- Status
"Think of the children", but that's one problem. A big flashing ad saying "Your computer is infected" may actually scare a child to install bad software.
However, here are a few reasons why I have NoScript:
1. If I'm at work, I don't want to play video, period, unless it's job-related. I am allowed to research trends in technology, but bandwidth spikes for the wrong reasons can get me into trouble. I also don't like video on many websites while browsing at home since video can bog down a connection
2. In the days of MySpace, I had Winamp running at a comfortable volume level. Flash blockers were a godsend for when you go on someone's MySpace page and they had music. I didn't hear two songs playing at the same time
3. There was a banner ad that had audio. In one case, it blasted my speakers at a very loud volume.
4. I'm trying to read. I don't need a video distracting my attention.
5. So many ad networks track you. I rather avoid spreading around my digital footprint as much as possible, even though it's quite hard to
6. Ad networks have gotten infected
7. Many of them sell shady software.
8. Some of them are downright gross. Seeing them once isn't bad, but I don't want to see that over and over again
I don't mind ads because they do help pay the bills, but when they are overly in-your-face, you want them to go away.
However, here are a few reasons why I have NoScript:
1. If I'm at work, I don't want to play video, period, unless it's job-related. I am allowed to research trends in technology, but bandwidth spikes for the wrong reasons can get me into trouble. I also don't like video on many websites while browsing at home since video can bog down a connection
2. In the days of MySpace, I had Winamp running at a comfortable volume level. Flash blockers were a godsend for when you go on someone's MySpace page and they had music. I didn't hear two songs playing at the same time
3. There was a banner ad that had audio. In one case, it blasted my speakers at a very loud volume.
4. I'm trying to read. I don't need a video distracting my attention.
5. So many ad networks track you. I rather avoid spreading around my digital footprint as much as possible, even though it's quite hard to
6. Ad networks have gotten infected
7. Many of them sell shady software.
8. Some of them are downright gross. Seeing them once isn't bad, but I don't want to see that over and over again
I don't mind ads because they do help pay the bills, but when they are overly in-your-face, you want them to go away.
- Jul 15, 2014
- 22,627
- 8
- 60,960
One problem I have is the content of the ads. If ads were better moderated and not quite frequently of half or fully naked people, perhaps I would not use Adblock+. But there are just too many sites on the web I cannot visit without ads that say "1 millionth visitor" and other tricky (not really) gimmicks. I think the businesses are at fault for not verifying ads before they are actually published on the site. Heck, on Tomsguide I saw a nude ad once, and while some of you welcome those, I don't.
A perfect example is schools. They don't want to see inappropriate ads so they install adblocks onto their browsers. As a web designer myself, many of those ads are poorly optimized and programmed. On mobile browsers, sometimes I cannot even close those full-screen ads that pop up. If ads were more appropriate, honest, less clunky, and cleaner-looking (they are typically ugly and pixelated) I would welcome them more.
A perfect example is schools. They don't want to see inappropriate ads so they install adblocks onto their browsers. As a web designer myself, many of those ads are poorly optimized and programmed. On mobile browsers, sometimes I cannot even close those full-screen ads that pop up. If ads were more appropriate, honest, less clunky, and cleaner-looking (they are typically ugly and pixelated) I would welcome them more.
HyperMatrix
Distinguished
- May 23, 2015
- 137
- 144
- 18,760
I blame the following:
popup ads.
popunder ads
flashy ads
flash based ads
movie ads
viagra/other inappopriate ads that make it hard to browse the web at work or family settings
I don't care about seeing an ad for something related to what I'm doing. But advertisers have been looking for ways to annoy us with ads, and websites have been more than willing to let it happen for an extra buck.
Adblock has been working on "Responsible Advertising" promotion that allows you to not disable ads on sites that conform to certain policies such as making sure ads are not intrusive. But overall, I think it is the fault of advertisers and websites that let them do whatever they want for Adblock becoming a necessity.
And this is coming from someone who gets advertisement payouts from Google every month.
popup ads.
popunder ads
flashy ads
flash based ads
movie ads
viagra/other inappopriate ads that make it hard to browse the web at work or family settings
I don't care about seeing an ad for something related to what I'm doing. But advertisers have been looking for ways to annoy us with ads, and websites have been more than willing to let it happen for an extra buck.
Adblock has been working on "Responsible Advertising" promotion that allows you to not disable ads on sites that conform to certain policies such as making sure ads are not intrusive. But overall, I think it is the fault of advertisers and websites that let them do whatever they want for Adblock becoming a necessity.
And this is coming from someone who gets advertisement payouts from Google every month.
I don't run any ad-blocking software because I believe that it is wrong like the article states but I do understand why others do it. I've been on the internet since the early 90's in my over 20 years experience on the interwebs I've never once purposely clicked on a single internet advertisement.
Those ads back in the 90s where mostly harmless, but the ads on website these days are down-right malicious. So I can see why some people chose to block them,
Those ads back in the 90s where mostly harmless, but the ads on website these days are down-right malicious. So I can see why some people chose to block them,
Pemalite
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2013
- 34
- 24
- 18,535
1) Advertising costs me the consumer money via increased data costs. (Every Megabyte counts.)
2) Advertising costs me the consumer via increased energy usage costs. (Adverts drive up CPU, GPU and Ram usage)
3) Advertising costs me time and effort to fix my machine if a virus/greyware/spyware/maleware gets through my anti-viruses protection, did you know that a virus can exist before an anti-virus has been updated to protect you against it?
4) Sick of the pop-ups, the flashing, the noise, I don't like it, I don't want it.
So really, it's the adverts that are STEALING not your average joe who uses an ad block.
Also, if your business model is failing, then it's time for you to change your business model or fail as a company, that's the beauty of capitalism and shouldn't be prevented.
Wikipedia is a prime example of a business model that works without any form of subscription or advertising model, it works on a crowd-funding premise, it's one of the largest websites on the internet too, which is no small feat.
If you can't think out of the box Toms hardware and remain profitable, then do not whinge, it's your own fault.
2) Advertising costs me the consumer via increased energy usage costs. (Adverts drive up CPU, GPU and Ram usage)
3) Advertising costs me time and effort to fix my machine if a virus/greyware/spyware/maleware gets through my anti-viruses protection, did you know that a virus can exist before an anti-virus has been updated to protect you against it?
4) Sick of the pop-ups, the flashing, the noise, I don't like it, I don't want it.
So really, it's the adverts that are STEALING not your average joe who uses an ad block.
Also, if your business model is failing, then it's time for you to change your business model or fail as a company, that's the beauty of capitalism and shouldn't be prevented.
Wikipedia is a prime example of a business model that works without any form of subscription or advertising model, it works on a crowd-funding premise, it's one of the largest websites on the internet too, which is no small feat.
If you can't think out of the box Toms hardware and remain profitable, then do not whinge, it's your own fault.
jasonelmore
Distinguished
- Aug 10, 2008
- 626
- 7
- 18,995
toms you guys at the moment, have 42 advertisements being blocked by ad block, just on this article alone.
and you wonder why we use ad block?
tom's also wont let you comment if you have ad block on.
and you wonder why we use ad block?
tom's also wont let you comment if you have ad block on.
I do remember when you would accidentally end up on a porn website, but it was accepted to be accidental for a while. Porn ads were everywhere and got many people into trouble.
Internet advertising has gotten to where it's getting just as annoying as 90s porn and gambling ads. This was before popup blockers were integrated into browsers
I couldn't even finish this article because it made me sick to my stomach. If this is the way you make people pay to enjoy your website, perhaps we should look elsewhere. Thankfully, we live in a society based on laws, and as far as I know, ad blocking is not yet illegal. If you think that ad blocking is somehow immoral, I suggest you consider the priorities that many other people have mentioned. When ads cause my web browser to stop functioning normally, I would say that demonstrates a certain lack of integrity and most likely arrogant selfishness. (No offense, though.)
sonny1973n10
Distinguished
- Nov 30, 2011
- 5
- 0
- 18,510
Stealing, really? Ad Blockers don't just block ads. What about malicious sites, porn where they're not supposed to be, scams like tricking you to install malicious softwares and many other security related issues? Toms, you called yourself a tech writer but I can see you have no idea wtf you're talking about. The other commenters here have explained enough. No need for me to explain any more to you. This dumb ass article is the last I read on TH. Bye. I'm deleting this bullshit tech site from my bookmarks.
Angelus de Mortiel
Reputable
- Jan 9, 2015
- 5
- 0
- 4,510
There is a large disconnect in between content and end users unfortunately. How could someone call a user that is browsing websites with Ad-Block thieves? That is a pretty big logical fallacy.
