Ad Blocking...Yea or Nay?

[Anonymous]

There is a subset of the internet community that not only feel, but preach the necessity of internet users subscribing to the vast amount of advertising that is forced upon them on the internet. They positively balk at the thought that users can and often do use ad blockers while perusing many a social media or other sites on the web. By all means, tell me why I am somehow obligated to listen to or view sets of mandatory internet advertising? Where, by law, by contract, by written consent is there a document that says people must watch advertisements?

Just as I am in no way obligated to buy a product, I am no more obligated to view it's advertisement. When you buy a newspaper, if you just glance at the headline title on the paper, and read nothing else, are you somehow obligated to skip to the back section and force feed yourself a few minutes of advertisements? No. The internet, that newspaper, your cable...none of that is free. You pay for those, so this whole idea that people are just blatantly stealing, like pirating dvds, is idiotic. Stealing is illegal. Ad blocking is not.

There isn't an entity out there big enough to actively screen these millions of ads and websites to ensure that not only are they age/content appropriate, but if viewers do click on them and go to their websites, that their information will be safe and/or that they are going to be legitimate and free of viruses. In fact, many, if not all sites that actively utilize web adverts, warn that once you leave the homepage, you are on your own and they are not of any obligation to protect you. That doesn't scream to me, trustworthy or worth having to spend additional time away from what I was originally doing, to pre-screen a page, and then click through, and then probably be inundated with even more advertising and calls for my email address or personal info so I can be sent even more advertising and junk mail.

If you have a product, it is up to that advertiser to find a way to reach the market they intend to reach. If one of the most popular apps across all platforms, is an ad blocker, and revenue is dropping so dramatically that you can't keep up, you do what all businesses must do, and that's change and adapt. That's their job, not mine as a potential consumer. When crap goes wrong at my job, I have to figure it out. My job is not to figure it all out for these companies or be held responsible for not buying into advertisements for products as if that were an obligation by law. It seems for many, forcing consumers to participate is not a good look and they often rebel (hence ad blockers).

Ad blockers are popular, but there are still people who believe in watching the ads or want to...a high percentage actually...and there are also those who have no clue how to turn them off, so there is revenue out there. There are also other ways to advertise. If websites absolutely cannot function without advertisements, then find solutions that do not impede on the consumer. No one likes pop ups every five minutes, or waiting a full 2 minutes for an ad to run before they can get to the content they want to see. People have been fast forwarding through commercials and previews and ditching newspaper adverts since the days of VCR's and beyond for that reason, but both then and now, you have the option to watch. A lot of sites now will not allow you to view their content without turning off the blocker. I know doing away with ads would be nearly impossible, but there has got to be some sort of happy medium out there between consumers and advertisers. What that actually is...time, innovation, trial and error will tell.

[likitb4istickit]

I quit TV back in 2009 partly due to the ads (20 minutes of every hour for ads = fuck that since most are stupid and no where near Super Bowl quality) and needing another TV. If it weren't for AdBlock+ I'd quit the internet as well. If morons want to watch ads and load banners and be followed everywhere they go on the net and then harrassed with popups and banners everywhere based what what they search for and where they go (that's just fuckign creepy, it's none of their business what I'm doing on the net) , be my guest. I'm not. Even before Adblock+ I actually boycotted every thing I saw in a banner (not hard since I only buy cheap Chinese knockoffs and store bands anyway) and refused to click it no matter what it was about. Ideally the whole dammed business model would crash and burn and go back to subscription-based like it used to be in the 1990's (when it was mostly Usenet, and very few sites like eBay and Amazon). If it's worth a remote shit people will pay for it. I'd ratehr have 1000 quality sites that cost $10 each/mo to access than a trillion shitty ones that are free anyway, why I also mostly quit Youtube even though I blocked the ads there as well.

[MikkyLachae]

Yeah, I use AdBlock on every website except for YouTube, Hulu, and a few game sites. My sister's a programmer and she said the site owner can program it to where you can't view their stuff unless you turn it off. If they don't know about that, or even sadder if they don't know people could block ads, then so be it. We're not obliged to look at their ads and they're not obliged to let us on their website if we choose to keep it on. There wouldn't be a problem if ads weren't so sneaky and if they didn't slow the page down. We already have to pay a cable bill and light bill, why waste our time?

