ckgni Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I just found this on Twitter. http://bit.ly/Zxp7A A big coincidence maybe? There was a related discussion on digital point earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack 0Neill Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Even if people didn't have adblock they'd use a Hosts file to block advertisements. People have a choice on what they want to view and they should not have these things forced upon them. There are also annoying flashing ads and ads that can distribute malicious code (including viruses and trojans). I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead.cell Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Not to mention how much crap comes from these ads. I mean, wasn't it not long ago that even Neowin was having sh-- spring up from their front page ads? Or even NSFW content? Yeah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akaruz Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 as if opening 1 page , and having 10 poping up was something good , or hoovering the mouse and watching some ring tones or stupid laughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead.cell Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 as if opening 1 page , and having 10 poping up was something good , or hoovering the mouse and watching some ring tones or stupid laughs Or ads jumping at you from text when you're just trying to move your mouse across the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_was_here Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. You're paying for internet access, NOT for the website (with the ads) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Even if people didn't have adblock they'd use a Hosts file to block advertisements.People have a choice on what they want to view and they should not have these things forced upon them. There are also annoying flashing ads and ads that can distribute malicious code (including viruses and trojans). I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. You pay for service to access the internet just like the companies' websites and other websites you visit. The ads help pay the cost of hosting. Think of Neowin, its great but it would suck if everyone had to become a subscriber to view it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inklin Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I agree, if ad providers were to work harder to prevent malicious ads getting into their systems people may not block them. Ads like "you have won an Audi" or "you are this sites one millionth visitor you have won..." need to be extinguished too! Even if they do try to sue Adblock makers i cannot see it working for them, there's always ways to block ads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Matthew S. Subscriber² Posted June 22, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 22, 2009 Even if people didn't have adblock they'd use a Hosts file to block advertisements.People have a choice on what they want to view and they should not have these things forced upon them. There are also annoying flashing ads and ads that can distribute malicious code (including viruses and trojans). I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. You page for the newspaper right? you still gets ads in the newspaper.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdsams Veteran Posted June 22, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 22, 2009 if they are succesful DVR's with the commerical skip feature are screwed too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 How can you sue someone for making a useful piece of software? They should sue the idiots who create ad farms/unnecessarily split articles onto several pages/use stupid flashy banners/pop-ups/those annoying things that cover up whatever it is you're trying to read, who make us use it in the first place. And it's not like Adblock is the only content filter out there, there are plenty of others they need to be going for, but obviously they aren't because they need a scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehtro Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 You page for the newspaper right? you still gets ads in the newspaper.. Newspapers don't throw malicious codes at you, nor do they cause epilepsia from different flashing colours. They don't pop up either.. they're just there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aero_Rising Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Even if people didn't have adblock they'd use a Hosts file to block advertisements.People have a choice on what they want to view and they should not have these things forced upon them. There are also annoying flashing ads and ads that can distribute malicious code (including viruses and trojans). I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. ok then if you think you shouldn't have to view ads then go edit your hostfile and put in blocks for neowin, youtube, etc. If everyone blocks it those sites don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_Guy Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I pay for my Internet and I should not be forced to view ads if I choose not to. Yup, and I'll bet that your ISP doesn't deliver ads directly to you on that connection. However, if you voluntarily venture out onto the web, well, websites can put up whatever they want. You choose whether or not you access the page. If it has ads, deal with it. Online advertising makes sites like Neowin possible. If you don't like it, either pay for an ad-free subscription or find a way to deal with it. The very basics of economics here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 adblock is the best thing that happened to the web Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Bah there's too many crappy sites on the internet anyway. They'll have to wrestle ABP from my cold dead hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miuku. Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'm going to have to rip Digg on this one (top dugg for today) but since it's related, I feel that it's suitable: http://imgur.com/gQouk.jpg The problem isn't so much that they have ads, it's the problem that the average page is nothing BUT ads. If the actual message you're viewing takes 20% of the screen while friggin' comments, flashing ads and other crap takes 80% it sure as heck is going to make people want to block out all the useless flashing crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pupik Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 If that's the case, they should also chase after NoScript. It really blocks the ads :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee G. Veteran Posted June 22, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 22, 2009 I can't see any point in suing the developers of Adblock, unless it's solely for money - it's development is impossible to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'm going to have to rip Digg on this one (top dugg for today) but since it's related, I feel that it's suitable: http://imgur.com/gQouk.jpgThe problem isn't so much that they have ads, it's the problem that the average page is nothing BUT ads. If the actual message you're viewing takes 20% of the screen while friggin' comments, flashing ads and other crap takes 80% it sure as heck is going to make people want to block out all the useless flashing crap. exactly, this is what pushes people to use adblock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9UnknownMen Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 They'll just make AdBlock more popular and cement it's branding. The underlying technology is simple and easy to re-create so its pointless from a practical sense. They should have paid attention to visceral reaction from the community when NoScript messed with ABP earlier this year. Whomever gets on board with this initiative will be packing into a huge failboat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirEvan Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 You're paying for internet access, NOT for the website (with the ads) Depends, I donate to a lot of sites that i frequent if they have good content, so perhaps maybe I should be allowed to block crap ok then if you think you shouldn't have to view ads then go edit your hostfile and put in blocks for neowin, youtube, etc. If everyone blocks it those sites don't exist. ever hear of donations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protocol7 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Is there a breakdown of the sites that are considering action? Would be interesting to see what sort of sites are feeling the pinch most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HideAndGoatse Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 some websites can detect adblock and tell you to turn it off to visit the site, but i'm sure there is a way around this too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey_snake Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Ad encroachment is certainly a reality, and it not like eliminating ad blocking software would reverse this trend. Hulu, for example, just recently started covering up sections of their videos with ads. :blink: It almost makes it unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts