Why Are People Using Ad Blockers? Ads Can Eat Up To 79% Of Mobile Data Allotments

from the zero-rate-this dept

Tue, Mar 29th 2016 8:38am — Karl Bode

By now, usage caps on both fixed and wireless networks have grown increasingly common. And while broadband carriers are endlessly looking toward caps and zero rating for a competitive and financial advantage, overlooked is the fact that a huge amount of a user's monthly bandwidth allotment is now being eroded by good old advertising. How much? According to a new study by Enders Analysis, anywhere from 18% to 79% of your monthly data bucket can go toward delivering advertising. Previous studies had pegged this between 10% and 50%.

Looking at individual page elements, between the ads and the Javascript used sometimes to deliver them, this data consumption can be substantial:

Especially if you're on a fixed-income using a limited data plan, current, bloated ads can become a real problem:

Entry-level mobile data plans start at around 500MB/month — which Enders says could be used to load the text of the King James Bible around 100 times. So "resource-hungry" advertising could clearly become a concern for some users. That's not to mention that ads can increase page-load time, Enders adds.

It's important to remember this as websites begin waging all out war on ad blockers. Users aren't just using ad blockers because they think it's fun to generate industry histrionics about the end of publishing and journalism as we know it. Users are using ad blockers to protect themselves from annoying malware and poorly-designed advertising and web formatting. They're also using ad blockers to help protect their wallet from broadband provider overage fees. Block the blockers, and you're blocking an effective consumer technology tool.

You also have to keep in mind that usage caps (especially on fixed line networks) are entirely arbitrary constructs, not tied to any real-world costs or engineering necessity. And while carriers have worked tirelessly to zero rate their own content or content from the biggest companies on the Internet, so far nobody's rushing to cut consumers a little slack and zero rate advertising at any meaningful scale. In other words, not only are consumers paying an arm and a leg for mobile data, they're paying an arm and a leg predominately so they can be marketed to.

When these consumers turned to ad blockers to reduce costs, websites like GQ, Wired, Forbes, and the New York Times decided the best course of action was to accuse these ungrateful bastards of selfishly trying to demolish online content creation. Wired was in such a rush it designed a miserable adblock blocker that's still blocking users that don't use adblockers (or in my case have whitelisted the site). It's just one more reason why adblocker blocking is a lazy "solution" to a misunderstood problem. Don't want users using ad blockers? Design better, leaner, more efficient and more intelligent ads.

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 blockers, ads, data caps, mobile

60 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Namel3ss (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 8:49am

GQ? Wired? Forbes?
Jeez who do these guys think they are? Comcast? We might have to put up with Comcast's BS for now but not these assclowns. There's a million other places to get news/info/whatever online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: GQ? Wired? Forbes?
  "Jeez who do these guys think they are?"
  
  I dunno who they think they are, but I know who I think they are -- they're nobodies to me, because they have rendered their sites worthless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 8:50am

GQ is the best, because last week they "curated" a list of the 100 Funniest Tweets of all-time and had the audacity to scold you for using an adblocker.

"How dare you deny us advertising revenue for posting material that isn't ours to begin with!" GQ, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 8:59am

Problem is, I use a lot of apps
I don't do a lot of browsing on my phone; I use a lot of apps. So ad blockers won't do much for me. I still have an unlimited plan with Verizon but that won't last long, they will get it from me soon enough.

On a related tangent, I often wonder what kind of innovation we could have without the mental transaction costs of throttling, overage fees and data caps. I think people and innovators could really do some neat stuff if we had the bandwidth to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason, 29 Mar 2016 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re: Problem is, I use a lot of apps
  You're hardly ad blocking without a rooted phone. I might see one or two ads a month with Adaway. Or there are vpn style ad blockers. The vpn is local, not some server.
  