With that said, content creators and administrators have to fund their content somehow, and, for a long time, advertisements looked to be the ideal solution. As a established, but small-time, Youtube content creator, I can say that it is a mediocre solution at best. It's no surprise that public opinion has become as negative about advertising with how frequently advertisers abuse the system.
However, I will say this much: The creators of Ad-Block Plus are honestly no better than advertisers. They seeks to force advertisers to pay them to show ads. Essentially, nothing would change for end users, but now content creators get even less money because advertisers are paying Ad-Block as well. The only losers are content creators and administrators, and nothing is really gained by end users.
So what I am saying is that, as a person that attributes a portion (albeit small) of income from advertisers, I still believe the current implementation and regulation (or lack thereof) of internet advertising is so bad that no one could be faulted for wanting to strip out ads. The users are most certainly not thieves. However, those users should also be aware to what they are acquiescing: A company (Ad-Block Plus) forcing themselves into a "man-in-the-middle" position in order to profit from a user's desire to avoid the nefarious ads that are all around. Ad-Block Plus is a unscrupulous service at best, and should be viewed as no better than the malicious ads they disingenuously claim to want removed.
With that said, content creators and administrators have to fund their content somehow, and, for a long time, advertisements looked to be the ideal solution. As a established, but small-time, Youtube content creator, I can say that it is a mediocre solution at best. It's no surprise that public opinion has become as negative about advertising with how frequently advertisers abuse the system.
However, I will say this much: The creators of Ad-Block Plus are honestly no better than advertisers. They seeks to force advertisers to pay them to show ads. Essentially, nothing would change for end users, but now content creators get even less money because advertisers are paying Ad-Block as well. The only losers are content creators and administrators, and nothing is really gained by end users.
So what I am saying is that, as a person that attributes a portion (albeit small) of income from advertisers, I still believe the current implementation and regulation (or lack thereof) of internet advertising is so bad that no one could be faulted for wanting to strip out ads. The users are most certainly not thieves. However, those users should also be aware to what they are acquiescing: A company (Ad-Block Plus) forcing themselves into a "man-in-the-middle" position in order to profit from a user's desire to avoid the nefarious ads that are all around. Ad-Block Plus is a unscrupulous service at best, and should be viewed as no better than the malicious ads they disingenuously claim to want removed.
McHenryB
Admirable
- Jan 31, 2015
- 2,019
- 0
- 6,460
The article author made a direct attack, and disparaged a group of people - those who use ad-blockers when browsing the web. You and he may not like such people, but to say they are "thieves" and are "stealing" is to accuse them of a criminal offence. Hyperbole? - Yes, on a scale of the hyperbole of stating that such people are stealing the food from children's mouths.
Sorry, but to pass this off as one individual's personal opinion just doesn't cut it. This was written by your Editorial Director and published under that byline. That makes it stated editorial policy in my book.
"Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth."
At that point I stopped reading and installed Ad Blocker. If what you wanted was some dramatic effect you should have used the classical: "Every time you block an ad, a kitten dies"
Those fat children would be better and live longer if they eat less and exercise more. To be honest I'm more concerned about food not entering children`s mouth in some Africa countries or places where there is an ongoing civil war like Libya or Syria.
At that point I stopped reading and installed Ad Blocker. If what you wanted was some dramatic effect you should have used the classical: "Every time you block an ad, a kitten dies"
Those fat children would be better and live longer if they eat less and exercise more. To be honest I'm more concerned about food not entering children`s mouth in some Africa countries or places where there is an ongoing civil war like Libya or Syria.
TheTemest
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2010
- 261
- 0
- 18,860
I have to assume that the author of this article is a website owner who started his site as a very personal endeavor who decided to monetize it when it became more than a labor of love. Ad revenues never materialized and he's now pissed off at John Q. Citizen for not clicking on the Penile Enhancement, Free Money and Quit Smoking ads that litter his website.
Axel Villar
Reputable
- May 23, 2015
- 1
- 0
- 4,510
Hell, even the image they used with the thief using the computer shows a <mod edit> scamming garbage ad! No wonder people use it! I mean, if you go to the office of this hypocrites they probably have installed it too.
You get the short end of the stick TH, because unlike other sites, the people here are mostly tech savy. No wonder the ratio of adblocker users will be very high.
You brought this upon yourself by abusing ads. Naked people or straight porn, fake download buttons, sounds, pop ups, you won X, someone wants to chat with you (some of this are ridden with malware and I encourage kids and older people to use always adblockers), videos, etc.
If the only way for a child to eat is to invade other people´s pc with malware and intrusive ads, then he has some really shitty parents that maybe and just maybe should think about their business model.
The early 00s ended. The free ride everyone got with ads ended. You abused your power and here we are.
You get the short end of the stick TH, because unlike other sites, the people here are mostly tech savy. No wonder the ratio of adblocker users will be very high.
You brought this upon yourself by abusing ads. Naked people or straight porn, fake download buttons, sounds, pop ups, you won X, someone wants to chat with you (some of this are ridden with malware and I encourage kids and older people to use always adblockers), videos, etc.
If the only way for a child to eat is to invade other people´s pc with malware and intrusive ads, then he has some really shitty parents that maybe and just maybe should think about their business model.
The early 00s ended. The free ride everyone got with ads ended. You abused your power and here we are.
boucleinfinie
Honorable
- Feb 22, 2012
- 59
- 0
- 10,640
I only disable if
-The ads make sense
-The ads aren't intrusive (like what the popular comment from OnkelCannabia says, as that was the initial reason I ever got an ad blocker)
-I know what's happening with the money
-I agree with the moral practices of the company
-I think that I'm going to spend enough time there to make an impact
-I think that the writers/content creators are putting out deserving and better than average content
You must meet the needs of me as a consumer before I help you make money. If you aren't putting out content that makes me believe you deserve money, then you aren't doing your job and you don't deserve money from my visit. It seems more reminiscent of capitalism to do it that way.
I, for instance, disable my ad-block on Tek Syndicate, Mangastream, the forum dedicated to discussion about the vehicle I own, among other sites.
I don't know why so many websites lately have been following the trend of "we are ENTITLED to your money!" with these passive-aggressive articles, but it really needs to stop.
-The ads make sense
-The ads aren't intrusive (like what the popular comment from OnkelCannabia says, as that was the initial reason I ever got an ad blocker)
-I know what's happening with the money
-I agree with the moral practices of the company
-I think that I'm going to spend enough time there to make an impact
-I think that the writers/content creators are putting out deserving and better than average content
You must meet the needs of me as a consumer before I help you make money. If you aren't putting out content that makes me believe you deserve money, then you aren't doing your job and you don't deserve money from my visit. It seems more reminiscent of capitalism to do it that way.
I, for instance, disable my ad-block on Tek Syndicate, Mangastream, the forum dedicated to discussion about the vehicle I own, among other sites.
I don't know why so many websites lately have been following the trend of "we are ENTITLED to your money!" with these passive-aggressive articles, but it really needs to stop.
TheTemest
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2010
- 261
- 0
- 18,860
TheNumberOneShmuck
Honorable
- Aug 7, 2013
- 10
- 0
- 10,510
"Some ad blocking services claim that they are not against advertisements, just obtrusive ones, and are trying to change the industry... Threatening to block someone's source of income unless they comply with your demands feels more like extortion than encouragement. We've heard the same excuses from movie pirates who say that they're only stealing content because they don't like the prices or the DRM."
What an incredibly stupid comparison. The acceptable ad concept is one that I knew I would be completely supportive of years before I ever heard anyone breathe word of such a thing, and it's all because so many ads ARE intrusive. Not just flashy and attention-grabbing, no, they can't leave it at that. They're resource hogs that open new windows and tabs, hide the content of the page behind layers and layers that you have to get rid of one at a time, sometimes taking up an entire page or more, make themselves needlessly difficult to get rid of by each asking if we're absolutely sure we want them to go away, come 50 at a time, and sometimes actually interfere with the functionality of a website. WCCFTech came off my whitelist because one of their stupid ads blocked out the motherhumping search box.
That comparison is so relentlessly blockheaded I can't stand it. Movie pirates do it to get free stuff. Ad blockers do it so that they can actually use the internet. What a concept, right? Just don't sabotage your own website by rendering it unusable due to weighing it down with garbage ads. This is especially true for people stuck to using weaker machines, for them the word "unusable" can become literal. For watching a movie, pirating is the alternative to paying money, but for using much of the web, there is no alternative. It's either ad blocking, or you can't use the website. And don't most people go for cool, intuitive, functional websites that they can be proud of, or boast about? Killing it with ads is the opposite of that.
And no, acceptable ads does not feel like extortion. What you're feeling is an entitled indignation that some troublemaker actually had the gall to - shock horror - call for sensible standards to something that has been out of control for at least 15 years. On the flipside, however, forcing people to suffer through mountains of obnoxious ads to use one's website feels like something. It feels like irrational, backwards lunacy that helps no one and hinders everyone.
