Andariel

You can support TweakTown finding a foolproof way to block people that use Adblock but again, there is no such foolproof way. That was my entire point. You can simply pull the text from a web page if you want and look at that with no images or javascript whatsoever. Or do you think that text browsers should be banned along with Adblock? They don't see the ads after all (except for text ads). There's simply no way for TweakTown to accomplish what they want to accomplish here, so why annoy their users with their javascript? Also, blocking ads is not "stealing" bandwidth. There are no grounds to make such a comparison unless you think that every last cent of their ad revenue goes to hosting costs. In fact if the ads are stored locally on a site, I would be using less of their bandwidth by blocking ads on those sites. I'm not going to click on them anyway, so hey I may as well not waste their bandwidth downloading the ad images, right? That's what it really comes down to. If I am against advertising in general and wasn't going to click on the ads anyway, why waste everyone's bandwidth (including my own) downloading the ad in the first place? Anyway, as Compxpert already pointed out this is really just going back and forth now and no one is getting anywhere. One last thing: a point that's easily missed here is that I own and maintain a web site myself which has ads on it. This was mentioned in my first post. I would never do on my site what TweakTown did on theirs. Based on the traffic my site gets, I believe I make MORE than my fair share of money from my site, and I never worry about people who are blocking the ads. It's VERY unlikely that any of them would have clicked on them anyway - the type of people who block ads are the type of people who go out of their way to avoid them regardless. Trying to force those users to view the ads would be a terrible decision. All I would do in that case is chase loyal users away from my site. Forcing every single user of my site to view the ads could only be due to greed and/or ignorance on my part, plain and simple. I think the same of any other webmaster who tries to force things on their users. That said, I'm done in this thread. If someone still wants a response from me over something specific, feel free to send me a private message through the forum.

??? I still don't understand what you are asking. A general law specifies what is illegal, not what is legal. Any action by default is legal, unless there's a law against it. So how do I lack knowledge of what a law means? What I should be asking you is where is the law that says it's illegal for me to view a public internet page with no password or firewall security? And, banners being different from commercial interruptions is not really a good argument. Banners do "interrupt" from the site by distracting the user away from the real content of the site. Most ads are designed specifically to do that in fact - to grab the user's attention so they will click on the ads. Popup ads of course being the worst offenders. Should we not block popup ads either? They are part of a site's revenue too. Most people find it acceptable to block popup ads though because they find them highly annoying. Well, I personally find all forms of web advertising highly annoying, outside of perhaps text ads. Alright, but if most people "don't care" about ads on the internet then why do some people here clearly care so much about me blocking them? Again though, ads on the internet do in fact interrupt from what you are doing by distracting you from the content you are really trying to view. Imagine reading a book and on one page is the plain text that you are trying to read, and on the opposite page is some bright colorful flashing advertisement for something, trying to draw my attention away from what I am reading. I think that would make me want to rip out the page with the ad on it.

That you equate not loading a javascript to breaking security is quite simply laughable. In that case everyone who has javascript turned off in their browser is breaking security. I'm done with arguing that point. Some people are taking a moral high ground that just isn't there. Again, here is the analogy for you. "I pay for the delivery of TV content with my satellite bill just as I pay for the delivery of internet content with my ISP bill. Now, if I choose to not watch the commercials on a certain channel (by changing the channel - or muting it and looking elsewhere - or recording it on a DVR and then skipping the commercials - or even recording it to my computer and then manually removing the commercials), do you think that particular channel should have the right to tell me I'm not allowed to watch their channel anymore? Ignore that this is not technically possible, and just look at the principle here." No one has answered that yet. The same people here who think I should be forced to view all ads on the internet are probably happily skipping commercials on their DVR or otherwise ignoring them. But by your same logic, if you don't watch every commercial then you are hurting the "revenue stream" of that particular television program. If TV channels were able to block access to people who didn't watch the commercials, there would be an incredible uproar against it. Yet, here a web site attempts it and people actually defend the action?

The minute that content is posted in a place accessible by the public, anyone can view it whether they like it or not. They can prevent people from replicating it sure, but not from viewing it. They don't get to "choose" anything. The choice was made when they posted content in a publicly accessible area. They can't actually restrict me from viewing their content without password protecting it. All I have to do is not load the javascript that detects Adblock, and I can view their content. Do you see now that there is no choice for them in the matter? All they have chosen to do is annoy me with their javascript message. Which I think is a poor way to treat someone who visited their site and recommended them to other people. The proper way to do things would be if Adblock is detected, show a message somewhere asking the user to whitelist TweakTown, but still let them view the site normally regardless. That sort of approach would get a much better reaction from people than the one they chose.

That's fine if sites want to have a subscription model that removes ads; I've already mentioned that's perfectly acceptable, but I am still free to block the ads anyway if I so choose. I was talking about subscription models in the sense that if they only want certain people to be able to see the actual content of the site, they should be charging for access to the entire site and leaving nothing public. Their choice. But they don't want to do that, they want it to be available to the public, but then keep out people who look at the content differently (by blocking ads) - they want to have their cake and eat it too. What about people who view their site in a text browser? They see no ads either, should they be denied access? Why are you even bringing up law? Clearly it's not illegal to access a non secured public internet page. I don't get the point of bringing up law. This has nothing to do with legality. It would only be illegal to break down security such as password protection in order to access a system. A javascript detecting Adblock is not illegal to bypass; otherwise everyone with javascript diabled in their browser would be breaking the law! Obviously that is silly. Also, let me use an analogy here. Let's use television since it's easier. I pay for the delivery of TV content with my satellite bill just as I pay for the delivery of internet content with my ISP bill. Now, if I choose to not watch the commercials on a certain channel (by changing the channel - or muting it and looking elsewhere - or recording it on a DVR and then skipping the commercials - or even recording it to my computer and then manually removing the commercials), do you think that particular channel should have the right to tell me I'm not allowed to watch their channel anymore? Ignore that this is not technically possible, and just look at the principle here.