[jp612612]

There are basically two revenue models -- "free" content that is ad-sponsored and subscription-based content where you pay directly for content. Guess which one is more popular with consumers. Your complaint is common, but it also shows complete ignorance of how the world works. People complain all the time about ads on news sites, but no one argues that journalists, photographers, and copy editors should go without pay.

The argument always seems to devolve into somehow some unknown rich guy somewhere should pay, but I hear that argument ad nauseam almost every day. You see, I manage a customer support team that's spread across India and the Philippines. Those guys don't pay for anything. They steal their software, they steal their movies, they steal their TV shows and they admit that they like the content and the actors should be paid. They just feel that Americans should pay for it because Americans are rich.

But you know, if you want nice things you have to pay for them. These guys also live in cash-heavy economies that invite tax evasion and thus they don't pay taxes. Many of these guys have also had to take sick days over the year because they drank water that had human poo in their water. They never seem to see how it's related and quite frankly, I'm not sure you would either..

[myTake Owner]

Is it illegal to ad block? Am I obligated to view loads of advertising? The answers are both no and no. It's a lot like tipping in America. Many people do tip, however it is not illegal if you don't tip. No one is going to arrest you for not tipping. The same argument goes there too that somehow the diner is obligated to pay tips, when it is the structure of how restaurants work that is the problem. If places actually paid actual wages to employees like in Europe, there would be no tipping problems to speak of. Essentially the same flaws exist in the advertising world. If you aren't getting paid, there are solutions that should not involve blaming the customer for the structures that are in place that are denying them payment. The customer didn't do that. Content creators need to figure out better and newer solutions to advertising.

[jp612612]

I'm not saying it's illegal or you're obligated just like those guys in Asia aren't obligated to not steal movies and software. No one is going to arrest them and they feel that they shouldn't pay for those things because they aren't rich like Americans. And blah blah, Europe. I have co-workers in Romania and they don't tip there either. But they're also really poor. They don't tip in Vietnam either and they're dirt poor. But you know, if you go to France (where they aren't dirt poor) and you go to dinner there and you don't tip, they get pissed off at you. Why? Because you're an American and they used to Americans tipping anyway. Your tipping analogy is broken because it clearly has nothing to do with paying good wages -- it's simply a social construct.

So you can make whatever excuses you want, but I think it's pretty obvious that I've traveled way more than you have and I understand these social issues more than you do. I'm at my character limit so, I guess we get no ending.

[myTake Owner]

Congrats, you've traveled. Just so you know, this wasn't, nor is it a pissing contest. The point of my Europe tipping analogy still holds absolutely true. It is still not illegal not to tip in the same way it is not illegal not to watch an ad. And continuing with my analogy, which you have failed to understand... if you have a system that does not pay employees a decent wage, you institute a system like in Europe where servers are paid for their job and do not have to essentially solely rely on tips, just as content creators should devise a system that does not solely rely on people being forced to see ads in order to make any revenue. Stealing as you are so keen to point out is still illegal whether people do it or not, but not ad blocking for a reason. It is ludicrous to say people should be forced to look at ads. Selling products to people or buying products is and has always been optional.

[jp612612]

No, I understood your analogy and that's why it's so flawed. "Europe" does not pay it's workers really well. SOME countries in Europe do, but the pay rate in those countries obviously has nothing to do with whether or not they tip. They don't tip in Romania (which is in Europe). They pay their workers crap there. They don't tip in SE Asia. They pay their workers crap there. There are even signs in front of many restaurants in India that ask patrons to please do NOT tip. They pay Indian workers crap. You're taking a narrative that you think you know (but obviously have never seen yourself) and you're trying to apply it to a reason why you should cheat workers. This site for example has a GaGgle of ads. Do you think the people who run this site are rich? I guarantee that they aren't and yet you use the site and admit that you take steps to make sure that they don't get paid. Good for you.

[castratedwhiteguy]

We have no problem with internet advertising as long as it's done fairly. When pop-ups and video ads make it impossible for a user to even navigate a web site then they deserve to be blocked. Just try disabling your Adblock and then see how hard and painfully slow it is to navigate this web site...

