Monday, April 14, 2008

Ad-Blockers on Web Browsers

Alex at Neatorama asks if ad-blocking software constitutes thievery by depriving the websites that you visit of revenues:

Do you think blocking ads is equivalent to thievery?

What do you think?

8 comments:

TN Rambler said...

I don't believe that it is stealing to block ads (or pop-ups) from a web site. If a site owner has a problem with that, then he/she can set it up as a membership only site and I will gladly go somewhere else.

Ken Lowery said...

tn rambler has the right of it: clicking on ads is not REQUIRED on websites, so blocking them altogether doesn't automatically deny income.

Same thing with TiVo and skipping over commercials.

jim said...

No one has a guaranteed right to place an add in front of my face no more than they have a right to walk in my home without being invited.


The same goes for the times when I choose not to answer the phone!

John said...

But if you visit a website, you're not on your property, you're on the website owners. Would it not be fair of the website owner to require to you view an ad in order to access his/her page?

willdeuel said...

I hope it's not thievery. AdBlock is one of my favorite things about Firefox. Since my computer is relatively ancient and my 'net connection is wireless (read: "not quite as fast as DSL") an awful lot of the flash ads and popups bring my machine to a crawl.

TN Rambler said...

John said "But if you visit a website, you're not on your property, you're on the website owners. Would it not be fair of the website owner to require to you view an ad in order to access his/her page?"

I have no problem with a website owner requiring me to view an ad in order to visit his/her website if I am given the choice knowing that if I should choose to not view the ad then I have chosen to not view the webpage. I do have a problem with being forced to endure ads/pop-ups without warning.

DannyG said...

If I go to a stadium to watch a ball game there are ads plastered over everythng. I'm under no obligation to read any of them. If I watch it on TV (which is a better analogy) I don't have to look at them, either. I don't even have to watch the ads on the TV. (Truth be told, sometimes some of the ads are better than the programming!) So, it's my choice. Make the add good enough and I'll look at it.

jimmorrow said...

ad-block is my way of not looking at it! Getting into the subject of property on the web is a tough subject, but I see your point.

However, my phone number is not my property either and I don't have to listen to everything that comes through it.

When ads distract from content or when they run scripts or pop-up, then it's either I block the ads or I stop going to the site. A responsible website will recognize this trend and make ads that don't distract and are worth looking at.

An exception, like a previous commenter, is when it is made perfectly clear that it's view the ad or you don't get content. I tolerate ads on TV network sites that let me watch their shows without paying. Similarly, I tolerate ads on sites that allow me to use a service freely such as my calendar program or GMAIL.

I'm not sure there is an ethical dilemma here.