Are you stealing content if you have an ad blocker?

[Steven P. Administrators]

If you want my opinion as a site owner, content creation does not need to cost money, but when you run a popular site like Neowin then it does start to cost money, this also includes having to pay people for content management and creation of said content, including server costs and hosting.

 

We do our very best to only utilize inline advertising (there are many more methods that actually earn quite a bit more money, like popups and in-between pages ads) and even offer a reasonable 'ad free' subscriber account for those that really care about what we do. Unfortunately some people just don't understand this and only think about themselves, maybe they also wouldn't care if we could no longer maintain the community they so frequently visit too

For example, on this page alone, there is just one ad at the very top (if you are a logged in registered member). It isn't a lot to ask

[Steven P. Administrators]

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.

I actually agree about this, but that's why there is a 'do not track' option in the major browsers and you can actually opt out of ad companies putting cookies on your PC, there are even extensions that do this. It just means that if you whitelist Neowin, for example.. the ads won'tr be akin to your interests. There are benefits and downsides.

[chrisj1968]

hackers, malware creators, ad creators, any individual who makes any of this should forced to listen to Obama and Hillary Clinton speeches 24 hours a day for the duration of their jail sentences

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

Yep thats why im a subby2, been here supporting the site since the beginning, so to me, paying the small fee every year is well worth it. 
And as a bonus for me, I get all advertising removed for my account, but, since im paying Steveo for server maintenance and all the rest, its all well and good. 
I do the same with other places I support too, giving them a couple of bucks to cover costs, but only for sites (like this one) that I feel deserve my money. 
Others, that have advertising everywhere, then I have no quarrels using AdBlock. Are we stealing? I don't believe so, if your running adblock on here and not a sub, your not stealing, but your not helping either. 

[BinaryData]

Honestly, ads ruin the internet. They fill it with bloated, useless crap that requires you to "download" more information. Yes, we have super fast internet in most countries, but as someone who deals with a lot of foreigners, having ads bloat the site down majorly. I think ads should be optional, such as a hide feature. I use No-Script, and I freaking love blocking ads. It also catches XSS that try to run.

[poet58]

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.

 

 

i do find it elsewhere.

 

and despite what some of you said, the internet belongs to all of us and these admongers are most definitely stealing from us all. stealing bandwith for their profit making enterprises that slows the internet down for each and every one of us. which in turn raises carrier costs because even the most basic user now needs broadband to get even a basic level of quality internet service.

 

this is paid for on the backs of the everyday consumer, not the offending admongers. As a former Treasury Agent, I have seen and helped to disseminate the data for the FCC and other governmental agencies and that data is clear, concise, and irrefutable. the proliferation of ads on the internet degrades the quality of service for all users

 

Id love to see the admongers deny that simple fact

 

the truth is that these sites exist to make money....even this one. and while I commend Steve and his staff's attempts to be as inobtrusive as possible, the goal is still the same, the Internet i fraught with ads, spymare, virii, and various other malware, simply because of the poential to earn money on a public good. use of adblockers and other forms of protections is not stealing or immoral. it is simply prudent policy by the consumer.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

Yep thats why im a subby2, been here supporting the site since the beginning, so to me, paying the small fee every year is well worth it. 

And as a bonus for me, I get all advertising removed for my account, but, since im paying Steveo for server maintenance and all the rest, its all well and good. 

I do the same with other places I support too, giving them a couple of bucks to cover costs, but only for sites (like this one) that I feel deserve my money. 

Others, that have advertising everywhere, then I have no quarrels using AdBlock. Are we stealing? I don't believe so, if your running adblock on here and not a sub, your not stealing, but your not helping either.

I agree with Anarkii. I'll gladly pay my share to support sites I think are worth it, like this one, or whitelist other sites. In most cases I have no qualms blocking ads though, and have done so since the first version of Adblock for Mozilla was released in 2002. Why? Too many really annoying ads at the time (remember the X10 pop-under ads?) annoying the hell out of me.

What I find kind of ironic is when the editor of a tech website with some of the more annoying advertising methods I've seen lately claims adblockers are immoral.

[x-scratch]

some ads don't bother me. but the ones that annoy me are ones that have no relation to that site

 

for example video gaming sites with viagra/enlarge you know type ads

 

no thank you

[ACTIONpack]

Honestly, ads ruin the internet. They fill it with bloated, useless crap that requires you to "download" more information. Yes, we have super fast internet in most countries, but as someone who deals with a lot of foreigners, having ads bloat the site down majorly. I think ads should be optional, such as a hide feature. I use No-Script, and I freaking love blocking ads. It also catches XSS that try to run.

How will they make money?

[Steven P. Administrators]

How will they make money?

Make money? Every profit we've turned has gone back into the site with server hardware or additional full time staff. In one year we went from one full time reporter (John Callaham, who left June 2014) to three (Andy Weir, Brad Sams and Vlad Dudau). We also signed a multi-year contract with Amazon at the start of this year, because we were no longer able to be hosted by our parent company Stardock.. this was to do with trafficking/bandwidth reasons.

[Max Norris]

There's also the security consideration.  Unless a site can 100% guarantee the safety of third party sites/data (the advertisers), the blocks stay up.  "Rogue ads" aren't exactly an uncommon thing, compromised/infected/fake web servers are a dime a dozen, and my time and data aren't free either.. is the site going to pay me for my time to pull a backup and deal with lost data, or worse in the case of phishing/theft/etc?  Of course not, and I don't feel guilty in the slightest for protecting myself.  One of the basic rules of internet security nowadays. If they want to make money off of me (random website owner, nobody in specific), make it a pay site and see if I subscribe or not. 

[poet58]

Make money? Every profit we've turned has gone back into the site with server hardware or additional full time staff. In one year we went from one full time reporter (John Callaham, who left June 2014) to three (Andy Weir, Brad Sams and Vlad Dudau). We also signed a multi-year contract with Amazon at the start of this year, because we were no longer able to be hosted by our parent company Stardock.. this was to do with trafficking/bandwidth reasons.

steven, not picking you out personally because you obviously do not seem to be an offender here, in fact you actions appear to be highly moral and socially responsible, but as a site owner, is it not true that even this site exists as a potentially profit making enterprise..? if it were guaranteed never to be so would you continue? I do not begrudge you a profit by the way....just clarifying that you do have a position of some bias.

 

I only ask because it gives a certain basis for this discussion....

 

it would appear that the only ones who complain about adblockers are those interested in profits, rather than those interested in the social good their site provides.. generally the more they complain about adblockers the more interest in profit and less interest in providing a social good

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

The most annoying thing about ads to me isn't so much the data mining or tracking... it is just that they totally destroy a site's layout and color schemes, frequently while hiding data. You end up having to design a site literally around an ad, so it matches the site layout and won't be seen by viewers as part of your data. The coloring issues are just impossible to address.

 

Those stupid CSS popups are the most annoying thing, though. There are plenty of places to pimp your site on the page.

[Steven P. Administrators]

steven, not picking you out personally because you obviously do not seem to be an offender here, in fact you actions appear to be highly moral and socially responsible, but as a site owner, is it not true that even this site exists as a potentially profit making enterprise..? if it were guaranteed never to be so would you continue?

 

I only ask because it gives a certain basis for this discussion....

 

it would appear that the only ones who complain about adblockers are those interested in profits, rather than those interested in the social good their site provides

I answered this already, you quoted it.

[tompkin]

The problem is, that Steven P. and Max Norris both have valid points. 

 

Steven P.'s site does things for the good. There are other sites out there that have done wrong, and have caused Max to feel the way he does.

 

If we simply turn on the Ad-blocker, then not only do we block the bad guys (more or less), but we block the good guys.

 

I, for one, am guilty because it's simply easier to turn on uBlocker and be done with it. 

 

In the short term, turning on the ad-blocker seems to work because then you don't have to worry about it.

 

in the long term, though, it is encouraging otherwise decent sites to go bad because they will feel they are at a competitive disadvantage by doing what's right. 

 

I will have to give this more thought because, for myself, if I"m not trying to be a good "Net" citizen, then I can't point fingers at others for not being. (This is just for myself).

 

I do believe, however, that Neowin does provide a service worth paying for even though I haven't considered it until now.

[poet58]

I answered this already, you quoted it.

yes you did, but im asking further, if this site were guaranteed to NEVER  make a profit, or to be sold at a profit, would you continue on the basis of its social benefit to society ?

 

as a 25 year veteran of civil service, I knew I could earn 30 to 40% more if I moved into the private sector for employment, but I made a choice to stay in treasury, especially late in my career, because I felt it was a greater good for society....

