Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

Page 2 - 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.
Internet advertising is not regulated like television advertising was. No one is 'responsible' when a junk ad is displayed offering me a better boner. Then there's the advertisers that steal my bandwidth and electricity to send me a video in the side bar. Even though they are pushing something I have no desire to purchase or tell someone about.

Tom's generally provides advertising I accept, the problem is that many many other sites do not. So who's in the wrong here, someone who blocks an add? or bad advertising networks and websites that will grab for every advertising $0.01/1000 views they can with no care to what kind of shenanigans go on.

As a suggestion, for white listing a site for a Ad blocker, why not give the viewer a way to decide what kind of ads they are ok with? I use to not use an ad blocker at all for Tom's but now at work I do use one because ANY flash add makes my VM that I'm using to browse through run very badly. Which impacts other things I'm doing.

You want people to have a conscience when it comes to blocking ads and letting your children suffer? Then have some conscience when it comes to the kinds of ads your viewers have to suffer.

Let's get some sense to this instead of knee jerk reaction that just escalates things to these proportions.
 
I appreciate all the lively debate, especially the disagreement. I'm always excited when one of my articles sparks a discussion (hopefully a respectful one on both sides).

Nobody likes the most annoying ads, not even the people who run them, and I think we're going to see a shaking out of some of the worst offenses, not because of ad blockers, but because of performance issues. However, when you run an ad blocker, you are denying a site all of its ad revenue which, for millions of content sites, is their main source of income. Eventually, this will lead not only to lots of lost jobs, but to the end of most free content on the web.

I disagree that using an ad blocker is the same as a TV remote control or DVR fast forward. Neither of those remove the ads so you do have the opportunity to not change the channel or not fast forward. As a TV viewer, I usually end up watching commercials rather than bothering to switch back and forth and risk missing when the show comes back on. With DVRs, sometimes I just let it play because I'm too lazy to pick up the remote and, other times, I see a commercial that looks so interesting that I stop to watch it. That's not possible when all ads are filtered out before you can even choose to skip them.

And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.
 
Toms writing about ad block being evil just got it removed of my whitelist, thanks tom for showing who you really care for, I'll do the same.
Click to expand...

You had Tom's whitelisted? They have some terrible ad practices. Screen blocking popups, the text in the article becoming ads so that as you scroll down a large chunk of the article gets covered by a popup...
 
By writing article about ad block, you are hurting yourselves. People will google it and see the light. And do not try to make the users the bad guys. It is the advertisement companies that terrorized us for years. This is just retaliation.
 
The more I think about it the more annoyed I am that an editorial on Tom's Hardware is branding it's readers as thieves. I reckon that I pay for my use of the site by contributing to the forums and passing on, for free, whatever knowledge I have gained after a lifetime in the IT industry.

Perhaps I should seek to frequent a website that is more appreciative of the input from it's readers rather than one that brands them as thieves.
 
well like said theres ad's that sit in a little box minding there own business then thers the ones like of the way showed that's just too intrusive or overbearing flash ad's that suck the bandwidth out of you . its the ones that seem to cram things down your throat is what a issue to me
 
And who pays for all the bandwidth you use to view these ads that bring Tomsguide to a halt every time I load a page?

I just disabled adblocker for the first time in 4 years to look at this article - And low and behold - this webpage went from being 1.2MB, to 16... now 17 (as a video in the bottom right keeps stuttering, loading - and lagging my keyboard input.

I've got a top of the line ASUS gaming laptop - there is no reason why it should stutter - but with ads enabled - it does. Badly.

If you want people to view ads, maybe thinking about the viewers - what you're doing to their experience. Once you've done that, THEN maybe complain again and I'll see if I'll turn off my adblocker again.

 
I've been an avid reader of all the Tom's sites for several years and have never once clicked on an ad, even before I started using adblock.

And if you want my attention on your articles then stop trying to distract me by presenting ads and inserting links in to the content of your article. All you're doing then is frustrating me and causing me to stop reading your article.

I may be alone here, but I would pay for Tom's without ads.
 
"I'm always excited when one of my articles sparks a discussion (hopefully a respectful one on both sides)."

You think it's respectful to call your readers thieves? There's a saying "when you're in a hole stop digging". I think you need to chuck that spade away. You could even try apologizing to those people that you have insulted.
 
Well, I usually allow ads through for sites that I want to support, including Tom's, but now I'm thinking I'd rather just steal from you.

I did not go out of my way to install adblock because I wanted to get away with something or because I wanted to keep ad dollars from going to websites.

I installed adblock because ads are out of control. There's the ads that try to trick you into clicking them (fake download button), the ads that take over the browser window, the ads that pop up more ads, the ads that install malware on your pc (a growing problem), inappropriate ads (I have kids that sometimes read over my shoulder, and can't let half-naked women run rampant on my screen), ads that charade as content, etc.