  But really the best ad blocking is Adaway on a rooted device.
  
  https://www.seven.com/android-adblocker-download.php
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:42pm
  
  Re: Problem is, I use a lot of apps
  If you root your phone, and install a hosts-based blocker, then even ads in apps will be blocked. Well worth it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 6:20am
    
    Re: Re: Problem is, I use a lot of apps
    I do this and recommend it highly. Not only does it allow you to easily block in-app ads, it also allows you to run a firewall on your phone that will prevent unwanted communications both to and from any apps you have installed, so you can not only get rid of the ads, you can also stop apps from phoning home.
    
    The ability to do this is the only thing that makes smartphones acceptable to me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Siobhan Law, 15 May 2018 @ 12:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Problem is, I use a lot of apps
      You could also use dns66
      https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/
      It blocks ads without root by creating a adblocking VPN
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 8:59am

"That's not to mention that ads can increase page-load time, Enders adds."

And that would be why I first began using an adblocker more capable than a pop-up blocker. Pages taking a long time to finish loading even on what was for the time a decent connection, and investigation showing the culprit was the ads. The sites themselves had perfectly capable servers and sufficient bandwidth, but the advertising companies were skimping, leaving it to take drastically longer to load the ads. Blocked the ads, and suddenly websites loaded normally again. I've looked back from time to time, and the amount of shit websites are attempting to load nowadays for the purpose of advertising, advertising tracking, and social media widgets has only reinforced my decision. Loading a website shouldn't take more than a dozen calls to load shit from other domains, especially for advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  ...Pages taking a long time to finish loading even on what was for the time a decent connection, and investigation showing the culprit was the ads...
  
  Even on a hard wired cable modem with no limits any page load issue usually is ad related. The fun ones are the broken links that the page load simply stops at that point instead of loading the rest of the page and putting a placeholder in the missing element. (Not that I'm going to miss an ad in the first place.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:41pm
  
  Re:
  Good job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:04am

I dunno about the 'intelligent' part.

The ad people reading this are probably thinking intelligent = more tracking = bloated tracking scripts = moar bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:06am

Wired's adblock doesn't see my blocker at all. I think if you're blocking JS from their site, their detector doesn't work. I can view their site just fine with uBlock origin, Ghostery and NoScript running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Synergy Waffle (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:19am
  
  Re:
  Shiver me timbers, you're right! My limited testing has shown that while Adblock Plus is detected in even with NS and Ghostery, uBlock Origin flies under the radar even when using nothing else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps the IT department knows its a losing battle and simply scripted to block ADP to appease their overlords, without telling them about the rest of the blockers out there. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2016 @ 7:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or more likely: they're incompetent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ped_EkSing, 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: Adblocking
  Ya forgot one more thing to add. Scripting (Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey/etc) and the Anti-Adblock Killer. I use the one from REEK.
  Mind you, Wired NEVER saw the blocking...
  (Usually Seamonkey/NoScript/Ublock Origin/Greasemonkey. Only when I wanted to run the Java/Javascript my RSS-reader (NetNewsWire) had disabled.)
  
  Regular player on Publishers Clearinghouse...(yes, I'm a moron... but SOMEBODY has to win) and started getting the blocking page no matter what my settings.
  REEK fixed that Juuust fiiine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- qka, 30 Mar 2016 @ 9:51pm
  
  Re: Ghostery
  FWIW, my experience has been that Wired's ad-block detector detects Ghostery.
  
  My solution is simple. I've stopped reading Wired.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Synergy Waffle (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:15am

I used to read Wired. They have some interesting columns...or did. Now I have no idea - the no-adblock requirement sent a pretty clear message that they didn't want my page traffic anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  Same here. It was already annoying that their RSS feed always had one sentence and then "read the story on wired". Once they went to blocking my traffic, I just removed from the feeds. Now I never go to their site for anything at all. Go figure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
seedeevee (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:22am

web sites that run like crap
"poorly-designed advertising and web formatting"

I have a pretty modern computer and when I have problems reading stuff on a non-ad-blocked website- it is always the poorly designed/implemented ads that are screwing it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JBDragon, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:24am

If your site wants to block someone using a Adblocker, go right on ahead. I just will not visit your site. There's many others I can go to!!! It's just gotten so bad. Not only the ad's, but the spying on what a person is doing and where they are going from site to site. No thanks! Even here on Techdirt, I see there's Amazon Associates, DoubleClick, and QuantCast as advertisers alone. If you open it up and allow some to get in, you end up with a bunch more services trying to gain access. It's just crazy how much garbage you're downloading and sending just to look at a web site page. I'm not at all surprised it's up as high as 79%. I think it's near the high end most of the time.

I've been using Ghostery which I really like. It tells me what's being block and what it is and I can let through some things and not other things. For example i may want to read/post comments and so I may have to allow that. Instead of just whitelisting and allowing everything, I can just open up one small thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:25am
  
  Re:
  "Not only the ad's, but the spying on what a person is doing and where they are going from site to site"
  
  Not to mention the drive by downloads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 31 Mar 2016 @ 6:52am
  
  Re:
  It's just gotten so bad.
  
  It's halfway between amusing and horrifying if you look at the numbers these plugins report. Right now on TD, a nice, responsible site, Disconnect is blocking 41 things, and Ghostery 14. There are 8 domains blocked by NoScript. I was watching The Daily Show the other day and I think AdBlock reported 79. Seventy-nine ads on one page!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:29am

Didn't most of those sites remove the ability to comment on their news stories as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:37am

Why I used ad-blockers
1. Annoying ads flashing all over the page. Good God, how can people stand it?
2. Malware/tracking. Creepy. No thanks.
3. Page loading times. I have the attention span of a...
4. Not interested. I can find what I want by myself, thank you very much!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2016 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Why I used ad-blockers
  I always find it shocking when I browse the net from someone else's machine that doesn't have an Ad-Blocker. I have obviously spent too long in the ad free world!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 31 Mar 2016 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re: Why I used ad-blockers
    I have obviously spent too long in the ad free world!
    
    I would say they haven't spent enough time there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:49am

I really don't care what they want. They never asked me what I wanted and continue to be stone death over the issues that drive people to block ads.

Till they get their act together there won't be any turning off the ad blocker here. After years of learning of the abusive practices of ads, it will probably take that long to get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ned Mandela, III, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:59am

Adblock is not theft
I love the people who say adblocking is theft, or that those using adblockers somehow feel entitled to "free content."

Let's get a few things straight:
1.) Adblocking is not theft. Websites are the digital form of busking and should be glad to get what the get in ad revenue. No one asked you to put your site up, or invited me to visit, and websites haven't made it a contractual obligation for me to view ads. If you require me to view ads, I'm going elsewhere. If your content was that good, like many people, I'd be willing to pay for it. You are not entitled to make a living just because you put content on the web. Ads not working? Can make the subscription model work? Then innovate or go away. Your site won't be missed.

2.) I don't feel entitled to free content, but I do feel entitled to visit a site and not run the risk of malware being served to my device. Can't guarantee your site won't be hijacked with malicious ads? Won't vet every advertiser and serve only first party ads? Well, they're getting blocked.

If you can't make your site work and get the revenue you need, then obviously your content wasn't worth it to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:16am

stupid autoplay
come on autoplay video ads, on mobile sites?!? What a waste of bandwidth and a shock when you are in a quiet place surfing the web. I rather have the blink tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:19am

The forest, it can not be seen for the trees.

The only thing they see if a drop in revenue & quickly move to fix it. The problem is they refuse to admit that many of the advertisers they work with often serve up malware & other stupid advertising tricks. They expect the ad networks are going to self police, and wash their hands of it. They don't consider that the advertising isn't just annoying readers, it is costing them much more than the few cents they lose.

We can't have a rational discussion because they want everything to remain the way it was. They don't want to have to change anything other than punishing those who block ads.

They serve up bad advertising.
They serve up malicious hacks.
They serve up hostile code to 'protect' revenue.
They refuse to demand better advertising.
They are hostile to readers, and hasten their losses.

