On The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users
from the think-this-through-for-a-second... dept
Ferin alerts us to a story at Slashdot about some new campaign among some websites to block Firefox users. To be honest, it's tough to know how real this is. The actual site is down from the Slashdot Effect, and it certainly hadn't received much attention before. Even if it is real, it seems unlikely that many sites would sign up and take part. Most people just aren't that stupid. However, assuming (big risk here) that the campaign is real and some sites actually are doing this, it's worth explaining why it makes no sense. The complaints are basically that Firefox users "spend less" and sometimes use extensions like ad block to block out ads. Even if true (and it's only a small percentage of people who use ad block), that makes no sense if you understand the bigger picture. First of all, they tell people to go use other browsers -- but if those people aren't going to click on ads anyway, then they're still not going to click on ads from other browsers.Just like with the full vs. partial RSS debate, people need to get past the idea that every single visitor needs to be monetized. Instead, recognize the indirect benefits of having more users. Even if a Firefox user doesn't buy something or click on an ad, he or she may tell someone else about the site and they may click on an ad or buy something. Word of mouth is an ongoing process -- and even if someone doesn't directly contribute to the revenue of a site, the fact that they potentially could cause others to drive revenue is the key. For example, here at Techdirt, we make our money by connecting companies that need insightful analysis with the experts in the Techdirt Insight Community for collaborative analysis and by providing news and trend analysis to all sorts of companies, large and small. Techdirt, the blog, helps promote those services -- even if the vast majority of our readers never pay for either service. However, they've helped make Techdirt incredibly popular, driving additional brand recognition and helping us sell a lot more from the corporate side of the business. So even though only a tiny percentage of our readers provide revenue, there's tremendous benefit in getting as many others aware of us and reading the blog as possible.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ad blocker, firefox
Companies: firefox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People act as if firefox is some how less bloated than IE.
Firefox is not a light browser, it's bloated as hell. But out of the current browser market firefox is the least sucky available for my choosen platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's almost without features, and runs perfectly fast, using acceptable amounts of ram.
The problem with IE is its lack of standards support, and various ongoing ever-changing security issues.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now what we really need is a campaign to block
How ignorant might you be? Let me count the ways. IE is not bloated, never was. It's your own sloppy and careless computing habits that made it so, you and so many others. Moreover, no one should be punished for their choice of browser, whether it's IE or whatever browser you've managed to mess up all my yourself. An ad says 'click me". What do people like you do? You click it. You open attachments that are useless at best, virilant at worst... and then blame someone else for it. Shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"(and it's only a small percentage of people who use ad block)"? I'd love to know how you gained this wise information. Or is this just another assumption on your part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you really don't know then you probably wouldn't understand an explanation of how server logs can be analyzed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ad blocking is theft
Ad blocking is THEFT. That's a FACT. You can either accept it and join the rest of the grownups, or keep kicking and screaming and calling the waahhhhhmbulance every time one of these stories crops up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
There is no obligation, moral or otherwise, to listen to, read or otherwise perceive advertisements. If those businesses that utilize advertisements are unable to make them translate into financial return, it's not _my_ problem. That's how the free market works.
Do you make sure you watch _every_ ad on TV? If you go to the bathroom you are a dirty, degenerate thief by your logic. If you buy a magazine or newspaper do you read every ad? If you don't, by your logic you should be in jail.
If sites block Firefox, then they lose my as a user, regardless of whether they have ads or not. It seems to me that's their problem, not mine. It's a free market: Adapt or Die.
And by the way, I listen to talk radio a lot, and when commercials come on (assuming I'm not listening to C-SPAN), I turn to C-SPAN or put on music. If the advertisers don't want me to do that then they better turn off the transmitters.
You sound like a socialist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
Their business model for advertising is a toll gate,
rather than an attractive inducement toward purchasing.
More and more advertisers and retailers are reverting
to the obsolete business model based on the old scam
of only collecting a penny per person, but getting it
from every person crossing the Brooklyn Bridge.
( Was it a gangster or a corrupt politician that
came up with that one? )
What next?... start issuing subpoenas and offers of
pre-lawsuit settlement to people accused of blocking
ads in the privacy of their own homes, a la RIAA?
Well, they can deal with it without my support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
It seems like there was a time when people were putting up net sites for the love of doing it. Now the message is 'support my advertisers or this site will die and I'll starve and my kids won't have new shoes and I'll default on my mortgage...' What a loathsome kind of guilt-trip / extortion message this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ad blocking is theft
I change the channel when the commercials come on and I ignore radio advertising. I've been doing it for years and have become proficient in most all aspects. I occasionally get distracted and forget to bother going back to watch the rest of a t.v. program, but not big loss there.
In my opinion Ad Blocking is a conscious choice ... Theft, on the other hand, is when I take something that is not mine, without permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How silly is this ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How silly is this ?
EtG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also congrats TechDirt on your success to date may you live long and have even &ever more success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Every FF user I know uses it.
Maybe its because most of my friends are techies?
Maybe, but anyone else we know who uses it, we make sure uses ad block to.
As for reply #3, block ads it theft?
WTF?
You have GOT to be on crack, there is nothing that says we cannot block ads.
I am praying you were being sarcastic.
Oh wait, I don't pray ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rejoinders
@Deal With It: Ad blocking is unlikely to be construed as theft by the courts, for the simple reason that the publisher is intentionally distributing their material in a form that is specifically designed for ad-free reading: HTML. If you take the time to read up on the origins of HTML, it was designed to be usable by a wide range of "browsers", including those that wouldn't handle images (e.g., lynx, elinks). The fact that publishers chose of their own volition to use HTML for publishing material does not change the fact that HTML can and will be used without images, since it was designed that way.
If they want their ads to be delivered as part and parcel with their content, they are free to choose technologies to do so, such as encoding their content in images, PDF files, Flash animations, and the like, with their ads alongside. Then, readers have no more choice with regards to seeing ads than they do with most print media. Of course, it's likely that such approaches will result in reduced readership, so they'll have to make the business decision to determine if it's better to deliver ads to a larger audience where a percentage block them, or is it better to deliver ads to a smaller audience where they're guaranteed 100% ad delivery.
This is called capitalism. Different business models, with each business free to choose the model they feel most likely to succeed with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rejoinders
"Only a small amount of users that read TechDirt actually get blow jobs". While this is PROBABLY a true statement, it's not factual by any means. But you'all know it's true!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand where they're coming from
If you are using someones website and they support themselves with ads, letting them serve them is the least you can do.
Most of my favorite sites would not even exist without ad revenue - why make it harder for websites to make money and produce better content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firefox without AdBlock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You dont like me, I dont like you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adblock rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users
Maychic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knows
Therefore not only are they losing on ad revenue, if they are also selling a product they are going to lose revenue from that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, i have gone to site where ie is blocked and firefox is only allowed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at it this way...
It happens.
Make your (ad) messages more interesting and people will unblock you. Think Super Bowl. There are people that watch the game who don't give a stuff about football but love the commercials. (And, by the way, the last Super Bowl's commercials were disappointments...!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arms Race
1) FF users change their browser string (here's a hint: either set general.useragent.override (you'll have to create this one) or general.useragent.extra.firefox to not include "firefox").
2) Blockers use more complicated methods - which JS methods are available, specific exploits, etc.
3) Extensions for browser spoofing - imitate IE-specific minutiae. Or instead of following a 302 to whyfirefoxisblocked, re-request through a proxy instead.
4) Blockers block proxies, and start using exploits to install 'ad trackers' - of course, this step will probably exclude all non-Windows users, but the same "small percentage" argument applies.
5) and on... and on... and on.
Personally, I use AdBlock with Filterset.G modified to allow Google's ads - I don't mind quiet, (somewhat) relevant ads - it's the malware/animation frenzy that bothers me. I am definitely more inclined to click AdSense ads, and since they don't actively annoy me I let them be displayed. But bandwidth/CPU/memory-hogging, spyware-installing Flash ads tend to drive me away from sites long before I'd normally leave - usually as soon as I glimpse them.
