What are your thoughts on Ad-Blocker software?

Are we still complaining - they are still more obtrusive than the ads are on any of the other sites I visit.

quote: “Now I’m sure you’re not suggesting that disabled people should be banned from the Internet. But until there is a way to display ads which does not interfere with their ability to use a site, I’d be interested to know what solution you would propose (which doesn’t involve branding all concerned as wilful criminals).”

Not difficult, actually: ensuring the ads (or the space they’ll take up) loads with the page, rather than after, ensuring they don’t auto-play/auto-speak, and ensuring they don’t for example cause the whole page to refresh constantly can cover most of the issues.

So I want to mention Brave, a project spearheaded by Brendan Eich (the Javascript guy). Brave is going to be a browser but is also a system with three tiers:

  1. you could continue to block all ads. This isn’t default though.
  2. you could continue to allow all ads. This isn’t default either.
  3. Brave will swap out ads-- removing the malwarey stalky ones and replacing with ads it has approved in some way-- and these load without penalising the page load speed.

Brave the browser will also implement a wallet, which the user can fill. The idea is, users who, like me, tend to maybe go visit a NYTimes or Guardian or Forbes article no more than a few times a month and usually less, can make micropayments (the browser automatically pays a few cents to the publishers if I load the page). This can be coupled with the ad setting-- you could say “I’ll pay the micropayment in exchange for zero ads” or whatever.
The idea is to offer publishers more money than they currently get with their horrid, malware-spreading ads today, in exchange for working with Brave on this. However I’m not sure they actually have to agree for Brave to work.

It’s open sourced, and will work with the 402 HTTP status whenever the w3c or Web Payments Group decide they know what they’ll do with all that.

It’s certainly an interesting idea. Read more: https://www.brave.com/

5 Likes

That is quite the interesting idea. I wonder if it will gain any traction?

The internet was given freely for the exchange of information. Not so people could make money off selling that information. You seem to be saying that visiting sites require a ‘payment’ be that an actual monetary transfer or viewing an advert. I don’t believe this was Tim Berners-Lee’s plan when he made his idea available freely, with no patent and no royalties due. Perhaps he should have charged a licence fee?

So are you volunteering to create everyone’s web site for them free? I hope you have a time machine as you have about a million year’s worth of free work to do before breakfast tomorrow.

No one ever does anything free. There is always some benefit to them from doing it.

The web was originally created to make it easier to exchange information between universities than using gopher. All this changed once the ,com (commercial - ie to make MONEY) domains were introduced outside of the univerrsities as only the universities had a non-money making reason for the web at that time). If you don’t want ads then don’t visit .com domains.

1 Like

No it’s not. I decide what I want my browser to display. I might disable images, I might change fonts, colors, sizes. I might block ads.

It’s your right to not show me the content of your site if I block the ads.

Please don’t make false accusations just because you’re annoyed that you don’t make as much money as you used to with your ads. Like I said in the other thread about ad blockers, nobody forces you to give your content for free. Find other ways to make money, don’t show the content if people block your ads, or close down your website, it’s all up to you.

3 Likes

That’s exactly what I do on the one site where it can actually be done (and where the ads are so unobtrusive that there is no reason why anyone ought to block them).

One thing those using ad blockers seem to forget is that .COM domains are there to make money for the owner (that’s what that TLD is for) - if you don’t want to view their ads you don’t have to visit commercial domains.

A. Nobody is being forced to run a website.
B. You can’t demand that because you choose to run a .com site on a free and open internet you should be ‘paid’ for it.
C. (the more important point to my mind) I do not think it is acceptable that i am being forced to accept adverts (and subsequent tracking/selling/analysing of my movements) because i visit a .com site. How can i choose whether to accept these terms before i have visited the site? The information you have on your site might be rubbish and not worth the ‘cost’ of having to endure adverts/popups/pop-unders/screen take overs/flashing banners etc etc, all of which use my bandwidth.

It’s a bit like if you walk into a shop and you have a look at some pop-tarts and then you leave the shop but the man at the checkout knows you looked at pop-tarts so follows you to the next shop and even though you are in a book shop he is dancing around in the corner with the pop-tarts ‘hey wouldn’t you like to buy these pop-tarts?’. no leave me alone… and then he follows you to the library ‘hey wouldn’t you like to buy these pop-tarts? i know you like pop-tarts i saw you look at them in my shop, they are a good price. I know you bought pop-tarts last week so surely you want some more’. So i’m like ‘Leave me alone i only looked at your pop-tarts once and i don’t want to buy them’ … ‘too bad you looked at them so i am going to follow you everywhere you go, that will be the price of coming into my shop and looking at my pop-tarts’

I feel like you’ve tangented here onto the subject of “would we prefer to have ad tracking / personalized ads or not”, and that sounds like a whole other thread, and has little to do with the technicalities of ad blockers vs no ad blockers, right? I’d be keen on a separate topic on it, though, if you’re game. I’d like to know people’s opinions on the privacy violations versus the convenience of tailored ads.

2 Likes

i guess if we remove the security/tracking element then the question is do i have the right to pick and choose what i want to see in my browser or should i be forced to accept any advert that the site owner chooses to put on a website. Given that any information being put on a website is in the public domain on the ‘free’ and open internet, surely i can choose what i want. If it is locked behind a paywall fair enough.