One wonders how many of their editorial & writing staff use ad-blockers on their devices. I doubt they would ever give an honest answer, but my money is on a majority using them because they hate the crap advertising.

The big ad network group published some guidelines, but no one is following them yet... but then created more code & guidelines how to punish or defeat ad-blocking that was demanded.

When you declare war on your readers, you send a message. You don't care about them, and then are shocked when they go elsewhere. Rather than spending more to hack them back for blocking, why not demand better low bandwidth ads? Why not force ad networks to be responsible for bad actors who get slots in the rotation? It has to be better than just pointing at everyone else as being at fault, ignoring the 4 fingers pointing back at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yakko Warner (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 10:37am

Haven't read Forbes in a long time
When I click on a Forbes link, I get that fun page telling me to turn off my ad blocker to enjoy their "ad-light" experience. Meanwhile, AdBlock tells me how many items it blocked in loading that page, and the number is always in the double-digits.

I'm not sure if they just don't know how many ads they're trying to serve me, they think I'm stupid to not realize they're showing me a dozen ads per page, or if they honestly think that many ads is really "light". But the end result is the same; I haven't seen an article on their site in a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:48am

I've been blocking advert and other misc sources through my router for years. On my mobile devices, I also edit the hosts file.
I've not really noticed any adblocker-blocking sites, and if I do, I'll drop the site immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 12:05pm

So technically we are paying for the privilege of seeing ads. To think cable TV and mobile internet would collide at some point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:27pm

tHIS IS NOTHING
Iv been to sites, with my computer, at 80-150 mbps, and the page takes about 5 seconds to display, with all the adverts..

With NoScript..Iv looked at the scripts from a site...A FULL page of them, then allowed the site ONLY, and new ones popped up.. Allow a few safe ones, that I KNOW..and MORE pop up..and STILL there are TONS of scripts waiting to be loaded..

Even with my HOME account, there is a CAP..

Goto YOUTUBE with 60fps, HD...the amounts of data are HUGE..
Want to watch a MOVIE on netflix, or any other service?? EAT IT UP.. And those sites are Pretty good at limits Adverts.

Iv suggested to sites,to MAKE the advert PARt of their site..STRIP the JS, and other parts, and just a LINK to the site..
I WISH there was a Addon, that would put a TAG/NOTE on the SCRIPTS loaded on my machine and tell me WHO SENT IT..a script tracker.
I would also like a LAW/regulation that SAYS.."a SITe is responsible for the CRAP transferred to a consumers system.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dogwitch (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:51pm

poor ad usage
try Wookieepedia with out and ad blocks... the worst site i seen with using ads. that will suck up a hell amount of ram.. just for the ads and nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 29 Mar 2016 @ 1:52pm

With an older laptop (Win 7, 3 G memory) I finally installed ad blocking to stop my machine from thrashing when visiting ad-heavy websites. The ten-year-old machine is back to doing what I need, quietly and simply.

I really don't want to have to upgrade my laptop just to see the ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 4:10pm

As if we need a reason to block ads...
The public has deluded itself for to long that it needs to accept advertising as a perpetual and everlasting part of humanity instead of using technology to free themselves from an incredibly corrupt practice of recent invention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 4:47pm

Users aren't just using ad blockers because they think it's fun to generate industry histrionics about the end of publishing and journalism as we know it. Users are using ad blockers to protect themselves from annoying malware and poorly-designed advertising and web formatting. They're also using ad blockers to help protect their wallet from broadband provider overage fees. Block the blockers, and you're blocking an effective consumer technology tool.
And let's not forget that Android users are also protecting themselves from 'adverts' that automatically open up the Google Play page for the advertiser's apps with zero input from the user. Now that's what I call malware!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2016 @ 9:53pm

Like Wired, Forbes also continues to block their site and accuse you of continuing to ad-block when you've turned it off. So I'll just read something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:08pm

WHO is old enough..
To remember when Newspapers were MOSTLY news..
When a comic book, was MOSTLY comics, not adverts every other page.
HOW about Billboards?? ALL OVER the place..and when you entered a city, you could hardly see anything else..
Whats next?
Adverts in our bibles?

