I do want to clear up something. What is "watching ads"? I don't watch any of the ads that come on my screen. They're there, and sure, I'm sure to glance at them, but I'm not sitting with rapt attention reading every word of the banner at the top of the page. I can't speak for everyone, though. Yes, there are distracting ads, but there are also many more non-distracting ads.
Also, I never said that an ad is for anyone's good. I'm only saying that if you're not paying anything, letting the ad come along isn't going to hurt you.
Now I feel you are willfully distorting the truth and using inflamatory labels (presumably) to get a reaction of me. It will not work
I would say it did work, since you posted one of the longer replies to date. Although, that was not the goal.
We get bogged down into this in mp3/movie discussions as well. There's no word for it. It's not stealing because there isn't a physical product, but you are still receiving content without paying. Yes, you disagree, but I feel that receiving the content of say slashdot or CNN without receiving the ads is a form of theft. You justify this because the business model and technologies involved do nothing to force you to view the ads. An interesting question: what if they did? Would you still work to remove the ads from pages you view?
I haven't been through everything yet, but you are the first person who gave a reasoned argument for blocking ads. Thank you.
That said, it is quite a compelling argument, as well. However, I would still argue that if there are ads at the sites you go to, you aren't right in blocking them simply because you have low bandwidth. You cannot separate ads and content here. It's all content. If you go to slashdot.org you will get a list of articles, and an ad on the top. That is what the site is (for nonsubscribers).
Spam is different. It is completely unsolicited. By going to slashdot, for example, you are implicitly asking for the ad, as it is part of the content of slashdot.org.
Because when I am reading an article about a new technology or the prime minister of England, punching a monkey, my ip address being "exposed", and the next episode of Survivor are not things that are remotly connected with the content, nor are they things I want distracting me from said content.
That doesn't matter. It's part of the content. You're still separating content and ads and saying the ads don't relate to the content. It's all content.
I am sorry of the developers of a business plan assumed I would feel otherwise.
I don't know why so many slashdot readers continue to use "failed business plan!" to justify their actions. A failed business plan doesn't mean you get to steal shit. It means that the content providers don't make money. They won't make money because you will stop using their service, whether it's reading CNN.com, listening to Britney Spears, or watching National Treasure.
But you don't do that. You still want all those items. You just aren't willing to pay the price. So you steal.
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
Again I disagree (and I think that is where this is going to have to resolve).
But you disagree solely on a technical basis. Medium aside, why do you feel that the ads are not part of the content?
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right?
I hate to bring this back into the technical, RFC type discussion
Yes because the RFC type discussion does not support your views. Technical details aside, why shouldn't the content provider reasonably expect the viewer to view the content in the way it's provided? I'm not talking about legality, RFCs, or anything of that nature. I'm just talking about a reasonable expectation.
And besides, I do not object to the content, I object to the extra files referenced with the content that I just choose not to request and display.
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
That's just not how it works. If you've convinced yourself that you are somehow 'right' by blocking the ads, that's great. To the vast majority of people, you're freeloading.
And gee...
That doesn't change anything. If methods such as Amazon referrals are so much better than ads, then they will replace ads. I don't think that the Amazon model is workable for many sites, but we shall see.
"you have no more right to tell me how to view something"
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right? I don't actually feel that they should have the 'right'. I think that's too strong because if we get into rights then we would get into a position where things that block ads are illegal, etc.
As someone who is not paying for any of the content I get online, I don't think its unreasonable for me to see a few ads at the top of a page. And that's basically what my argument is. Be reasonable. Don't be a dick. If the ads get to be too much for you, find another site.
Have you SEE online ads lately? CPU sucking swf files (and even some really poorly animated gifs), annoying flashing ads, misleading ads for the purpose of tricking the user, etc. I cannot think of a good reason NOT to block them.
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
What's sad about our society is that I've used the word "agreement" and everyone is like "I never agreed to anything!"
Agreement != Legal Agreement.
My argument is simple: Don't be a dick. You know the content isn't free. The content provider puts ads there to support the content. By blocking them, you're a dick. No one in this thread has actually justified ad blocking. They all say "HTTP doesn't require me to download the ads!" or "There's no legal agreement to view the ads" or "I skip ads with Tivo, why not skip ads on the internet?"
