Some sites are blocking Firefox users because they're using a free ad blocker Plugin -- Adblock Plus.
The lockout of Firefox, being promulgated on the "Why Firefox Is Blocked" site, claims that if you're able to read the material on the site, but not see the ads, you're stealing content.
"? blanket ad blocking in general is still theft," the site's author say, but what's worse is that "Ad Block Plus's unwillingness to allow individual site owners the freedom to block people using their plug-in." The site provides a script for site owners to block Firefox.
Interestingly enough, I tried reaching the "Why Firefox Is Blocked" owner for comment. But I couldn't because according to SamSpade, they've, blocked access to their IP address. Ah, the irony.
Quick aside: If you use Internet Explorer, you can grab any of these free ad blockers: IE7Pro Ad Blocker, IE AdBlock, or the Quero Toolbar [thanks Leo F. and Jon B.]
Ad blocking is a big issue and controversial. On Monday, I'll post my experience and feelings about ad blocking. I'm sure to tick off someone, probably my boss.
In the meantime, if you have an opinion, fire away (there's plenty of room in Comments below. And if you're not interested in commenting publicly, don't hesitate to pop a message right into my inbox.
its really ironical how someone would do that. We all know how web developed and how shortly pop-up ads became a huge non-sense. In fact, any website you go, it has some crap popping up all the time. Firefox did a commendable job and provided users the way to navigate through all this crap that was there.
I dont know why people still believe that they can enforce all these idiotic practices on to the users. All of us have enough of it already. Anyways, as for revenue, learn something from google ad sense. google has given a dimension to advertisement that really deserves a big pat in the back.
And then one crap. this website PCWORLD requires me to sign up at least to 1 newsletter just to POST a comments. No wonder, this news is featured on this website. - good crap combo.
Best,
Akshay
1. You can get Firefox extensions to rewrite your browser header and fake that you aren't Firefox
2. It's not theft any more than changing the channel on the TV is, or just simply not clicking it
3. Discriminating against a browser as a whole is probably closer to being illegal than ignoring ads (although I'm guessing neither are "illegal")
4. The people that block ads are probably the people that wouldn't click them anyway
5. As you pointed out, other browsers can block ads. It's client side and there is no way to detect it... change your business model if it's a problem, this isn't a fix
6. Do they realize that by blocking Firefox they are losing probably about 30% of their audience (and losing the ad revenue from them!), just to block the 0.001% of Firefox users that may have the plugin? Good one!
Excellent commentary, Steve007. Thanks for spending the time. --Steve
@ akshay- I didn't have to sign up for a newsletter to post this.
This is good fun. If that guy thinks that blocking ads is stealing, then am I also stealing when I go to the bathroom during TV commercials? Or when I throw away unread, printed advertisements that I find in my physical mail box?
And then he thinks he can stop ad blocking by shutting out Firefox. A doomed attempt. Does he know the slightest bit about software technology? Simple minds are everywhere.
Greetz, Pjotr.
Of course, if one adds the NoScript plugin, then the site's blocking script becomes useless.
This, to me, is another case of the Me Generation's being unwilling to pay for the privilege of using other people's resources.
I pay for my web space, server space, and the other resources I expend on my blogs, websites, and so forth -- either in cash money, or by agreeing to let the owners of the site put ads on my pages. Tit for tat. I post, they pay for the resources, I pay them.
Not clicking, changing channels or going to the fridge are not valid comparisons. There is an excellent chance that some of the ads will get through in those cases. Partial exposure is what advertising is all about. No one expects 100% coverage. However, when I block ads completely I am depriving the site owners of their money. That's theft, no matter how you massage it. If I don't want ads, I can block them, but I shouldn't whine when others use the same technology to get around my efforts as I do to avoid theirs.
I suspect my friend Steve will disagree. Ah, well. Life will go on
@digitalzen:
It appears you still don't get it. I want to view websites the way I like it. If that means you as a website owner, must pay more money for hosting services, because of diminishing ad revenues, that is your problem, brother. Not mine, as a visitor.
I'm a free digital citizen of the Net, and I deeply care about my freedom. And if you think you can stop me from blocking ads, in any browser you care to name, think again.
Greetz, Pjotr.
An afterthought:
When I first connected to the internet, in 1995, it was still considered very bad manners to put *any* kind of commercial advertisement on your website.
Things have worsened incredibly: now some website owners have the rudeness to blame those who try to seek shelter from the unceasing bombardment of ads....
Quantum mutatus ab illo, the ancient Romans would say...
I'm being called a thief because I want to ignore junk ads
I buy quality products, either online or in store. No plastic
junk in my home. Cheap tacky ads are usually selling cheap tacky products. That is why I don't want them.
Also, I don't read the junk that arrives via e-mail or snail mail.
BTW I really like PCWorld, and always check Steve's work, (note for Steve's Boss)
Consider this:
If ad blocking would result in more expenses for website owners, some websites would disappear. Would we miss them? God no. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Give me a leaner and ad-free web anyday.
Calling me a thief because I block those unspeakable things called ads, is not only rude, but is libelous. This sure makes me very angry.
Maybe this could work to our advantage. If they want to download all this ad crap to my PC fine. Just let me know where to send my name and address so they can send me a check every month for using my bandwidth.
i'd have to agree with the dwil, ads take up space and cause slower internet speeds, i'm sure that anyone who has dial-up needs ad-blockers now with how much crap there is, other wise they can't do anything, and everyone i know uses firefox you take out alot of views to your site by blocking firefox users. i have ad-blocker and it's great but sometimes you have to tell it what to block so people get "partial views" of ads.
Today's website is awash in commercialism of such range and complexity that I often wonder how any website can still provide meaningful content in any measure of concise format.Load times are, and have been, untenable for the dialup customer; and the burden is becoming heavier and heavier upon our systems as we must install more and more armor to actively and passively guard against all the ad ware [in all its forms] and malware floating around out there ready to tag your pc.
I think the results of Steve's attempts to contact the "Why Firefox Is Blocked" owner for comment nullify the man's argument by his own actions. That is, the owner couldn't be contacted or comment on his views, because according to SamSpade, they've, blocked access to their IP address.
There are 3 reasons on why to block ads.
Security. Viruses, trojans, and other junk can be behind an advertisement. Look at myspace. PC world ads might be safe, but are all sites as safe?
Irritation. If the ads were only still images no one would care. But lets have them take up the browser window, blare loud music and sound effects. And we all love them flashing and blinking. (maybe you can get epileptic seizures from them?)
Performance. Even PCworld.com loads faster with the ads gone.
My advise would be to keep them still images or text based.
Mozilla/AdBlock+ user all the way!
i find it funny as hell that a site blocks firefox users for using adblock plus. 1st off those who use adblock plus want to read material without annoying ads and without it they just hit the back button rather than read it at all
now i dont know about you but i would much prefer someone block ads on my site, read the material and possibly buy or donate to the product im selling than then see all the ads, hut the back button and never view my site at all.
no one wins when you block those who use adblockers, only ppl who gain are the companies who allow the blocking of ads. those companies get more views then a better chance at making a sale.
so let the stupid guy talk about blocking ads are stealing cause he's only hurting his own and anyone else's business who believes like him, block firefox with adblock thats only millions of potential customers you lose. this guy is clearly not a smart business man. you dont see bill gates getting pissed by those blocking ads.
Funny thing, I didn't see any mention of these "public spirited" websites blocking IE if it has an adblocker.