Why is it hard for people to understand that there is nothing called "Free Lunch"? Somebody was concerned, that adblock is ruining their revenue by blocking the ads (shown on the website). And at the same time, not providing the website owners, the ability to block adblock users.

Full story »
mark's picture
Created by mark 14 years 41 weeks ago – Made popular 14 years 41 weeks ago
Category: Opposition   Tags:
mjd's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago


What an extraordinarily bizarre

What an extraordinarily bizarre point of view.

The technical reality here is that a web page is a stream of text with embedded instructions for how the client software can go and fetch supporting data such as external JavaScript files, style sheets, and inline images.

The ability for the user to decide under what conditions they want their software to follow these instructions is a fundamental requirement for privacy, security, and accessibility on the web. It is also a clear issue of rights. This is my computer; it should follow my instructions above anybody else's.

In fact I will go further and say I should be able to (privately, without infringing copyright) do anything with that data: I should be able to remove arbitrary sections of the data, including text-based ads (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/521); I should be able to filter out objectionable content while my kids are using the web; I should be able to make web pages read like they were written by the Muppet's Swedish chef (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/507).

Do say that having the ability to do things like this is "dictatorship", while the demand that people should read what you tell them to read is "freedom" goes beyond Orwell, and into Lewis Carroll territory:

'"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."'

The World Wide Web was not developed with advertising in mind. That some people eventually saw a reason to advertise on the web is fine; in fact it's great. But if it eventually becomes less feasible to make money that way, it is not the responsibility of society to guarantee people an income from web advertising.

If you come up with a scheme to make money and it doesn't work, that's your problem. You cannot then point at every reason it doesn't work and cry "Aha! That's theft!"

dehumanizer's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago


Install UserAgentSwitcher. Really,

Install UserAgentSwitcher. Really, it works. So, they just block the user agent.
Oh, and please let ME decide what stuf reaches MY computer and the programs that I run. There are adblockers built into proxies or adblockers running as Winsock LSPs. How will you block those one, morons?
Soon spammers will complain against spamfilters, and so on.

snotbutter's picture


14 years 41 weeks 37 min 12 sec ago


this interestign for me. what if

this interestign for me. what if no more web content because no more ads. will they do it for the love if there no money?

bearlake's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago


lol resistance is futile, just

lol resistance is futile, just change your browser identification string to ie or something more sympathetic to this man's beliefs

Jimbob's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago


Isn't there a firefox extension

Isn't there a firefox extension that does this? If not there soon will be if more people start seeing things the same way as the idiot from the original website.

Jimbob's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago


The thing is it's not about you

The thing is it's not about you deciding what reaches YOUR computer. It's about them deciding under what conditions you see THEIR content. They could say you have to jump through hoops before you can see their content if they wanted to. They'd get less people viewing their site that's all.

It's more about you to deciding whether it's worth doing what they ask to view their content.

In the end Firefox's market share will continue to grow and people who block people using it will lose traffic... until someone finds a way around it... which will be very soon I'm sure if more people do what this guy did.

aboutblank's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago


HAHA O WOW. The Web is a pull medium

HAHA O WOW. The Web is a pull medium and not a push medium. This means that the user has unlimited potential to mess around with the content they have pulled from a site. If this means actively not rendering some select content, then so be it.

dehumanizer's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago


Jimbob (I cannot reply directly

Jimbob (I cannot reply directly to your comment for some reason): if they want to force you to not blocking ads, they have to put up a "page reading license" or something that you can accept. That way by accepting it, you HAVE to watch the commercials. Otherwise not.

underthelinux's picture


14 years 40 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago


crap: i replied in the wrong place. [...]

crap: i replied in the wrong place.
dehumanizer- the 'accept commercials' license idea wouldn't work cause... "70% of users don't watch the video if it starts with a commercial"

Alot of the bloggers think using this logic:
If you're savvy enough to use firefox, you're not dumb enough to produce the website revenue via click-through and the like.

To block all ffox users because some use adblock is inane; if half of the users see the ad, then its effective enough. This article was submitted to some site a while ago, and i book'd it because i thought it was good.

Best karma users