Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the major problems is when sites don't vet the ads they display on their own site. If you are going to allow people to sell homeopathic remedies through ads on your site (for example), then I don't see any reason why I shouldn't block it. Same goes for "get thin fast" nonsense and the odd "the ____ don't want me to tell you this information" ads. Show quality ads that pertain to things you guys have tested and LIKE and we'll be more open to whitelisting the site.

Also, "Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth."

Really THW? You're going with the "if you don't agree with me you hate kids" approach?

Improve your ad content and more people will whitelist you. It's not an ultimatum, it's just being realistic. An Op-Ed isn't going to solve your problems. You guys need to find different ways to monetize if ads aren't working. Take Linus Tech Tips for example. He vets his ads and puts them DIRECTLY into the videos and bypasses the youtube ad system. He also keeps it short and sweet so people see the products as supporting the content they love as opposed to being a barrier to the content. Hell, I'd be more open to purchasing those products too.
 
Furthermore, I've noticed more sites creating EXTREMELY intrusive ads for their mobile sites to the point that 40% of the display is covered in ads. Often times the X is intentionally hard to press so you end up accidentally clicking the ad. Yes, we know it's on purpose. To make things even worse, performance is SUBSTANTIALLY impacted by these ads and it is noticeably faster once they have been removed. So, whereas I would just use Chrome because I like it, I end up using firefox with adblock installed to view those sites just so it's bearable.
 
Address bandwidth-cap issues by requiring ads be limited to text and occasional still pictures; there's no way to zero that, but it can be cut way down into the "tolerable" range. Finally, do not make other site functionality, including navigation, dependent on whether ads have loaded or been clicked.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is possible, but if you can detect that someone is on a cell network and not WiFi on a mobile device, you should either completely disable the ads (it still draws in readers that likely use other devices) or make sure they are extremely efficient from a data point of view. And don't make the flippin' ads STAY on the sides of the screen, let them scroll with the content. We only have 4-5" of useable screen real estate to work with!
 
Advertising makes communism sound like a much better system.
I'd rather look at statues of Lenin and Stalin than ads.

Every child that is starving (and dies) helps protect the Earth's environment.
 
Can you imagine how fast the internet would be if no ads were ever transmitted?
Click to expand...

Our 1997 Pentium 166Mhz MMX systems would fly on dial up modem Internet access and a 486 computer would be workable.If you needed to watch Youtube or Hulu a 800 Mhz Pentium III system would be all that you would need
 
I think this article is attempting to troll everyone... When I reinstall windows and launch a web browser, advertisements slow down the entire browsing experience. Adblock is required to enjoy the internet. I just adblock everything, and could care less about its effects on websites revenue. If someone has content worth purchasing, I would probably buy it, but the vast majority of websites are based on free, public information. Reviewing a piece of tech is hardly difficult and their are endless amounts of people who will do it for free. If tomsguide died, we would just move on to the next free website that replaces it (which will also be adblocked).
 
There's extensive statistics of clicks vs views, dropping prices of ads, etc. The most important stat (from the heading) IMHO, the percentage of users using adblocker is conveniently ignored. This article is a scare tactic.
 
Adverts are intrusive and can "f" off as far as I am concerned.
I don't use use ad blocker on youtube but I do skip the damn ads, I think I will install ad blocker now.
Instead I donate/gift a small amount of money usually $5 to my youtubers I follow and also buy their t shirts and stickers to help support them!
Screw your ads they don't work on everyone. I'd rather pay/gift a small fee or buy merchandise.
 
I really dont agree with the point of view presented in this article.
It looks like a desperate call for help. You see the free market dictates, that there is always someone who can replace you. Who can do better than you. So if you as a site or person cannot adapt to the current events or trends, you will be eliminated and someone else will take your place with some other added value. So the main point is that not you but we should decide what is acceptable and what is not. If marketers were so invasive to push us to the limit, and let us prefer the ad block feature (added value in the moment for us) we will use it. If add would be less invasive (no popups, no fake stuff, no toolbars, etc.) there would be no need for us to use it. Now our mentality is set that popups and adds are bad (from a point of reader) since they disturb you. So you as a site will have to figure it out in a different way. If you will try to monetize your service, your views might drop since not everyone is willing to pay for news. So if you wont adapt maybe some other site will find a way to do it and we will shift there. And the market will stay competitive.

Ps: sorry for my bad english and
major dislike for this forced article...
Ello
 
I agree with this. However Youtube's add every 5 minutes is a bit lame when you get the same add over, and over, and over. I would prefer to watch add(s) at the beginning of the video, or at the end.
 
Obviously this is not only a biased article but a very, very propagandistic one.
This is the same argument as "piracy is stealing" one, that has been debated for so long.
There is a reason the word Piracy exists. there is a reason ad-block as a word exists.
You dont see any news saying "Hackers managed to draw funds from..."
Its always "Hackers stole".
We understand very well the definition of the word "to steal", and its illegal with jail time penalty.

So write all the things you want, you are just showing us your real cards.
I don't need a girl telling me what to wear, society telling me what to like, politicians telling me what problems I have and I certainly don't need a website to tell me what they consider stealing.

People might be stupid enough to believe this article, but not those that frequent Tomshardware.
I am impressed that someone has the balls to write an article like this....

I gotta hand it to him, this is some first class, major league BS. You have to stand in AWE as George Carlin would say.
 
I find this article ironic as it was the Toms Hardware site that pushed me over the edge to install AdBlock Plus in the first place. Adverts that take over the entire page, that can't be stopped/skipped until they've finished, do not attract my attention in any form that comes out well for either the product being advertised or the site running the advert. It was either install AdBlock Plus or simply stop visiting Toms Hardware completely. A chose the former.
 
I use windows hosts file to block connections to ad servers. plain and simple. just keep it updated and it will not let your browser(and pc) connect to any unwanted servers.
 
And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.
Click to expand...

Umm.. which sites are those? Cause I'm looking at the sidebar here, and it's not tom's.
Click to expand...

Duh! he's talking about those almost-uncompressed, full HD, crisp and clear ads that play smoothly right before you start watching the video you actually want to on youtube and stutter every 5 seconds.
 
You could have argued your points better, but given the position taken I doubt it would have convinced anyone even then.

One huge gap in your logic, and a key piece of the ad revenue puzzle you ignore is the responsibility of advertisers (and the websites who do business with them) to first and foremost make certain that all content, especially advertising, is actually safe and free of malware, viruses and any other exploits that would place a web visitor at risk.

Until advertisers find a way to adequately police themselves, I am not "stealing" when I place a wholesale stop to potential attacks on my systems and confidential data.

Another glaring omission of this article is the complete ignorance it implies of the most basic tenet of advertising: make it INTERESTING and make it RELEVANT to me, the consumer the advertiser would like to reach.

If something meets these criteria, then there will be no need to jam them down my throat, and in fact, I might actually decide to take the bait and click.

 
Cable TV started because people were irritated by watching ads on TV, now Cable TV is even worse then over the air TV. Why not just stop making TV shows and bombard us with Ads 24-7.

I don't want to see your ads. If I want to buy something I will search for it and read reviews.

These ads at the beginning of videos are even worse.
 
A website chooses to operate based on ad revenue, not the user. The user has no obligation to view them. I can see that Tom's Hardware has practically disabled the back feature, a clever way to increase actually clicking on the webpage to navigate which also increases the chance of clicking on the numerous ads instead. The ads are also placed strategically so they may accidentally be clicked. This article is just another 'clever' way Tom's Hardware is trying to get more ads into your experience, though it may have backfired.

I don't blame Tom's Hardware for doing what they do, but at least call it like it is. Deceptions and slippery slopes like not being able to feed mouths is just patronizing to your readers.
 
I think if a site is free and i have to watch a 15 second clip to spend time on that page, that is fine... but not every single page, or every time i press next... or the sidway arrows... one ad per site visit per... *shrugs* hour is good enough for me.
You tube, I don't mind "watching" a 15 second clip per video... but any longer and i will usually skip it...
 
explain to me how am I the one who is the thief and how am I the one who is stealing when YOU are the one jamming your own agenda (ad, service, product, pop-up, audio, video, etc) down my throat?

am I supposed to ALLOW you to jam your crap down my throat?

am I supposed to ALLOW you to club me to death in my own home because that's what you want to do?

why does YOUR choice trump MY choice, when the activity is happening on MY premises?

if your ads are junk, why am I responsible for watching them? why am I responsible for ensuring that you or whoever makes awful obnoxious intrusive unsafe ads CAN CONTINUE TO WORK TO MAKE THOSE ADS?

my money being spent is a REWARD. I reward those who do the right thing at the right time. you don't get to complain that I am withholding my reward to you because you make junk content.
 
"And there's no place for ads that spread malware — a problem easily avoided if you use antivirus software" - you've got to be joking. Malware is *not* easily avoided for the majority of the population who is not technically minded. Try spending your afternoon removing malware from a computer 4,000 miles away over a landline that you are unable to remotely access whose user struggles with "right click".

And stealing - find yourself a dictionary; there is no property unlawfully taken. I agree with many of your points but we find ourselves where we are due to bad advertising practices in the past, the consumers are not to blame. I believe websites will find alternatives means of income and retails will continue to sell and will stay in business. Relax, the sky is not falling.
 
If you believe that blocking adds is stealing you need a psychiatric isolation.

It is my PC, it is my Internet data transfer for which I am paying either with cash or my time, and it is on my time!

What "we" do blocking adds is, we protect ourselves from an invasive trespassing in to our heads!

I never pay attention to any adds, I can live with no adds, I will never buy any products interfering with my personal freedom of choice!

By using ADDBLOCKER(s) I protect myself from stealing my time, and from being brainwashed against my own will!

We must protect ourselves from interfering with our time management!

I believe that we need legislation to manage all advertisement!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom