I wrote to perform an HTTP GET request and displays it's pure text return. More often then not, the content I want is in the response buried along with a thousand lines of anti-ad-blocking javascript. If this advertiser<>ad-blocker war continues to escalate, I might consider writing a very light weight web browser of my own that parses out everything but text content with the option of downloading images with a click.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
-
I just wish the sites wouldn't show me ads for the stuff I have just elephanting bought! Yes, I was interested in those neat little fold up glasses, but I bought 4 pairs and I think I don't need to see adverts for them any more!
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
how many of you block ads? I am increasingly finding that access to links from the Daily News are denied and the content replaced by "you are using an adblocker". My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot I am actually not using an adblocker but just have an extensive hosts file. Primarily to try and protect from sites that I don't want to end up at even accidentally Do you agree that if people buy ads that they have a right to make you see them? and if you do, how many of you skip the ads on your video recorder?
MikeD 2 wrote:
My reaction generally is to leave and not bother with the info so it feels like shooting themselves in the foot
Let's consider the alternative. So you give in and accept the ads to view the site. OK - now you've set a precedent. If that worked, next it will be "you must accept doubleclick cookies to view this site". I even block pixel graphics - really everything - and have an extremely small list of exceptions (like two) for certain special circumstances - although it's not ads but popups. Just this past weekend I was on the phone to "Goldman-Sacks" because there new website, "Marcus" insists I accept third party cookies and has other privacy violations. They pretended to be interested. I just noted that I didn't open an account their to begin with: they bought out a different online bank, and, although not skillions of dollars, I'll move my money long before I drop my privacy - and asked "how the hell" can a financial institution "upgrade" it's website so as to compromise my privacy ? I doubt they'll get back to me.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
omputers free of malware.
Sure. Don't click bad ads. Have security software.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Or does fast-forwarding through the ads not count as "stealing" their content?
No, I do not fast-forward. I have netflix. Never had a DVR. But even that is different. When you go to a website, do you leave it for 30 seconds so that the commercials can air and then come back to it when they are done?
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
Don't click bad ads.
Because there have never been bad ads that don't require you to interact with them, right? :rolleyes:
011111100010 wrote:
I have netflix.
A great service, but it's not "free-to-air". It's one of the few examples of "pay for it any we won't show you ads" actually being applied. :)
011111100010 wrote:
When you go to a website, do you leave it for 30 seconds so that the commercials can air and then come back to it when they are done?
No, because the ads are blocked. But presumably you do? After all, it's "stealing" if you don't watch the ads. And click on them. And buy something. :-\
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I go further than just blocking ads. I use an Ad-Blocker, Ghostery, No-Script (on Firefox), with an HTML5 Auto-Play Disabler. When it comes to websites with an Ad-Blocker wall, if I really want to see, I use a small program that I wrote to perform an HTTP GET request and displays it's pure text return. More often then not, the content I want is in the response buried along with a thousand lines of anti-ad-blocking javascript. If this advertiser<>ad-blocker war continues to escalate, I might consider writing a very light weight web browser of my own that parses out everything but text content with the option of downloading images with a click.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