[hellionthesagereborn]

I understand the purpose of ads, the fact is that is a source of revenue for the site so I do think they should have them. That said I think most go way to over board with it with 8 different ads on the side bars and then a popup and another at the top of the screen and bottom and a pop under etc. That's when it gets absurd. I also think the video ones that cycle through constantly are absurd, I am trying to go to a website while watching a video yet its constantly getting interrupted by a commercial which defeats the purpose of the site itself plus it slows down the computer (that's what this site does to new users which is frustrating). So I think in moderation as with most things since if the site is free that's what keeps it free. However if its a paid for site then they have no excuse what so ever to have ads.

[myTake Owner]

I think you've said it best. Most of us understand ads are how sites are funded, however, when you have to cycle through, as you've said, some 15 ads and pop ups, and videos just to see say, ten minutes of content, that's crazy! When YT had just the ads on the bottom of the vids, it wasn't a problem. You could still see your content, and it wasn't obtrusive, but when they started video ads, I was done. A minute plus video before every video you want to see... it's like come on! I don't mind a few on the sidebar or below the page, but that's not what most sites are doing these days, so it's off except for on a few key pages I frequent or if I have to turn it off in order to be able to view a pages content.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah, I especially hate video ads since I tend to have many tabs open at once so then I have to try and go through and figure out which tab has the ad then which ad is talking over my music or the video I'm watching then it slows down my computer because theirs 8 video ads going all at once etc. etc. I think its just over kill that makes it so frustrating.

[castratedwhiteguy]

For example, this web site is impossible to navigate without adblocker. Many other web sites are equally intrusive. So far, my recent discovery of Adblock has made my internet experience much more enjoyable. These companies have no right to hijack my browser and redirect it to memory consuming and browser hanging video ads that I did not click. If these companies really want targeted customers to see their ads then I recommend that they go back to user friendly banner ads and click through ads. In the mean time, my Adblock is flushing these intrusive ads completely out of my internet experience. The corporations have gone too far and, if this kind of intrusive advertising continues, then they'll make the internet unusable.

[myTake Owner]

Precisely. Content creators act like the ads just appear in a corner and don't bother you, but that is far from what these ads are. I also don't appreciate literally being "followed" around the internet on every site I go to, and seeing my history show up in ads. It's a forced advertising experience where they try to predict who you are largely based on some random clicking. That's disturbing and extremely intrusive, it's drain on the experience you actually came to have on the web, you're not protected, and it's ridiculous that these people feel it is my or your job to be advertised to... because they won't get paid. Make it less intrusive, make it optional, make it safe, and we can talk about the consumer helping, but until then I will enjoy the experience of actual content that I am choosing to view.

[castratedwhiteguy]

I agree! Thanks for raising this issue. I'm hoping that GAG gets the message...

[AlphaMale1]

I get almost zero ads. I use a couple ad blockers and a hosts file that blocks around 22,000 websites. The hosts file makes it impossible for this laptop to get to any of those sites. And not one of them are sites I would want to visit as they are advertisements, viruses, popups, tracking sites, and all the venom the Internet has to toss your way.

[BaileyisDarcy]

You really need to use the enter key more often. I couldnt help but to skim rather than read because that was just three giant blocks of letters.

I only have one thing to mention, and i apologise if you did cover this.

AdBlock is good for ad companies.
Because if you view the ad, they have to pay the website you saw it on. So if all the people who hate ads are seeing these ads, theyre never going to click on them to visit the ad site and give them money, no all theyre doing is forcing the ad company to pay the site because you looked at that advertisement.

The only people AdBlock doesn't help, are the people who own that site or Youtube channel or whatnot. Because they are not getting revenue from you seeing that ad, and the ad company paying them for it.

[myTake Owner]

I think you've lived on Twitter way too long if you think a four or five sentence paragraph is too long. Not everything can or should be 140 characters long.

100% of the time it is creators complaining about their loss of revenue, and yet other than complain, they fail to seek other methods to either advertise or make money. No one is under obligation to view or buy products, but if they can't make it on the web or find other ways to make profit, they should seek another line of work.

[BaileyisDarcy]

Nah, I don't use Twitter, I read this on my phone so the mobile site must make the spaces look non existent. Looks fine now that I'm on my laptop.

[rjroy3]

Those people don't understand or haven't accepted that the Internet is still somewhat the wild west. There are methods they can use to make sure information they put out there is paid for, but they don't care enough to do that in most cases. People who are successful online offer free content and self promote throughout their articles and/ or at the end, alongside ads on the side that are not intrusive yet still very visible.

The Pop up ad is a shit method of the past that interacts with computers similar to that of viruses. If they're mad about popup blockers, then they need to get with the times. There's better ad revenue sources.

[Kuraj]

"By all means, tell me why I am somehow obligated to listen to or view sets of mandatory internet advertising? "

Because you are viewing content someone made for you, which is not free and by blocking their ad revenue you are a pirating their content, simple as that.
Don't try to go around it with bullshit excuses.
Legitimate advertising platforms screen their ads for content and quality and you should have no concerns over their security.

If you are running into "malicious" ads it is because you are viewing a website of questionable nature, one that wouldn't get accepted by legitimate advertisement platforms and has to resort to shady shit like that in the first place.

[myTake Owner]

That still doesn't address the meaning behind the question. No one is obligated to watch advertisements and conversely to buy products. I have not pirated anybodies anything, and if I had, it would have been made illegal by the very persons who are creating content. YOU can say someone is pirating all they want, but that isn't actually true otherwise content creators would have had the legal means surely by now to "force" viewers of their content to watch advertising. But you can't do that, because people have the right not to be advertised to if they don't want to. If content creators want revenue, figure out another way to get it or go through legal means to force people to see ads in order to get it. Until then, you can get pissed all you want about legal ad blocking.

[Kuraj]

"No one is obligated to watch advertisements and conversely to buy products."

Of course you aren't obliged to view any ads, but WHAT gives you the right to remain using the site?
Do you go shopping and just take things home without paying because you don't "agree" with how much they cost?
Whether you admit it or not, you are taking something without the creator's consent.

It may not be illegal now but you can be sure it will be very soon.
I will see how you cheapskates will like it when websites start charging you $2.99 for using them, I'm sure having to see ads will then sound hell of a lot more attractive then.

[myTake Owner]

Aye there's the rub. You start charging for everything, and sure some sites will continue to do well, however, no matter if you charge or don't charge creators will still be hurt because if people don't want to pay ON TOP of what they are already paying to use internet services, no one will view their site... so who does that punish? This is the reason beyond just common sense, they will not shut down ad blockers. Like I said, when is the last time you opened up a newspaper and said, you know what, I'm OBLIGATED to flip to the ads section and read some ads. Yeah, you've never done that, and yet you have some expectation that people on the web should have to. Also your store analogy is ridiculous. You are being charged for those items and it IS illegal to steal. Not viewing someone's content is still not illegal, so there have been no crimes committed against humanity because someone didn't click on a Target ad.

[Kuraj]

So they should give you all movies for free because you "already bought a dvd player" ?
You are making no sense.

And yes they will start charging for websites.
THEY have nothing to lose, if you don't pay for their website and go there they won't lose anything.
They have absolutely nothing from you "going there" if you aren't going to view their ads except for loses for the bandwidth you steal from them, so what makes you think they will keep doing that for nothing in return?
Look at Youtube Red, that is the future that freeloaders are bringing upon themselves.

[myTake Owner]

Stealing is illegal. Ad blocking is not and if that days comes when it is illegal, then there will be a point you might eventually be able to make.

[Kuraj]

There are lot of shitty things to do that are not illegal, doesn't mean you should do them with clean conscience.

[myTake Owner]

... but what you are trying to convince others of is that what they are doing is somehow illegal when it's not. Stealing content would be if I sat there and cut and paste someone's entire webpage and called it my own. Stopping by for a few seconds or longer to look at something is not illegal. You, like anyone else has an option to create and post something knowing ad blockers may be used. If you don't want to do that, then don't do it. If you want to get paid, then figure out a way other then just fake accusing people of crime they didn't actually commit, to do that. There are so many other ways to advertise and other ways to make profit even if that means finding a way to make it illegal, but you haven't done it yet, so its easier to just blame a consumer.

[Kuraj]

I create and post something in GOOD FAITH that decent people will reward me for it.

As for my website, yes in fact you ARE legally liable for browsing it using an adblocker.
While adblockers itself aren't illegal, breaching terms of use is legally enforceable and it is very simple to just add a clause that covers something like this.

[JohnDoeJr]

It's an interesting industry.
On one hand without advertisment it'll be very hard to monetize on all the media that you consume. Why would someone pay for servers and programmers or even write an article if they won't make a cent out of it?
On the other hand entertainment industry still hasn't found a way to display ads without being annoying and spammy.

BUT THEY"RE GETTING THERE!
recently I noticed youtube puts ads under the video you are watching. They also try making it relevant by looking at the keywords in the videos and bringing up relevant products.
Another thing I've noticed is if you had previously searched for an item, but changed your mind about buying it, they'll try to show you that item again, hoping you'll flip your previous decision to not buy. These also tend to not be so annoying since you're actually considering the product.

[Anonymous]

Always block the annoying ads and pop-ups. Some might be browser hijackers and contain viruses and shit if I remembered correctly.

[AhGojira]

Most website don't advertise like this website... This site is the gutter trash of the internet when it comes to advertising thus why everyone uses ad block on here and thus why they keep filling the site with more adds as time passes. If they were less intrusive long ago, things probably would have worked in their favor.

[GarySummer]

Advertisers have taken things too far with clutter, autoplaying videos, tracking and misleading (e. g. an ad pretending to be a download button) adverts. And they have brought adblock on themselves. This happened before with popups and popup blockers are now standard in most browsers.

It's up to content providers if they want to listen to their users, or declare war.

[myTake Owner]

That's the biggest part of me that irks me. For example, a phone you manufacture decides to blow up with normal everyday customer use, you don't turn around and say, it's your fault consumer for our product not working, and that is exactly what advertisers and content creators are doing. They've gone so crazy with the non stop stalker ads and pops ups and now viruses and deception, that instead of fix their own problem, it's just easier to blame the consumer for not actually liking their marketing. It literally doesn't work like that. They are trying to sell to us, not the other way around. If something is broken, they should fix it. And again, don't try to tell me how much I'm "stealing" for internet service I'm clearly paying for and for something that is not in anyway shape or form, actually illegal.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

They aren't selling the product. They're selling the brand. They aren't interested in your necessities. They're interested in your money. Just so happens where the company feels like they can capitalize on it is in the toilet paper industry. Like you said, it's toilet paper. It's a necessity. So by default, people are going to buy it. But they want us to buy theirs

[Blitzkrieger]

You shouldve seen the internet of the early 2000's. There were ads that looked like download buttons. If you wanted to download something and you clicked on the wrong button it installed weird search engine bars in your browser.

The internet of today is much better than it used to be.

[myTake Owner]

Well, I was very much alive in 2000, lol, so I've been there done that, and here we are, and now Adblock, thank goodness, is a thing!

[Blitzkrieger]

Yeah i like ad block.

[Rahdle]

It's not like you have to see the add by law, but if adds are how websites make money. If nobody watched adds, the companies paying to advertise won't. And the website (or whatever) will fail cuz no more money

[Idonotgivearatsass]

I will now avoid reading certain sites that won't allow me to read an article or news story I find interesting if they insist I turn off my ad blocker, I can either find the same story elsewhere, or it really isn't that important.

[myTake Owner]

I would say that's part of the effect on the system--that people will simply go elsewhere for the information or what have you that they seek, unless of course all sites start charging and what not for content, but then there would need to be a real justification to having to pay for services that were previously free.

[kinggeorge007]

I use ad blocker all the time... So nay...

[BruceTrails]

I only use adblock for YouTube, i turn it off for other sites.

[Roll_Tide_Roll]

They are not trying to sell the necessity, Just different brands of it.

[WhaChaChaKing]

I hate ads so much so I agree.

[Adigelunar]

interesting topic