So I use AdBlock. I block as much of them as I can, from every site I can. And the web is suddenly much more usable.
Usable? We're using the same site right now. You're somehow getting more out of it by blocking the ads? Interesting concept.
Yup. You can go to McDonald's and deal with the clowns, or you can be hungry. It's the same concept, and I'm not sure how your post was meant to be a counter-argument.
There's a fallacy in your argument, as well. McDonalds is never the only thing open, just like there are other websites on the Internet that do not use distracting adverts.
So the future net won't be like TV, it'll be like PBS; you pay for things you like and support through direct action.
Wow. Wow! Have you ever watched PBS? I do, a lot. The pledge drives are simply maddening! If the net becomes like PBS, I'll cry.
Your other points are valid. Yes, there are other models of revenue. Its unclear how effective these models are for supporting 'mainstream' sites. IIRC, Slashdot does have an affiliate program (BN?), and they continue to use ads.
Improper analogy. With the inserts, there is still the opportunity for you to view the ads. When you block them, that opportunity never exists for the content provider.
You didn't address my point at all. The technical details are neither here nor there.
My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads. I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's wrong. The fact that the RFC for http doesn't specify that the client will render content as expected doesn't change that fact. I also never said that text and other browsers had to be changed to allow ads. I'm not calling for any new standards or laws or anything. I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people. If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it. If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
How sad is it that this is the misguided view people have?
It's sad that your view appears to be "Gimme gimme gimme!" It's this attitude that is killing our society.
Yes it is certainly an interesting comparison as noted (much more smoothly) by the sibling above. However, I don't think that it's a reasonable counter-argument. What you're saying is "Well we do it for TV, why not internet?".
My argument is not against the tools for removing ads. I'm not saying Adblock should be illegal or anything.
I will admit that if I had a Tivo I would use the ad skip function. At the moment, I can't justify this in the context of my current arguments. Maybe something will come to me in the course of the day and I will reply to this.
Who cares about the standard? I'm talking about not being a freeloading dick. We used to have standards in society about how people acted. Now it's simply 'how much can I get away with?'
The content providers put ads up there to pay for the content. By not viewing the ads, you're stealing the content. It's that simple. Yes, there are exceptions to this, such as Lynx. In general, there is no reasonable excuse for ad blocking.
What if I can't pay attention to the content because the ads are screaming for my attention? I get easily distracted by stuff moving in my peripheral vision, such that I can't concentrate on an article or whatever. It's not like magazines, where the ads just sit there, waiting patiently for your attention.
Then you don't view the content. It's that simple. When you think about it, there aren't any excuses. Content providers who use shitty ads will not have their content viewed, and their sites will die.
There is no such agreement, as much as some content providers would like to believe so.
I'm not talking about legal agreements here. I'm talking about not being a dick. You don't own the content. If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
For example why would I ever subscribe to NYT when I can get the same news from news.google.com and get multiple sources to boot?
I think your hypothetical fails to consider that if ad-supported sites die, how will Google News work? We had an article 4 days ago that outlined how Google is having problems with their ads, so I don't think that they can be hailed as a sure-fire solution at this time. Part of the solution, perhaps, but it's not clear that Google Ads are clear of issues.
There are gigs and gigs of stuff on p2p and binary newsgroups and, again, no commerical benefit to those that post them.
There sure as hell is a commercial benefit, just not a direct one. By posting items to p2p/ng, one encourages others to post items to p2p/ng. The more items on p2p/ng, the less one has to pay (music, movies, tv, apps, games, etc.). So, yes, no one is making money by p2p/ng, but they are, theoretically, "saving money".
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment suddenly made me realize something. Commas rule.
I do want to clear up something. What is "watching ads"? I don't watch any of the ads that come on my screen. They're there, and sure, I'm sure to glance at them, but I'm not sitting with rapt attention reading every word of the banner at the top of the page. I can't speak for everyone, though. Yes, there are distracting ads, but there are also many more non-distracting ads.
Also, I never said that an ad is for anyone's good. I'm only saying that if you're not paying anything, letting the ad come along isn't going to hurt you.
Now I feel you are willfully distorting the truth and using inflamatory labels (presumably) to get a reaction of me. It will not work
I would say it did work, since you posted one of the longer replies to date. Although, that was not the goal.
We get bogged down into this in mp3/movie discussions as well. There's no word for it. It's not stealing because there isn't a physical product, but you are still receiving content without paying. Yes, you disagree, but I feel that receiving the content of say slashdot or CNN without receiving the ads is a form of theft. You justify this because the business model and technologies involved do nothing to force you to view the ads. An interesting question: what if they did? Would you still work to remove the ads from pages you view?
I haven't been through everything yet, but you are the first person who gave a reasoned argument for blocking ads. Thank you.
That said, it is quite a compelling argument, as well. However, I would still argue that if there are ads at the sites you go to, you aren't right in blocking them simply because you have low bandwidth. You cannot separate ads and content here. It's all content. If you go to slashdot.org you will get a list of articles, and an ad on the top. That is what the site is (for nonsubscribers).
Spam is different. It is completely unsolicited. By going to slashdot, for example, you are implicitly asking for the ad, as it is part of the content of slashdot.org.
I'm going to strip ads from online content because I damn well can.
And it's this attitude that continues to degrade the quality of our society. Thanks for being one of the millions of faceless assholes.
Because when I am reading an article about a new technology or the prime minister of England, punching a monkey, my ip address being "exposed", and the next episode of Survivor are not things that are remotly connected with the content, nor are they things I want distracting me from said content.
That doesn't matter. It's part of the content. You're still separating content and ads and saying the ads don't relate to the content. It's all content.
I am sorry of the developers of a business plan assumed I would feel otherwise.
I don't know why so many slashdot readers continue to use "failed business plan!" to justify their actions. A failed business plan doesn't mean you get to steal shit. It means that the content providers don't make money. They won't make money because you will stop using their service, whether it's reading CNN.com, listening to Britney Spears, or watching National Treasure.
But you don't do that. You still want all those items. You just aren't willing to pay the price. So you steal.
I can say no to get ads through my mail slot at my house
You can? It's my understanding that the USPS will deliver anything that is properly addressed.
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
Again I disagree (and I think that is where this is going to have to resolve).
But you disagree solely on a technical basis. Medium aside, why do you feel that the ads are not part of the content?
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right?
I hate to bring this back into the technical, RFC type discussion
Yes because the RFC type discussion does not support your views. Technical details aside, why shouldn't the content provider reasonably expect the viewer to view the content in the way it's provided? I'm not talking about legality, RFCs, or anything of that nature. I'm just talking about a reasonable expectation.
And besides, I do not object to the content, I object to the extra files referenced with the content that I just choose not to request and display.
The ads are part of the content. If you don't like the content, don't view it.
How about "I don't like ads" as a justification? Its good enough for me and alot of other people.
As long as you're comfortable with being a freeloader. Your argument could be applied to 'justify' any action.
That's just not how it works. If you've convinced yourself that you are somehow 'right' by blocking the ads, that's great. To the vast majority of people, you're freeloading.
And gee...
That doesn't change anything. If methods such as Amazon referrals are so much better than ads, then they will replace ads. I don't think that the Amazon model is workable for many sites, but we shall see.
"you have no more right to tell me how to view something"
They're the content provider, why shouldn't they have that right? I don't actually feel that they should have the 'right'. I think that's too strong because if we get into rights then we would get into a position where things that block ads are illegal, etc.
As someone who is not paying for any of the content I get online, I don't think its unreasonable for me to see a few ads at the top of a page. And that's basically what my argument is. Be reasonable. Don't be a dick. If the ads get to be too much for you, find another site.
Have you SEE online ads lately? CPU sucking swf files (and even some really poorly animated gifs), annoying flashing ads, misleading ads for the purpose of tricking the user, etc. I cannot think of a good reason NOT to block them.
It sounds like you shouldn't be going to these sites, then.
What's sad about our society is that I've used the word "agreement" and everyone is like "I never agreed to anything!"
Agreement != Legal Agreement.
My argument is simple: Don't be a dick. You know the content isn't free. The content provider puts ads there to support the content. By blocking them, you're a dick. No one in this thread has actually justified ad blocking. They all say "HTTP doesn't require me to download the ads!" or "There's no legal agreement to view the ads" or "I skip ads with Tivo, why not skip ads on the internet?"
