• 0

To use adblockers or not to use adblockers?


Ad Blockers  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you use an ad blocker (or IE9s TPLs)?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Only on my main browser
    • On all of my browsers
    • On my non-main browsers.
  2. 2. Is it ethical to use an ad blocker

    • Yes
    • No
    • Yes, only if used on your main browser
      0
    • Of course it is; those blasted website operators and ad companies have annoyed me and made enough money off of me already -.-
    • Yes, if used only on non-main browsers
      0


Question

Hey!

I've started using some TPLs in IE10, and I really like reading Neowin without those annoying text ads :p I'd install ad blockers on all of my browsers, but (being a web developer myself) I don't entirely feel comfortable with the idea of taking away the major source of income for the sites that I use for free. I understand that my ad views represent a miniscule part of Neowin's (or any sites) overall income, but still, it's the whole 'what if everybody did that?' idea that's got me worried.

what do you guys think? do you use an adblocker, do you think it's ethical, and why?

Thanks ;)

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Adverts are not only intrusive but they pose a security risk and have a considerable impact upon browser performance. The best option is to install an ad-blocker and disable it for websites that you want to support.

  • Like 3
  • 0

Same I don't mind the Ad's I unblock Neowin from Time to time and click on a Few Ad's to help out.

But what I HATE...

Those Ad's with Sound.. I visited guildwars2guru the other day and had 2 or 3 playing all at the same time.

I Closed the Tab. and Installed Adblock+...

I also Emailed the Sites contact to let them know how bad my Esperance was. that to me was Unacceptable.

Btw I never received a Reply ..

I love Neowin. I normally Brose here with Ad's enabled.

  • 0

Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

  • 0

Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

No. Most people are sick of having ads pushed down our throat constantly.

Pay for a blu-ray/dvd. Go through 15 minutes of non-skippable ads. Not to mention many movies are clearly just giant advertisements for certain brands.

Pay for television. Cable isn't cheap nowadays and yet we usually have like 10 minutes of TV and 5 minutes of commercials and repeat.

Pay for services. Still get ads pushed down our throats. XBox Live comes to mind.

And etc.

  • 0

I use an ad blocker whenever I'm in Chrome, and disable for sites that I find valuable. I say it's unethical because you deprive the website owners of the revenue needed to operate the site. However, on sites that seemingly go out of there way to annoy you with ads, I don't feel bad about blocking because they annoy the hell out of me.

Bandwidth wasting video ads, ads that make noise, ones that cover up content and move when you scroll, are among the ones that get the hosting site not whitelisted in my ad blocker.

Plus as has been stated in this thread, ad blocking carries security benefits as well in the event an ad network gets compromised by malware

  • 0

I use AdBlocker and I'm not ashamed of using it. Why? I can tolerate jpeg/gif ads... I can't tolerate Flash/Videos Ads using my bandwidth and annoying me. I don't want you to take the right to use my bandwidth and my speakers/headphones without my consent.

Too many sites have exaggerated in the past... now they pay for their decision of pushing intrusive ads and wasting people's bandwidth without any embarassement

  • 0

Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

There's a fine line when it comes to ads. I was fine with them back in the day when they stayed out of your way. The moment they became "pushy" and "in your face" is the day I had enough. Not to mention they took up an excessive amount of space on certain pages, and for a while became an attack vector for malware. Pop ups, pop unders, flash based, text based, Intellitext (Worst offender, IMO), etc. You name it, I had enough.

Since I pay for Internet service - AKA *CONTENT*, and not advertising services, I had to install an adblocker to take back MY Internet. Of course I'm not above whitelisting sites that play nice with users, Like Neowin, however I still do block a good majority of the sites I go to.

  • 0

They are intrusive and a lot of time, buggy as hell and causes issues with the browser. Depends on the kind of ads. Also, a lot of times the link to an ad is down and the page will not load because of it . So I will go in and block the website (normally a site dishing out ads) and then the page will load.

  • 0

No, I don't think using adblocking is unethical. I'm sorry but so many web authors these days pay no attention to the impact their ads have on users. And they increase the loading time of most web pages significantly.

Unless a website specifically implies in it's TOS that you're required to view their ads to use the service then legally there is no wrongdoing if you block them. It's up to the provider of the content to find ways to make their business viable, not me as a user.

  • 0

Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

When it can infringe on my security, hell ya I will block whatever I want. I block the same things on my familys systems as well. Why? Because I am sick of cleaning up their PCs after they click on adverts that install malware.

  • Like 2
  • 0

I always greenlist neowin, because they had that guilt trip "don't like ads, pay for a subscription" text under any surpressed banner. that was a classy way of getting me to turn their ads back on, they aren't particularly irritating either so that helps.

A lot of sites I find unrecognisable when I first install a browser and haven't installed an ad filtering plugin, it's rather insane on some sites.

I'm in two minds about it.. but if more 'quality' websites inobstrusively pleaded with me to re-enable ads for their benefit, I would do so.

  • 0

I rarely ever click on ads. 15 years of using the internet makes you immune to most ads. In the rare occasion that I'm interested in whatever the ads are showing, sure, I'll click. But most ads are shady as hell.

That said, I never block ads. I do block the sh*t out of flash though.

  • 0

Same I don't mind the Ad's I unblock Neowin from Time to time and click on a Few Ad's to help out.

But what I HATE...

Those Ad's with Sound.. I visited guildwars2guru the other day and had 2 or 3 playing all at the same time.

I Closed the Tab. and Installed Adblock+...

I also Emailed the Sites contact to let them know how bad my Esperance was. that to me was Unacceptable.

Btw I never received a Reply ..

I love Neowin. I normally Brose here with Ad's enabled.

ain't that basically click fraud?

  • 0

Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

Yes, but do you read all ads on the page? Do you click on any of them? Do you purchase anything after having clicked on them?

If not, please alight from your confused ethical high horse.

  • 0

ain't that basically click fraud?

Well, I was only half serious when suggesting the monthly clicking spree -- I certainly couldn't be bothered to do so -- but I suppose it would be.

One could argue, though, that someone making a point of clicking on ten ads might be more likely to buy something than one person "genuinely" clicking on an ad because they think they might be interested.

To be honest, the whole model is rather flawed, the chances of an ad appearing of something you want to buy, at the time you are interested in buying it and from the shop you would be prepared to buy it from, are slim indeed. Of course, there are always impulse buys.

  • 0

looks like the sentiment here is the same - to use an adblocker :D

but I do think I'll take Shiranui's tip and go on a clicking spree once a month or so ;)

thanks again!

It's not sentiment, it's just plain logical

Should add, not only use an adblocker but a good host file too!

  • 0
Wow, I'm the only person so far who thinks it's unethical to use an ad blocker? Disappointing that so many people think that way. I guess it's just another sign of the entitlement generation who feel entitled to take anything they want for free, and provide absolutely nothing in return.

I don't see how it's unethical to block something that you'd never click on. The last time I checked most ad services - including Google's - operate on a per-click basis, not per-view. I never click on ads, so there is no revenue loss resulting from my actions. More importantly, ads are incredibly intrusive (some even malicious) - before I relied on ad-blocking I would regularly encounter ads that would automatically play audio or block up my entire screen and not allow me to close them (they weren't designed for the browser I was using). Perhaps I'd feel bad if I didn't receive spam emails, spam SMS and phonecalls from random companies intruding upon my free time. Perhaps I'd feel bad if ad-blockers hadn't become necessary because of pop-under and pop-over ads, which at times were virtually impossible to close. Ad-blockers were a direct response to the ad industry and websites abusing users for profit. I don't feel bad about fast-forwarding through adverts on TV either.

Ads aren't the only way to financially support a website. Many - like Neowin - have subscriber perks and merchandise; others allow donations; some are subscriber only. As long as it remains profitable to operate a website despite some users using ad-blockers the ecosystem remains intact. Don't forget that many would consider a website like Neowin to be morally questionable, as by getting your news here that deprives the original content producer of the advertising revenue for visiting their site (ignoring the minority who click through to the original source). Is that not morally dubious?

  • 0

I rarely see ads.

I am also on a low bandwidth connection, so why should i have my connection used to serve obtrusive things i dont want to see. Ive never clicked on ad online, and i was using the net long before the web when gopher was the primary protocol. So ive avoided clicking on ads for a loooong time.

I have several layers of adblocking.

