Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Ah well. Let's all get on our high horses and pretend we are all better than everyone else. There's nobody on a high horse here. There are just those of us that realize that when someone adblocks a website's ads, they are essentially stiffing that website of money that keeps it going. If everyone on the internet used adblock we'd have a lot fewer sites. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praz Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Can't believe this discussion is still going on. A website can and will block access to those that choose not to be blasted by ads that are of no value to them. Those same individuals can and will circumvent these same blocks. Nothing but a big circle like most things in life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmke Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Also, blocking ads is not "stealing" bandwidth. Â yes it is. as you don't pay for the bandwidth you used to read their site since you blocked the ads which generated the revenue to pay the bandwidth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Piss on there site and any other that wants to make me view ads, I am not going there they can keep there funky . bandwidth and stick it in there your know what... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 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). I have no problem with that method, as like you said, you can click past it, and it's not every time you load a page. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Piss on there site and any other that wants to make me view ads, I am not going there they can keep there funky . bandwidth and stick it in there your know what... If OCC had no ads do you think it'd be able to pay for hosting? I'm sure OCC burns through a decent amount of bandwidth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 I'm actually very much with Andariel on this one, and not just because ads annoy me. Â There are some very silly (in my opinion) arguments being presented. Â Firstly, the idea that you might be robbing a site of revenue by blocking ads looks as though it could be a complete fallacy. If a site doesn't get money unless someone clicks on an ad, then blocking them isn't going to affect their revenue at all (as was mentioned, people who block ads generally won't click on them). Â The idea that not running the javascript checker is in some way bypassing security also seems a very strange position to me. If a browser doesn't support javascript or you have it disabled because you don't like it (javascript on the web is far more likely to be a danger to your own security as far as I'm aware), then that isn't breaking security is it. For example, disabling CSS styles (which dictate how content is styled on a site) is a similar process which doesn't break security, but simply changes how I might view a web page. Â Â Being able to choose how you view a web page is fundamental to the web as a whole, and allowing this kind of flexibility is actually actively encouraged by bodies such as the W3C. Â Oh really now? It's their site, they can choose who can and can't view it. You have no inherent right to be able to view whatever you want on the internet just because you say so. Â Choosing how you view content that is openly available is different from believing you have a right to view whatever content you like. Â Â You have no rights on the webernets. Â Really? Are you sure? Information on the web is generally governed by the same laws that govern society in general. Copyright law says I can take legal action against anyone who reproduces my content without permission. If I choose to post this content on the web this still applies. Any data protection laws will also apply to the web, so if someone misuses data about myself I have provided on the web without express consent (or notification of intent before I agree to provide the data) I can take legal action. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Firstly, the idea that you might be robbing a site of revenue by blocking ads looks as though it could be a complete fallacy.No, no it's not.  Choosing how you view content that is openly available is different from believing you have a right to view whatever content you like. If a content provider decides that you shouldn't be able to view their content it's well within their rights to block you any way they can.   Really? Are you sure? As an internet browser you have no rights. As a content publisher you do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 (edited) No, no it's not. If you aren't actually depriving them of revenue (which may be the case), how is it not? Â If a content provider decides that you shouldn't be able to view their content it's well within their rights to block you any way they can. The key word being content. Adverts aren't content. Yes it is true if someone wants to stop you seeing content for some reason they are perfectly within their rights to restrict access to it. Â As an internet browser you have no rights. As a content publisher you do. Well yes, I suppose that's true (if you regard any information you might share as 'content publishing'). At the same time, there isn't anything to say I can't block ads if I want to either. Edited July 19, 2008 by jammin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 At the same time, there isn't anything to say I can't block ads if I want to either. I never said there wasn't. I simply stated that if you wish to block the ads the site owner has every right to block you from viewing the site at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Well yes, that's their decision to make. If they wanted to implement something like that then they would probably have to use a subscription service (which still wouldn't necessarily force you to view ads). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 If they wanted to implement something like that then they would probably have to use a subscription service. Why? What does blocking adblock users have to do with subscriptions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now