The use of ad blockers by web surfers has apparently increased a lot over the years. But, is it really the right thing to do? I want to shed a little light on it from both sides and offer up an opinion. It’s a bit of a tough issue, actually. It seems more and more people who surf the internet today are in the habit of partially or fully blocking advertising from the sites they visit. Both Internet Explorer and Firefox come pre-programmed with pop-up blockers, for instance. Then there are a myriad of add-ons and third party utilities designed to detect and block advertising.
I am an end user. I am also a web publisher. I might not like ads sometimes. I might find them annoying at times. But, I am also in a position where my livelihood and the ability for me to keep this very site online depends on the ads. So, where does the line fall?
From an End User
I regularly visit other websites. I see advertising all the time. Sometimes I get popups, sometimes floating windows or slide-ins. Most of the time, though, I get banner ads. Google Adsense seems to be most popular, so I get a lot of those. I also get graphical banner ads, all competing for my attention. As a web user, I am on a site because I am interested in the content. I am not interested in the ads. Most of the time I can’t say I ever pay any attention to the ads. I guess that is because I am online so much that ads just blend into the landscape for me. The most annoying types of ads, for me, are those which interrupt my flow. When an ad intercepts my surfing and displays full screen only to give me a link to skip the ad, for example. Or the sites which put a floating layer over the site which keeps you from being able to use the site itself. The really crappy ones are the ones that don’t give you any option to close the ad. They just sit there and ANY click on the ad (even to try to close it) take you to another site.
So, for me, most ads blend into the landscape and a few are annoying. I do not personally employ any ad blocking.
From a Web Publisher
I am also the owner of this very website, PC Mechanic. PC Mechanic plays a very key role in my business, and therefore a very key role in my own ability to provide for my family. If this site is not making enough money, me and my family have problems. It’s that simple. Not to mention that PCMech itself costs a good bit of coin to keep online every month. I have to pay other authors to write here. I have to pay Rich (who is responsible for most of our video content). I have to pay hosting, which isn’t cheap. The hosting bill I pay every month is more than most people pay for an apartment for a month. I am not hosted with the cheapest host in the world, but that is because anything less means this site is less accessible to you - the reader.
Advertising is very important to this site and, hence, to my business and family. Don’t I and the people who bring this site to you everyday deserve to make some money for all the effort?
Freedom of Choice
Some end users do not think there is any problem with blocking internet advertising. Here are a couple examples of comments on the AdBlocks Plus add-on for Firefox:
Blocking ads is in no way stealing. You pay for cable TV and changing the channel or walking out of the room when ads come on is not stealing.. You pay for the internet service.. therefore why should you pay for the ads that go with it? .. if you cant make money in any other way besides being an affiliate then obviously there is something wrong here… its not stealing.. its FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
I know some people have equated Adblock to stealing but I feel there is no need to justify the way I configure my own computer to browse the internet or control content that I view. Just as I filter out porn sites via Google’s safe search feature, I don’t want to see annoying ads that slow down or lock up my computer. Moreover, no one is forcing anyone to put up a website. That’s their business if they do it to get paid, but I don’t OWE them my dime.
OK, so the basic argument here is freedom of choice. I fully understand that. There is the annoyance factor, a potential security factor, and the fact that you do pay for your internet access. And, no, nobody can tell you how to configure your computer. If you choose to block advertising, that’s your call. Just like changing the channel on TV or getting up to walk out of the room.
That Doesn’t Make It Right
Now it’s time for my rant. Simply put, my opinion is that if you are viewing a website regularly while also blocking ads, you are stealing. Here’s the thing…yes, some webmasters overdo it and get overzealous with advertising. If you don’t like it, send them an email, complain, and don’t come back. THAT’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE. But, don’t keep on going to the site, consuming the content for free, eating up bandwidth and costing the owner money, while cutting him off at the legs by blocking all the ads. I’m not walking into your business and demanding free crap…why the hell are you doing it to me?