I mean seriously, the malware problem alone makes it unbelievable that a site like tom's would be attacking adblock. Do you have any idea what a high percentage of ads will install malware and toolbars? Do you have any idea how many of the users I support get tricked into clicking those ads, and how hard it makes my job when I have to go behind them and clean it up?

Hell, sometimes I'm actually interested in the stuff being advertised, but I don't dare click the ad, because I know it's not going to actually show me the content it's advertising; it'll take me to some shady unrelated site and typically try to install crap on my machine.

I don't care about letting through harmless ads. They're the ones that stepped it up in this cold war. Shady ad companies took it too far. Irresponsible websites letting through dishonest ads and too many of them took it too far.

Seriously. Removing Tom's from my whitelist. So pissed. This is the most arrogant, ignorant crap I've ever read on this site. I need to go back to the tv now. If I miss the commercial, I might get arrested for theft.
 
As a Moderator, I believe I am obligated to speak and act in the best interests of the site; however that does not mean marching in lock-step with bad ideas, rather it is about suggesting how those bad ideas might be changed. Complaining without suggesting solutions = whining, so if I'm going to complain, I need to also offer solutions.
Sorry, advertisers are not victims, except perhaps of themselves. This is another excellent example of what happens when there are not dire consequences for Willful Wrongdoing. If ALL ads were honest, at least semi-relevant, never "unsafe," and non-intrusive, there would be no need for ad blockers. It is a shame that companies that would indeed follow that model have tolerated those who do not in their midst; all are now reaping the consequences.
My time is valuable. Force me to waste it with extra clicks to see the content I want (typically on every new page, and you are stealing from me. Solution: put something like a moving price-crawler from Newegg, or some other relevant site(s) on the edge of your pages, and I could see sitting there watching it for items of interest; personally I would not want this kind of ad blocked. Simple banners just take up a glance; they're fine too. Keep in mind screen size and scaling. In the old days of 1024x768 or even 800x600, ads could waste a lot of space. On today's screens, giving up an inch or two on a side border isn't that big a deal unless it blocks part of a picture or other content.
If you have an ad, make sure a technical person on the site has clicked it and verified that it is absolutely harmless. If it wasn't, report it to everyone under the sun (including the company whose advertiser was employing dishonest methods), and don't use it.
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.
 
Hey Tom's, fun article. You want me to turn off my adblock for you? Well then there is one thing you can do... STOP PUTTING UP BANNER ADS THAT ARE SO BIG THEY TAKE LONGER THAN THE REST OF THE PAGE TO LOAD!!!

Seriously, the number of times I have opened Tom's page, went to click on an article link, then as I was clicking on it a banner ad popped up and moved the link causing me to click on the wrong article is infuriating. If they were really just little ads on the side or top of the page, fine. But they actually very negatively affect my user experience. I hope the children starve if that is what feeds them.
 
Screw the advertisers and their kids. As it is now, I don't owe them a single thing. One thing I will make perfectly clear is that if you find a way where I cannot bypass your ad, then I will no longer visit said site. Take Toms Hardware for example: my sctipt blocker has a list blocking sites almost the whole vertical width of my monitor. Without it, this site is practically a nightmare to use. I could honestly say if this site disappeared, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I would most likely move on and find another place within a day.
 
Time is money and I have limited time. As Onkelcannabia said the over-zealos nature of advertising has brought this crisis on.

What about all the time lost having to deal with telemarketers before the no call lists were put in place? What about the banner ads inserted into shows and movies that I still have to watch when I DVR something?

My time is valuable and plenty of it has been wasted with obnoxious advertising getting in my face and taking time from me in myriad ways.

So if advertisers want to claim that I am stealing from them, then I can claim the same, they have stolen plenty from me over the years and I want that time back. They are the real thieves not I.
 
I have little sympathy for content providers who act as enablers for these immoral ad networks that completely and without permission invade users privacy. If a live person stalked and collected information on my children on their way home from school the way advertisers do on some of these kids sites I would hunt them down Liam Neeson style. Content providers need to find a business model that's not based on sharing revenue with stalking cyber creeps. Not to mention all the time they owe me which I spend removing "malicious crapware" usually installed by popup ads from my elderly friends and family's computers who don't use AdBlock. If you are not using AdBlock by all means people install it now!! Don't surf the net without it!
 
Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm not the only one that saw red flags after reading this old cliche used by the scummiest hard-sell salespeople. Sorry, but Toms is the worst offender of any website I regularly visit for annoying aggressive ads that are just trying to trick readers into clicking instead of presenting them with advertising they actually might want to see. There have been times that I stopped reading an article on Toms because the ads were so annoying, and there have been times where I was so annoyed at constant long load times and browser errors, that I closed my browser before the main page finished loading and didn't come back for days. I don't use ad blockers, but I certainly understand why people do, especially on tomshardware.com.

A agree that advertisers have brought this on themselves, but I'll also say that Tomshardware has brought it upon itself, too, because Toms has a choice in ad content and presentation and it chose cheap and slimy.
 
