Are you stealing content if you have an ad blocker?

[ACTIONpack]

Most content website make there money on ads and a small percent make money on goods. I know a lot of people who uses an ad blocker to not see ads. I do it too. Do you think you are stealing if you use one?

[freak180]

I can care less. I want nothing to do with ads

[COKid]

I can care less. I want nothing to do with ads

So you do care some?

 

Me, I couldn't care less. I'm at 0%. Ads can kiss my hairy a** 

[inactive]

obviously no one cares as ads generally make the internet a mess.

 

anyone who knows even a little about computers, and uses the internet fairly often, will have some sort of ad blocker installed.

[trag3dy]

For the most part outside of a few sites I white list I'll care about their ad revenue when they stop bloating up their websites with obnoxious ads.

[tompkin]

I would not necessarily be against ads.

 

The problem is those ads that are so intrusive as to ruin the users experience so that they can push their crap at you. Forget it. When they play nice, I'll stop using ad blockers but until then, forget it. 

[poet58]

Most content website make there money on ads and a small percent make money on goods. I know a lot of people who uses an ad blocker to not see ads. I do it too. Do you think you are stealing if you use one?

absolutely not......sites that run ads are stealing from their users....leeching off them as it were

 

most sites offer nothing that cant be acquired elsewhere

 

if an adblocker cant solve the problem. I wont use the site period.....

 

the only ones stealing are the ads and those who use them

[MikeChipshop Member]

The technical term probably isn't 'stealing' as such but the sentiment is the same.

If someone produces the content you're consuming the. They have every right to get paid for it, and purposely blocks mg those ads is harming their revenue stream.

That being said, some people go out of their way to make ads the bane of the web, putting up massive full page ads, ones that overlay the content and the worst one I saw the other day, where the whole page slides out of the way on first load and is replaced with a full page ad that you can't close for a set time limit. These ads are usually sucking up your bandwidth too.

In this instance it's clear they care more about the profit making aspect of the site than the experience you, as a user, has consuming their content, which is wrong.

In this instance, don't block ads, show them you're in charge by clicking off the site asap. Bounce rates are one of the main reasons sites spend the time in turning their crappy ad policy in to a good one, instead of coming up with more and more intrusive ways to serve ads.

If a site serves up a full page add, and that causes even a 10% rise in the bounce rate, a site will start to reconsider that ads approach.

What it comes down to is ad blockers harm content providers as well as content consumers.

1) ads become more intrusive due to less data being recorded about their use

2) content creators don't get what's due to them. A decent wage. If that continues, they'll just stop producing content.

It does make me wonder what is wrong with people though, consider this scenario.

Man A, visits website, sees small banner ad which has every chance of being relevant to them. Complains, installs ad blocker, harms the industry.

Man B: purchases a cable TV package at

[Gerowen]

Nobody likes ads on the internet.  There are number of pages on Facebook that I have blocked/reported, and a number of websites that I refuse to visit because of the proliferation of ads.

[tompkin]

It does make me wonder what is wrong with people though, consider this scenario.

Man A, visits website, sees small banner ad which has every chance of being relevant to them. Complains, installs ad blocker, harms the industry.

Man B: purchases a cable TV package at

[MikeChipshop Member]

Here is a bit of the difference. In cable television, the ads are served to you "willy-nilly". There are no analytics involved so the ads aren't tailored to the individual viewer. In web ads, the ads are usually more tailored to the user.

 

Interestingly, I stopped watching television many years ago for that very reason. They were continually trying to "push" things at you, not only ads but content as well. I simply left. I went to the web. Now, years later, the same crap is here. At least on the web you still have more "choice".

No, you echo my sentiments exactly. Apologies if i didn't make my original post clear, but i was saying that on the net, the quality of advertising has the potential to be so much better, and tailored to the individual. Yet people still complain, but those same people are happy to shell out money on a TV package that continues to show them ads even after they've ponied up every month.

[MikeChipshop Member]

...a number of websites that I refuse to visit because of the proliferation of ads.

This is what everyone should be doing rather than ad blocking. Ad blocking is nothing but a plaster to cover up bad ad usage. Rather than blocking it we should vote with our fet and simply do as you stated above, not visit the offending sites. They'd soon change their ad policy.

[rfirth]

absolutely not......sites that run ads are stealing from their users....leeching off them as it were

 

most sites offer nothing that cant be acquired elsewhere

 

if an adblocker cant solve the problem. I wont use the site period.....

 

the only ones stealing are the ads and those who use them

 

If you can get it elsewhere, why aren't you?

 

It's theft of service, and it's not a victimless crime... although it might feel like one. Somebody is hosting hardware that costs money and using electricity that costs money and an internet connection... and spending time creating content. And they are doing all this for you. And instead of switching to another provider - which would be the moral and right thing to do - you steal the service and use it for free.

 

At least when you pirate movies/songs/software, you aren't forcing the content creator to pay for the electricity and bandwidth to serve you that content you can't seem to live without. Those distribution costs are covered by the pirates.

[raid0]

I allow ads on Neowin, there are not too many.

