Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[TheAC]

Please evaluate this possibility - http://www.nexusmods.com/games/users/supporter/?

I'd definitely rather donate/subscribe.

 

[G0ss3yn]

I think that most people here, with a few exceptions, have been considerably more polite to the author than he was to them.

Yyyyyeaaa I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, cursing at them, etc... so many close minded people here who can't put yourself in someone else's shoes or see things from different perspectives, you just think "I R HATE ADS, ME WANT THEM LOSE JOBS!!!"... if you were a newly hired web dev or programmer you're probably not one of the decision-makers who decides how obnoxious these ads should be, you're simply being told how to create the ads. So I'm sure there are plenty of innocent (as well as not-so-innocent) employees being put out of work.

I disagree with the author and his article, but I'm also capable of explaining why I disagree (I won't though, since it's been said 1,000,000 times in this thread already) without insulting him and getting warned for profanity like a child

 

[McHenryB]

I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, ...

You didn't read the bit where he called people who use ad-blockers "thieves" and say they were "stealing"? That's a libel as it is demonstrably untrue - or certainly here in the EU where the point has been determined in a court of law.

I don't appreciate being libelled - I wouldn't mind so much being called an idiot or whatever, but don't let's have professional journalists accusing me of being a criminal, thank you.

 

[voodoo917]

I think that most people here, with a few exceptions, have been considerably more polite to the author than he was to them.

Yyyyyeaaa I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, cursing at them, etc... so many close minded people here who can't put yourself in someone else's shoes or see things from different perspectives, you just think "I R HATE ADS, ME WANT THEM LOSE JOBS!!!"... if you were a newly hired web dev or programmer you're probably not one of the decision-makers who decides how obnoxious these ads should be, you're simply being told how to create the ads. So I'm sure there are plenty of innocent (as well as not-so-innocent) employees being put out of work.

I disagree with the author and his article, but I'm also capable of explaining why I disagree (I won't though, since it's been said 1,000,000 times in this thread already) without insulting him and getting warned for profanity like a child

Get a damn job at McDonalds then, I really couldn't care less if these "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" sleep in a dumpster because I'm running an Ad Blocker.

Who warned me about profanity? You're just some "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOW” looking for an argument, so there, you've been warned too!

These "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" poor career choice's and the fact that they think they are going to shove the garbage they're peddling down my throat, regardless of whether I find it relevant or not, negates me giving two shiny "RAYS OF SUNSHINE" about their financial future. Not to mention burning through data plans like hot butter..... And that is everyone who pays for internet they are STEALING from, not a select few running software.

When these bandwidth stealing "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" start paying my internet bill every month, then they can advertise whatever snake oil they damn well please, but until then, I sincerely look forward to telling them to SUPER SIZE THE FRIES, Genius! Maybe I'll throw a stack of brochures and sales papers at their head while they're trying to work too, just so they know how it feels to try and earn a living while some "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOW" wastes your time with BS!!!!

As for the mod removing a few words I posted in my original post, WHICH WERE NOT CURSE WORDS, as I have a screenshot of my reply, you say it was because it was disrespectful........... What do you call YOUR WRITERS calling YOUR READERS thieves and criminals????

Why don't you remove the entire article? I can only guess it's because your writers attacking your readers and calling them criminals, thieves and child abuser’s isn't disrespectful by your standards, aye?

Perhaps I and the good people here, who are understandably outraged by being called such things, should get together and file slander and defamation law suits against the writer of this untrue, unfounded and inflammatory article and his employers!!!

 

[ex_bubblehead]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

 

[jpishgar]

I have to say, that was one of the funniest comments I've read in a long time. The replacements had me legit laughing out loud here.

Haha! Oh man, seriously guys, civil, please. We're having a great conversation here, gotta keep it civil.

-JP

 

[voodoo917]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

 

[RuefiodaRat]

As a repair tech - The arguments here are very emotional, and worthless. It is tantamount to saying that by clicking on the organic link for a company in a search instead of the sponsored SEM link in the paid ad section I am killing Google's ability to feed it's CEO. Sounds good, is meaningless.

Secondly - nearly half of the ads I have tracked and dealt with in the last year alone have been frauds, man in the middle attacks, or trojans themselves. That alone makes ad blocking mandatory unless you like paying me to clean your machine.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

Moderators do not work for Tom's Hardware/Purch, we are all volunteers. Direct the question to Joe, or the author directly. We're only here to maintain the peace and civility of the forums.

 

[voodoo917]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

Moderators do not work for Tom's Hardware/Purch, we are all volunteers. Direct the question to Joe, or the author directly. We're only here to maintain the peace and civility of the forums.

