AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery – The Trifecta Of Evil

reply to post by NotTheOne

Also, if you dont get a gazillion hits, you would never get enough money from donations
to pay for the server costs, I know, I run many many websites where this is true.

Yes, but the more hits you have the more expensive it becomes to host the website. And it gets expensive very quickly. I would actually like to see a graph plotting hits vs donations. Would be interesting to see how the two relate to each other.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I didn't read all the replies, but I thought I would point out something you seemed to disregard in terms of AdBlock.

Many websites rely on the CPI model - that is, they get paid for the amount of times the ad is seen. If you block the ad, it doesn't count as being seen, thus the webmaster loses out.

Obviously, you can do whatever you want with the website once you load it onto your browser, but I think the point MakeUseOf is trying to make is that yeah; the website isn't free to host.

I run a website and let me tell you, it's a labour of love but one that drains my wallet every month for server costs. The more popular the website gets, the more money hosting the website on the internet costs. And I don't like the idea of charging people to see my content, but I think the mere act of looking at an ad (not even clicking on it) is a fair trade off for the use of my website's content.

Originally posted by NotTheOne
Im going to point this out,

If you block ads, the website stops getting enough money to sustain it self,
therefore they need another way to get revenue, so what they do, they remove free content,
and make you pay to view the content, creating a subscription like service,
and in the end, affecting the end user, that first blocked the ads.


Also, if you dont get a gazillion hits, you would never get enough money from donations
to pay for the server costs, I know, I run many many websites where this is true.

>website has annoying adds, forces me to watch them
>adds are so boring that they are annoying
>cant opt out of watching some dumb politician trying to convince me to vote for him/her
>get ad blocking program
>website suddenly so fun and useful
>haha take that adds
>everything good for a while while dumb advertisers actually think im still watching their adds
>they catch on "HEY THEY AREN'T LOOKING AT THINGS THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT"
>website suddenly charges me to use it
>just stop going, never go there anymore.
>?????
>no profit



why can't websites just be free? i don't understand the internet.

if i shove a dollar bill into my disk tray, do i pay for internets? (lol jk)


honestly, i just don't care if a website goes out of business.

i don't care just as much as a don't care about adds.

and i don't care ALOT.


i want to go to youtube and watch all the videos i want without someone trying to sell me something.
i go to youtube because its free and its fun.

when youtube is no longer free because everyone realized they could avoid those annoying adds and youtube didn't like that, suddenly youtube isn't one of those happy places anymore.

it just becomes an overpriced scam, full of limitations and no freedom and fun like it is now (mostly)

then i just wont use it anymore.



peace.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
I don't understand why this is even a discussion?

My computer is my property, I have the right to decide what domains and IP's it connects to, and what domains and IP's it does not. If an ad server tries to send unwanted content to my computer, it is my right to reject the content. I own my computer and control everything that does and does not get sent to my computer.

I agree with you 100%. My machine was built by me, from parts I ordered, assembled by me, and loaded with the OS I wanted on it. As for cookies, HTML pages, URL history, and all that, it is gone as I shut the browser, or anytime I use the tools I have buttons for at the top of Firefox. Ad Block Plus, Selective Cookie Delete, Cleaner, Empty Cache, Ghostery, and FoxyProxy. I also hide most of my header, and don't send it unless I click a link. I use a generic header anyway, websites cannot ID my operating system of correct IP. I have been running like this for 10 years now. Never once caught a virus, or had malware on my drive. Never got "hacked" even though I would bet a lot of people tried it. I rather like to surf and post in an anonymous manner, rather than being in the open all the time.

reply to post by goldenelf

And I don't like the idea of charging people to see my content, but I think the mere act of looking at an ad (not even clicking on it) is a fair trade off for the use of my website's content.

Yes, but do you think it's fair to "hate" on ad blocking software and even ban it and somehow try to dictate what the end user can and cannot do with their own web browser? This article is doing nothing less than trying to tell people they shouldn't use such software... my whole point is that the decision shouldn't be in the hands of the website owner, it should be in the hands of the end users who should have the ability to modify their web browser in any way they want. Website owners need to learn to deal with it and stop crying over lost profit, because they are all still profiting anyway. They make me sick. All they want to do it maximize their profits. As I've stated countless times now, using an ad block tool is a way of being able to selectively donate to the websites you like by white-listing those websites.

Instead of trying to force everyone to white-list your website you should reply on the people who like your website enough to white-list and also the people who simply don't use ad blockers. Look at the traffic levels maintained by Facebook and Wikipedia, yet look at the way they advertise. When ad blockers first came onto the scene I didn't see a whole bunch of websites going broke and I still don't see it happening today, most websites are still making a good profit yet they still have the balls to make a big fuss over people who choose to use ad blockers, as if end users shouldn't have the right to block their ads because they are so super special awesome at proving the best content anywhere. Give me a break. And it's even more disgusting when it happens at a website where all the content is generated by the users.

Originally posted by goldenelf
... but I think the mere act of looking at an ad (not even clicking on it) is a fair trade off for the use of my website's content.

And you lose that "right" the moment a pop up, flashing, disruptive, WITH SOUND YOU CANT TURN OFF, lying in your face advertisement gets in the way of actually being able to read your website.

The author of the article says...

...we do try to remove any that auto-play a video or make noise on page load...
...we have requested that no such video ads be displayed as a general rule...

Not good enough.
One fail is all you get, then its adblock time because you've shown that you CANT control it.

I own, operate and develop (for others) websites. Some of them rely on advertising for some, and some rely on advertising for all of their income. I do not work on any sites that pop-up advertisements, force you to click through or pop-up when you try to exit. Nothing obnoxious...but advertising none the less. If it weren't for the ads, the sites would not exist as there would be no income.

So...for example...if regular television couldn't display commercials, or ads at the bottom of the screen, or if you could simply block them...the "free" TV would go away. Now keep in mind, back in my youth all there was, was free TV with commercials. Then in my late teens, there was paid cable without advertising. Now there is paid cable with advertising. Without the advertising, the stations would not exist. There is no income and therefore no staff, no shows bought, etc.

I use AdBlock in Chrome but mostly because I want to block the obnoxious advertising on some sites. I don't mind the static, non-invasive banners here and there. But in my opinion, any method of blocking all ads, all the time will either kill internet commerce, or require paid memberships to visit sites. I don't think anyone wants that.

The solution is fairly simple...a code of conduct requirement. Simple display ads taking no more than 25% of the screen at any given time and displaying only products related to the site you are viewing. If these "rules" are broken, the site is moved to another category that is flagged in all search engines as...well...obnoxious. You can still visit, but you have been warned. At least that would work for me. But I don't want it run by Microsoft, Google or the government. And finally...each site should have an option to pay/donate and if you do...no ads will be displayed. But only as an option. Much like the software that removes their banner if you buy the application.

Now...how to accomplish and manage this is beyond me.

I would say that a USER should be able to do whatever they want with the content they download, and they should be able to be anonymous.

On the other hand -- adBlock does remove ads which pay for the content. It's not really protecting your privacy. If you use such a thing, over time, the advertisers are going to embed the ads in the content -- without much distinction (kind of like how we have product placement in movies and tv shows).

But whether we force this issue or not; advertisers are going to push "Their message" anywhere they can find a blank spot. So expect clouds, floating blimps and the moon to also get ads lasered onto them. I'm sure this will be "necessary" to pay for air and the sky because we are all freeloaders.

I'm not sure the average person knows any of this really exists. being a web designer and front end developer, i check analytics often and still see a large number of people using older IE browsers. Ghostery is probably one of my favorite add-ons besides the web developers toolbar, its interesting to see the different tracking and affiliate companies on a given site. Do not track is also a newer innovation im sure people don't know about quite yet even since being built into new IE browsers.

FYI. There are 23 scripts running on the recent posts page!

The only issue I have with sites that require you to not block ads......

The owners of these ad ridden sites cry about users using ad blocking software but refuse to take responsibility for the ads that are served by a 3rd party, that try to compromise ones system. Too often they cry "It's not this sites fault, it's the third party doing this."

99.9% Of these sites use 3rd party advertising companies....

WRONG. It is the website owners fault for allowing such companies access and not checking the add content. It is the websites owners responsibility to make sure the content being served is safe.

If you require me to see the ads on your site, then I require you to be responsible for the ads that try to compromise my system.

Maybe, I just send you a bill for the repairs to the next PC I have to fix, that gets compromised by the 3rd party software.

Completely missed this thread when it was posted, But fantastic thread OP.

Very well said

I want to point out that AdBlock Plus does actually allow websites to display ads. In fact here is a direct quote from the website.

Adblock Plus will always block annoying ads. Still, many websites rely on advertising revenues so we want to encourage websites to use plain and unobtrusive advertising instead of flashy banners. That's why the Adblock Plus community has established strict guidelines to identify acceptable ads, and Adblock Plus allows these out of the box. You can always disable this feature if you want to block all ads.

Many sites that offer content for free need to generate revenue to pay for the services they are providing. The most common is to provide advertising that will make them money for those that choose to avail themselves of those sponsors. I use AdBlock Plus and I can still see content on sites that is generated by JavaScript. Most browsers also have the ability to disable JavaScript completely. Ad blocking software will usually only block script that might cause unacceptable actions to occur. Banner ads and pop up ads have been around since the internet boom in the 90's and it's probably time to re think how advertising is presented. In fact, there are now many services that allow you to provide pre and post roll advertisements in video's and audio files presented on a site. Some websites are now providing a small visit our sponsors link that allows people to go to a page specifically for showing off the various advertisers that are sponsoring the site.

The only reason that ad blocking software exists is because there are many website owners and advertisers out there that are using any method they can to drive you to a specific site or to entice you with a product. Even going so far as to provide fake pop up's that try and tell you there is something wrong with your computer and to purchase a product to fix it. Nobody want's to see the stupid crap, or to see ads for things that they aren't interested in or ads that contain images or products they might find offensive.

I feel that AdBlock Plus has the right idea. They provide guidelines for website owners to provide sensible advertising that will bypass the ad blocking software.

AdBlock has been a complete godsend! I recently used a friends laptop to go on a website i would normally use at home, the amount of ads i got was terrible, really ruined my surfing experience on that site for the day. I was half tempted to install AdBlock for them!

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I am kind of Boarder line with adverts

I dont mind adverts which aren't intrusive (you get some adverts which are annoying as hell, video ones for example which make stupid sounds or popup in your face)

hence I use adblock on sites which cater to those adverts

As someone who runs a website and needs Adverts to stay afloat I try and server adverts which aren't in your face and generally only show them to guests so members dont see adverts (cater to one group and try and get others an initiative to join as mentioned before user generated content is where the real money is)