I get LESS CRAP on Anima sites..and porn sites..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
matw2, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:16pm

Ads and Subscriptions
I used to block ads on my PC for malware reasons, but allowed them on my phone so I could go to websites I want to support on my phone if I felt their advertising wasn't too egregious.

This week though, I somehow tapped on an ad that (unknowingly to me) signed me up for a premium rate subscription service. First I knew about it was when I got an SMS saying I had been charged £4.50. My network said they can block me from signing up to services on purpose (by blocking me from sending an opt-in SMS to premium rate services) but are powerless to stop anything from a web page.

Downloaded the adblock browser yesterday for my phone. Sorry websites I like, one bad apple and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RypeDub, 29 Mar 2016 @ 11:45pm

uBlock Origin

It's for FireFox & Chrome and I'm sure others

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock#ublock-origin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
klaus (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 1:15am

Enders' Graph
Figure 2 is what I'd call a "stacked barchart"; there's a y-axis that I think is MB and there's a colour key explaining the 3 components of each column.

What then's the x-axis? If it's news sites then I'd have been quite curious to see which site is generating 8.1MB of content...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cowardly Lion, 1 Oct 2021 @ 1:15am
  
  Re: Enders' Graph
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210924/18510147624/cia-nsa-block-ads-network-wide-to-protect-age ncies-ron-wyden-says-rest-govt-should-do-same.shtml
  
  [Hark back from the future...]
  
  Exactly - I do wish people would label their axis. I haven't a clue what the x-axis is, which in essence renders the graph useless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mel, 30 Mar 2016 @ 8:37am

Even beyond slow loading times, I see web pages where I can't even scroll down to read the article because the processor is pinned at 100%, and Firefox isn't answering the controls. I wonder if political sites are not seeing some novel Advertising Denial-of-Service attack where an opponent would pay a few pennies to inject stuff into the site to render it unreadable.
The no-scrolling problem is even worse when the page leads of with a huge color photo to make it look more magaziney; when that's in place I get no article at all.
There are sites I'd hate to lose, but I gave up reading Wired and Forbes a long time ago because their content wasn't equal to the hassle of trying to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WillSee (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 8:56am

Ad Blockers
I've been a (paying) subscriber for the paper version of Wired for years. I've deleted their website from my bookmarks because of the attitude, and, when this subscription runs out I will be a former subscriber.

There are other, less entitled and less irritating, places I can get the information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
r_rolo1 (profile), 30 Mar 2016 @ 11:47am

The arrogance of some people ...
Well, to be honest, I see all of this crusade against adblockers as a display of arrogance by the part of the sites. Think about it: not even the TV networks or the newspapers, that also live on adverts, demand ( not ask ) you to see their ads before seeing their content ( not that they would do it if they thought they could get away with that ) ...

To be it is simple: if a site demands that I drop my computer defenses against crapware to see their ads, that only means they value more the ads than the viewers, and so I treat them with the exact same respect they show to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
andrean (profile), 4 Apr 2016 @ 4:37am

Why I used ad-blockers
I have a pretty modern computer and when I have problems reading stuff on a non-ad-blocked website- it is always the poorly designed/implemented ads that are screwing it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Jun 2016 @ 11:05am

The advertisers as well as source sites are trying very politely to accuse adblockers of stealing from them. I've no problem with that since the ad blocker is not going to be turned off.

I get a message that I can't see content because of ad blocking it's telling me to go somewhere else. I refuse to spend more hours trying to clean up their mess on my home network. All I see ads doing is costing me in time and money when I look at my cap.

I see no benefit from ads only drawbacks. I get no extra product because I saw an ad for it. I see no improvement in quality for that product. What I do see is a hidden cost to pay for advertising that makes the product more expensive, so that either it costs more or you get less of it.

