New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
If the consumer, us, doesn't like something in a service, why should we empower that kind of behavior to continue? It's the free economy, free enterprise, social darwinism, or whatever you want to call it.
I respect that, everyone has their own view of morality.
Personally I feel that it is the responsibility of the company to make sure that they are making profits; the ability to block advertisements and other unwanted content is in some ways inherent to the open protocols that make up the Internet and the world wide web, I don't think attacking that ability is particularly constructive.
Also, in a web where free services and Internet advertisements are the norm, businesses offering equivalent paid services often lose because users find it more convenient. This of course doesn't affect the morality, and you could say the same about these companies as what I said above about advertising-based ones, but it's still a sad fact about the web.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. If everyone just ignored things that they don't like instead of sending death threats, starting wars, and launching terrorist attacks, then the world would be a better place, if that requires us to all be 5 then I'm all for it. Why is it childish to ignore advertisements when you don't agree with the content of a website or the way that the advertisement is used?
Here are some articles about ad blocker and whether people should use them:
And some more:
I only disable ad-block on LET out of respect for the people who pay for their ads to be displayed and help support the site, that and the CPVS ad makes me chuckle.
Just because an HTML document advertises various resources, I'm under no obligation to retrieve them all.
If you're only going to read one of those articles, it should be the Ars Technica one. This isn't some theoretical argument about morality. It's about very real detrimental effects to sites you like.
If you think that ad blockers are bad, then you should read an argument in favor of ad blocking, and if you think that ad blockers are good, then you should read an argument against. Keeping an open mind and listening to solid arguments from either side is fundamental to an open, democratic society.
In the end society will never reach a consensus on every argument, simply as a result of the diversity of humankind, something which we should cherish. But I quoted a few articles that respond to the Ars statement, one supports it and a couple others don't, regardless of whether you agree with them they are still interesting to read. I won't say anything more in this post since I have nothing to add to those articles!
Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need.
I've used adblock for so long that when I'm on my phone and see an ad I forget they truly exist and feel so weird.
This is not some highbrow theoretical debate. Ad-funded sites are hurt by ad blocking. That's an irrefutable fact. Maybe you're okay with that, and that's your prerogative. But if you think it doesn't hurt them when it measurably does, you're just plain wrong.
Now if you want to talk about whether the ad-funded model is fundamentally a good or bad thing -- okay, there's a good conversation to have! Just don't fool yourself into thinking that merely talking about it changes the reality we're in, for better or worse, right now.
That's not our responsibility to consider, it is the responsibility of the website (if they need money) to get money. We should in no way consider that the sites may "lose" money, this is not a charity, just free market.
If these sites need to ask for us to download advertisements (wasting our own bandwidth and processing power), maybe they need to choose a better business model. This whole thing about blocking data that you don't want to see as being unethical is stupid.
i clicked on yes when i should have clicked on no.... no ads for me.
Never seen any ads on any of the sites ;>
No, because I don't want to load any asset, that is not helpful at all. I am blocking all your avatars as well, because I just don't need them.
Often I am on a mobile link with slow speed and limited traffic, but also for speed this is very nice.
Then they might as well block adblock users, which they mention IN THE SAME ARTICLE is not what they intend.
Furthermore, it is impossible for many users to make exceptions, due to AdAway (phone) and Noscript (PC), or to pay $50/year PER WEBSITE.
I don't see why this would boil anyone's piss. Targeting the gay audience (= no kids, more money to spend) is more and more becoming a thing, so better get used to it.
I don't have an adblocker, but I really don't mind a few ads.
At home I have a network level block on all ads, on my work machines I have ads everywhere.
You aren't saving any bandwidth nor will latency be reduced – the entire HTML document is still downloaded, AdBlocker just parses the page after the fact.
Adblock enabled everywhere. Exceptions only to prevent anti-adblocks (bypassing adblock blocks) but never allowing ads, only making sites think I'm seeing ads, unless the anti-adblock is really well coded (seldom) and I really want to visit it, in which case I create a site-wide exception.
There are many different implementations. Most don't actually let the blocked requests go through, or if they do, don't parse them.
There is difference.
No, i only disable adblock selectively where absolutely required (Flash websites for example are likely to be blocked).
I personally only enable plugins on click (in addition to adblock) to limit my exposure to plugin exploits.
enable adblock extension ublock for all sites by default.
I dont like ADs
Yup. When your job involves marketing/advertising, you kinda need to see all the ads.. unfortunately.
Fingers crossed people keep clicking ads.. pays at least 1/3rd of my paycheque.
+1.
Yep, no ads is great till you need to see them for any reason for your marketing job.
I have no Java installed and disable Flash now most of the time, all i required it for was Youtube anyway which is now HTML5 entirely.
It's the way to go. Too many Java/Flash/Acrobat... 0-day vulnerabilities.
I never used any AdBlocker because free sites have to finance theirself in any way. And if there are not even ads - how to finance (excluding by donations)?! What do you like more: taking a look at some ads (if they're not completely overloaded on the site) or paying for a lot of sites which don't offer anything to buy, before you can enter the site? Well, I prefer the first option.
Where do you know from you're not missing anything, if you don't know which ad would be there?
I wouldn't be saving bandwidth & latency by not performing extra HTTP requests? Think it through til the end.