On The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users

from the think-this-through-for-a-second... dept

Fri, Aug 17th 2007 3:16pm — Mike Masnick

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

100 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Emily Sors, 17 Aug 2007 @ 3:50pm

LOL. Now what we really need is a campaign to block IE users, until Microsoft makes a version that's not horrible bloatware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo Mama, 17 Aug 2007 @ 3:55pm

So tell us oh wise one....how do you ascertain that,
"(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 thread ]
Deal With It, 17 Aug 2007 @ 3:57pm

Ad blocking is theft
Comrade Masnick chimes in once again with the tired meme of socialist style, 'information should be free' BS.

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 thread ]
fooseball, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:06pm

How silly is this ?
How do they prevent firefox users that use IE Tab ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rlee, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:10pm

I'll bet those people use Fx.
Also congrats TechDirt on your success to date may you live long and have even &ever more success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:13pm

Hmm
Usually agree with a lot you say Mike, but the whole most FF users don't use AdBlock, I gotta see something to back that one up, I am sorry man.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:14pm

Re: Ad blocking is theft
Even if he said information _shall_ be free, instead of "should" as he did which is merely a reflection on wise business practices in 2007, it would not make him a socialist but only an anarchist. Whats so hard about it? The Internet is the first genuinely new forum for social interaction humanity has devised. Why can't it be anarchic? We'll let you sully the environment with your ads. We'll block them. We'll let you cry and go out of business and go away, and wish you bon voyage in whatever future, hopefully more intelligent, endeavours you participate in. We wont shed a tear that you disappeared because your business model relied on assulting the serenity of your users through brazen and obnoxious ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:15pm

Rejoinders
@Jo Mama: AdBlock Plus is not included in Firefox by default; you have to go to some lengths to install it. It's therefore rather likely that "only a small percentage of people" use it, since "only a small percentage of people" will bother to go get it, no different than any other tedious-to-add technology (e.g., various tools that added tabbed browsing to IE6).

@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 thread ]
Seth Brundle, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:18pm

I understand where they're coming from
Just because people use adblock doesn't mean they wouldn't click on any ads if they saw them, and it doesn't really matter on CPM campaigns, just CPC or affiliate.

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 thread ]
Petréa Mitchell, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:19pm

Firefox without AdBlock
Well, I'm using Firefox this very moment without AdBlock. In fact, I've never felt a need to get AdBlock. I mean, NoScript gets me the same results, plus added security!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jo Mama, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:22pm

Re: Rejoinders
Mark, once again, you are speculating. All I ever hear out of the kids that post here is speculation. Facts are facts.

"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 thread ]
Al, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:27pm

You dont like me, I dont like you...
What kind of logic is going through their brains. Sounds like Steve Jobs. Users may like ff for reasons other than adblock. I didnt even know that was an option. Screw their website!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:27pm

Adblock rules
I personally install Firefox with ad-block, filter set G updater, and bug-me not on every machine I touch, unless the owner refuses it. I spread the word like Paul Revere to anyone who will listen. I doubt the assertion that few Firefox users use ad-block, and I don't surround myself with techies. As for it being difficult to install, that statement couldn't have come from someone who has done it, 5 clicks max.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jacob Buck, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:40pm

Re:
I agree, everyone I know I set up with Firefox and Ad-Block. And they set up people they know and so on and so on....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maychic.com/wealthology, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:40pm

The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users
Before Firefox, Explorer and its humongous problems nearly drove me insane. So, Firefox is a very welcomed messiah which saved my sanity. Therefore, I cannot imagine anyone engaging in blocking it.
Maychic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dealing With It, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:42pm

Re: Ad blocking is theft
Ad blocking is THEFT. That's a FACT.
A lie no matter how oft repeated is still a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:43pm

Who knows
If a company ever blocks be based on me using firefox as my browser, I simply will not ever visit there web page period.

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 thread ]
Linux User, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:45pm

Just use Konquorer and make it look like ie6
Also, i have gone to site where ie is blocked and firefox is only allowed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lar3ry, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:48pm

Look at it this way...
This whole practice makes as much sense as sending a television signal to turn off all programming on the T.V. once it detects that somebody has left the room to take a leak during a commercial.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:50pm

Re:
I'd love to know how you gained this wise information. Or is this just another assumption on your part?