1) Squid - with ad and malware block lists

2) Admuncher - legal version i might ad :)

3) Adblock plus in Waterfox, on the rare event an ad makes it through Admuncher

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Simple answer is yes, you will still get the Windows updates and as long as browser is up to date, you will be good. Only thing secure boot does is protect you against boot level threats and make it harder to install other OS's. I've been looking into this pretty thoroughly lately myself as wifes computer has secure boot disabled plus my other, older computers that run Linux, don't have secure boot enabled. Have seen all kinds of questions about this on the Linux Mint and MX Linux forums. Just don't suddenly enable secure boot now.
    • How many other companies will follow Ford's lead? Or, have they already gotten lazy and become enslaved to AI--and now can't figure out how to get out of that mess.
    • Why would any self-respecting intelligent person follow any recommendation by Donald's GOP administration? With almost two years of fabrications, deceit, and blatantly illegal behavior, why believe them now? They had best be gone after the November 2026 election, so we'll wait and see.
    • AltSendme 0.4.1 by Razvan Serea AltSendme is a minimal, cross-platform application designed for fast, secure, and private peer-to-peer file transfers. It allows users to send files or entire directories directly between devices without relying on cloud servers, accounts, or any personal information. Everything is encrypted end-to-end using modern protocols like QUIC and TLS 1.3, ensuring both strong security and low-latency performance. Transfers are verified with BLAKE3 for data integrity, and interrupted downloads automatically resume, making the experience reliable even on unstable connections. You can transfer anything—images, videos, documents, and more. Integrity checks are performed on both ends, so your files are automatically verified for correctness during both sending and receiving. AltSendme works seamlessly across local networks or long-distance links, capable of saturating multi-gigabit connections for extremely fast delivery. With built-in NAT traversal and encrypted relay fallback, it connects devices almost anywhere. The app integrates with the Sendme CLI and will soon support mobile and web platforms. Fully free and open-source, AltSendme offers a lightweight, privacy-first alternative to traditional cloud-based services, removing size limits, upload costs, and unnecessary data exposure. AltSendme 0.4.1 changelog: Release Highlights Self-hosted relays: Run your own iroh relay so transfers don't rely on public infrastructure. Includes a full deployment template in deploy/relay/ with Docker Compose for a VPS and configuration examples for production use. Fly.io support: One-click deploy template for Fly.io, including a quick-start config (fly.dev.toml) for testing without a custom domain, plus production setup with Let's Encrypt and your own hostname. Relay settings UI: New Settings → Network panel to choose how AltSendme connects: automatic public relays, custom self-hosted URLs (with optional auth token), or disabled. Test connections, verify latency, and see live relay status in the footer. Disable relays: Turn off relay servers entirely when you only need same-network transfers (e.g. LAN). Direct connections only. No relay hop required when devices can reach each other. Android graduates from beta: Android is now part of the regular release cycle alongside desktop. APKs ship with each version (universal, arm64, and armv7). Other improvements Private relay access control via shared auth token Relay fallback notifications when a custom relay is unreachable Broadcast mode toggle in sharing settings Android release build fixes (split-per-ABI APKs, universal APK preservation) UI polish: mobile safe-area insets, dropzone layout, transfer progress animation Bug fixes for minification-related serialization issues and system tray icon loading What's Changed feat(relay): add relay status functionality and settings UI (a120cdf) feat(relay): implement custom relay server configuration and verification (51276c7) feat(relay): add configuration for private relay access and enhance observability features (48fbabf) feat(relay): enhance relay URL validation, display connection status (d4fffa0) feat(relay): add RelayChangeGuard component and enhance relay-related translations (16ba514) feat(broadcast): add toggle setting for broadcast mode in sharing UI (ca6d977) fix(relay): correct QUIC discovery port, pin image, templatize fly.dev (52a2ba5) fix: More broken serialization due to minification (67491a9) fix(android): preserve true universal APK across per-ABI builds (e9f256f) fix(ui): conditional safe-area insets padding on mobile (1182f0e) refactor(transfer): CircularRing component animation fix (944572b) chore(android): drop x86 and x86_64 release APKs, keep universal+arm64+armv7 (34ada0b) Download: AltSendme 0.4.1 | ARM64 | ~9.0 MB (Open Source) Download: AltSendme for MacOS | Android Links: AltSendme Home Page | GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • You are mostly right about the ephemeral nature of it. As I mention in the article, if you dont add a second device or take a backup of your account before uninstalling it, then yes you will lose access to your account. That said, in terms of actual user experience when you sync multiple devices your message history carries across and there's also a Saved Messages chat like there is on Telegram to send messages and attachments between your installs. But yh, what you point out are correct and its not trying to emulate Messenger or Telegram.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      495
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      225
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      149
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!