Blocking ads is no different than going to the grocery store just for the free samples. It’s really not that much different from those who work to use the government to get free handouts. A site called GoogleCache stated it this way, and I agree…
When a content publisher places ads on his/her website, it is under the assumption that he/she is bartering with you. That barter is, in exchange for glancing over the advertisements (even if for only a fraction of a second), you can read all the content he/she has created. It is that simple.Some webmasters make you barter more - flashy advertisements with pop ups and pop unders. If you think this is a raw deal, don’t trade. No, don’t steal the content without receiving the ads. That wasn’t the deal. That wasn’t the contract he/she has put forward. The deal was ads for content. You can accept or decline that single proposition.
No, It’s Unethical
There are legit complaints by end users regarding some internet advertising. Some sites abuse their users by inundating them with ads. But, it should work like the capitalist system. If you really like what the site offers, you put up with the ads. You might even send them an email and complain. But, if you can’t handle the ads, you leave. You don’t do “business” with them. The answer is NOT to keep taking the cake and refusing to eat it. As a publisher myself, I can tell you quite literally that ad blocking steals food out of the mouth of my family. I don’t say that to be dramatic. It is 100% accurate.
On the flip side, publishers and ad companies need to respect the end user. Don’t over do it. Don’t get too greedy. Don’t use questionable tactics like spyware or adware. Those things give advertising a bad name and they lead people to feel compelled to steal. But, stealing it is, nonetheless.
I would be interested in what you think. Feel free to share your opinions in the comments.
David Risley is the founder of PCMech.com. He is the brains, the thinker, the writer, the nerd.
First, I do not use any add-on ad blocker software (like you, I make my living from web site revenue). I do have both Firefox and IE set to block pop-ups, however.
I happen to agree with what you say, but I don’t agree with what you do. For instance you say “Or the sites which put a floating layer over the site which keeps you from being able to use the site itself.” and yet I frequently get an ad float down over your content prompting me to subscribe to your newsletter. How about having that slide down over the right hand nav or something rather than over what I’m reading? (You and I have discussed this in email and I know you are considering changing the way this works, and kudos to you for that consideration.)
Your site also has a pop-under, at least in IE (why I use IE to visit your site is a long story…I don’t normally use it). I find that pretty annoying as it’s one more thing I have to ‘tidy-up’ after surfing. I promise you I will never click on it, and in fact I can’t recall what is in it…I just remember always having to close that extra window after I’ve been on this site. Even if I was interested in the product, I wouldn’t click on that particular ad because the way you deliver it is so annoying to me.
Unfortunately, you and I have to live with the legacy of all the ‘bad’ advertisers that made (and still make) online ads so horrific that people were prompted to write add-ons to block them. Ideally, ads can actually add to your browsing experience if they’re relevant and don’t get in the way of reading the site. But much too often the creative for ads is crafted to deliberately irritate the user, I suppose on the assumption that negative attention is better than no attention?
A tangential observation: I have a yahoo mail accound and find the ‘new’ interface to be a bit irritating, so I was using the ‘old’ yahoo mail interface. But lately the banner ads have been so horrible on the old interface, with day-glo flashing colors that threaten to send me into a seizure. I finally gave in to the pressure and moved back to the sluggish ‘new’ interface that has much more appropriate ads. Think that was a deliberately ploy on the part of Yahoo? I sure do.
Well, let me reply directly here:
While I do find the slide-down’s a tad annoying sometimes as an end user, there is absolutely no doubt that they do work in terms of getting a user to respond. That is why I run that particular ad for the newsletter. It is cookie-controlled so that it will not appear to the same person any more than once per 24 hours. Yes, I am considering adding a longer-term CLOSE option for repeat visitors.
The pop-under comes from Tribal Fusion, most likely. I work with a number of ad networks here and I do not personally approve campaigns before they run.
I would be curious to know (via email) why you need to use IE to view this site. It does work fine under Firefox.
As a website owner, it is a balancing act. And quite frankly, I can’t always stop from doing something just because I may, at times, find it annoying. The simple fact is that some things work, others don’t, and at the end of the day I have to bring in the revenue or this site won’t be here any longer. If I ever find out that a advertiser is practicing shady tactics (like malware), I’ll kill them off in a heartbeat.
The real problem with advertising from a users perspective is how abusive it has become. I would not be using Firefox ad blocker if advertising just sat at the side of the page quietly. Instead advertising is so in your face now that it has become a miserable experience to visit most any website without some sort of advertising stopper.