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 thread ]
Peter Stone, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:52pm

Arms Race
Here's what I see if this takes off:

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 thread ]
Peter Stone, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:52pm

Arms Race
Here's what I see if this takes off:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:56pm

Everyone that I know that uses IE uses some kind of filtering with it. IE even comes with a built-in pop-up blocker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy, 17 Aug 2007 @ 4:57pm

Rejoinders, redux
@Jo Mama: "Mark, once again, you are speculating." Sure. AdBlock Plus doesn't report itself in the user-agent string, so there's no easy way to putter through Web server logs to get a statistical analysis that way. People lie on surveys, so I can't imagine you'd trust results from one of those. Hence, there's no easy legal way to determine the percentage of people running AdBlock Plus that I can see. Lacking that, all we are left with is speculation, and as you'll see below, I speculate that a small percentage of Firefox users have bothered to install AdBlock Plus.

@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 thread ]
Charles Griswold, 17 Aug 2007 @ 5:30pm

Re: Rejoinders, redux
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 [jump through hoops].
I do that stuff for fun. :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
john duncan yoyo, 17 Aug 2007 @ 5:50pm

Re: ie
The unfortunate security flaws in ie in past generations leave leary of ever using it. It was the quickest way to infection in years past.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 17 Aug 2007 @ 5:52pm

I don't give a rat's tail - block me for using Firefox - then I won't see ANY of the ads, or use the site.

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 thread ]
Eric the Grey, 17 Aug 2007 @ 5:56pm

Re: How silly is this ?
Actually, the article suggests using that, because it disables Ad Block.

EtG
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 17 Aug 2007 @ 6:02pm

Why I use AdBlock
I don't use Adblock
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 17 Aug 2007 @ 6:06pm

Re: Why I use AdBlock
I don't use Adblock
Totally not true. I accidentally hit the "Enter" key while editing the Subject. Arrrgh!

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 6:08pm

Re: Ad blocking is theft
Who's not being the grown-up here?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Why I use AdBlock
Good point. I cannot read a text article with some stupid distracting animation. If I can't block the ad, or at least scroll it off the screen, I'll probably just leave the page.

Fortunately, AdBlock, NoScript and FlashBlock are very, very effective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 17 Aug 2007 @ 6:41pm

I use it because I don't like being annoyed by obtrusive advertisements.
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 thread ]
Washii, 17 Aug 2007 @ 7:44pm

AdBlock, eh?
I use ConFetch atop of a personal TreeWalk DNS server in order to extend quite a few of AdBlock's capabilities to any Internet-using software in combination with NoScript inside Firefox and its associated clones.

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 thread ]
CharlieHorse, 17 Aug 2007 @ 7:49pm

Simple Solutions
1. use ad-block. It rocks. installation is painless and takes all of 5 seconds. http://adblock.mozdev.org/

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 thread ]
Danny Carlton, 17 Aug 2007 @ 8:19pm

I'm the "some websites" slashdot refers to. Here are the facts that seem to be omitted.

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 thread ]
eskayp, 17 Aug 2007 @ 8:35pm

Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
Some advertisers just aren't dealing with it.
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 thread ]
Peter, 17 Aug 2007 @ 8:44pm

adblocks
# 35
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 thread ]
Avatar28, 17 Aug 2007 @ 8:46pm

Re: 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.
Okay, so I'm guessing from your statement that when you are watching a TV show or listen to the radio you always watch/listen to the commercials, you never change the channel, and you don't get up and go to the bathroom, fix a snack, etc. I'm guessing you also don't use any sort of DVR or if you do you never fast forward through the commercials. Oh yeah, and I guess you never flip past ads in magazines and newspapers. Right? Cause if you don't you're a hypocrite. Using adblock is NO different than changing the channel during a commercial or fast forwarding through ads with a DVR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
balm stever, 17 Aug 2007 @ 9:12pm

i just took all of my money out of the bank and burned it in a big bonfire so that you will never get any of it. take that, neener, neener.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
balm stever, 17 Aug 2007 @ 9:12pm

i just took all of my money out of the bank and burned it in a big bonfire so that you will never get any of it. take that, neener, neener.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Stevens, 17 Aug 2007 @ 11:30pm

LOL
Ad blocking is theft? That's retarded... Skipping commercials isn't theft. Downloading music or content illegally isn't even theft, it's copyright infringement.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2007 @ 11:44pm

Re:
thanks!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
|333173|3|_||3, 18 Aug 2007 @ 4:46am

Re:
Changing you UID string will result in your getting IE6 or IE7 scripts and mark-up, instead of W3C versions, which will mean that some sites get mangled unless you use IEtabs, in which case you may as well be using IE.

