Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[napster100]

And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.

High quality or not, I've never clicked an ad in my life, and I'm not about to start to. If adblock users are stealing from the site's owners, then they are also stealing from their users, which brings this quote around "do not do unto others". I view all adverts as malware, malware is designed to manipulate or change things on a computer, and that is exactly what it does to a webpage.

 

[byebye1]

this article alone will stop me from ever coming back to this site

 

[draphius]

such a joke. if were stealing what are we getting from them? i havent made a dime off blocking any ads. plus ive never bought one thing from an ad online in the entirety of my life on the internet which goes back to the beginning of the internet.im not gonna change now.

 

[jldevoy]

Maybe if Google et al didn't track your every movement then allow every shyster willing to pay to target you with ads people wouldn't feel the need to block them. The advertisers have gotten so intrusive that some pages now default to auto running video ads with sound enabled which just p*sses me off.

 

[garryash]

I use this site for the information and help from fellow users. I have no interest in adverts as If I am thinking of buying something I will do a search on the internet for such. Not look at adverts. If TOMS got rid of the advertising then I for one would willing pay a modest annual fee to use the site providing the type of content remained as it is now and was not hi-jacked by companies putting their ads in disguised as readers comments!!!

 

[galeener]

If they put them on a page and not in the middle obscuring what I want to look at I might look at them. Forcing me to look at them before being able to see what I chose to see is the issue I have a problem with. It should be my choice not and not forced upon me. So when it is I just skip them and or what I was going to look at not like I can't find it some where else. This then makes me rethink the site with all the advertisements if I should visit there at all.

 

[Charm3d]

Man we are bombarded with ads every page on every site. You wander why people are sick to death of them. 99% of advertising is complete garbage I never want to see. A lot of it is selling propaganda to people and slowing the browsers down and closing pop ups adds to rsi.

I don't even watch TV because I get sick of ads all the time. man it's come to the stage where it seems you get just as much ad time as you do the actual show. Advertising is noise and jumbled crap we are sick of seeing and hearing.

It's really great when you are on the net looking up stuff and all of a sudden a friggen popup ad starts screaming though the speaks. Advertising companies are like finger nails down a black board.

If they where everywhere all the time bombarding us. Then maybe people would not mind them from time to time. But the world in drowning in advertising.

Even on facebook some asshole posts some interesting posts and every page has at least 50% advertisement. Then you have other sites post cute little vids from YouTube, but first you have to watch an ad.

Consumers are sick to death of being bombarded, overwhelmed and screamed at by adverts. I can imagine hell would be a place that is 24-7 non stop advertising.

 

[TheAC]

On this page alone there are 12, no... Now it's 14 adverts.

So please don't say there are no adverts on the forums.

 

[gekn76]

This is by far one of the worst arguments I have stumbled upon this year!

Ads are by definition spam today, there are next to none banners that intentionally promotes the "deal" behind the banner ad. Even worst is when companies tries to camouflage their message as a real article/story that is hustling on a new lvl. Seriously though companies existed before internet ads was invented and this is starting to sound like the music business frustration about piracy, in the end it is very simple, provide good to decent content and you are worthy to subscribe/read etc. But WE the readers decides what we wan't and HOW we get it COMPANY provides what WE want not what COMPANY want's.

 

[hst101rox]

"Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth. "
Every time an Ad pops up or a banner ad animates, my computer consumes more power and causes more pollution CAUSING YOUR BABY TO INHALE MORE EMISSIONS from the partial non-renewable power sources where I live.

Happy?
Adblock plus FTW, sorry.

 

[vsdagama]

Time to reload this page without adblock enabled: 56 seconds
(untill the thing stopped circling and the partners sidebar was loaded in)

Time to reload the page with adblock: 6 seconds

'nuff said.

 

[lumankicks]

There is a case of over advertising. Like for instance the "answers" websites that have well over 30 advertisements on one screen causing my 10 meg internet to slow down to 56k speeds.

Or a certain *ahem* tech news site that installs spyware hotlinks into its articles everytime you visit it.

 

[alextheblue]

First of all, I do agree that Purch should take command of their advertising again.In the short term this will hurt them. However once ads improve to a level more users find acceptable, they could appeal to those users to stop blocking the ads. Many will still block the ads and scream entitlement (everything on the internet should be free somehow without any revenue! yarr!) but a lot of people would come around and whitelist them.