But I'm not using the content (i.e. replicating it or doing anything with it beyond viewing it in a web browser), I'm only viewing it, which I have explained in the previous post. I think that some of you need to get off your high horses here. If you put something on the internet that is unsecured, you have no expectation of privacy in regards to that information.

You are confusing ownership rights with simple access rights. Anyone can access whatever they want on the public internet and view it in whatever way they desire. I can't replicate it unless they allow me to, because they own it, but I'm only talking about viewing what they have freely put on the public internet. Again, if they would like the content to be private and available only to an exclusive few, it should be secured by passwords / some sort of subscription system.

In fact I do. If something is on the internet, it's public by default. It's only private if it's behind some sort of security. This my friend is the very nature of the internet. ^_^ If they would like make the content private and choose who can view it and who can't, then they need to move to a subscription model.

To put this simply, the majority of sites make money from actual clicks on the ads and not by how many times an ad is viewed. There are some ads that pay for views (pay per impression, usually expressed as CPM which is the amount they pay per 1,000 impressions of the ad) but of course these don't pay as well as pay per click (PPC) ads because there's no guarantee of a conversion. On the plus side, ads that pay per impression don't necessarily have to be targeted towards your site's audience whereas ads that pay per click surely do if you want the most clicks. There's more to it than that but that's the basic idea. PPC ads are more reliable for both the publisher (site owner) and the advertiser.

Part of my work is maintain web sites for clients, and I also do some network consulting; so believe me I understand what bandwidth costs. For the majority of sites on the net, hosting is very cheap because their traffic is simply not high enough to incur large hosting costs. For high traffic sites, they have a large enough user base to be able to easily turn that into enough money to cover hosting. Do you really think that TweakTown can't even cover their hosting costs? Even if half of their users were blocking ads (and believe me, nowhere near 50% of internet users block ads - it's closer to a third), they'd easily make enough money from the ones who don't block ads to cover hosting costs. They should also have some reliable affiliate deals in place - this is key for any high traffic site. No high traffic site should rely solely on banner ads to make money. In this case, TweakTown is trying to squeeze out a higher profit. This has nothing to do with hosting costs. Again, I never said to rely on that solely. I said it's acceptable to ask for donations and that someone like me would be willing to donate to support a site even though I block ads. If I wasn't going to click on any of the ads anyway, how is this true? Just loading the ads doesn't earn the site anything in most cases. Sure some ads pay per impression but these are less common and pay out much lower than PPC ads. Also. remember that I'm not saying a site shouldn't have advertising. I'm saying they shouldn't tell me I can't decide to block the ads. I think that is a point of confusion here. It's their choice to have ads, and it's my choice to block them. It's even their choice to ask me not to use an ad blocker. It's NOT their choice to deny me access to something on the public internet because they don't like that I block the ads. I can view the content however I want. I can block ads, scripts, cookies, flash, or anything else I like. I can view their site in a text browser and not see a single picture or ad anyway.

I really only lurk here but I felt compelled to throw in my two cents about this issue. Entitlement assumptions? "Revenue streams"? Ugh. I don't know how many of you here have been on the web long enough to remember when there were NO ADS on any sites. On a site such as OCC, I assume some of you have been around and do remember. The internet is supposed to be about information, not making money. I'm so sick of the overcommercialization of not just the internet, but everything in this world today. If someone wants to make money with their site then fine, but they aren't going to do it by shoving ads in my face, and they aren't going to tell me that I can't view the site if I block ads, because it's easy enough to get around that too. The only thing they will do at that point is earn some bad will from me and I may no longer choose to refer their site to a friend (who may very well NOT block ads). There's no "deal" in place for me to view ads to see their content. I pay for my internet access and if you put something on the internet that is not password protected, then it's for anyone to view in however way they choose. Just like TV: they can show ads but I don't have to view them. I've already paid for the delivery of the content. (cable TV also used to have no ads, btw, which was the point of paying for TV - but people let them in and became complacent) Now at the same time I understand there are hosting costs to consider. But if a site I like is in such bad shape that they can't even cover their hosting (unlikely, because if their hosting costs are that high then their traffic is probably high enough to cover the costs), then I have no problem with them asking users to donate and I am willing to do so if I enjoy the site. Also, offering two versions of a site: a free one with ads and a donate version with no ads, that is also acceptable. People are still free to block ads from the free version, of course. Full disclosure: I run a web site, which has text ads ONLY on it, and if users choose to block them that is fine with me. There are many, MANY other ways to monetize your site if you so choose. Referrals/affiliate deals are one example that is a much better source of income than ads, though I should point out that even the tiny amount of ads I have on my site more than covers the hosting costs, without ever being annoying to the user.