I do understand the problem David and I wish there was an ideal solution. The best solution I can think of though is for advertisers to stop the in your face obnoxious ads which would encourage people to stop using the ad blockers.
David M
Another thought… What if websites had advertising rating systems? Imagine this, websites are rated on the obnoxiousness of their advertising. Lets say one through five, with five being the least obnoxious sites. Lets say someone writes ad blocking software that automatically reads a websites rating. The ad blocking software then automatically blocks all the ads in the websites with the lowest rating and allows the advertising of the better rated websites.
I think this could work as it would discourage advertisers from using the most obnoxious ads and therefore encourage them to write ads that are not so in your face….or face hving their ads blocked.
Honestly, I don’t mind advertising as long as it does not piss me off in some obnoxious way.
David M
What do you have to do to get me to visit your site regularly and use Adblock while I’m there?
It’s not that difficult. I like your site but you have a poorly coded ad(s) that plays havoc with fire fox or you could have a pop-under problem from time to time.
I would block either but the rest of your ads are safe from my install of Adblock.
The fact is, and this won’t endear me to advertisers, I no longer see most ads on web sites. It’s a learned blindness.
As for sites with intrusive ads, or any site that keeps setting off my pop-up blocker, forget it I’m not coming back (Same deal for any site that makes my security software pop-up a warning.) so I’m not going to bother blocking any ads.
I’m not impressed with cries of “stop thief!”.
Web sites created this problem with abusive advertising and adblockers are the reaction.
I understand that web publishers need ads to pay for the site. I think the question here is, when is advertising on a web page just enough or to much? To many ads will just turn people away and the web site won’t get recognition, just get a bad rap. I don’t use Ad Blocker because if I go to the same site repeatedly the ads eventually become transparent because I know where the content is.
Which also get into the cookie issue. Many people hate it just as many people don’t think there is anything wrong with it. From what I understand websites now are using cookies to show you targeted ads. If I delete the cookie from my computer, wouldn’t that be considered stealing? Thw website wouldn’t be able to show the targeted ads so the website would lose revenue.
This is a very touchy subject for many people. I hope we can all find some middle ground that everyone can be happy with.
I started using adblock a few years back when web owners and advertisers began to realize what a gold mine the net could be. Some of the ads got so bad I couldn’t even concentrate on the article I was reading. The few pop-ups and drop downs from this site don’t bother me because I really enjoy this site and the knowledge that its members and readers bring to it. I am well aware that advertisers pay the bills but I also know I’m here to learn and enhance the computer skills I have, not pretend I’m at Wal Mart on a shopping trip. To do my little part in helping this site I’ve purchased it’s products and remain a member each year and call it what you want but thats my “Freedom of Choice.”
As a very long time user of the internet, I find pop-up and pop-under style ads absolutely annoying and frustrating. Especially when I am trying to read an article on a web site and half way into the article I am distracted by a sudden floating attention getter. I have never been drawn to want to find out more about something in an obtrusive style ad (and never EVER will) but I will give you my attention if something in a non-obtrusive banner style ad is something I am interested in. I have actually clicked on banner style ads to find out more about what is offered but this is not a regular practice of mine.
I do understand that ads are a source of income for you but let me give you a view you might not have considered as it has not really taken place yet (in real life that is). Take the movie ‘Minority Report’ for example. When Tom Cruise is walking down the futuristic street and all the ads are calling out his name to fight for his attention I found this to be quite intrusive (although it was kind of cool for that brief moment that it first happens). It is very similar to the kind of ads that bombard us daily on the internet. I think if we were to face that kind of advertisement in real life while shopping it would cause many people to actually stay home (which probably would be a good thing on the pocket book when it comes to the wife and shopping). My point being that there are proven traditional ways of advertising that are VERY effective and businesses that are well known and seasoned are using them whether it be on the net or in real life shopping. If you want to make more money through advertising then think seriously about how you are affecting your traffic. If you are irritating your traffic then you won’t be making much money. If you are careful and wise with your ad content and how the ads are placed then you WILL make more money. I myself will probably be starting an online web store in the future but based on what my own experiences surfing the web I will not be using pop-up style ads on my web site. I will want to be sensitive to my customers and not anger them so that they won’t come back.
Send me my royalties when you are rich ;).