So I use AdBlock. I block as much of them as I can, from every site I can. And the web is suddenly much more usable.
Usable? We're using the same site right now. You're somehow getting more out of it by blocking the ads? Interesting concept.
Yup. You can go to McDonald's and deal with the clowns, or you can be hungry. It's the same concept, and I'm not sure how your post was meant to be a counter-argument.
There's a fallacy in your argument, as well. McDonalds is never the only thing open, just like there are other websites on the Internet that do not use distracting adverts.
I was well aware of this, and that's why I specifically said "The Internet in its current form", and not "The Internet".
By 'its current form' I mean the fully commercial Internet.
So the future net won't be like TV, it'll be like PBS; you pay for things you like and support through direct action.
Wow. Wow! Have you ever watched PBS? I do, a lot. The pledge drives are simply maddening! If the net becomes like PBS, I'll cry.
Your other points are valid. Yes, there are other models of revenue. Its unclear how effective these models are for supporting 'mainstream' sites. IIRC, Slashdot does have an affiliate program (BN?), and they continue to use ads.
Improper analogy. With the inserts, there is still the opportunity for you to view the ads. When you block them, that opportunity never exists for the content provider.
Again with the technical argument. I care not for the details of HTTP and what it allows you to do. I'm talking in basic moral terms here.
You are given some content that includes ads. Do you feel it is right to remove those ads from the content before viewing? Why?
You didn't address my point at all. The technical details are neither here nor there.
My point, again, is that it is simply not correct to view the content without the ads. I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it's wrong. The fact that the RFC for http doesn't specify that the client will render content as expected doesn't change that fact. I also never said that text and other browsers had to be changed to allow ads. I'm not calling for any new standards or laws or anything. I'm saying that we should simply be reasonable people. If a content provider puts an ad inline with content, there is no reasonable justification for blocking it. If you don't like how they present their content, then stand up for something and don't view their content.
How sad is it that this is the misguided view people have?
It's sad that your view appears to be "Gimme gimme gimme!" It's this attitude that is killing our society.
Yes it is certainly an interesting comparison as noted (much more smoothly) by the sibling above. However, I don't think that it's a reasonable counter-argument. What you're saying is "Well we do it for TV, why not internet?".
As I noted above, I do not yet have a response.
My argument is not against the tools for removing ads. I'm not saying Adblock should be illegal or anything.
I will admit that if I had a Tivo I would use the ad skip function. At the moment, I can't justify this in the context of my current arguments. Maybe something will come to me in the course of the day and I will reply to this.
Who cares about the standard? I'm talking about not being a freeloading dick. We used to have standards in society about how people acted. Now it's simply 'how much can I get away with?'
The content providers put ads up there to pay for the content. By not viewing the ads, you're stealing the content. It's that simple. Yes, there are exceptions to this, such as Lynx. In general, there is no reasonable excuse for ad blocking.
What if I can't pay attention to the content because the ads are screaming for my attention? I get easily distracted by stuff moving in my peripheral vision, such that I can't concentrate on an article or whatever. It's not like magazines, where the ads just sit there, waiting patiently for your attention.
Then you don't view the content. It's that simple. When you think about it, there aren't any excuses. Content providers who use shitty ads will not have their content viewed, and their sites will die.
There is no such agreement, as much as some content providers would like to believe so.
I'm not talking about legal agreements here. I'm talking about not being a dick. You don't own the content. If you don't like how the content is presented (including ads), don't use it. It's that simple!
For example why would I ever subscribe to NYT when I can get the same news from news.google.com and get multiple sources to boot?
I think your hypothetical fails to consider that if ad-supported sites die, how will Google News work? We had an article 4 days ago that outlined how Google is having problems with their ads, so I don't think that they can be hailed as a sure-fire solution at this time. Part of the solution, perhaps, but it's not clear that Google Ads are clear of issues.
There are gigs and gigs of stuff on p2p and binary newsgroups and, again, no commerical benefit to those that post them.
There sure as hell is a commercial benefit, just not a direct one. By posting items to p2p/ng, one encourages others to post items to p2p/ng. The more items on p2p/ng, the less one has to pay (music, movies, tv, apps, games, etc.). So, yes, no one is making money by p2p/ng, but they are, theoretically, "saving money".