[FiB3R]

Until advertisers learn to behave themselves (very unlikely any time soon, if ever), then I will continue to do everything I can to clean up and make the web a safer, more enjoyable place to be.

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

I'm quite happy supporting sites for features (as demonstrated here). And I would really not mind advertising on some sites - it is the really annoying ones that spoil the system by making people block all ads.

 

Advertising... banners were annoying... so we ignore them. Then popup ads... so we block new windows. The interstitials... which you can't really avoid but just wait out. Then the worst, CSS popup boxes and locked columns.

[jakem1]

I'm not in the least bit interested in being constantly tracked and monitored by ad companies like Google and I block everything, everywhere.  The internet was designed to exchange information freely and websites don't have the right to steal my personal information without my say so.  If you don't like it don't start a website.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I'm not in the least bit interested in being constantly tracked and monitored by ad companies like Google and I block everything, everywhere.  The internet was designed to exchange information freely and websites don't have the right to steal my personal information without my say so.  If you don't like it don't start a website.

Holy contradictions!

[tompkin]

If you can get it elsewhere, why aren't you?

 

It's theft of service, and it's not a victimless crime... although it might feel like one. Somebody is hosting hardware that costs money and using electricity that costs money and an internet connection... and spending time creating content. And they are doing all this for you. And instead of switching to another provider - which would be the moral and right thing to do - you steal the service and use it for free.

 

At least when you pirate movies/songs/software, you aren't forcing the content creator to pay for the electricity and bandwidth to serve you that content you can't seem to live without. Those distribution costs are covered by the pirates.

This flies both ways.

 

First, no website out there is paying for servers, developing website, etc., for my benefit. They are doing it for their own benefit. When I first got on the web all there was in the way of ads were linked gifs. Those were great! They haven't suddenly become so much more intrusive for my benefit. I would gladly go back to the ads of that day. 

 

Secondly, is it also to my benefit that these sites put cookies on my computer so that ads will "follow" me from site to site? To say that I somehow gave them permission is beside the point. The point is they are not doing these things for my benefit but solely their own.

 

That's why the Web has been called the 'Wild, Wild, Web'. Because we all gotta do, what we all gotta do.  

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

There is also the argument "I wouldn't click on advertisements anyway" which is a twin to pirating's "I wouldn't buy it anyway", but both arguments are disingenuous.

 

The key websites (and software and media companies) need to accept is the combination of accessibility and affordability. Most people will pay for things if there is something to be gained and it isn't a major commitment. This is taken to a bad extreme in game DLC, but the principle remains; people buy things through iTunes or Amazon Music because it is cheap and easy.

[+InsaneNutter MVC]

I don't think you are stealing, at the end of the day I feel people are often exploited by advertises. For example when you used to Google "Adobe Reader Download", the first result was an advert for a malicious download which installed spyware / keyloggers. I often install ad blockers on family members computers for their own protection.

 

You could say blocking adverts is still wrong, however I run a website which makes money off adverts, but have nothing against people who block them, I still do the same on the majority of sites.

 

I'd like to think I did the right thing with adverts. My site has one banner at the top of the page, a square box advert at the side, then another banner in the footer. Essentially the three adverts Google Ad-sense recommends. People who are logged in and have 30 posts see no adverts at all, which I think it pretty far to anyone who regally browses / contributes to the site.

 

Too many websites take adverts to the extreme, which spoils it for webmasters who actually try and do the right thing and be fair with advert placement.

[MikeChipshop Member]

-- snip --

The age old problem of the minority taking the ******* and ruining it for those want to use the system properly.

[tompkin]

There is also the argument "I wouldn't click on advertisements anyway" which is a twin to pirating's "I wouldn't buy it anyway", but both arguments are disingenuous.

 

The key websites (and software and media companies) need to accept is the combination of accessibility and affordability. Most people will pay for things if there is something to be gained and it isn't a major commitment. This is taken to a bad extreme in game DLC, but the principle remains; people buy things through iTunes or Amazon Music because it is cheap and easy.

It's not only cheap and easy but, at least in Amazon's case, they have a little check box labelled, 'Do Not Use for Recommendations'. That means do not use this purchase for future recommendations.

 

Every Christmas I buy my family presents (games, toys, clothes), that I don't buy at any other time of the year.

 

That little check box let's me freely buy anything I want to and not have to be worried about being bombarded with ads later that I have no interest in. The result is, "I BUY FREELY". I buy as much as I want to. They get a much more satisfied customer (who will come back again and again).

 

Everyone wins.

[The_Observer]

Most content website make there money on ads and a small percent make money on goods. I know a lot of people who uses an ad blocker to not see ads. I do it too. Do you think you are stealing if you use one?

 

Are you stealing music if you change the radio station when ads turn on, what about using a DVR to record your show and skipping the ads are you stealing the tv shows?

 

For me its privacy. Ads are known to track you, watch everything you do. 

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

It's not only cheap and easy but, at least in Amazon's case, they have a little check box labelled, 'Do Not Use for Recommendations'. That means do not use this purchase for future recommendations.

Definitely. I LOVE how Amazon handles recommendations based on browsing (that you can clean up) and ratings of purchases. It makes things much more accurate. You have control over what they collect and use about you.