A web page was linked this evening from Snark. A web page that, for all intents and purposes is not only useless but absolutely bollocks. In fact, I would go so far as suggesting that it is the biggest load of shit I have read in a long time. I am not going to link to this web page, because by sending a few hundred hits its way it’s only giving it undeserved attention. However, I am hoping that I can give you the gist of it without even bothering.
Basically, this web page states that The Mozilla Foundation is supporting copyright theft by promoting the use of its popular extension, Ad Block. For those who don’t know, Ad Block does exactly that: it blocks advertisements. I don’t use it personally, but I do use NoScript which is quite effective in blocking adverts itself.
The argument is that by blocking the adverts which support the webmasters we are effectively creating a derivative, unlicensed work, and that the content is only available because of the adverts. This whining is then backed up by two other articles, one of which uses the example of television, where adverts are paid for to support the network.
Now, the problem I have with this logic is the fact that television is (apart from the obvious costs involved in purchasing the actual box) free. You do not pay to watch television supported by adverts, so therefore you don’t really have a great say on it. On the other hand, the BBC (certainly in the UK) is supported by an extortionate license fee which British citizens must pay. In exchange for this license fee we get advertisement-FREE viewing, and (supposedly) a greater input into the channels. Now, I pay for my Internet which is effectively like paying my license fee, so theoretically I should be entitled to choose not to see these ads.
By blocking the adverts, I am not removing the adverts from the pages in a permanent manner or stopping a webmaster from making a profit. In fact, my blocking of an advert is no different from me simply choosing not to click an advert… and the last time I checked this was still perfectly legal. In fact, I don’t ever click adverts, so it seems perfectly reasonable for me to simply block them as they are otherwise in my way.
The second article in the source is harping on about the lack of advertising damaging those who pay their bandwidth fees, bla bla bla, and yet is using the free Blogger software to power their blog. Apart from the minimal cost of a domain name what is their net outgoings? Probably zilch.
Anyway, back to the actual web page. The page states:
Demographics have shown that not only are FireFox users a somewhat small percentage of the internet, they actually are even smaller in terms of online spending, therefore blocking FireFox seems to have only minimal financial drawbacks, whereas ending resource theft has tremendous financial rewards for honest, hard-working website owners and developers..
While I will concede that Firefox does indeed have a smaller demographic, the supposed fact about Firefox users spending less (as well as not having any sources to back it up) is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. What has spending got to do with advertisements? The chances are if I’m on a website to buy something, I’m going to be more concerned by making sure that my purchase is going through a secure server, that I’ve entered in my details correctly and so on.
Furthermore, I am a hard-working website owner and developer, and by blocking advertisements I am not affecting myself in the slightest. Nor is anyone else who chooses to block adverts and visit my website: because bandwidth is not that expensive and I don’t need to whore myself out for a bit of extra cash under the pretense of supporting my hobby. I can manage to continue developing my website and my free software (scripts) without any loss caused by the likes of Ad Block and I know I’m not alone. There are tons of people out there who offer software (both free and paid) that don’t have advertisements on their pages, and yet are still managing to support themselves. Mint (stats software), WordPress, etc. The way I see it is if you’re good enough to be out there, support will come from those who appreciate you most and not because of the advertising.
I’d be interested to know where this page stands in terms of libel and misleading accusations against the Mozilla Foundation/Corp. In the mean time I’ll continue to browse normally and if I come across sites redirecting me to this sad excuse of a web page, I certainly won’t be opening IE (which ironically comes with its own blocking tools/systems these days) to get around the block. If my business is not good enough for you in Firefox, my business is not good enough for you full stop.
10 Oct at 7:56 pm
I agree completely. I block ads mostly because they’re intrusive and distracting, and I’ve always thought whether I was really robbing the people who made the page. Then I looked at it this way: if they were that good, they would have supporters donating rather than having to shove ads in our faces.
10 Oct at 8:17 pm
I can only assume that every browser will eventually have an ad-blocker of some sort. Then what? I don’t block ads myself, but I think I may start to…
10 Oct at 8:17 pm
The whole thing is a complete non-issue. It’s like saying we are committing a crime by not paying attention to billboards. This guy is an asshole.
10 Oct at 8:18 pm
I agree with every word of it. If someone is going to deny me access to their website because of my browser, then their site probably isn’t worth viewing.