As for the ‘is using an AD blocker the same as stealing’. From a consumers point of view I would have to disagree. Am I stealing from Walmart if I choose to close my eyes while walking down their isle of advertisements? Or am I stealing if I choose to turn my head to look the other way when walking down their isles of ads? This is preposterous. I think things are really getting pretty much out of hand when this is called stealing. I have never had a business behind a TV commercial mail me a letter accusing me of stealing because I left the room during a TV commercial. The straws are getting a little short here to be grasped at. It will always come down to personal choice. Nobody has ever been able to force anyone to buy a product via advertising and I don’t believe it will ever happen. Walmart is the perfect example of a business using proven advertising principles to make money. Check out their web site. There are no pop-ups or anything obtrusive happening there. Just my 2 pennies worth.
I agree with your point of view about how important it is not to block adds. I can say that I do not personally care much about adds as long they don’t get into my way. I personally use Opera and I don’t use anything that does not normally come with it. So I am unsure if it blocks anything, but I know I see your newsletter pop-up add, I see the other adds on your page. Although I admit the newsletter is border line, the rest is fine. I say the newsletter is border line because it pops up, but when you click to close, it does easily and then ur basicly done with it.
I don’t really go to websites which cause me problems, so that may be the case, unless Spybot-SD Resident is silently blocking some of those bad processes.
As far as I am aware the income from the ads comes from peopel clicking the ads anyway, so since when I do not block ads via program, like most i ignore them completely and never click on them. Some sites really do kill your day with ads, and those ones I do not go back to. PCMech isnt too bad, i get one popup from smilie folks and a few ads inside ther forums and banners at top of pages which are easy to scroll past and ignore.
Now how about newspapers? My subscription is “subsidized” (price lowered) by revenue generated by advertisers - am I stealing if I don’t read every ad? Am I stealing from the businesses that are placing the ads - in exchange for the newspaper, am I tacitly agreeing to read their ads?
Guys, the issue is not about viewing the ad, it is about blocking it. Not reading the ad is completely different than outright blocking it. Many sites earn revenue when the ad is delivered, and that can happen whether you actually read the ad or not. So, I’m certainly not saying anybody has to read or click on ads. All I am saying is that it is wrong to block them from ever being delivered to your browser.
I completely disagree, I think if someone goes out of there way to not view the adds it is his right. Personally, it doesn’t matter what the add is, no matter WHAT it says, I will not click on it and view it and purchase anything that company is offering.
By blocking them you could say I am cheating the website I am visiting. But that is very inaccurate. If anything I am increasing the percentage of people who click on the add after seeing it
Example: If 1000 people view the add, but only 50 people click that is a 5% click ratio, but if 500 people see it, and only 40 people click on it that is a 8% click ratio, much better… That is 490 people (49%) who would have never clicked on it that you will not annoy.
With these higher numbers it would be up to the advertisers to simple give you more on your PPV/PPC adds.
The consensus seems to be that advertising is okay as long as it is not too distracting or annoying. Given this, it seems it is the responsibility of the website owner to screen out annoying ads. This at least could partially solve the problem.
The other alternative to ad blockers would be a system where a viewer has to pay a few pennies per visit in order to pay the expenses of running a website. Eventually this could happen if people get too crazy with the ad blockers.
Personally, I would rather see advertising sitting quietly at the side of the page than to have to pay on a per visit basis.
I have to say, I have a serious problem with your attitude in this piece, as exemplified by the start of the GoogleCache quote;
“When a content publisher places ads on his/her website, it is under the assumption that he/she is bartering with you. That barter is, in exchange for glancing over the advertisements (even if for only a fraction of a second), you can read all the content he/she has created. It is that simple.”
The owner of a website can “assume” anything the hell he or she wants. No visitor to their website is obliged to give these assumptions the slightest bit of consideration.
The World Wide Web is a Public Domain arena. Anyone can publish stuff to it, anyone can access it. Accept that, or don’t run a website.
You have NO RIGHT to publish material to a Public Domain and then expect ANY sort of recompense for it. You can’t just give something away, and then go around telling people they have to pay you somehow for it after all.