Oh, and THANK YOU for pointing out the indirect benefits of traffic in an intelligible way - Techdirt is way out in front as far as thoughtful commentary on this and related issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arms Race
1) FF users change their browser string (here's a hint: either set general.useragent.override (you'll have to create this one) or general.useragent.extra.firefox to not include "firefox").
2) Blockers use more complicated methods - which JS methods are available, specific exploits, etc.
3) Extensions for browser spoofing - imitate IE-specific minutiae. Or instead of following a 302 to whyfirefoxisblocked, re-request through a proxy instead.
4) Blockers block proxies, and start using exploits to install 'ad trackers' - of course, this step will probably exclude all non-Windows users, but the same "small percentage" argument applies.
5) and on... and on... and on.
Personally, I use AdBlock with Filterset.G modified to allow Google's ads - I don't mind quiet, (somewhat) relevant ads - it's the malware/animation frenzy that bothers me. I am definitely more inclined to click AdSense ads, and since they don't actively annoy me I let them be displayed. But bandwidth/CPU/memory-hogging, spyware-installing Flash ads tend to drive me away from sites long before I'd normally leave - usually as soon as I glimpse them.
Oh, and THANK YOU for pointing out the indirect benefits of traffic in an intelligible way - Techdirt is way out in front as far as thoughtful commentary on this and related issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ie
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rejoinders, redux
@Haywood: I personally install Firefox with no add-ons whatsoever for PCs other than my own, and have done that on a couple hundred PCs in the past 18 months as part of my day job. The difficulty in installation isn't the number of clicks if you know where everything is and know what you want to install up front. It's that ordinary people have to 1.) realize that there is such a thing as an add-on, 2.) meander through menus to find where add-ons are, 3.) wander through a tedious site to see what add-ons are there, 4.) find AdBlock Plus and decide that is worthwhile, 5.) not get scared by the "uncertified" window that pops up when installing it, and 6.) go ahead with the install. These are the same people who can't figure out how to print landscape in Microsoft Word -- in other words, ordinary folk from Middle America. I'll grant you that a decent number of folk who install Firefox themselves might do all that. Those who get Firefox as part of a company-wide deployment or otherwise pre-installed probably won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rejoinders, redux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do I care? For each site that would block me, there's at least a hundred more that won't.
Plus, it activates the Streisand Effect.
If anyone's interested, here's a link to 'Adblock Plus' - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
Or you can simply open the Window within a Firefox tab, using IE's engine to do it - oh my!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1419
Plus, you can always just change the User Agent Sting, and it'll kill their little 'magic'
http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2004/04/24/changinguseragent.html
Will I get arrested for posting this now that I'm giving people a choice and educating them, since I'm 'Cutting into someone's profits'. Pfft*
But then, it's not illegal yet to use this stuff - YET being the key word... huh?
SO much for freedom of speech, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From the /. page, and the linked original page, it appears to be nothing more than an ignorant rant by one stupid man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why I use AdBlock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why I use AdBlock
Anyway, what I meant to say was that I don't use Adblock because I dislike advertisements; I use it because I don't like being annoyed by obtrusive advertisements. Unfortunately, that describes the vast majority of web advertisements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why I use AdBlock
Fortunately, AdBlock, NoScript and FlashBlock are very, very effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen!!
On sites with regular banners, etc - I'll click on them no problem at all, it's those dang pop-ups.
Oh and NOTHING annoys me more than that annoying girl saying, "You've been selected to win a Free iPOD!".
I'll navigate away from that page as quickly as I possibly can.
And as for the 'legality' of forcing ads on me - I'm sorry, at least for now, I have what's called 'Property Rights' - AKA, it's my computer, I'll block whatever I want.
If you put up a PUBLIC page, you have to deal with that.
If you don't like it, put up a clause, like a porn site, where people have to accept the terms of getting Ads rammed down your throat before people use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AdBlock, eh?