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 thread ]
Think differernt, 18 Aug 2007 @ 6:22am

It strikes me....
That the best way to show OUR love for Danny's plan is to have automated software visit his web page and click on the ads there, then go back, visit the page and click on the new ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jessta, 18 Aug 2007 @ 7:16am

Re:
I love comments like this.
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 thread ]
Haywood, 18 Aug 2007 @ 8:57am

Re: Simple Solutions
Thanks I love another good plug-in. I just installed User Agent. Now I can say; what blocked site, like I used to say; what ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just me, 18 Aug 2007 @ 9:00am

There are still ways to block ads in IE the main way is to block the websites under your security section. I do this, and know of several people who do this also. I just think that the guy has it in for FF and this is his only way to retaliate against them. He does have the script code up for anyone to grab and set up. I believe he is on the level, but the thing is he thinks he can cripple FF, and he can't because the only one that looses, are the ones stupid enough to use his script. There are better ways to show ads, for years many have tried to get them to be more creative, and put out better ways to display other than using popups because these can be dangerous. I will not unblock ads just because I want to visit a website. So it will be YOUR loss if you decide to block FF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
claire rand, 18 Aug 2007 @ 9:04am

well I use firefox with adblock pro, among other extensions.

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 thread ]
joe, 18 Aug 2007 @ 9:34am

I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to block firefox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2007 @ 10:07am

Re: adblocks
# 35
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 ????
It isn't. He's lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 18 Aug 2007 @ 10:30am

woo
here's the deal. if you don't run retarded-ass ad campaigns that include 100-frame gifs set to 0.1s and flash ads that scream and fart and make alarm noises 'n shit...then i disable adblock for your site. if, however, that exactly describes your advertising tactics, then you can fuck off and not get my clicks. the reason for making my internet-browsing experience an annoying one doesn't matter to me.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2007 @ 11:04am

Pretty soon, these people are going to start say, "Not clicking on my 'punch the monkey' banner is stealing."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John (profile), 18 Aug 2007 @ 1:56pm

The bigger picture
Instead of complaining about *how* users are blocking ads, how about looking at the bigger picture of *why* users want to block ads in the first place.

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 thread ]
reed, 18 Aug 2007 @ 2:53pm

Re: Would you guess it?
Danny said,"
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 thread ]
asdf, 18 Aug 2007 @ 5:24pm

Re: Ad blocking is theft
Ads are THEFT of MY bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2007 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
^Indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2007 @ 10:50pm

"5. Since I am unable to prevent people from stealing resources by blocking only ad block software users, I therefore block all Mozilla users."

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 thread ]
bornagainpenguin, 18 Aug 2007 @ 11:04pm

Re: Thanks for my new homepage!
Ever since I saw your slashvertorialI've been using your site www.whyisfirefoxblocked.com as my new startup page and encouraging others to do the same. I figure sooner or later you'll wake up and realize it is the content, not the ads that make people go to websites. The fact that each time my and others' browsers hit your site costs you bandwidth while providing you an empirical understanding of just how many potential viewers you've alienated is merely a fringe benefit....

--bornagainpenguin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2007 @ 11:40pm

Hey, #3. Using your same logic, when you get up to take a piss during a commercial break on TV, then you are stealing. When you mute the sound during a commercial break so you can talk to someone else, then you are stealing. When you leave the cinema before you've watched the credits, you are stealing. Surely someone can't be so fucking narrow minded??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get Over Yourself, 19 Aug 2007 @ 12:59am

Re: Ad blocking is theft
#3: Ad blocking... theft? Whatever. You're absolutely clueless. The ad would still attempt to display, thus generating the revenue for the site creator, but it wouldn't show up on the person's monitor. Please get a clue about what you're talking about before you look like a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Surfwriter, 19 Aug 2007 @ 3:22am

Blocking Firefox users is just as stupid as not building a website that is compliant with Firefox (or IE or Opera or Safari, etc). I have a friend who did just that because he wrongly though Firefox would never become popular - thus ignoring something like 25% of his clients' visitors. He is now an ex-webdesigner. b
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Green, 19 Aug 2007 @ 4:14am

Blocking Firefox users great idea
There is so much junk online at present that those sites blocking will save us the trouble of having to deal with ad intensive sites coupled with poor quality information. These sites only want to throw more ads at users in an already grossly over commercialized environment. Great idea of sites self purging off the net, the less crap the better. Every site is replaceable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
|333173|3|_||3, 19 Aug 2007 @ 8:09am

Re: It strikes me....
NO! No! No!
He'll make money out of it if we do that. A DDOS would be better
[ link to this | view in thread ]
|333173|3|_||3, 19 Aug 2007 @ 8:17am