10 Oct at 8:22 pm
It’s obvious that the only reason this even started was because people feared the loss of profits from people blocking ads. But did they ever stop to think that perhaps the people that are blocking their ads, originally were never planning on clicking on the ads anyway? So what’s the point of being a complete and utter fucktard, when they people you’re blocking were never generating money for you anyway? Regardless, I just think it’s so obvious how many people are so money-hungry that they’ll try to make a cause for just about anything.
10 Oct at 8:35 pm
I completely agree with you…
10 Oct at 9:29 pm
It’s all about money these days, it’s a capitalist world where just helping people out for the love of it is a precious thing. It shows us that people who do do things for free and for the love of it need to stand up and show others that people mean more than money.
10 Oct at 9:39 pm
I am like many people in that I don’t have a problem with all ads. It’s those annoying buzzy “you’ve won a holiday” type animated adverts that make me want to tear my hair out. If the quality of the adverts were less intrusive, I wouldn’t need to block them. I think of using an ad-blocker in my browser as watching a recorded TV show. People who record TV shows do not watch the adverts, they fast-forward through them. In a way, that’s what I do when I surf the net. Blocking a whole chunk of your audience is not going to get you more (quality) visitors to your website, it’s just going to infuriate them. Not all Firefox users block ads, and not all ad-blockers use Firefox. This guy is just ridiculous.
10 Oct at 9:49 pm
And you know what the biggest irony is? The site he’s “blocked” Firefox users from doesn’t offer any services. It’s a blog, but a blog with more ads on it than I’ve ever seen in my entire life. Of course he’s going to be annoyed with people blocking them – there’s nothing left to see on the site! Like I said at Snark: I use NoScript, which, like you said, blocks quite a lot of ads since they are quite often JS or Flash based (which NS takes care of as well). Is he going to start blocking people because they won’t turn JS on? …yeah, actually. I get redirected to his nasty “zomg get JS or leave”-type page. I can see his point, but when I look at why he made it in the first place (to protect his crappy site) it makes me laugh. If he was providing, say, a free website service that was ad-supported, then I might be a little more understanding. But no, he’s just like the PPPers of the world – worried his pathetic little blog won’t bring him in any moniez and that oh noes he might have to get A Real Job.
10 Oct at 10:31 pm
“If my business is not good enough for you in Firefox, my business is not good enough for you full stop.” My sentiments exactly.
10 Oct at 10:55 pm
I was reading something that said something like text adverts are more better than animated adverts. Which is true for me! Don’t like annoying adds that flash at me or give me a headache. Maybe I should start with an ad block maybe then I can browse with out a headache!
10 Oct at 11:14 pm
Eh, false comparison. Especially because plenty of people *do* skip the ads here in the US — that’s what TiVo is for, after all. (And what about the people who pay for cable or a dish? Are they more or less entitled to skip the ads than the people with rabbit ears?) Oh no! I read my book instead of looking at the ads on public transportation! I’m robbing the city! He’s a whiny little ass-munching attention whore who can’t make a logical argument to save his life. Maybe if he could write something worth reading, he wouldn’t need so freaking many ads on his blog.
10 Oct at 11:38 pm
Maybe someone just hates Firefox, and wants to come up with an excuse to shame the browser… I really don’t think “copyright theft” is applicable to this. Nothing is changed by an ad-blocker – It’s just making some of the website content invisible. We have a choice when it comes to what we see on TV, and I think the same should apply to the internet. I don’t use an ad-blocker, but I pretty much imagine they’re not there anyway.
10 Oct at 11:55 pm
That’s ridiculous. It’s like saying you’re committing a crime if you change the channel during TV commercial breaks. The whole argument is so weak it’s laughable.
11 Oct at 12:26 am
There are several of these sites, I have been redirected to a few from some sites. I like reading them because their whole argument is rubbish. I don’t want to go to their site if they are trying to say i’m ‘stealing’. They just like being hacked on IE.
11 Oct at 3:14 am
People will publish any harebrained idea to create some drama these days, it seems. Honestly. I have better things to do than read conspiracy theories related to the blocking of adverts on the internet. Someone up there mentioned that they wouldn’t mind ads if they were well-designed instead of being completely obnoxious. And actually, that is very true. I am 100% more likely to click an ad because of its design appeal than if it’s shouting falsehoods at me through my computer screen. I’ve bought clothing from online retailers I’ve never heard of just because I liked their ad.