However i do see the security/tracking element as being quite important and is?/will be one of the reasons more and more people ad block. I linked to a recent story about major trusted sites such as the bbc who allowed ransomeware to be propagated from their adverts. The more virus’s are spread from ads the more i am likely to block them.

1 Like

That statement is almost completely wrong.

Almost everything on the web is OWNED by the person who is offering to share it with you at little or low cost in a restricted way defined by them while retaining their copyright and all other rights to themselves.

Almost NOTHING on the web is in the public domain.

1 Like

@noppy could have phrased it in a better way but he’s got a point. If you publish it and make it public, then it is public domain information and they can do what they see fit (understand me, I’m not talking about plagiarizing or anything like that)

I understand why you’re so worried. I’ve been (and up to a point still am) on both sides. I had affiliate links, I’ve done Adwords and Adsense (and still do). So I know that it is harder and harder to make a living from advertising and we all have to eat.

But that doesn’t mean taking rights from people. Forcing them to view ads or click on them would be like entering a shop and being forced to buy when you simply want to look.

You’re only able to see how all this affects you personally but the picture is much greater than that.

So I guess we’ll have to agree… that we will never agree on this.

@Stomme_poes That browser is a very interesting idea and I will check it out. You always bring very interesting info. I am not quite sure if I like it but it is certainly something new and it looks like it worths to be checked. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Its far simpler to just set up your site so that if the ads are blocked then some or all of the content is too.
Then don’t have any visitors (just like two tutorial websites that blocked me off, then I decided to go on their concurrent’s website). It’s not like your website won’t offer me anything new that others can offer. The only thing that can set you out is the interface and service. If you provide nothing, I can go to candidate #2. I’m an adblocker user, and after some questions answered by great staff I told my AdBlocker to not block ads on SitePoint. Simple way because of appreciation, and then it even turned out that ads here weren’t a single problem. I’d gladly support website, if it has non-obtrusive ads and does affect me in positive way. If you run anti-Adblocker plugins, you can as well expect that within couple months they will upgrade the Adblocker, that it will not be detectable in any way.

1 Like

If the website owner only cares about monetizing his site, that’s his prerrogative. But mine is to block them.

Why even visit sites like that

coughStackExchangecough

2 Likes

Adblock serves their purpose coz users don’t want to see any annoying ads popping out in their screen.

1 Like

No it isn’t -** public domain** has a specific legal meaning in that the copyright has expired or the owner of the copyright has renounced all right to it.

Most of the content on the web is still subject to copyright and therefore is not in the public domain. The copyright holder still holds all rights to the content except those implied by their publishing it on the web (which allows others to read it subject to whatever conditions the owner imposes).

One huge error a lot of people make is in assuming that what is on the web is public domain when 99.999% of the time it isn’t.

If I publish something on the web on condition that people view ads on the page in order to see al the content then anyone who views the content without seeing the ads has illegally accessed the content. Of course it is easier for me to technically enforce this by hiding part of the content when the ads don’t display rather than taking legal action against them for breach of copyright. Since the site where I have this condition is about JavaScript those who block the ads using an ad blocker can’t see the example code and those who bypass the ads by turning off JavaScript can’t run the examples. You have no right in that case to not see the ads and see the example code and be able to run it because those are the conditions on which I have made the pages available. Since the ads are unobtrusive it is much simpler for people to simply allow them to display that to try to bypass the conditions I impose by constantly turning JavaScript on and off.

Just because others are unable to apply the same technical restriction to their site doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to say - you can view MY content but you must view the ads as well - they own all the rights to their content so they have the final say on what conditions they allow you to see it and if you don’t comply with those conditions then you are breaching their copyright.

Just imagine if someone decided after you had done a whole lot of work for them that they decided to breach your conditions for doing the work and not pay you for it.Now imagine how long you could survive if someone introduced a payblocker to make it easier for people to get you to do work for them and then not pay you.

1 Like

and that is where you are wrong. No court in the land would or could find someone guilty if they came across your site and viewed your freely available content without viewing the adverts as no contract was in place when they first viewed your site. You cannot be guilty of breach of contract where no contract exists!

If you have it locked behind a paywall or a terms and conditions page that must be agreed to then a contract may exist and a breach may occur.

I have no issue if you want to lock away content you deem valuable but you can’t put out information on the internet for anyone to read and then say that a contract exists just by visiting your website, thats not how the internet works. There is no law saying how i should view your website. I don’t have to have javascript, or flash, or images or anything else i don’t want turned on if i choose. You don’t have to serve the webpage content if you choose.

I didn’t ask for your website to appear in my SERP.

2 Likes

that’s why I use a technical implementation where you can’t view all the content unless you view the ads. I don’t need a court to enforce it as it is built into the pages.

i have no issue with this. If that is how you wish to run a website. I’m sorry if i mis-read what was being said. In fact in many cases i would prefer to get a snippet of what is being offered and the option to continue and load ads vs being forced to view/download adverts from the outset.

As an additional point I also do not like sneaky page load orders that get you to accidentally click on adverts. Ever noticed how youtube loads the search results and at the last moment loads 2 advert videos at the top of the list. So many times i went to click the first result of my search to then realise that i had now clicked on a advert as the page had ‘jumped’. Not cool youtube, not cool!.

I have subsequently learnt to wait for those 2 adverts to load so i can click what i actually wanted.