Tweaktown Adblock Message

[Verran]

No, that argument is about as logical as the arguments you're making. I just hear it all the time. Because of one thing, people are afraid that radical things will occur. Just like my analogy, you're afraid of this spreading all over the internet, effectively forcing you to stop using adblock to go to the websites you want to see.

That's not the same at all. If it spreads all over the internet it's still the same "problem", just on a larger scale. It hasn't changed or become "radical". It's the same act, just done by more people. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. If one site uses it successfully, why wouldn't you assume that more might?

 

I don't see how this is the same as equating the sexual acts you rattled off. Not only have you twisted a reasonable argument into something totally off-topic (and borderline inappropriate), but yet again you've brought us to the topic of your homosexuality.

 

Silverfox, I can get videos to prove things .

Videos are proof of deeds, not motivations. They would do nothing to address his point.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

He's expecting one minor thing to take off and spread like mad. As I said, it's as logical and as unlikely as the other argument. If one thing's allowed, then more will be allowed. If one site uses it, more sites will use it (this is assuming it even works) and possibly go even further. I used it as it's one fallacy I'm most familiar with for obvious reasons. Would you like me to link to faulty arguments similar to reductio ad absurdum or other big Latin phrases? Or would you rather I say: "This is like saying 'Legal concealed carry will only result in more rampant crime due to increased availability of guns!" or "This is like saying that 'Electing a black man to president will result in African-Americans gaining excessive rights over white people, resulting in racism in different colors!'", or switch a few key words around for "This is like saying that 'Electing a woman to president will result in women gaining excessive rights over men, resulting in reversed sexism!'" How about "This is like saying 'Having overclocking information available to the masses will result in more people destroying perfectly good hardware!'" All un-educated and over-the-top arguments, like the "Tweaktown using ad block is going to result in more websites using it, to the point that we're forced to view ads!" complaint in this thread. There's absolutely no proof that Tweaktown's anti-ad block script is even working in their favor, and if you look at it from a money standpoint, only dedicated fans would continue to go to the website as a result of it, as your average viewer wouldn't bother turning off their ad blockers.

 

I only used an argument, I did nothing else to bring up my sexuality. It was the replies that brought it up, specifically the "I swear KB can turn any thread into a discussion of his gayness." Where did I address my gayness?

 

Regarding proof, what more proof would you like or require? Videos in that area make for a generally convincing argument.

 

 

But I'm in full support of getting back on the topic you've veered away from.

[road-runner]

Back on topic, I had no script on XP but recently added Vista as dual boot and installed no script from the reminder that someone posted in this thread. No script works fine with there website if anyone is having problems viewing it...

[Verran]

Would you like me to link to faulty arguments similar to reductio ad absurdum or other big Latin phrases?

I think it'd be neat to have a discussion like this that was completely devoid of analogies since 9 times out of 10 they just just miss the mark, confuse the point, and divert people's attention to discussing relatively unrelated topics. Why not explain why you think the train of logic is invalid instead of just equating it to some randomly selected ridiculous claim?

 

Anyways, I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility of this spreading to the point that it's rather commonplace on the internet. No one is saying that that will happen, but it could. Ad-Blockers threaten the revenue streams of websites. Is it terribly unrealistic to assume that websites may seek new ways of combating them?

 

Maybe TweakTown will find that their traffic dives considerably and will remove the script from their page. Maybe the loss will be minimal and they'll continue to use it. Only time will tell.

[Kamikaze_Badger]

"Maybe TweakTown will find that their traffic dives considerably and will remove the script from their page. Maybe the loss will be minimal and they'll continue to use it. Only time will tell."

 

Sounds like what I said . I just doubt it will work, and believe I explained so.

[Waco]

People need to realize that they don't have "rights" on the internet. The owner of the website can do whatever he/she chooses and if that includes blocking you from seeing content because you're blocking their revenue source that's perfectly okay.

 

I don't use any Adblock or no-script. There are precious few ads that are annoying enough that I would remove that site's funding to be gone with them. If I find something that annoying I just won't go to the site.

[road-runner]

Maybe it will draw a lot of attention then the hackers will take them down and continue to until they remove it...

[Verran]

"Maybe TweakTown will find that their traffic dives considerably and will remove the script from their page. Maybe the loss will be minimal and they'll continue to use it. Only time will tell."

 

Sounds like what I said . I just doubt it will work, and believe I explained so.

You're right. That does sound like one of the things you said.

 

Another thing you said was that suggesting this might spread to other sites and become commonplace was as objectionable as [insert your weird analogy here]. To me, that makes no sense. If there's a possibility this will work, why is it so crazy to assume it will propagate?

 

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see it grow. Like waco said, people need to drop the entitlement assumptions. It's their site and they're going to do their best to protect their revenue. Boycotting is one obvious solution if you don't like it, but that only works if you've got the numbers. Again, that would be a wait and see situation I guess.

[Praz]

People need to realize that they don't have "rights" on the internet. The owner of the website can do whatever he/she chooses and if that includes blocking you from seeing content because you're blocking their revenue source that's perfectly okay.

Completely agree. But on the other side of the coin the user has every right to use blocking software also.

 

I use both Adblock and No-Script so I have no idea of which sites have ads and which don't. Most sites I go to are computer related and thus so are the ads. I buy very little hardware and the small amount I do buy is not going to be influenced by the sight of an ad. For me to purposely configure my system to see those ads would be as silly as not fast-forwarding through the commercials of a program on one of my DVRs.

[Waco]

Completely agree. But on the other side of the coin the user has every right to use blocking software also.

You have every right to block the ads...and they have every right to prevent you from seeing their site if you do.

[Verran]

You have every right to block the ads...and they have every right to prevent you from seeing their site if you do.

You're both right... and it will be an epic battle

[Praz]

You have every right to block the ads...and they have every right to prevent you from seeing their site if you do.

And that would be fine. I have yet to find a site, non-business related, that if never seen again would have a negative impact on any part of my life.