Heck, I could live with just NoScript. Sites that use all Flash as their basis tick me off anyway, and ads that are nothing more than images don't tend to annoy me. It's these interactive farces of advertisement that annoy me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solutions
2. use no-script. it rocks - MORE than ad-block. installation is - yep, you guessed it - painless and easy and takes all of 5 seconds. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722
3. and now for the piece du resistance: User Agent Switcher. *smack* *bam* Ha! ha! ha! it rocks. and ... yes, installation is painless and easy and takes all of 5 seconds. http://chrispederick.com/work/user-agent-switcher/
4. surf contentedly. watch ads only when and where you want. allow scripting only when and where you want. gosh - I'm getting all tingly just thinking about so much freedom ...
best wishes to those who think THEY will control my surfing experience. hope they're not holding their collective breath or anything ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Solutions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. This isn't a group, it's one person, me.
2. Ad Block Plus, like many ad blocking software is most commonly used to block all ads. (which is stealing)
3. Unlike other ad blocking software, Ad Block Plus intentionally prevents site owners from blocking those that use it.
4. FireFox actively promotes Ad Block plus
5. Since I am unable to prevent people from stealing resources by blocking only ad block software users, I therefore block all Mozilla users.
6. There are more ways to detect Mozilla than the useragent.
7. Using IETab will allow FireFox users to access my sites. Something I recommend and even link to in the page explaining why I am blocking FireFox (which it seems very few FireFox user have the ability to read past the first few words)
8. By the hate email and phone calls I've been getting, some really sick and disturbed people use FireFox and seem to treat it as a religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would you guess it?
1. This isn't a group, it's one person, me.
2. Ad Block Plus, like many ad blocking software is most commonly used to block all ads. (which is stealing)
3. Unlike other ad blocking software, Ad Block Plus intentionally prevents site owners from blocking those that use it.
4. FireFox actively promotes Ad Block plus
5. Since I am unable to prevent people from stealing resources by blocking only ad block software users, I therefore block all Mozilla users.
6. There are more ways to detect Mozilla than the useragent.
7. Using IETab will allow FireFox users to access my sites. Something I recommend and even link to in the page explaining why I am blocking FireFox (which it seems very few FireFox user have the ability to read past the first few words)
8. By the hate email and phone calls I've been getting, some really sick and disturbed people use FireFox and seem to treat it as a religion.
"
reply
1. Well you got some balls I guess
2. I use Ad block and I still see many adds
3. Since when do you have a right to know what I am running on my own computer?
4. I have used Firefox for over 3 years and I heard about addblock from a friend finally. Your assertion that they promote addblock is obliviously BS.
5. And how are they stealing from not looking at your adds again? Your argument for protectionism is about the most hollow I have ever heard. You feel that user should have to view your web page the way YOU intended it or it is a violation of....?
6. I am sure that you will outsmart thousands of programmers and hackers out there. Good luck with that.
7. So nice of you to post a workaround to the problem you created. Way to go!
8. Just because you have balls doesn't mean you have brains. Should have thought this one through before you starting going all Nazi eh? Pretty stupid now that you reflect on it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks for my new homepage!
--bornagainpenguin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adblocks
2. Ad Block Plus, like many ad blocking software is most commonly used to block all ads. (which is stealing)
would someone please explain to me how this is stealing ????
what have I stolen by not viewing his ads??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: adblocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
I use Firefox and I've tried to get as many ppl to switch, for obvious reasons. If those sites wanna lose customers and viewers let them kill themselves, who cares. I even sport my black FF T shirt... I get some good comments from random techies every once in awhile too, it's pretty interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It strikes me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It strikes me....
He'll make money out of it if we do that. A DDOS would be better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as I see it the screen space is mine, I'll look at what I want.
However, if a site owner doesn't want me to see a page, well they are free to do this as well, I don't have to look at the ads, they don't have to let me see any of it.