11 Oct at 3:24 am
Jem, I swear you are psychic. I was just writing my own blog entry about this.
11 Oct at 6:08 am
If he’s dead set on having his visitors pay to see his site, why not just create a log-in form, where you will have to pay in order to be able to log in to the page? That way, users of all browsers will be forced to pay, regardless of ad blocking or not. Besides… I don’t really see that quality content he’s speaking about (the author’s site): the layout is just a basic two column narrow one… and it has 2 java script errors to boot. (edit: *sulks* I can’t write correctly due to your spam blocker)
11 Oct at 6:22 am
Well i block ads too so i guess i must be equally guilty. Surely IE has its own built in ad-blocker? (I don’t actually use it myself so would’nt know), it’s FF all the way for me.
11 Oct at 6:42 am
The whole concept is hilarious. I agree; it’s our choice what we view. Advertisement blockers are made for a reason.
11 Oct at 4:14 pm
If we’re not going to click on the adverts, why do we need to see them? That’s my philosophy on it all. I do get the BBC thing, my mum pays the TV Licence right now and I’ll be paying it when I move out. If we pay x amount a month for internet, we really shouldn’t be subjected to all the adverts. Adverts are apparently brainwashing the shit out of us all anyway.
11 Oct at 5:29 pm
I agree with Lisa Jane. Adverts are annoying anyway. I’d prefer to view a page without being bombarded with adverts, which I will only “x” anyway.
11 Oct at 7:52 pm
I agree that it is absurd. Whether we use adblocker or not, we most likely aren’t going to click the ads anyways. Blocking firefox will just do more damage than good, in my opinion.
12 Oct at 12:50 am
I’m really confused – I was using IE7 and it blocked me? O__o” Obviously this guy’s site has bugs to be worked out, especially if he doesn’t want to lose his IE7 audience, too!
12 Oct at 2:10 am
So… if I click the big shiny X and close the ad, am I committing a crime then as well? No, but with this guy’s logic I might as well be.
12 Oct at 5:01 am
Maybe if the ads weren’t so bloody obtrusive/disgusting/bright I wouldn’t mind turning off Ad Block and taking a look at them. But since they are, I see no reason to look at ads which feature either porn or ads for useless things.
12 Oct at 12:51 pm
Kudos to that! I don’t block the ads. I like them. Some are useful…like the 18+ to smoke in the UK. I laughed at my underage friends about that one. But also, I don’t ever click on ads…so blocking them would have NO negative effect whatsoever…
13 Oct at 2:36 am
So following this guy’s insane logic, people who use Greasemonkey are also “content thieves”. Previous commenters have hit the nail on the head – this guy is more worried about his ad clicks then serving out quality content.
13 Oct at 10:06 pm
I used to visit a site that was great pre-ads. Then the addition of them made the content inaccessible because it appeared in front of links and there was no way around it. The websites are losing visitors and money? Yes, definitely, and quite possibly because of the advertisements.
14 Oct at 12:23 pm
I agree, but you say that television is free? But it’s not, right? What about the monthly costs you need to pay to be able tio watch television? I’d say that in a way, it’s similar to the internet.
16 Oct at 2:43 pm
This is exactly how I feel. And you mentioned about how if you’re going to be spending on the net it’s going to be from a trusted site, not some advertisement on a someone’s blog. Same for me. Ads are useless to me because I don’t use them in any way. People who write stuff like this are the same people who whine about TiVo being bad. It’s ridiculous.
17 Oct at 12:38 am
If blocking ads is wrong, I don’t want to be right. Proud to be a criminal!
19 Oct at 9:27 pm
Does this guy work for Microsoft, by any chance? ;) IE sucks, by the way.
22 Dec at 11:45 pm
Their statement is ridiculous. Okay, so what they are saying is that if we block the ads on their websites, we are stealing their hard work by browsing and using the content for free? Well, correct me if I am wrong, but anyone who decides to open a website is most likely going to have to deal with that, like it or not. If they can’t, then they should have never started a website or any other similar work on the internet at all. The only way I would ever support ads, and maybe click on them, is if I know that the website’s owner needs help with the hosting fees, and doesn’t prefer donations. Or if this is really how they make their living. This was a great read. :)