If you must, find a new way to make a buck.

Nobody like ads. I sure don't. But guess what? You might not like the alternative - how about you can't read any articles until you shell out that buck yourself? Can you imagine the outrage?

It's MY computer and MY network. If I want to see ads, that's MY choice. But I'm not going to waste my bandwidth on crap I don't want. Period. End of story.

Your network, huh? That ceases to be true the moment you load up a website that isn't owned by you. Now it's not only your network, your bandwidth. Now its theirs as well, and their content too (it costs money to run this site, including costs not related to the site itself such as employing reviewers). THG and sites like it are ONLY free because of the ads. If people like me who whitelist Tom's all blocked the ads like you did, they'd have to start charging money... or worse. "This review brought to you by Biostar!" Can you freaking imagine how ugly that could get?

 

[McHenryB]

First of all, I do agree that Purch should take command of their advertising again.In the short term this will hurt them. However once ads improve to a level more users find acceptable, they could appeal to those users to stop blocking the ads. Many will still block the ads and scream entitlement (everything on the internet should be free somehow without any revenue! yarr!) but a lot of people would come around and whitelist them.

If you must, find a new way to make a buck.

Nobody like ads. I sure don't. But guess what? You might not like the alternative - how about you can't read any articles until you shell out that buck yourself? Can you imagine the outrage?

It's MY computer and MY network. If I want to see ads, that's MY choice. But I'm not going to waste my bandwidth on crap I don't want. Period. End of story.

Your network, huh? That ceases to be true the moment you load up a website that isn't owned by you. Now it's not only your network, your bandwidth. Now its theirs as well, and their content too (it costs money to run this site, including costs not related to the site itself such as employing reviewers). THG and sites like it are ONLY free because of the ads. If people like me who whitelist Tom's all blocked the ads like you did, they'd have to start charging money... or worse. "This review brought to you by Biostar!" Can you freaking imagine how ugly that could get?

Voting up your own answer? That's a bit desperate, isn't it?

 

[apoapoapoapo]

Turn on Firefox's Tracking Protection : webpages load time of 44% improvement :
http://ieee-security.org/TC/SPW2015/W2SP/papers/W2SP_2015_submission_32.pdf

 

[shloader]

I'm (kinda) sorry but, no. All the sudden I need an F-No key on my keyboard. F-No. The top rated comment is top rated for a reason; it reflects a lot of what we're all thinking. I'd go further to point out your swinging-for-the-fenses approach with this article. This is the Mike Tyson of Op-eds, starts wild and tactless and unsustainable in the long run, and I was hooked on reading it do to the offensive nature of your approach (I really thought this was a satire article). What I anticipated the top comment to be met all expectations (we thank you, OnkeCannabia). You, Avram, intentionally make no mention of the direction taken by web ads in recent years, or the general risk involved with them. That omission is almost as bad as your other tactics... food from a child's mouth. Oh please. "Remaining content sites will be run by hobbyists"... That's a bad thing? Hey genius, that's how sites like Toms and AnandTech STARTED OUT! You're saying it could go back to that?!?! Say it ain't so. With advocates like you flying a banner for the marketers I really hope that happens.

I'm going to go tell a friend to install AdBlock on her web browser.

 

[spankmon]

I don't want to hurt Tom's. This is one of the few websites that is truly deserving of a handsome profit in my opinion. But advertisers deserve to crumble... they are the guys who pee on the toilet seats in public restrooms... they create the ugliest, most offensive graffiti in the world. Ad-blocking seems to be the most effective way of fighting these advertisers, and I'm not surrendering my most powerful weapon against them.

Would I subscribe to Tom's if it were vacant of ads? Probably, if the price was fair. Would I donate to Tom's if they provided a button? Probably not. Tom's shouldn't have to beg for money to feed their children. The advertisers are the villains, not me, not Tom's. Tom's is just dumb for over-doing the ad graffiti.

 

[XaveT]

While I understand Tom's position on this issue, I have to agree with the many commentators before me. Ads are annoying, and annoying things should be blocked. I loved the phrase "Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth." This is completely hogwash, and I really think everyone knows it. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Exaggerate much?

