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've been expecting this... Now we'll have to modify our ad blocking software to download and discard the ads that are currently ignored altogether.
A first reading of the ToS suggests that it is just journal *owners* who are banned from using styles etc to hide the ads from everyone. There's nothing to say that people *reading* the journal can't be running ad-blocking.
Well livejournal does need to pay for their bandwidth and running costs right?
With ad blockers getting more and more prevalent and sometimes getting installed by default with some firewall software, it might get problematic for websites depending on ad revenue.
Although I guess peopl installing ad blockers on their own, probably would just ignore the ads anyway.
Good job, Slashdot, with your bullshit disinformative article blurb. Let's go over this like intelligent human beings and show why it's a non-issue:
Livejournal just recently added opt-in ads for users that would let them have pretty much all of the benefits of a paid user for the cost of having ads on their journals. After you opt-in to ads you can opt-out at any time and return to your ad-free cost-free journal. Free users viewing another free user's page, their own friends page, or a paid user's page will see no ads but they will see ads when viewing the journal page of someone who's opted for ads. Paid users will see no ads at all. Even so, all I've seen of these ads so far are Google ads. This is article is total FUD and should be tagged as such.
No, the TOS does *not* say that you can't use "ad blocking software". It says that if you have ads on your live journal page, you're not allowed to mess with the layout so that the ads can't be seen by people LOOKING at your page. Not quite the same thing.
........ this is a story?
Geeze
you wind up with these regions where the browser displays the error message "unable to contact host"
People who block ads need to be prepared for subscription fees. Any content provider that relies on advertising for revenue will have to resort to subscriptions if viewers block or skip over their ads. In my opinion, if you choose to block ads, that is your choice. It's your hardware and you should be able to decide what your computer downloads and displays. But once you've made the choice to block ads, don't complain when you have to fork up a couple bucks a month for everything you once got for free.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm having a hard time believing anyone actually read the article. They are introducting ads as an OPTIONAL feature of the site for people that want added features (more user icons, a personal photo album with 1gb of space). On peoples journals who DECIDE to participate in this, ads will be seen. But for regular free users and paid users there are still NO ADS. So if you don't want ads, don't sign up for their Sponsored+ service!
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.