Sounds to me like the advertisers are the ones screwing content providers, then, not the guy using adblock.
As you might imagine, I don’t think it would be worth my time.
Whether an advertisement is a popup or not has nothing to do with ad-delivered malware. The SDMB has delivered malware via banner ads. That malware can result in popups, but I’m not sure why you’re asking about them.
It’s immoral to suggest that morality has anything to do with it.
It’s immoral to say people are immoral for questioning the morality of any given act.
Morality has nothing to do with it. If you’re a journalist who relies on advertisements to show off your wares, this is the disadvantage for you. It’s my free choice whether I view ads. I am not obligated to look at ads to view your wares. If at some point your wares are worth purchasing, I will gladly spend my time and money, but I shouldn’t be forced into viewing advertisement for OTHER products in order to check out what you have to offer. I find it immoral that we should be forced to view other people’s wares in order to view yours.
It’s no more immoral than muting the tv or fast forwarding a recording during a commercial. Maybe even less, since TV commercials can’t give your TV a virus or malware or just flat out make it crash.
Its immoral to dumb down morality… and defend those who do.
To the OP: Are the results much like you expected?
Given that this is bullshit, I don’t care what the rest of the article has to say.
Then you’ve been damned lucky. People have already mentioned that ads run here on the Dope have contained malware. When my work computer got infested, it was from an ad on The Atlantic Monthly’s website (it took my hospital’s IT Department two days to disinfect my PC, btw). I’ve known other folks who’ve been infected from visiting such sketchy sites as the New York Times and CNN. Do those sound like disreputable sites to you?
.
Why yes, in fact I would prefer it. Which is why I actually subscribe to several websites voluntarily. Nothing in the world is “free,” and I prefer to pay straight up and avoid the annoyances and very real dangers of ads.
Adblocking came about because of advertisers’ bad habits. It’s a bit too late for them, and for the people complaining that ad revenue is dwindling due to adblocker use), to whine about it now. Had advertisers shown some degree of restraint and done some self-policing, adblockers wouldn’t exist.
It can be detected and countered.
I’ve had a site come up with “We see you are using Adblock. As we need money to run this site, you won’t be able to see our page until you allow ads”
Thus, every site that doesn’t counter ad blocking software in such a fashion, has only its tech staff to blame.
IsaacEdwardLeibowitz
You keep saying we entered into an agreement or compact with the sites. This is not true and repeating it won’t make it true.
You say we must help out the business model. I say the hell we must. If the business model fails, it’s their job to come up with one that works.
Semi Hijack
With all the folks DVRing, I feel television advertising as we know it will disappear. Instead of a separate segment that can be skipped, there will be constant banner ads. So that folks don’t just tape cardboard over the banner, it will jump from top to bottom and from the left side to the right. Product placement will also intensify. Instead of just asking for a Coke, a character will give a short speech on the merits of Coca Cola.
If they made any sort of sense, maybe.
I’m not going to buy a new car. Not this decade at least.
If I did want a new car, say because of a lotto win, I’d get a Volkswagen.
No way no how would I get a Chevy, Ford, Hummer, Chrysler, Prius or eighteen other kinds of cars.
So any kind of a car ad delivered to me is a waste all around.
Wastes bandwidth, wastes resources, wastes my time.
Why should I watch a Chevy ad? Or a Prius ad? No way I’d buy one, ever.
Similar situation with construction toys.
I buy LEGO sets and pieces. I do not buy MegaBlok or other clones.
So I don’t need ads for clones. Or for Legos either, I’m already a fan.
(When I’ve got money to spend, I’ll hit up their website- post the info there.)
I’ll keep saying what I’ve been saying all along. Just because you didn’t sign any physical compact doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
There are thousands of tiny social compacts that exist in our society that aren’t on paper.
I have a compact with the guy sitting next to me on the bus that I’ll cover my mouth when I cough. I have a compact with the guy walking behind me toward a door that I won’t let it close in his face. I have a compact with my roommates that I won’t leave a mountain of dirty dishes in the sink.
These exist for the benefit of all of us, but you won’t find them in writing anywhere. But we can all agree that people who don’t follow them are jerks.
Similarly, a compact exists between us and the websites we enjoy. We consume their content, which was made possible by advertising revenue, in exchange for simply letting their ads rest on our computer screen for a little bit.
May I offer some unbridled social criticism here? The reaction of many people in this thread to my arguments - that to even consider that blocking ads is immoral is ridiculous; that to say we have a duty to make sacrifices for writing and journalism is “shit” - is part of a dangerous streak of excessive individualism in our culture.
Who’s to say I don’t have the right not to look at ads, which bother me a little bit? To block the parts of the page I don’t like to enjoy the parts I do? Why should I be thinking about social responsibility when I surf the internet? Heck, if the ad-revenue for content system collapses, that’s their problem. They have to figure it out. I have no responsibility to keep it alive, even though I’ve benefited from it for years.
That bit is true
These compacts aren’t written down but we agree to enter into them by riding the bus, living in society and having room mates.
No, it does not. I never agreed or gave consent in any way to such a compact.
Again, no such compact exists and ads are a known source of malware.
What you say in sarcasm, I seriously endorse.
A few years back, K Mart decided to offer free dial up internet. You sat through a 30 second ad for the store and had an ad banner on the bottom of your screen while surfing the web. They thought this would lead people to buy from them. It did not. When it was obvious people were just using the free net access with no intention of buying from K mart, the store tried to tell people that it was their moral duty to shop K Mart if they used the ISP. Such an argument was and is laughable. The business model failed. People found other ways to get online.
You agree to the compact with the websites by consuming their content, which was made possible only by advertising revenue.
#1 I disagree, as do most of the posters in this thread.
#2 As has been said, if their business model is failing that’s their problem not mine.
I don’t care if most posters in this thread don’t agree with me. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
It is a problem for you, because their business model is failing because you and others are cheating them. It is a problem for your character.
You aren’t wrong because we disagree with you. But, you are wrong.
I’m cheating no one and I’ll thank you not cast aspersions on my character.
Leaving the issue of character aside, using adblocker has very likely contributed to the diminution of newspapers across the country. The Plain-Dealer laying off half its staff, the Times-Picayune going four days a week, etc. I think most people here would agree this is bad for our entire society.