If you don’t wish to offer this site to those who don’t want to pay for it, put some sort of entry-system on and charge them a nominal fee for the resources
With respect, it appears that you’re attempting to make those who visit your website responsible for your own problems. For instance, I’m very sorry that your family is apparently unable to survive without the added income from the ads on this site - but if this really IS the case, then you need to find yourself a more reliable source of income. Please don’t give me a sob-story and expect me to feel sorry for you on this basis.
Nobody asked you to put a site up in the Public Domain; nobody’s “stealing” anything from you, because you’ve freely made the choice to run this site and freely made the choice of what content to put up.
But please understand, the World Wide Web IS NOT a commercial venture. You have no implied or otherwise-stated “right” to make money out of it. Quite frankly, I wish people would STOP using the WWW as just *another* excuse to make themselves richer. Can’t we have just ONE media that isn’t totally taken up with people trying to sell us something?
All I can suggest, if this issue is really bothering you, is to find and install software which will detect when somebody is connecting to your site using a browser which includes ad-blockers, and automatically disconnect them/prevent them from receiving the rest of the content. Then nobody will be able to “steal” from you if they don’t wish to view ads while they’re looking at your content.
For now, though, I’ll solve this problem in respect of my own respect by doing what you suggest, and not coming back to a site that insists I must look at pointless advertisements for products which there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER I am going to buy in order to browse it’s content. But make no mistake, here, YOU are the one wasting MY time and thus stealing from ME in this equation. - had I realised your attitude from the start, I would never have bothered clicking your link to begin with. If you’re not happy to have people on your site, don’t put it in the public domain. If you put it in the Public Domain, keep your whining about people “stealing” off of you to yourself.
Khrys,
First, thanks for an obviously passionate comment. But, obviously, I have a few things I feel compelled to correct.
First, you seem to confuse the idea of publically ACCESSIBLE content and “public domain”. That is a false comparison. The content on this site is publically ACCESSIBLE, but if it were public domain, anybody could take it and do whatever they want with it. Also, if it were public domain, the public would own this site and would foot the rather substantial bill to pay for it.
Obviously that is not the case. This site is no more public domain than the content of CNN. CNN owns the content they put out just as I own the content I put out.
Secondly, where did you get the idea that the WWW is not a commercial venture? Again, you make a bold and false leap of logic. The internet is simply a connection of websites. Each website, individually, is controlled by it’s owner and made available on their own terms, whether commercial or not. Being that I own this website, I have the right to make money from it if I wish to. For you to say I don’t have that right is complete nonsense.
If you think this site is public domain, you are more than welcome to pay the 4-figures monthly it takes to run the place and make it available to people like yourself.
Ok, so I DID come back; I saw your response in my e-mail, so I figured I’d follow up. Don’t worry, I’m not blocking anything this time. :oP
Ok, so you’re right - I AM mixing up the two terms, public domain and publically accessible, my apologies. Your correction is valid, of course, but changes nothing about my point; you have chosen to make this site “publically accessible”, it shows up on many search engines, there’s there is no warning or way of knowing that this site contains ads until you get here. Hence I, as a browser, have no way of making an informed choice about whether to view/download ads or not.
The fact is, I DO NOT wish to view, download or otherwise encourage internet advertising in any way, shape, or form, at this or any other time. EVER. That, surely, is MY right?
So sure; if it really means that much to you, I WON’T come back to the site, if the price is having to download ads of any kind. But bear in mind, you give no warning of that and make no attempt to prevent people from accessing the site unless they agree to view the ads. I’m sorry, but there is no “assumed barter” agreement between you and me, just because I’ve stumbled across your website. If you want me to agree to something, you table that agreement in some way and give me a chance to consider it - you can’t just decide that the agreement is valid. If you CAN… then please understand that I’m writing this under the assumption that we’re actually bartering, and that you now own me £100 for the pleasure of wasting your time reading my rants.
As you haven’t paid me this yet, is it now ok for me to go around telling people you’re some sort of thief…?
As for your second point - I’m sorry, I have no idea why you’re arguing with me about the WWW not being a commercial venture. You know very well what it is, you go on - AFTER, I might add, accusing me of making a “bold and false leap of logic” - to describe quite correctly what it is;
“The internet is simply a connection of websites. Each website, individually, is controlled by it’s owner and made available on their own terms, whether commercial or not.”
Ergo, the internet is NOT a commercial venture. It’s simply a connection of websites. Yes, your own site may very well BE a commercial venture. That it your choice and, as you say, your right.
But whilst you do indeed have the right to do whatever you want with your site, you have NO implied or stated right to make money out of “The Internet”. It is NOT a commercial venture. It was not set up for commercial purposes. There is no agreement anywhere that says that anybody has a “right” to make money from it. If you can, all well and good - but please don’t act as if that’s what it’s there for. It’s not. It never was.
A whole bunch of people like yourself have slowly turned up over the years and simply decided that they’re gonna use it in order to make money. Well, good luck to you. But don’t act like the rest of us are doing something wrong by deciding that we DON’T want the internet to turn into just another corporate-controlled medium, awash with pointless advertisements for products we’re never gonna buy. Nobody asked for adverts on the internet. Nobody HAS to view them if they don’t want to.
I guess all I’m really trying to say is, unless you’re making some sort of effort to keep people out who don’t want to view your ads, or giving some sort of warning of your policy, you really shouldn’t be going around calling people thieves just because they use ad blockers.
If you put some sort of agreement clause on your entry page, or perhaps got hold of the software I mentioned earlier which checks for blocked ads and refuses connection to your site if it finds somebody running a blocker… THEN you would be well within your rights to accuse people who took measures to ignore or circumvent your procedures of “stealing”.
Otherwise, you’re making no attempt to stop people coming here and yet ranting at them for making an informed choice about what content to view while they’re here. Which, if you’ll forgive me, sounds a little disingenuous.
For what it’s worth, I think you have a great site. You obviously know your stuff. But if the price of being here is really gonna be downloading ads, I’d really rather keep searching the web until I find someone prepared to offer advice without advertising.
Of course, it’ll take me a while to FIND such a site, because the many that are out there are becoming increasingly buried amidst the hundreds of sites which, like this one, are covered in advertising.
But of course, I’M not about to accuse anyone of “stealing” due to the time I’ll waste picking through irrelevent sites…
Best wishes,
–
Khrys.
I think the KEYWORD here is “STEALING”, the term has been overused by the RIAA, MPAA and BSA because of piracy. Now everytime someone seems to loose income its a STEAL.
I will always use ad-blocking, simply because I’m not interested in ANYTHING that an advertising site offers.
Many companies set their firewalls to block advertising sites, simply to preserve bandwidth.
If that means you no longer can make a living then so be it. Do something else. Surely the site won’t be missed, there are bazillions of sites as good or better, then there are blogs and forums with much more valuable information.
BTW many sites STEAL from advertising sites, simply because they force the reader to click on an advert. The user doesn’t even read it, they just click it to close, yet the site gets paid for it. Now who’s stealing?
Me again,
Ok, I wasn’t intending to start a jihad, here - in reference to some of the “Posted Comments” appearing on my e-mail notifications which don’t actually seem to be part of this thread.
To make it clear; yes, this IS a very good site. In my opinion, it IS probably worth paying some money to come here; the advice given, that I’ve read so far, is extremely proficient. In fact; now that I KNOW about Mr Risley’s views on the matter, I feel less inclined to actually block the ads (I haven’t done so, on any of my re-visits).
As Stolisnaya says above; the key issue here, for me at least, is the concept of “Stealing”. The owners/operators of this site making money from it, is not in itself a problem. Having unobtrusive banner and thumbnail ads is not, in itself, a problem.
But this attitude - as I said, extolled by the Google AdSense quote - that in some way a site owner has the right to “assume” some sort of contract between themselves and whoever views their pages, and then take the attitude that people are “stealing” if they don’t implicitly agree to the unspoken, unwritten and unpublished terms of this “contract”.
If I invited you around to my house for dinner, would you then feel obliged to honour some “agreement” I decided that you were implicitly accepting when you walked through the door?
Another example, then - let’s say that the owner of a site had chosen to make money by displaying links to porn sites - using pornographic thumbnails and banners.
Are parents, using “Parental Controls” to screen out this sort of thing, also “stealing” from the site owner? Or does the parent have the right to make their own moral call in this instance?
And if the second answer… why do those of us who fundamentally object to advertising on the internet not get the same right to make that choice…?
Once again, this is a great site. Best of luck with it. :o)
Best wishes,
–
Khrys.