What nonsense.
What an incredibly stupid comparison. The acceptable ad concept is one that I knew I would be completely supportive of years before I ever heard anyone breathe word of such a thing, and it's all because so many ads ARE intrusive. Not just flashy and attention-grabbing, no, they can't leave it at that. They're resource hogs that open new windows and tabs, hide the content of the page behind layers and layers that you have to get rid of one at a time, sometimes taking up an entire page or more, make themselves needlessly difficult to get rid of by each asking if we're absolutely sure we want them to go away, come 50 at a time, and sometimes actually interfere with the functionality of a website. WCCFTech came off my whitelist because one of their stupid ads blocked out the motherhumping search box.
That comparison is so relentlessly blockheaded I can't stand it. Movie pirates do it to get free stuff. Ad blockers do it so that they can actually use the internet. What a concept, right? Just don't sabotage your own website by rendering it unusable due to weighing it down with garbage ads. This is especially true for people stuck to using weaker machines, for them the word "unusable" can become literal. For watching a movie, pirating is the alternative to paying money, but for using much of the web, there is no alternative. It's either ad blocking, or you can't use the website. And don't most people go for cool, intuitive, functional websites that they can be proud of, or boast about? Killing it with ads is the opposite of that.
And no, acceptable ads does not feel like extortion. What you're feeling is an entitled indignation that some troublemaker actually had the gall to - shock horror - call for sensible standards to something that has been out of control for at least 15 years. On the flipside, however, forcing people to suffer through mountains of obnoxious ads to use one's website feels like something. It feels like irrational, backwards lunacy that helps no one and hinders everyone.
What nonsense.
Your not going to win this fight ad-blocker is like having the ability to turn on or off a radio to silence noise you don't wish to hear. It had nothing to do with stealing and everything to do with your own private rights to personal censorship. I know what I want to buy it doesn't need to be advertised to me I'll look for it or see a new article or review on a product.
Advertising doesn't need to brainwash me into subliminally thing I need to buy something I don't' care about. If I never cared for it before or wouldn't have before why should I care just because you run a ad for it case in point I won't. LOLcatBlocker is the best cats need advertising too adopt a cat they are the catz meow.
Advertising doesn't need to brainwash me into subliminally thing I need to buy something I don't' care about. If I never cared for it before or wouldn't have before why should I care just because you run a ad for it case in point I won't. LOLcatBlocker is the best cats need advertising too adopt a cat they are the catz meow.
I use Adblock Plus & will continue to do so, If website's I frequent block me while I'm using Adblock I will either stop using those websites or allow ads from only the very few worth the added annoyance.
Pop-up's I will not tolerate, banners if there not taking up half the screen maybe.
For Tom's Hardware I would recommend a different method. Get sponsorship from one company only. The top of the site could be 'Tom's Hardware - Sponsored by ...' with a link, nothing more & no way to block it because it's part of your main site. NO ONE is annoyed & NO ONE fails to see it.
Pop-up's I will not tolerate, banners if there not taking up half the screen maybe.
For Tom's Hardware I would recommend a different method. Get sponsorship from one company only. The top of the site could be 'Tom's Hardware - Sponsored by ...' with a link, nothing more & no way to block it because it's part of your main site. NO ONE is annoyed & NO ONE fails to see it.
It is so cool today to be an <mod edit>, great job dude!
Like 4year old who got his candy lost so he destroys the other dude's lego casttle just out of pathethic anger/foolishness.
If you liked this site so far and enjoy content (so you had them whitelisted) what does it change on this fact that one person here explains his opinion about ads? Nothing. Just show how stupid you are (sorry). But thats typical hypocrisy of today, saying freedom,free speech and stuff like that, but only to the point that all of this is alligned with my/ours believes, otherwise we better somehow damage the other dude, and if it is country we better bomb them to stone age. Cause we know better.
makes me sick
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News RTX 5090 cable overheats to 150 degrees Celsius — Uneven current distribution likely the culprit- Started by Admin
- Replies: 56
-
-
News First credible report of RTX 5090 FE with melted connector appears — third-party cable likely cause
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 65
-
News PassMark sees the first yearly drop in average CPU performance in its 20 years of benchmark results
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 25
-
Latest posts
-
Question Can I use something metal/aluminum to lift my GPU up half an inch?
- Latest: CoffeeStoreGuy
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram