Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Aug 2010 14:02 UTC
Internet & Networking We're still in the slow news period, so let's talk about something we discussed before: blocking advertisements on websites. Up until, well, today, I didn't block ads - not because of some ethical objection or whatever, but simply because I couldn't be bothered to setup AdBlock. Today, after taking a closer look at some of the websites I frequent, I decided to take the plunge and install AdBlock on all my machines. The following set of screenshots should pretty much explain why.
Thread beginning with comment 437286
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
.
by Icaria on Wed 18th Aug 2010 15:00 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

Flashblock, sure. Dialup, sure. Mobile browsers, sure but on your broadband-enabled desktop, it's a bit of a dick move to deprive the sites you frequent of their largely exclusive source of income. Especially when, even if you don't consider the content, you're still leeching their bandwidth. I used adblock up until I actually thought it through. I use flashblock simply as a matter of necessity. I didn't want to be the kind of hypocrite who groaned about paywalls popping up, when I helped to create the problem.

Reply Score: 3

RE: .
by reez on Wed 18th Aug 2010 15:38 in reply to "."
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

(...) you're still leeching their bandwidth. I used adblock up until I actually thought it through.(...)

I also thought about that. However, if they don't want to pay for their bandwidth why do they put up tons of content.

Yeah, I know they have to live from something and I disable Adblock on sites I visit regularly. What I really hate are flash ads and sites that have mainly advertisements without content. That's why I like it. Stripping of advertisements makes it easier to find the actual content ;)

On the long run I am afraid this will cause tons of advertisements in videos (and flash).

It's really a pretty hard topic.

Oh, currently I have no adblock at all, because it doesn't seem to work well using Firefox 4 beta. Most people install it when ads become really annoying. Sounds and movements when you want to read an article. That's stupid!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: .
by AdamW on Wed 18th Aug 2010 18:53 in reply to "."
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"Mobile browsers, sure but on your broadband-enabled desktop, it's a bit of a dick move to deprive the sites you frequent of their largely exclusive source of income."

Not for old crotchety bastards, it ain't. Those of us who were online in 1992 remember when no-one but ISPs made any money on the internet, and yet we still ran web sites (or, y'know, gopher...) and talked to each other and stuff. My internet's never had any ads on it, thanks.

I provide the bandwidth and content for my blog myself, and offer it to everyone gratis. There's no ads on it. Reciprocally, I'll read your content the same way, ta. Works for everyone, in the end.

Reply Parent Score: 6