I was never going to buy the crap anyway, I have never purchased a single thing because of advertising and honestly my impression is the harder something is begging for attention the worse product it must be. In addition the advertisements are massive security holes and if your 3rd party ads that your site doesn't even screen messes up my $4000 computer, who is going to pay to fix it? You can't blame end users for blocking malicious and bandwidth wasting ads that do nothing but clutter up the environment. Charging users isn't a very good idea either, as I read this site quite a lot but its real world value to me is much less than the security risk of giving you any money.
 
Well that's just too bad. I have already decreased my visitations to several websites that have overly obnoxious ads that inhibit my ability to even read the freaking website! One of the worst offenders is an ad that won't even allow you to scroll down into the article until it's finished playing. You try and scroll and it just keeps going back to the top where the ad is.

I have my Flash player disabled to prompt me to manually choose to play whatever the video is. It used to be that pop-up blockers from the browsers would stop the ads, but these days few advertisers use that late-90s era tech. Most everything is imbedded.

Probably the most annoying of all is when websites have multiple ads going on and you CANNOT mute them nor pause them. You have to turn down your speakers. What's next? Will there be ads that override control of my SPEAKERS next? This intrusion insanity must be stopped one way or another. I am free to change channels on my radio or TV when ads come, and then return back to that channel when the show has returned. When DVR'ing, I can FF through the commercials. That is not "stealing" anymore than killing off the ads for a website.

And again, if I'm annoyed enough, I will taking my viewing elsewhere. However, most tech websites like Tom's have things advertised that I may be interested in and those are the click ads. I will click on one that interests me not only to check it out, but to give a +1 ad click for the website. That's not the complaint here...it's the mandatory in-your-face ads that practically hijack your computer that most users have a major problem with.
 
Did some court last month not state Adblock plus is not illegal.

So its not sealing as stealing is illegal.

Some website as horrid with the amount of junk that pops up on them and some even have viruses imbedded but lucky for me get caught by MAM/ESET if I had to disable ad block for some reason..
 
Alright, well I can see why you want your users to view ads, but I think some compromise should be made with users. Ad-block exists because of the nature of ads online. If they weren't so bad in so many ways which I will go into further in a moment ad block wouldn't have ever existed. While you may claim that us making demands is unreasonable I believe it is the other way around and to some degree unethical on a website's part to host certain types of ads.

For example those flashing ads with bright colors. We've all seen them since the 90's. Do you really expect someone with epilepsy to not be able to make the reasonable request for you not to host such? Even worse they won't even know that you do until they are exposed to it.

Or how about harmful ads? While rare they do exist. You know how shady websites will often try to infect you when you visit their page? Ads are capable of doing this too. Do you really think it's fair for us to take that risk when you take no precaution against this at all? Sure I'd believe you if you said you would pull the ad after finding out, but that doesn't stop those already affected by it. You have a morale responsibility to investigate before accepting ads.

Next is unethical practices of certain ads. Weight loss ads are most known for this and it happened to a friend of my ex-wife. One day she came across a weight loss pill add that displayed her before and after picture that the advertisers stole off of a weight loss forum. She of course never used said product and found out this is a terribly common practice. Do you think it is morally right for you to host these ads? I would be willing to bet a king's fortune you've never investigated if any of the ads seen on Tom's were a result of such.

Or how about the ads that target desperate people? Again this could be a scam weight loss product or even one that "targets" illness that is a scam. Desperate people will go to desperate measures. I'm sure you're a rational person and wouldn't advise anyone to go to a miracle healer like you see on TV even more so if that "healer" charges right? So should you or any other site host ads that try to sell "alternative medicines"? You would be directly aiding in these people getting scammed so you could what? Get a few cents because they saw the ad? Is your mortality so easily toppled over a few pennies?

Do I even need to go on with more examples? You have kids to feed, we all do. But we resolve this with honest and morale hard work. What you are advocating if for us to look the other way while you help others possibly attempt to mislead and possibly even harm us. That is on you for being a part of that in the name of profit, so shame on you for trying to defend such a practice. It doesn't even have to be this way, all you'd have to do is be sensible about which ads you accept to put up. But instead you point the fingers at the people who don't wish to be victims and demonize us.

Shame on you and shame on Tom's for even letting this get published.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
After reading this pathetic article, I have decided to get AdBlock. Obnoxious ads and self entitled people like you are the worst.
 
Ads we see all the time. In stores they promote products which you expect to see. On the web tho its all out there. While some sites adhere to advertising for the expected stuff. Its very common to the worst on some of the most respected sites. Secondly while some in store ads may corrupt the person it doesn't pose a risk of break down the car or emptying your bank account. The ad blocker is no different than the red curtain in a video store. The question I would ask is ad blocking enough. I use a full blown script blocker plus ad blocker. I control what I see which is only the stuff I expect to see at sites.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom