Slashdot Mirror
Livejournal Bans Ad-Blocking Software
Anonymous Emo writes "The community/blogging site LiveJournal recently introduced ads on some pages for free users. More interestingly, they also added a new restriction to their TOS (XVI 17 b.) banning users from using or providing ad-blocking software. The new TOS also permits them to immediately terminate the account of anyone they catch doing this."
I wonder how long until the FireFox AdBlock guys make a work around (a week?)
Actually, Ive always provided free community hosting for anyone without ad's.. Its my way of giving back to the internet...Though I THOUGHT About it.. but then I also thought of how annoying ads are in the first place, so I disregarded the idea all together... I was also thinking of having something like Live Journal for my Network, but I never could find a good one.. But in the mean time, I have all the free hosting in the world Praeon Network (Gotta throw in a cheap plug in for that : ) In regards to Live Journal, and the topic at hand, I can understand where they are coming from, but you would think they would be a little bit more understanding, and realise that not everyone on the internet are as smart as us Slashdot members. : )
Just me
hmm, does lynx count as an ad blocker?
Actually the first version of adblock did exactly that (downloaded the ads but hid them).
It was a pain though because noone wanted to waste their bandwidth on the stinky ads.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
Ordinarily, contracts must be two-sided -- it's assumed that no one would enter into a contract if they don't receive some sort of consideration. If you're not paying, the service provider is hoping that your content will attract business through some other channel. I doubt that this very indirect "payment" would be seen as consideration unless there were an explicit agreement in place. I can't imagine any rational free service provider writing their contract to make that the case, either. In the eyes of the law, you're probably receiving a gift -- and the courts won't require a gift giver to keep giving a gift (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances, I imagine).
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
I personally follow the policy of only starting to block ads on a site when i'm confronted with obnoxious ads.
Until i see moving (flash or gif, makes no difference), sound making or content hidding ads i'll keep the ads from a site visible. As soon as i see one of those obnoxious ads on my browser they (and all ads from the same provider) get blocked.
Popups that manage to go around Firefox's pop-up protection are reason for me to block the whole site of the ad provider plus the one of the company whose advert is on that pop-up.
It's a ballance between helping the sites i like to keep going on (and even make a profit) and enforcing the limits i've set for what are acceptable ads.
To all web-site managers out there i say: Don't use ad providers that (try to) abuse the viewer's good will and you won't have any problems with having a steady revenue stream from advertising.
Yea, that sounds a lot less complicated than downloading the AdBlock extension, right clicking on an add and telling it to block it. What are you smoking? Try doing that on a site like Fark where ads are served off the same host as the image tags and such and vast portions of the site will begin to look like ass. Blocking by URL is 100 times better than blocking based on hostname.
Interestingly, I find that this is not true. There are enough people who, although say they hate ads, also keep falling for them. It is one of the reasons why they hate them, because they know they're weak.
Way back in the day before cable got to our area, my boss accessed the internet through AOL. He asked me how to remove the ads that AOL shows him every time he logs in.
It turned out that AOL would show one or two ads as someone logged in and track their usage. If someone didn't ever click on them, they were no longer showed the ads. If someone clicked on them - or worse, bought something - then they would continue showing the ads.
I questioned my boss, and it turned out he had not only bought several things, but regularly clicked on most of the ads and thoroughly read them.
He wanted the ads stopped because they distracted him.
These are precisely the people marketers are targetting. These are also precisely the people who would use ad blockers if they were knowledgable enough to get their hands on it.
Ads on the internet would not nearly be as profitable as they are if an abundance of these people didn't exist.