Blocking Ads is NOT Censorship


So this guy apparently thinks that by blocking his ads on his website, you are “stealing”:

The Mozilla Foundation and its Commercial arm, the Mozilla Corporation, has allowed and endorsed Ad Block Plus, a plug-in that blocks advertisement on web sites and also prevents site owners from blocking people using it. Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing. Millions of hard working people are being robbed of their time and effort by this type of software.

I love the concept that being forced to look at ads is some kind of “duty” as web citizens. Advertisers and their website ad whores seem to think it’s our job to ingest ads every single moment of our day, and you know what? They can BITE ME. Ordinary people are already barraged with ads in every second of their life, from the TV to the radio to magazines and those stupid moving billboards. And now we are jerks because we want to limit some of the ads we see on the internet–right.

Digg people are having a riot with this, of course:

You know what I say to people who refuse to find a new way to bring in revenue from their site and lose money because people block their ads? GOOD. I don’t care if you make money or not. DISAPPEAR. I’ll find somewhere else to get my entertainment (even if it requires going outside). It really does not matter to me in the slightest if you can’t afford to keep your site running anymore.

You didn’t make money off of ads when you first started the site, so what makes you think you’re entitled to continue making money as the times change and people start blocking ads? Because you have a family to feed? I DON’T CARE. Go get a job at Starbucks. Work a job you can’t stand the majority of us have to.

And:

I would argue that maybe the folks who put up websites should be more “ethical” in choosing their ads. I have never seen a web ad that offered me anything resembling a deal on something I wanted. Moreover, I would wager that many ads only seek to add emails/personal information to spam databases. In this light, AdBlock isn’t unethical — it’s essential.

Exactly.

I love Ad Block Plus. And you know what? If you, dear reader, have it installed and are blocking the solitary Amazon ad I have on the front page, I don’t blame you.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Lemonsweet
My Sister Is a Freak of Nature

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

I have one lone set of Google Ads on my site, that even I have come to loathe. I just re-designed and thought seriously about nuking the ads altogether, but I want my last $48.13 from the mighty Google. :-]

But ads don’t bother me that much. I even commit “click fraud” on occasion on sites whose content I happen to enjoy. But I think I tend to tune the ads out completely unless they are truly obnoxious.

Using Ad Block Plus is no different than using the TiVo remote. The only reason he *thinks* it’s stealing is that he’s following the pay per view/pay per click model that’s so common on the web. If it were like television, outdoor, or magazine advertising and advertisers had to pay up front for the privilege of pasting ads on your site, whether or anyone actually saw those ads or not wouldn’t matter much to the site owner. It’d be incumbent upon the advertiser to produce an ad that was worth watching, worth clicking on — worth the price of the space.

Mom-101 made a much more coherent argument on this score than I am right now: http://mom-101.blogspot.com/2007/07/lookin-out-for-mah-peeps-thats-you.html