Don't change you rUID
One other good reason for not changing your UID is that Google (and a few other search engines) pay Mozilla for each time you use Firefox to search using them. This is a large part of the millions that Google pay to Mozilla each year, the rest coming from auctioning off the top spot in the search bar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave (profile), 19 Aug 2007 @ 10:56am

Definition of theft/stealing
Some of this is great, the people that think that ad blockers are stealing from them would die in a real business world. If i went to my boss and said hey i'm sorry our ads didn't work that we paid $$$'s for - it was the fault of people who changed channel... I'd be out of the door with his foot up my ass before i could Internet Explorer. For the record; the legal definition of theft is as follows: "Attempting to permanently deprive someone of something that is rightfully theirs." Ad revenue is speculation. It is not rightfully yours until it actually hits your bank account; what people seem to be saying here is that to deprive people of the option of viewing their ad is theft. Seeing as you have no legal right over peoples choice you argument is invalid. However, we aren't going to persuade anyone away from their article; lets just let their crap business practices/model restrict them out of the market. Oh and for a real joke see this link i got from the "whyiblockedfirefox" page http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html Proper BS here. I like Firefox and do tell people to use it but i have hardly ever used any of the so-called myths brought up here - mainly because i understand it is true. As far as speed goes i find FF is faster than IE until i load it up with all the extensions. but whats a few seconds when the result is the web surfing experience i want? (by the way sorry for my poor formatting i cannot write html code)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR SITE!, 19 Aug 2007 @ 12:40pm

Re:
YOU ARE A RETARD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Cook, 19 Aug 2007 @ 12:56pm

Re:
Ok, so I love a good MS bashing as much as the next man (Sometimes I'll even call them M$, just to fit in), but IE is bloatware?

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 thread ]
kilroy, 19 Aug 2007 @ 3:21pm

Re: Ad blocking is theft
But I always block ad. I do it entirely subconsciously every time I am on the web. The truth is that I ignore everything but the content. If there is an ad for something I might be interested in (like say running gear at phenomenal prices) it gets tuned out with all the rest of it.

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 thread ]
kilroy, 19 Aug 2007 @ 3:28pm

Re: Hmm
I use FF and do not use AdBlock ... as I mentioned above I have adapted to the point of ignoring anything but content. and if the ads are completely annoying there is the little 'x' in the top right corner of my browser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marc, 19 Aug 2007 @ 6:13pm

Who is this guy
If you request the whois database to see that the guy who is behind this campaign is also the owner of http://www.familynethome.com/. Danny Carlton is an religious nuts, extreme right wing who thing Open Source is communism.

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 thread ]
Dave, 19 Aug 2007 @ 6:24pm

Re:
You're a dimwitted twit. I use FF and don't have Ad Block. I block every ad with a PROXY SERVER. Infact, I'm not the only one in the world who does this. So why don't you just shut up and cry to your mommy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2007 @ 6:27pm

Advertising is theft
I pay for internet to have access to the content I want and not to ads.

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 thread ]
Bob Smith, 19 Aug 2007 @ 8:14pm

I have adblock installed and guess what. I DON'T use it since it causes problems on sites with other things allowing me to not see things even though they aren't ads. Trying to block FireFox users is just crap. Thats like trying to block people from accessing your site if they find it on Yahoo or maybe Google. Any site that wants people to come to their site isn't gonna sign up for this list.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
null, 20 Aug 2007 @ 2:33am

The browser makes no conditions to rendering your content as you so designed, nor does the OS render aspects of your site as you so designed. HTML rendering is already fairly messy, and the differences in say firefox and ie are huge. The difference in firefox and links are even bigger. The owner of the site obviously doesnt understand this. elinks, links and lynx won't care about his site, and won't show the adds. If I remember correctly he also stated else where that any user that doesn't have javascript turned on isn't worth caring about. Nice way to stop people in work or behind restrictive access from viewer those crap sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
thecaptain, 20 Aug 2007 @ 5:43am

Wow.
I certainly hope that ANYONE going to check out the site has adblock enabled.

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 thread ]
waaambulance, 20 Aug 2007 @ 5:44am

Danny Carlton needs money
http://dannycarlton.townhall.com/
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Aug 2007 @ 8:56am

Re: Who is this guy

Danny Carlton is an religious nuts, extreme right wing who thing Open Source is communism.

You left out "liar". See his comment above where he claims that ad-blocking is "stealing". Isn't there some commandment against making false accusations?

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 thread ]
Virg, 20 Aug 2007 @ 2:25pm

ff w/ adblock
thanks for the info peeps just added adblock plus to my ff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ogman, 21 Aug 2007 @ 7:23am

Firefox User AND Big Spender
I'm a Firefox user and I block ads, mostly because they are obnoxious and distract from content. However, I also buy a lot of stuff; especially gadgets, software, computers, and other tech related stuff. If someone makes it hard for me to use their site because I use Firefox, I go somewhere else and I send the offending site a note letting them know that they lost my business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mark, 21 Aug 2007 @ 7:36am

What Next?
Will companies soon block gmail users because of the spam filter? This is stupid. If I get blocked, not only will I not use the site, I will tell everyone I know not to use it.

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 thread ]
waaabulance, 21 Aug 2007 @ 11:39am

Re: What Next?
Just tried to look up the owner of that site. Figures that the a-hole would not have any contact info available.
Read the comments, you can find out who Danny is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 23 Aug 2007 @ 10:44am

You know, I thought about this today at lunch.

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 thread ]
Eduardo Gutierrez, 13 Sep 2007 @ 2:00pm

Firefox blocking
I never, never ever pay any attention to any ads and (of course) use AdBlock with Firefox.

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 thread ]
gerald hamilton, 14 Sep 2007 @ 10:47am

adblock
I'going to install adblock right away. Thanks to you all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NightKev, 16 Sep 2007 @ 5:46pm

Morons -_-
"Let's block FF users because less than 5% of them have ABP!"
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 thread ]
Martin, 21 Sep 2007 @ 6:35am

Another point which I think has been missed:
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 thread ]
Aprilfool, 6 Oct 2007 @ 12:27am

Re: Now what we really need is a campaign to block
"Now what we really need is a campaign to block IE users, until Microsoft makes a version that's not horrible bloatware."

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 thread ]
Aprilfool, 6 Oct 2007 @ 12:43am

Re: Re: Re: Ad blocking is theft
Yes. Agreed! Ads are THEFT of the bandwidth I already paid for. If a site wants to serve me ads, I'll block them. If it's going under because it's losing ad revenue, then it had better find another approach to advertising or die.

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 thread ]
Iliahj, 14 Nov 2007 @ 1:02am

I don't think that using Adblock is a THEFT. It's not. It's SELF-CENSORSHIP, and everyone has the right to filther the contecnt that he or she receives. I like making ads, however I don't like consuming them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iliahj, 14 Nov 2007 @ 1:33am

In the 90s the ads were better - mostly text-based and more relevant to the website (for example a food site advertised food and beverages, not cars or sport equipment). Nowadays Adblock is essention not to become crazy or ad-obsessed. For example, why should I know all the latest albums by Britney Spears while reading an e-mail? That's not my purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iliahj, 14 Nov 2007 @ 1:35am

Filtering the information you receive is not theft, it's self-censorship, which can improve your life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam Anwar, 2 Dec 2007 @ 10:53am

1. It's plain stupid to think that Ad-Blocking is stealing, grow up and get some education.

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 thread ]
Daniel, 23 Jan 2008 @ 12:52pm

Need Help
Don't know hot to stop people in my company from installing firfox. They don't have administrator right and they are still doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Daniel, 23 Jan 2008 @ 12:53pm

Need Help
Don't know hot to stop people in my company from installing firfox. They don't have administrator right and they are still doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 4 Mar 2008 @ 2:01am

Blocking FireFox
HA! Who cares? FireFox is over-rated. I haven't found it all that great. I much prefer CrazyBrowser because for tabbing it's the way to go. FireFox is too sensitive and the stupid thing will change settings on my PC on a whim. I'm not going to block anyone but you can keep FireFox.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Guy, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:28pm

Re: LOL
You wear a firefox tee? Your a fag!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sensible, 25 Apr 2009 @ 7:14pm

Another reason to block Fire Fox
I am contemplating blocking Fire Fox for the following reasons;

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 thread ]
TIMOFEJShestakov32, 8 Jun 2010 @ 8:54am

комментарий на топик
Только здесь сантехнические работы от профи
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny Carlton, 29 Nov 2012 @ 5:08am

The conclusion of the matter...
My campaign was begun because AdBlockPlus could not be detected. When Firefox upgraded to version 4.0, ABP was no longer compatible. When they upgraded to v 5.0, ABP was again compatible, but completely detectable using all methods. Obviously Mozilla booted ABP because of the bad publicity I generated. They obviously informed the creator of ABP that before it could be compatible it had to be detectable. That was what I wanted. That was what I was fighting for. ABP can be detected and now 5 years later the internet has not collapsed.

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 thread ]