Personally, I think that people who spend their time, creativity, and enthusiasm creating entertainment that I enjoy deserve some form of compensation. I don’t think ads are a particularly onerous in that context.
What is the basic model for ads?
Do sites get paid by advertisers just for displaying ads?
Or do sites get paid by advertisers every time a user actually clicks on an ad? I’ve been under the impression that it works this way.
So if I never actually click on an ad, am I cheating the content provider by screwing him out of some revenue? Do I have a duty to click on ads to pay for the site I am viewing?
Some history: When I first began using Google gmail, several years ago, I was naive and under the impression that Google Did No Evil. I supported their model. When I read my e-mail, I often took some time to click on a few ads, just to contribute my $0.02 to Google’s pot of gold.
Then I discovered that if I switched to the “basic HTML” mode, the context-sensitive ads went away! And I also fell under the influence of that point of view that holds that Google is, as a matter of fact, evil. (IIRC, it was their Street View project that first swayed me that way.) Now, I still use Google, but I don’t see their ads any more, let alone click on them.
They’re trying to deprive me of my attention span, my eyesight, and my money. It’s war. Blocking them is not immoral, our consumer society is perverse.
According to Linkara at least blip.tv’s model is that they get paid for eyeballs. Blip pays the content provider for the number of ads viewed (and will give them no money if adblocking is detected). I suspect they may get an extra kickback if someone actually clicks the ads, but I’m not sure.
ETA: Er… to clarify, Blip gives the content provider no money FOR THAT VIEW if the ad is not seen, they don’t take away all their money just for one block.
And for the poll, I answered “other.” I block ads by default, because they can contain malicious software, play obnoxious noises, and tons of other things. However, on sites I trust or want to support (Youtube, Channel Awesome’s sites, etc) I make sure to turn off ads because for a lot of the people, making content is their job and I want to support them. I do feel like at a certain level adblocking is similar to piracy, but at the same time I do excuse people who block it for security reasons (or when there’s a stupid ad that breaks the site or makes obnoxious noises).
I never will understand people who absolutely abhor all advertisements with the fury of a thousand suns, though.
As mentioned, I block them because they are a vector for malicious software. I also block them because, when done poorly, they can be loud and irritating. I fast forward through commercials on DVR, and change the station on commercials on the radio, too.
When sites have non distracting ads from safe sites, I don’t mind that. And, when some sites have “Sponsored Content” which is just text extolling the featured product. I’ll scroll through that, and not try to block it.
+1.
In his book The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture, the author describes how he is subjected to almost 100 brand impressions between the time he wakes up in the morning and gets out of his car at work. I really cherish times that are not intruded upon by some form of marketing.
I would probably just stop visiting that web site. It’s unlikely they have anything that I just couldn’t live without (or that I couldn’t find elsewhere).
It’s a big internet. If an ad pisses me off, I’ve got plenty of other websites I can go look at instead. There’s never anything so special that I have to sit through a sixty second splash screen.
Remember Google Text Ads? I never had any problem with those. If people had stuck with those ads I’d be a 100% more willing to leave adblock off.
If the site still works with ads disabled, then as far as I’m concerned I’ve made a mutual agreement with the site owner that I don’t have to see the ads. My computer asked their computer “hey, can I have content A, B, and C” and it gave it. Everything that happens on the Internet is two-way communication. You don’t see anything that the server wasn’t set up to send you. That’s consent.
Ads fucking suck. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Nope. Screw them.
Really? People worry about it? I use an ad blocker and have no problems with it. One site caught on, a chess site, and said I had to get rid of it to use their site. I tried, but when playing chess I REALLY don’t want moving ads. They blocked me and I just never went back.
Other sites, like this one, that I enjoy I don’t mind paying a small amount to not see ads. OkCupid once had a pop up that said “It costs money to run this site, we use ads for that reason. We see you have an ad blocker, which is fine, but would you pay $5 and we’ll remove the ads for you” I paid the $5 bucks right then and there since they were up front about it.
I think Andrew Auernheimer might need you to speak for his defense at parole hearings.
Blocking ads is immoral? Is this a put-on? 
As others have mentioned, the security model for advertisements is horribly broken. You go to a site, it serves ads from an ad site, the ad site gets its ads submitted to it by the company promoting itself, who probably contracted the work out to a development team. If any of those people are bad players, or have been compromised by bad players, malware happens. How many times has the SDMB alone been hit by malware in ads and the board admins can do nothing but say “Yeah, we’ll take it up with the ad company again”?
If I were forced to make a choice, I’d feel safer surfing the net without antivirus software than without adblock software.
I do keep the option in AdBlock set that allows for what it considers “non-intrusive” advertisements, as I find it also seems to match reasonable security safeguards. Few sites follow the guidelines in order to display ads under that criteria, too bad–I’ve done all I feel obligated to do to accept them.
They could argue that content is provided as-is, take it or leave it, no tampering. If you didn’t like something about Windows, you can’t change the code and splice in something from OS X.
But what sites are you guys visiting with all this malware? The only sites I’ve seen pop-ups on are porn sites.
Downloading only part of a page that’s freely and publicly accessible doesn’t tamper with anything. Well, I guess it tampers with my computer, but me being the one who gets to tamper with it is what makes it my computer.
An ad is basically an instruction that tells my computer to do something. I don’t have to follow your instructions just because you put them online.
I don’t use an ad blocker. I just don’t go back much to sites that overdo them.
Can’t say I’ve found it to be a big deal in practice.
How about skipping ads before videos? Even if it’s your computer, that doesn’t let you tamper with software. Just because you bought a music CD doesn’t mean you can use the music in your video.
That’s absolutely ass backwards. My computer is mine. Not Microsoft’s, not Apple’s, and certainly not some random website’s. I am 100% in control of the code my computer executes, and anything that goes against my wishes as the owner of my hardware is malware as far as I’m concerned.
And as it happens, when I don’t like something about my software I DO change the code and run it my way. That’s what being a free adult in the digital world is all about.