I will continue to block all banners, tracking scripts, interstitials, countdown timers, floating ads, preroll and postroll video ads on every web site I ever visit, forever.
Here’s to system wide ad blocking.
Long Live Ad Muncher!
To Khrys,
When you go into someone’s house, you abide by their rules. If they make a custom of taking shoes off and leaving them at the door, you do the same.
When you go to a different country, you give leeway for their culture. If you don’t, you might even break the law.
When you go to a website, especially one that is serving the purpose of bringing in revenue for a family, and one that offers LOADS of content that could otherwise be very expensive, we need to ask ourselves “Do we have the right to not abide by the rules of the site?”
This isn’t meant to be scathing, just realize what you are walking into.
To Stolisnaya,
You can’t ask DR to do something else. This website is his baby. Just read his short bio down and to the right of this block. He “eats and breathes the internet and technology”. You think you can come to a man’s website where he does the business he loves and tell him to change his life? Get real!
Mr. Risley and others believe that this site can give something valuable to people. Considering the content, the price of a premier membership is mere pennies. The cost to you having to look at an ad for a split second is nothing. The only reason it is so obtrusive is because you make it out to be. The site administrators aren’t out to piss you off with ads. They are out to offer you something you might need/want, and a FREE newsletter isn’t something you can complain about.
Basically, you are entering the PCMech office when you come on here. If you don’t do business by the rules of that office, well, it’s your conscience. There comes a time when you need to take some responsibility and stop heaping it on others. When you come on tis site that offers a service, you’d do better than to take advantage of it.
[...] Is Blocking Ads Ethical? Sometimes using the internet raises some ethics questions. I gave my view on one of them. [...]
When you say that you “do not personally approve the campaigns before they run”, that is my main source of frustration. Basically, not saying this applies to you, probably doesn’t, but many webmasters say “We subscribe to this company. If an ad puts malware on your computer, it isn’t our fault. We don’t pick the ads. But, if you don’t downloads the ads, its stealing.” Basically, many view online advertising as a tool to get them money at no cost. Remember TANSTAAFL. You can’t get ad money for free. If you manage to get paid for putting ads that you pick up on your page, Adblock doesn’t block it. It’s fine. So, if you claim stealing, make sure that you put time into picking the ads. It’s not stealing if you are not putting effort into it. That’s why print ads are effective: the companies that run them (NOT separate ad companies) have full responsibility. If there is an ad for a fake bank, say, the magazine/newspaper/whatever has FULL responsibility. Not so on the Web. The webmaster does NOT normally take responsibility.
Also, in print media, the ads are RELEVANT. In WWII Magazine (print version), the ads are for tours of battlefields, history books and videos, memorabilia, etc. But on your page, I saw an ad for a car. A CAR. On a *PC* page.
Finally, am I stealing if I am blind and so my browser doesn’t download images? Am I stealing if I’m at school and cross-site scripting (no external ad scripts) is blocked? Why should I have to have my browser download ads? You should (and I really, really hope that someone who calls their website ‘PC Mech’ knows) that an external stylesheet, or an external script, or a .swf, or an image, or anything from another site are NOT in the page source code. They are external files. All ads from another source are therefore seperate downloads. My browser doesn’t have to download them. AdBlock tells Firefox not to download the ad. Since when were webmasters allowed to force something to happen on MY computer? You do what you want on the server. I may do WHATEVER I want with it once my brwser saves it to my computer to display it. Face it. You have NO RIGHT to control MY computer. I can download EXACTLY what I want. I’m just excersising my right of complete control over Firefox to tell it not to download anything from, say, kontera.com. You may not, can not, and should not force me to. If you do, then you’re stealing my computer just as much as botnet operators would. Why should my browser have to listen to your links to other content (such as images)? When did I give you my computer?
Also, you do not have the right to profitability. You have the complete rigght to support yourself and a family, but you may not steal my time to get money. Solicit donations. Products - good idea. I’m fine if YOU pick the ads. But some of your ads so far have been irrelevant (car ad) and obnoxious (those ads on text that pop up when you hover over the text, courtesy of kontera.com). Also, there are too many video ads. If you tone down on those, the ads may be fine. Now, though, they are just annoying.