The problem is that on most online sites, the content isn't worth paying for, so why would we look at it if it isn't free? So you develop ads to try to make money. I've been to so many sites that are 90% ad, 10% content. Adblock makes these sites more useful. If you want ad revenue, be awesome, and people will whitelist you if you matter. If you don't, you'll die. Ad blockers aren't going away.

Ads do not make a site. Ads try to make lots of money for doing nothing save existing. Stop complaining.

 

[amonkey]

Toms Guide has quickly turned into click bait trash, with the quality of articles at this calibre.
Please explain why blocking an ad is theft when no monetary or goods are stolen?

 

[aborto]

Yea, I have some sympathy, not for the advertisers, they can all go bankrupt for all I care but the website operators don't have many good options.

Unfortunately that sympathy does not extend to me letting your malware ridden, performance ruining, space wasting, flashy, noisy, poor taste adverts through.

They are now by a huge margin the worst vector for malware and viruses in my experience and "just use antivirus" is terrible advice, even the best AV suites still let several percent of all infections though while blocking ads is so effective you very nearly don't need AV.

 

[aborto]

Yea, I have some sympathy, not for the advertisers, they can all go bankrupt for all I care but the website operators don't have many good options.

Unfortunately that sympathy does not extend to me letting your malware ridden, performance ruining, space wasting, flashy, noisy, poor taste adverts through.

They are now by a huge margin the worst vector for malware and viruses in my experience and "just use antivirus" is terrible advice, even the best AV suites still let several percent of all infections though while blocking ads is so effective you very nearly don't need AV.

 

[samlarz13]

Hey with this mentality owning a DVR is like stealing from every major TV show producer in the world. You know, because you're like stealing their ad revenue and fast forwarding through the ads. Or having sun visors in your car to block out the view of billboards is theft. C'mon, like seriously? You're going to act like web pages are going to starve out. This is ridiculous propaganda. In fact, it only invokes more hatred for the use of ads and more infatuated with my ad blocker.

 

[Curls]

Why is it our fault? Advertisements pushed us into using AD-Block. I'm using AD-Block to avoid my computer from receiving viruses, spyware, and other pesky things that'll damage MY pc, the item that I PAID FOR. Of course I'm going to use AD-Block to protect my computer. Since AD-Block is so "dangerous" then lets write an article about how virus protection programs is ""theft"" or """illegal.""" Stupid article. And then, you add about how blocking advertisements causes children not to have food in their mouth. Stupid. If you want us to stop using AD-Block how about providing advertisements that won't slap us in the face and fill up a webpage with irrelevant ads in every website we go to, and providing ads that we won't have to worry about getting malware from it or spyware.

 

[somebodyspecial]

It's not a few moments of your time, it's 18-20 minutes per hour of TV. So I guess I'll steal BACK all the moments I can from here on out. Maybe you shouldn't have gotten so GREEDY with my time and I'd be more forgiving. But no you had to push it to the max to the point of wasting 1/3 of every hour I spend in front of the TV. Now I watch netflix etc...LOL. Stick it. Get a real job. Then you'll get food back in your mouth...ROFL.

 

[Kuriente]

Blocking adds is only 'stealing' in a very indirect and subjective way and I totally disagree with the implications of this article.

Simply not using an add blocker is attempting to fix a non-linear problem with a linear solution. You're thinking, "add revenue is dropping.. add block software use is on the rise.. the problem is add block software.." Wrong. You already know why people use add blockers which takes you to the root of the problem. To resolve a non-linear problem you must use a non-linear solution. You must address the root of the problem. I use add blockers because of the annoying adds you mentioned in your article. Fix THAT problem and the add block problem you experience will resolve itself.

Now, you may ask, "how can we keep websites from using annoying advertisements?" One solution could be legislation which bans certain styles of adds but I'm not a fan of that approach. Not only does the government seem to overstep its role and create problems while attempting to fix others, the internet is also a multinational entity. This is not a job of a 'country'.

I prefer a more free-market approach. I imagine an add blocker which could be cloud based. If I experience problems with adds on a website I click a button to block it for a set period of time. This action could also submit my 'vote' to the cloud and if enough negative votes were received for a specific website it could fall into an auto-block list for a certain amount of time. If THAT type of add blocker was widely used it would pressure add creators and web hosts to get rid of annoying adds and for websites which aren't annoying about adds (i.e. tomshardware) there would be nothing to worry about. This solution could not only solve the problem for all of us but would help build a better internet experience in general.