Tweaktown Adblock Message

[Compxpert]

Sadly I think this topic in its entirety is now moot. All we keep doing is going back and fourth here. IF they want to restrict access because you block their ad's then they are free to do so because.... "They are the proprietors of the established site and they can control how you view their content." It doesn't matter if your right or wrong they can do it because they own it. As an added point there arent't many laws regulating what goes on with the internet. Besides copyright and ownership stuff the internet is basically an anarchy.

[Andariel]

I reiterate...just because you can break the security does not mean that you can access it freely just because you think it's fair.

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?

[Kamikaze_Badger]

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.

 

You obviously lack a knowledge of what law means. Unless you can find me something in the law books that states this, I'm going to call bs on it. So please, prove your statement. Also, a few banner ads is a lot different from commercial interruptions. And my analogies suck <_<.

[Compxpert]

[rant]Because on tv they cannot force you to watch a commercial since there is no way. Tv and internet are two entirely different things. Wether you watch a commercial on a tv network or not they still generate revenue because whoever wanted the commercial pays for it to air. However the internet is a different beast and because you block the ads now that is a click they didn't get there for less revenue. Now if they are renting out space for those ads that different and they I would have to wonder why they are implementing such a system. You ever stop to think that maybe those companies that rent space might be making a requirement that in order for you to put their ads up that you must have some way to disable ad blockers? All in all I'm really just defending the fact that its their site and if they want to deny you access because you block ads then they can. Same would go for tv but since tv is different then you would be right it would cause an uproar. Most people don't care about ads on a site as opposed to on tv (commercial interruptions as opposed to no interruptions) so really your comparison is moot.[/rant]

[Andariel]

You obviously lack a knowledge of what law means. Unless you can find me something in the law books that states this, I'm going to call bs on it. So please, prove your statement. Also, a few banner ads is a lot different from commercial interruptions. And my analogies suck <_<.

???

 

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.

 

All in all I'm really just defending the fact that its their site and if they want to deny you access because you block ads then they can. Same would go for tv but since tv is different then you would be right it would cause an uproar. Most people don't care about ads on a site as opposed to on tv (commercial interruptions as opposed to no interruptions) so really your comparison is moot.[/rant]

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.

[Waco]

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?

The point is that you seem to think you have a right to view whatever you feel like viewing on the internet. You don't. I fully support Tweaktown finding a foolproof way to block those people that want to block the advertisements that keep the site running. Blocking such ads is tantamount to stealing bandwidth.

 

You have NO right to view a site just because "it's on the internet." If the publisher does not want you to view the content for whatever reason you aren't doing the right thing by bypassing any security, no matter how laughable, that they may have.

[Compxpert]

Actually this is kinda funny you think you have the right to view the content they post in w/e manner but its actually the other way around they have the right to present the content to you in w/e manner or even deny you it because of you blocking ads.

[Waco]

Actually this is kinda funny you think you have the right to view the content they post in w/e manner but its actually the other way around they have the right to present the content to you in w/e manner or even deny you it because of you blocking ads.

They can deny you the content for whatever reason they like.

[Andariel]

The point is that you seem to think you have a right to view whatever you feel like viewing on the internet. You don't. I fully support Tweaktown finding a foolproof way to block those people that want to block the advertisements that keep the site running. Blocking such ads is tantamount to stealing bandwidth.

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.

[Waco]

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.

Passwords aren't foolproof either.

 

Whatever. It's obvious you aren't going to see it my way and I'm not going to see it your way.

[Silverfox]

Hooray for stubborn arguments.

 

For the record, I'm not some paranoid freak. It's just disappointing that a site feels the need to take such action and Tweak Town isn't exactly the smallest site ever to be on the Internet ... it would just be a bit crap if other sites follow suit.

 

Even the Game Spot method isn't that bad (randomly redirects to a page on their site before going to a review etc, but you can click past it).

 

Ah well. Let's all get on our high horses and pretend we are all better than everyone else.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

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?

 

You're making the claim, provide some backing for it. And that's the worst argument I've heard, and you also still lack any knowledge of what you're talking about. No law states that it is illegal for them to deny you access to view stuff based on terms that you disagree with.