This is why adblocking is so important

[GlennB]

Again, the ad companies have the hammer. Very few offer plans that don't include executables.

Does this mean that innocent users who happen upon a random website *must* suffer the effect of executables of unknown provenance that are sourced by that website?

That, frankly, is madness.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

How does that work? Are the sites being hacked and the ads put up without the operator's knowledge.

The operator does not even see the ads. When you connect to foo.com, foo.com sends you content with a certain amount of white space, and a long series of scripts that ask to pull material from doubleclick.net, which it puts over the white space. If an ad is malware-riddled, Foo has no way to know it.

Incidentally, if Foo did actually take the time to vet its own ads for usefulness and safety, and then hosted them from the same foo.com domain as the rest of the site, the majority of adblockers would pass them without comment. Yet somehow that possibility never seems to work its way into their whining about the despicable adblock users stealing their content.


My current go-to recommendation for blockers is Ghostery. Blocks nearly all of the "troublesome" javascript sources, and image/cookie trackers and such, and lets the rest through.

 

[Donal]

Does this mean that innocent users who happen upon a random website *must* suffer the effect of executables of unknown provenance that are sourced by that website?

That, frankly, is madness.

No one says it is a good system.

 

[Donal]

Incidentally, if Foo did actually take the time to vet its own ads for usefulness and safety, and then hosted them from the same foo.com domain as the rest of the site, the majority of adblockers would pass them without comment.

Do you know what is involved in that process? Do you know what the most popular ad networks are and what their rate is? If the sites don't see the ads, that means they don't know something is wrong until someone complains. Do you know what is involved to get out of a deal?

Yet somehow that possibility never seems to work its way into their whining about the despicable adblock users stealing their content.

Ya, we're doing them a favor by reading their stuff. How dare they expect the be compensated for their content.

 

[geni]

Incidentally, if Foo did actually take the time to vet its own ads

The problem is not vetting them but getting any in the first place. Attracting advertisers is itself a full time job and for most smaller operators not viable.

 

[smartcooky]

But you have entitlement to their content?

If it is accessible and readable merely by clicking on a link or inputting a url into the address bar, then yes, I am entitled to that content, and without paying.

If they don't think I am entitled to it, then they should put their content behind a paywall, or give me an option to have "no-ads" access for a nominal fee.

If they don't want to do that, then don't put their content up at all.

Simples!


NOTE: I have never clicked on a website advertisement, and I never will!

 

[smartcooky]

oops. double post

 

[smartcooky]

I'd like to know how anti-ad people expect their favourite websites to be paid for. Web hosting is not free.

I'd happily pay directly to access the content if I didn't have to put up with flashing, visually loud, aurally loud and sometimes inappropriate* ads.

I am a member of two other forums that give me additional privileges and no ads for the princely sum of £24 per year (about £2 per month or 50p per week) I would happily pay the same here for the same deal!


* I had a soft-porn ad show up on a little kids website when my granddaughter was using my laptop. I contacted the website and told them what I thought. I did not spare the use of "colourful metaphors"

 

[arthwollipot]

...and I as a surfer will lose my need -and yes, as things are now, it is a need, a necessary requirement to use the internet- to use my adblockers.

Clearly this is a false statement, since I am right now using the internet, and I am not using any kind of adblocker.

 

[Checkmite]

It muddies the issue to make it about one of the "rights" of an internet user. If content is accessible on the web, then it is accessible. If you wish to make certain conditions a requirement of accessing the content, then you as the content provider need to make sure that the content is only available to users meeting those conditions.

If you don't want kids running up and taking giant handfuls of candy, then you need to stand there and hand it out, rather than set the bowl out with a sign unattended and express such shock and dismay when the candy's gone after only a handful of trick-or-treaters.

 

[This is The End]

People have been blocking ads for at least half of the lifetime of the internet.

The internet has been working great for its entire lifetime.

There are still very significant swaths of the population that use no ad-blocking at all.

If a website is having trouble staying online, it isn't because of people blocking ads.

Even if use of ad-blocking software increases exponentially the websites can still have unobtrusive text ads.

 

[Donal]

People have been blocking ads for at least half of the lifetime of the internet.

"this how we've always done it, so it must be right"

The internet has been working great for its entire lifetime.

Great as compared to what? The internet has changed radically in the last decade. We still have no idea of the long term effects of what we're doing or whether the current model is sustainable. When you say "working great", it seems more like "this is how I'm used to it and don't want it to change".

There are still very significant swaths of the population that use no ad-blocking at all.

that number is getting smaller and will drop drastically when ad filtering for mobile platforms because functional.

If a website is having trouble staying online, it isn't because of people blocking ads.

It doesn't help.

Even if use of ad-blocking software increases exponentially the websites can still have unobtrusive text ads.

and how well do those pay? How are they implemented? How many people select "only unobtrusive ads" versus "no ads at all"?

 

[Donal]

It muddies the issue to make it about one of the "rights" of an internet user. If content is accessible on the web, then it is accessible. If you wish to make certain conditions a requirement of accessing the content, then you as the content provider need to make sure that the content is only available to users meeting those conditions.

And every content creator that puts those conditions out gets hammered by their "fans".

If you don't want kids running up and taking giant handfuls of candy, then you need to stand there and hand it out, rather than set the bowl out with a sign unattended and express such shock and dismay when the candy's gone after only a handful of trick-or-treaters.

So, people should be treated like greedy children. OK. That is going to work out great.

 

[quadraginta]

On principal, I agree, but it in practice, this puts a ton of burden on the content creators. The ad companies have the hammer here. They sell ads by the bundles. these bundles include all the crappy ads that auto run crap. Even if the smaller sites were willing to go with the static ads that don't pay as well, they simply don't have the choice.

Apply this same principle/practice ruler to the viewers whose computers are being infected.

The web page operators most certainly have a choice. That the alternatives may not be as profitable is irrelevant, or at least only relevant in the sense that they choose profit over the welfare of the very people they are soliciting.

There seem to be websites, even smaller ones not backed by giant businesses, which somehow manage to survive and perhaps even thrive without submitting to the ad companies' hammer.

Apparently the 'roll over and let the advertising giants pump whatever trash they want to through your website for a few extra shekels while whining about the people who object to having their computers infected' model isn't the only one which can be successful.

 

[jeremyp]

So, people should be treated like greedy children. OK. That is going to work out great.

When it comes to people surfing the Internet, this is generally speaking true.

Mind you, this is true in ordinary life too. Have you ever been into any kind of store where they let you just take merchandise as long as you put the money into an honesty box on the way out? I think such a business model would be disastrous in most cases.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You know what would make this discussion more relevant ?

Actual hard data on what percentage of "content creators" had to shut down their sites because of so much lost revenue due to ad-blockers.

Beyond anecdotal data, what's the evidence that if we don't change, "content creators" will go the way of the dodo bird ?

 

[Aepervius]

I'm not the one who brought it up. and I'm using it in the correct context. Several posters here, including yourself, are saying that if it is out there, you have a right to it. The language being used here and other places makes it sound like people are blaming the content creators for...creating the content in the first place.



See, that is the thing. The web is still in its infancy. No one really knows how the web "works".

it does technically work that way. Read up on RFC and GET and POST and other command.

You can't choose to omit the bill a company gives you for a service provided.

There is no Bill. there is no contract. We ask for a web page, then decide which element must be loaded. Saying that it is equivalent to omitting the bill is a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, and the legality of the situation.

Contractually, you are right...for the most part. Morally...again, if it were that clear cut, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You have no moral obligation to watch advert. there has never ever been any. Which is why people skip TV advert all the time. Because "it is on the web" does not make it different. Content maker which do not have the technical ability, or simply want to shift blame try to bring up the moral obligation theme up. Same with TV accusing people of skipping ads to be stealing (look it up).

Which is all fine and good, but look at the reaction to that like the second post in this very thread and tell me there isn't a sense of entitlement involved. Look at the hate mail Destructoid and Ars Technica got when they tried a "freemium" approach.

*SOME* people might feel entitled, but this is far from being the majority. And detructoid or whichever publication get trolling and hate mail for everything down to their color scheme.

I agree with the security concerns and the idea that the site admins are responsible for making sure their sites are pushing malware on us. What I'm saying is we have an obligation in the bargain as well.

I think we all want an open and available internet. But, to get that and have it work, we need to be willing to meet certain responsibilities.

No we do not have an obligation. The obligation is on the side of the distributor to put mechanism in place to get money.

if somebody was distributing 2 pages tract, 1 of ads 1 of interresting cooking recipe, and then saw you throwing the ads , do you think you would have an obligation ? No you do not.

As for open internet. This has NOTHING to do with how the internet is monetized, but everything to do with how the protocol and prioritization are handled : open rather than closed and decided in private comity.

An open internet can very well behind a lot of paywall.

What you mean is that it would be the death of the free internet, which I do not believe as there is derth of hobbyist.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, so I have had a chat with the owners of a sports forum I am a member of. (I'm actually an admin there)

The forum has two classes of membership

1. Basic (Free): Users have the ability to post and edit their posts, can have 250 characters of text (no images or links) and can have a 50 x 50 pixel .jpg or .png avatar.

2. Advanced (NZ$30 p.a.): Users have the ability to post and edit. Have access to their own private section of the forum. Can have 1000 characters in their signature plus links and images (but no commercial advertising allowed) and a 100 x 100 pixel .jpg, .png or .gif image (animation is allowed)

There are about 3000 active members, of which about 100 are advanced members.

About 75% their revenue comes from those 100 advanced members, which is more than enough to pay for the hosting. The additional revenue over and above the hosting cost is used for a number of purposes including buying prizes for the various "picking" competitions and "virtual leagues" the forum runs.

The owners said around 10% of the users are using adblockers so they do not believe that adblocking has any significant impact on them financially!

 

[The Norseman]

1) Still costs more money to implement those things, raising the bar for entry.

2) I'm personally fine with that, but again, look at what happened to places like Ars Technica and Destructoid. Do you know how little time a website has to grab a viewer? Forcing people to read a TOS agreement before viewing your page is death.

3) what is wrong with just not going to sites that run ads with scripts?

I am completely on board with preventing executables from being run on your computer and from sites tracking your browsing habits. The problem is, we don't have a better model for producing revenue for web content creators.

How are we supposed to come up with better alternatives when the status quo (sitting through obnoxious ads) is so fiercely defended?

Does anyone remember (in the US at least) that advertisers on cable TV used to raise the volume on their ads when they played, as opposed to the volume that was set for the program you were watching?

I guess the TV industry died when people discovered the mute button on their remotes and then there became automatic mute functions then TIVO which can auto skip all ads.

THEY'RE STEALING THE POOR MEGACORPORATION'S HARD WORK AND CREATED CONTENT.

 

[smartcooky]

How does that work? Are the sites being hacked and the ads put up without the operator's knowledge.

Ads are served from a separate site. If you have Firefox with a status bar at the bottom, watch what comes up in that status bar while the site loads. Try it with this one, the Guadian website

www.theguardian.com

if you don't blink, you should catch a glimpse of "doubleclick" one of their advertisers

The website owners put in white spaces where they want the ads to appear, and the ad server fills them. This is how ad-servers can specifically target you with ads that are more likely to apply to you. For example, on the sports forums I am a member of, some of the ads served to me are offers to buy tickets to local sports events or specials at sporting goods shops right here in Nelson. The ad-server is looking at my IP number and getting information from my ISP as to my approximate location, and serving appropriate ads.

Note the ad I am seeing on the Guardian homepage

Stonewood is a NZ company. Users in England or the USA will not be seeing those ads, they will be seeing different ones, either generic or targets for their location.