 

that was my social conscience making that decision...... I'm asking for your view personally, trying to take profit out of the equation

 

[Raa]

I use a HOST file level block. My intention is to stop data use and malware... so technically, no?

[Steven P. Administrators]

yes you did, but im asking further, if this site were guaranteed to NEVER  make a profit, or to be sold at a profit, would you continue on the basis of its social benefit to society ?

 

as a 25 year veteran of civil service, I knew I could earn 30 to 40% more if I moved into the private sector for employment, but I made a choice to stay in treasury, especially late in my career, because I felt it was a greater good for society....

 

that was my social conscience making that decision...... I'm asking for your view personally, trying to take profit out of the equation

 

If we were forced into debt, then there would be no point continuing

[poet58]

The problem is, that Steven P. and Max Norris both have valid points. 

 

Steven P.'s site does things for the good. There are other sites out there that have done wrong, and have caused Max to feel the way he does.

 

If we simply turn on the Ad-blocker, then not only do we block the bad guys (more or less), but we block the good guys.

 

I, for one, am guilty because it's simply easier to turn on uBlocker and be done with it. 

 

In the short term, turning on the ad-blocker seems to work because then you don't have to worry about it.

 

in the long term, though, it is encouraging otherwise decent sites to go bad because they will feel they are at a competitive disadvantage by doing what's right. 

 

I will have to give this more thought because, for myself, if I"m not trying to be a good "Net" citizen, then I can't point fingers at others for not being. (This is just for myself).

 

I do believe, however, that Neowin does provide a service worth paying for even though I haven't considered it until now.

as do I,

 

there are indeed multiple sides and shades to the issue....I see Steven P. as a "good guy" here because Neowin could go much further, as many other sites have. the fact that they havent speaks volumes about how they feel about the service they provide and their members.

 

personally i feel that the very question of are Adblockers immoral is offensive....part of a subtle campaign to shift consumers perspective. the only question should be does it add to their safety and or experience.

 

Why should anyone apologize for something that keeps them safer?

[poet58]

If we were forced into debt, then there would be no point continuing

thank you for your honesty and your social conscience Steven P. that was why I asked. it highlights that even those with a profit goal, can still act responsibly. and you do.....which is the point I was trying to make

 

You and Neowin are to be commended for your choice

[Arachno 1D]

As with most things there are two sides to the story but both of which merge to a very large grey area ergo the main arguments might be boiled down to

The end user is not supporting the sites by blocking ads v the sites are stealing bandwidth from the end user

[Intersect]

As with most things there are two sides to the story but both of which merge to a very large grey area ergo the main arguments might be boiled down to

The end user is not supporting the sites by blocking ads v the sites are stealing bandwidth from the end user

its not like the adds are taking up Megabytes of bandwith and most internet users are using broadband connections so its hardly going to affect them to the level that

browsing the site comes makes them feel like they are on dial-up

 

perhaps neowin should have a wall of name and shame for those users who do adblock the site.

[Noir Angel]

I don't particularly like having to block advertising but ads are so intrusive these days I often feel that I have little choice. If web advertisers had a rethink about their advertising, ad blocking wouldn't be necessary. This is another industry where people need to stop pointing their fingers and calling people thieves and start adapting their business models to represent changing attitudes.

[BinaryData]

My biggest issue is searching for something on Google or NewEgg, and then getting bombarded with Ads on Facebook. Places like Neowin, I don't mind the ads because it helps out people. Ads that talk are obnoxious too.

[sinetheo]

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?

 

How about paying me back for all the expense and lost time cleaning and re-imaging my computer out due to an infection from these so called ad networks?

 

What about caring more for profit than security for your customers?

 

Criminals from Russia use them to pay for ads and use java and flash exploits to install keyloggers to encrypt my data or steal bank account info etc. I used to use adblock plus as it allows some networks like Google in but criminals use these too.

 

Sorry Neowin owners and others but you got to be batshit insane to put +20 ad networks and trust whomever to run executables on my system?! I mean that is common sense not to run a .exe from a random spot on the internet yet we do the same with flash. Yes, they have sandboxes but how many hundreds of exploits have Oracle and Adobe patched over the years from their lousy plugins?

 

Part of the reason to switch to HTML 5 is to rid the web of these but guess what? Javascript exploits exist too.