Good enough, thanks for clarifying that!

I'm just wondering what Tom's writers will write next, "When you use Anti-Virus Software, you are taking the shoes off of a hackers baby's feet!" springs to mind!

The writer of this drivel should be fired along with whoever decided it was news worthy to call your members criminals!

 

[turkey3_scratch]

People whine for free speech so this author states his free speech and look at what happens. *sigh*

 

[tech-wreck]

free speech does not free you from your responsibilities as a professional journalist, or the allegedly reputable organisation that pays for this garbage.

 

[Pailin]

At one point I stopped coming here for over 6months pretty much due to the <mod edit> auto audio adds Tom's allowed on here!!! >_< >_<

Only came back because of Adblock Plus.


Shame on you Tom's for writing such an article after such discraceful ad practices.

<Let's watch the profanity in these forums people>

 

[garryash]

When on my home network I find the ads annoying (especially when the page I am reading keeps jumping up and down) But when I visit ma in law they are a pain in the ar**. She has very slow broadband (lives in the sticks) and the pages freeze as you try to scroll. Am considering an adblocker now!

 

[01189998819991197253]

I'm sorry, I used to keep this site in my adblocker whitelist but not any more.
I get that sites need this ad revenue, and if you can work out precisely how much you will make from me not looking at nor clicking on each ad then I would be happy to pay it to you rounded down to the nearest penny/cent (clue: that's somewhere around £0.00).
I would be very happy to pay a bit of money in order to support the site, like I do with a subscription to other online magazines, as long as there weren't any ads.

The main reason that I have an adblocker is because of the way in which I and I'm sure many others browse the web. I open at least 15-20 links at a time and then one by one as they load, at least 4 video ads start playing. I then have to go and search through all of these tabs to find the one which is playing, which is fine in Chrome because there is the little speaker icon which shows the tab is playing audio... Unless I have more than about 70 windows open (which happens all too frequently), in which case the tabs are too narrow to see the audio icons.
Until ads become less intrusive, I'm afraid I will not be disabling my adblocker for sites other than those I want to support - so not you any more Tom's.

 

[tech-wreck]

the advertising industry is the pimp. tom's is the prostitute. the advertisements are STIs.

that's why i use adblockplus condoms.

 

[razor512]

Wanted to ask anyone at toms hardware who can receive company email. Why is it okay to block junk email but not okay to block ads on web pages that choose to display the same stuff that would normally be blocked by your email's spam filter?

 

[bd2357]

If a site wants to host ads, then host them out of their own domain so I know you stand behind the content. On my computer, this article has over 42 cross domains. Some are normal cdn sites but a bunch are dynamic because they are ads this site has not control over. If I am on tom's guide, sell me computer stuff or tech stuff, not ways to eliminate mortgage payments or celebrities on the red carpet.

 

[giantbucket]

If a site wants to host ads, then host them out of their own domain so I know you stand behind the content. On my computer, this article has over 42 cross domains. Some are normal cdn sites but a bunch are dynamic because they are ads this site has not control over. If I am on tom's guide, sell me computer stuff or tech stuff, not ways to eliminate mortgage payments or celebrities on the red carpet.

if you want to eliminate celebrities on the red carpet, an AK-47 springs to mind. we don't need an ad suggesting that 😉

but yeah, relevant content would be nice, but IN MODERATION. there's far too much ad content, be it relevant or random. I don't need or want a dozen ads while reading a haiku. more ads just means I'm less likely to look at ANY of them - less ads means I'm more likely to actually look at the 2-3 that ARE there.

and that's what the advertisers want, I presume - for me to first LOOK at the ad, and then hopefully to follow it.

I can't follow the ad if there's so many that - even WITHOUT an adblock - my eyes are just ignoring them!

 

[McHenryB]

I'm sure the advertisers would be more than happy for theirs to be the only ad that appears on a page. The blame is clearly on the shoulders of those running the web sites who cram as many adverts as they can on a page to maximize their revenues.

 

[caughy]

The worst types of advertisements are the 30 second commercials to allow me to watch a 2 minute video and the pop up ones that block what I am viewing. The worst part of the pop up ones is that they sometimes take seconds to pop up, as the screen goes dark waiting for the ad.. These are the ones that I want to eliminate with a blocker. Now, if a website owner is truly upset that someone is using an ad locker, he can block access to his site. CNET senses adblockers and refuses video delivery.

 

[garryash]

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

 

[tech-wreck]

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

firefox and the AdBlockPlus add-on. Privacy Badger is also a useful tool for making sure advertisers don't abuse the 'do not track' instruction.

 

[truegenius]

The author failed to explain how not watching an ad is stealing. Who gets the "stolen" ad time money? If its MY attention the ads are aiming for, then I can chose what to watch or what not to watch. If I throw away junk mail is that also stealing? Poorly written and conceived article.

Depending on the terms of the campaign or ad network, publishers get paid based on a combination of ad impressions, clicks or actual sales after the click. If you block an ad, those impressions are lost, even if you would have chosen not to click the ads. Also, there's always a possibility that you might click an ad if you saw one that appealed to you.

for bold part
watching an ad is stealing because you are using their services and paying 0
indeed they are paying for you because they pay for employees and infrastructure so that you can browse what you want

it is like you are using a bus to go from place a to b but without buying any ticket so you are actually stealing
you go to theatre to see movies and you pay for that content,
similarly you see videos on youtube and you don't even need to pay ( you just need to skip ad ( well some shows unskippable ads and that is annoying ) )

there are some sites which shows tons of ads and show irrelevant ads, toolbars installer and popups, they are doing too much so blocking them is recommended, but if some site is showing ads based upon your search then it is indeed beneficial because you can get to see what you were searching for by those ads so these ads are like your best option providers
( for example if you search for computer parts then ads will show computer parts deals and thus saves your hassle of searching and you may get the best deal )

so everyone should whitelist those sites which they use frequently or show very minimal ads and that too interest based ads

 

[truegenius]

I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, ...

You didn't read the bit where he called people who use ad-blockers "thieves" and say they were "stealing"? That's a libel as it is demonstrably untrue - or certainly here in the EU where the point has been determined in a court of law.

I don't appreciate being libelled - I wouldn't mind so much being called an idiot or whatever, but don't let's have professional journalists accusing me of being a criminal, thank you.

i didn't find it offensive
because only those who are using adblocker to block toms will find it offensive, because they will see at as author is calling them thief but indeed author is calling those thief who use their service and don't even want to run ads in a corner.

Good enough, thanks for clarifying that!

I'm just wondering what Tom's writers will write next, "When you use Anti-Virus Software, you are taking the shoes off of a hackers baby's feet!" springs to mind!

The writer of this drivel should be fired along with whoever decided it was news worthy to call your members criminals!

you are using strawmen fallacy
you are representing author's statement wrongly to make it more vulnerable to attack
hacker is doing a crime you can't compare showing an ad of pizzahut to hacker hacking you pc
hacker is doing damage to you so that is why you need antivirus, but when you see an ad of pizzahut then you will not get any damage
do you buy pizza's for lifetime at no cost from pizzahut ( unless you are owner of pizzahut ), i guess no, you pay for whatever you buy, and so you pay for reading toms article, indeed you don't pay, you just have to let the ads.

I'm sorry, I used to keep this site in my adblocker whitelist but not any more.
I get that sites need this ad revenue, and if you can work out precisely how much you will make from me not looking at nor clicking on each ad then I would be happy to pay it to you rounded down to the nearest penny/cent (clue: that's somewhere around £0.00).
I would be very happy to pay a bit of money in order to support the site, like I do with a subscription to other online magazines, as long as there weren't any ads.

The main reason that I have an adblocker is because of the way in which I and I'm sure many others browse the web. I open at least 15-20 links at a time and then one by one as they load, at least 4 video ads start playing. I then have to go and search through all of these tabs to find the one which is playing, which is fine in Chrome because there is the little speaker icon which shows the tab is playing audio... Unless I have more than about 70 windows open (which happens all too frequently), in which case the tabs are too narrow to see the audio icons.
Until ads become less intrusive, I'm afraid I will not be disabling my adblocker for sites other than those I want to support - so not you any more Tom's.

there must be something wrong with your pc or browser, because i don't get to see this much ads. ( see photo below )
maybe you clicked on some ads on your favourite pom..... pom pom pom pom site and someone installed a malware in your pc which is showing ads ( which have no link to the site you are browsing )
you can't blame some one if someone else is doing wrong to you

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

there must be something wrong with your pc or browser, because i don't get to see this much ads. ( see photo below )
maybe you clicked on some ads on your favourite pom..... pom pom pom pom site and someone installed a malware in your pc which is showing ads ( which have no link to the site you are browsing )


see , all these ads are a result of my searches and i indeed want to click on all 3 ( but i think that will make me look like a fake clicker and ad partner may see it as false click so i refrain myself from clicking too often )