When an advertiser breaks through my security to show me an add, I have a practice I do. When I go to the store, I take a moment to remember who exposed me to ads about what product. I will then buy any similar product but the one that exposed me to advertisement is on the don't buy list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- byte_me, 10 Jan 2017 @ 11:20pm
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward "Ad me? No buy list"
  Love it! You bypassed my wishes and popped with with a *ucking ad?! Okay, You are on my "Don't buy from list"! Absolutely *ucking love the idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CHRIS, 27 Sep 2016 @ 4:30am

Remove adware
I am using Mozilla as my web browser and from few days whenever i open the browser i get lots of ads associated with Positive Finds. I try several time to close the ads and restart my browser but nothing help me and those ads where making me crazy. Finally i contact an expert who tell me that my computer has got an adware. I really get shocked, how did it enter my system. After that he tells me that due to this adware program i am getting several kinds of ads on my system. The ads are as Ads by Positive Finds, brought to you by Positive Finds etc.

I get to know that the adware program are developed by the intention of generating money. These ads may be seem useless for us but the developer of this program use it to promote some third party site and instead of that it get paid. The ads are based on your surfing habit and the keyword which you search most. Sometime the ads may look helpful which help you to save money while online shopping or get you discount on your favorite product from popular online shopping site. But as you click on them you will be thrown towards their associated site where you may be forced to buy some malicious product.

These adware are so tricky that you don't even any idea how they get installed in your system. These program are also related with some malicious site and it can drop some unwanted application in your system also. I recommend to not take these ads easy because it can do more harmful thing. After spending long time, finally i found http://www.positivefinds.com which is really helpful in removing the adware from my PC. You should also try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ryan, 3 Oct 2016 @ 11:27pm

users hate advertising
Over 1 billion users now use ad blockers while online, Growing by 100,000 users per day. There are only 3. something billion internet users worldwide, only a matter of time before over 90% of all users are using ad blockers. People hate ads and users have the power to decide what they view online. Anti ad blocking websites who try to block ad blockers can easily be defeated by using Firfox add on "yarp" which blocks scripts, giving users access to any site that asks users to disable ad blockers, without ever having to turn off your ad blocker. Advertisers have to face facts, they cannot stop ad blockers or the users that block their unwanted ads, very few users now see ads and the advertising industry caused their own demise by infesting the internet with ads no one wants to see, the users have all the power and the internet is better off for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
byte_me, 10 Jan 2017 @ 11:14pm

Ads GTFO
You got your shot on TV! Leave us the HELL alone! We pay for access to the information exchange, via ISP. It's not cheap! Here's me on a typical day, "Hmmm, let's look at this page. 'POP UP'! What? Close that *hit, I don't even care about you, nor will I read your pop-up bull*hit". If you really want me to land on your website, then it better be popup free, ad free, and nonsense free, and tracker free. I like my privacy. I'll spend money, but I will leave your page if it's SELL SELL SELL SELL SELL, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME attitude. See'ya! I'll spend my money elsewhere, I'll look elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Hefner, 12 Nov 2017 @ 8:34am

Data plan/usage theft
I am an avid user of YouTube. Almost every video has unwanted advertizerments that are eating up my limited data plan. As it is unwanted it becomes theft. I have read the "Termes of Service" for YouTube. Nowhere in the contract does it state I cannot be reimbursed by filing a claim against the advertizers. I would suggest everyone find the source of these ads and send them a bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bllah, 6 Apr 2018 @ 9:45pm

Surprised
I'm surprised there has been no class action lawsuit. Somebody should look into that ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2018 @ 8:41am

If only Ad Blockers worked in print.
Could you imagine how small the print edition of Wired would be if we could block paper-based advertisements? It would barely fill a pamphlet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aeldor, 10 Aug 2018 @ 4:25am

Lol, ads = digital rape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 17 Dec 2018 @ 8:56pm

I don't mind ads....
As long as they are static and don't use a lot of code. Show me a picture of a meal i can get at a local restaurant, and ill consider going there. Showing me video of the restaurant will push me away. Same thing with sliding text and changing pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]