*shrug* non issue
blocking the ads is no more theft than ignoring them on a page where they are shown. blocking some of the larger ones helps with a slow web link.
these days I block ads since I got fedup with popups/unders flash based adds, dynamic stuff that gets in the way of the content and stuff that just clashes with the page.
there may well be ads that don't fall into these categories, these get blocked too by default.
you want to get round adblock?
its *easy* have the advert as part of your page, serve the graphics yourself, from the same place as the rest of your graphics (so they can't be blocked based on URL), but design them not to hurt the eyes. have text ads served via php directly as part of the page, don't use CSS div tags that can be found.
basically make the ad part of the content.
of course this means more work. but if your adverts have 'ad' in the URL your asking for trouble.
not a legal issue though, you don't want me on your site, thats your choice.
my site has no adverts on it, mostly cus theres not enough content to make it worth while, if i had a few there and you want to block them.. well thats fine too.
stealing? don't make me laugh, if thats the way you think see you in court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
woo
i want to not be screamed at and blinked at while i'm looking for cranberry-orange bread recipes. this is the same way i (rarely) watch tv. we've got a car dealership here in denver called rocky's, it's the crazy, gimmicky, put-poor-people-in-debt dealership, but every once in a while they run a tv commercial that starts with text that says "20 seconds of silence, brought to you by rocky's autos" and it's a 20-second shot of a babbling portion of a stream. i watch the shit out of that commercial. when the nutty fuckin' mattress king commercials come on, you know, the ones where some fat dude is screaming about his mattresses and the volume of the entire commercial is 75% louder than the rest of anything else that's broadcast on that channel...i shut that shit off as fast as i can. i swear i almost broke my arm once, going for the remote.
i've been annoyed by the stick-your-e-dick-in-me advertising on the internet for a loooooong time...i now have an off button for the internet mattress kings. tough shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger picture
What was the need that led the developers to create AdBlock in the first place? Why have people installed it?
Answer: because people are so sick of looking at annoying, flashing ads that have ZERO relavance to what they're doing. For example, when I read an e-mail from my mom using Yahoo mail, why the **** do I get a flashing banner saying "Refinace NOW! NOW! NOW!" Stop flashing and let me concentrate on what I'm doing.
I think people would be less likely to block ads if ad-makers took their cue from TV and actually made their ads relevant, non-annoying, and somthing that users actually wanted to see. In other words, make the commercials entertaining enough that people *want* to watch them.
Then again, it's always easier to complain about your failing business model (which depends on people clicking on ads) than it is to adapt to the fact that people don't want your annoying ads distracting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats your address? I've itemized what resources on *my* computer your ads were using and I need to know where to send the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocking Firefox users great idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't change you rUID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of theft/stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is this guy
Registrant:
Danny Carlton
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: WHYFIREFOXISBLOCKED.COM
Created on: 06-Aug-07
Expires on: 06-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 06-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
9180000000 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Carlton, Danny godaddy@DannyCarlton.net
19724 E Pine St
Suite #149
Catoosa, Oklahoma 75015
United States
9180000000 Fax --
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
NS2.FAMILYNETHOME.COM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is this guy
Anyway, I'm glad he's blocking my browser. He's actually doing me a favor. :) Now, if we could just get him to block ALL browsers the world would be a much better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising is theft
Advertisments consume my bandwith.
Advertisments distract me from concentrating to the things I chose to read.
Advertisments pop up in front of the content I read and I loose time shuting them down.
Do you want ads in your site? Put a link that says "ads", for those who want to see them.
Next think we'll hear is "SPAM FILTERS ARE THEFT"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
I mean, no one can be this obtuse can they? (Never mind, I keep getting surprised at how little brain power is required to breathe and surf the net everyday).
Actually, I would think its a stroke of GENIUS! Its a hot button issue. All he has to do is slap a few banners and BOOM! Millions of page views, money in the bank!
I have adblock, so I can't see the ads if there are any.
(and that's a GOOD thing)
Oh and for those of you saying "Ad blocking is theft"...hmmm you keep using that word, I don't think it means what YOU think it means. Look it up, get a clue and go back to school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny Carlton needs money
His attractive 40-year-old was fired for sexually harrassing her 50-year-old supervisor.
Because of his anti universal healthcare position, he has no insurance to cover the childern who suffer healthcare issues.
Thus, the only income is job as a 'web designer' and the "plum" http://blogadswap.com/ business.
And here's a list of users of blogadswap who somehow think Danny's plan is worthwhile.
http://blogadswap.com/memberlist.php
(He claims to be getting "hate" mail - why not let the free market work and contact his members and explain how their Ad provider is making a poor choice.)
Danny Carlton seems to think that he's ok, and others are the cause of his problems - no WAY could he be the problem.
"I was once fired from a job after being used as a convenient scapegoat for a supervisor's misconduct." So I'm sure that extra bandwidth costs or loss of advertisers will be the fault of others, or Satan or whatever.
SpelChek.com, BytheFirePlace.com, phpBible.org, radioJesus.com, LookListenLearn.org, BytheFireplace.com are also some of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ff w/ adblock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firefox User AND Big Spender
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Next?
Just tried to look up the owner of that site. Figures that the a-hole would not have any contact info available. If it's run by the same idiot that runs Firefox Myths, he's a fairly well known internet troll who has been banned by more sites than will ever block Firefox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Next?
Read the comments, you can find out who Danny is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bought a newspaper, and as usual - the very first thing I did, was pull the advertisements in the center and trash them.
What about junk mail at home? Don't most people simply throw it away?
How is Ad blocking on the web any different.
I suspect... the above spouting how 'illegal' ad blocking is, have thrown away junk mail or skipped ads in the paper, huh? :)
Or maybe not?
Since when is it illegal to thrown away junk mail in your mailbox, or get rid of the ads in the newspaper? Why would the internet be any different?
You think the Newspaper publisher will stop me from buying papers because I throw out the ads? I seriously doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firefox blocking
If a webmaster blocks me for using FF, I'll just go to other site. Anyway, there are zillions of them!
I just don't want to see or hear any ad. Never. Period. When it comes to TV, as soon as ads start I switch channel or at least mute the TV and look other way. On newspaper, I completely ignore any ad. On the radio, I switch station or mute the apparatus. I have the right to do all those things, and also has the right to do the same on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adblock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons -_-
Now to address a very big flaw in this plan:
They're using Javascript to block FF users. However, I have ABP AND a certain extension named NoScript. What this extension does is block all Javascript from all websites unless I specifically tell it not to. Therefore, I have a simple way of getting around their FF-ban but non-ABP users don't (if they don't have ABP they probably don't have NS but if you have one, chances are you have the other).
They're only blocking NON-ABP users, instead of the people they are trying to block. So they've only made things worse for themselves. Can you say "DURR"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not every internet access is from somebody's prefered browser. For example, I use Firefox (with adblock) at home, but IE at work. If I am unable to check a site from home, I am unlikely to check it when I am forced to use a non preference browser. So by blocking Firefox, I will never see the adverts, but by not blocking it, there is a at least a chance I will see them. But i never click on them anyway so it doesn't make much difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. I switch the channel on most TV Ads, but some ads are just funny, entertaining and just clever and worth watching (several times actually). Why don't you think about how to make your online ads appealing instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need Help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need Help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blocking FireFox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason to block Fire Fox
Everytime I launch a new SEO'd web page on my site all my competitors will follow suit targeting the same keyphrase. What I notice is that my hits will increase dramatically from Fire Fox users pulling my site to pieces giving me false statistics of real visitors. My sites are B2B and the majority, if not all, of my target market are IE users.
Yes, some people use Firefox because it is free or they are cheap themselves, or even because they like to express their individuality by being different from the mainstream but, I believe that it is predominately used by tech heads who I don't want to come into my site.
If I were to go down the road of blocking FireFox users does anyone know how I would go about it without effecting the way Google crawls my pages? Would Google frown upon my sites if I were to do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
комментарий на топик
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The conclusion of the matter...
Ad Blocking is stealing because if someone created content on the internet and places ads on it, then they obviously are providing that content on the condition that the ads appear. It's an exchange of resources. They provide you with their resources (the content, bandwidth etc.) and in exchange you see the ads. If you don't want to see the ads, then your response would be to avoid their content, not take it while hiding the ads--because that would be stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]