Do you use adblocking software?

[蜃気楼]

That ad on ArmorGames is tricky!

I AdBlock all ads, except for some Pokemon sites, I don't block ads.

Even if you don't want to block ads, it's still recommended to block scam ads, pop-up ads and that fake virus scan thing.

 

[Serene Grace]

I actually don't have any additional adblocking software except from the one that comes with Firefox itself.

 

[Venia Silente]

I use the built-in blocker and extra CSS rules for Opera, and AdBlock Plus for Firefox. Today ad-blocking is a necessity, not a comodity, so I go all around. I do grant "unblock" privileges to my favourite sites, obviously.

 

[morrison]

I use this Advertising blocker add-on on for Mozilla.

 

[Mitchman]

I use ABP. I don't care if a site I'm looking at has the ads so they can get a payment or something I care about my PC being safe not to mention they lag it like hell. Using an old computer that lags with firefox its an absolute must.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

I steal from stores. I don't care if a store I'm shopping at has to pay for the products they have in stock, so they need to receive payment or something I care about my wallet being full not to mention they empty it like hell. Using an old wallet that doesn't carry much money its an absolute must.

fix'd for you.

I, myself ~ block ads; but don't anybody ever come to figure that what you're doing is anything different to software piracy. There's no justification other than a sense of entitlement that you should receive a product or service without having to contribute anything to it. AdblockPlus actually prevents the ad from loading; so there's no revenue at ALL for people who visit the site with ABP; and so the whole "I'd never have clicked anyway" is just the safe as software pirates saying "I'd never have brought the game anyway".

 

[Venia Silente]

fix'd for you.

I, myself ~ block ads; but don't anybody ever come to figure that what you're doing is anything different to software piracy. There's no justification other than a sense of entitlement that you should receive a product or service without having to contribute anything to it. AdblockPlus actually prevents the ad from loading; so there's no revenue at ALL for people who visit the site with ABP; and so the whole "I'd never have clicked anyway" is just the safe as software pirates saying "I'd never have brought the game anyway".

↑ This == FAIL.

Because you're kidding, right? Right?

it is true that Mitchman put up the most stupidest (yes double superlative) justification for ad-blocking, which isn't even true, but you try to play the game putting up the fallacious argument that ad-blocking == theft. There's so many things wrong with that, beginning with the ethical approach to adverstising and stretching as far as the mode of operation of ad-blockers, that I'm even ashamed I have to try and explain it.

Regardless of whether ad-blockers suppress ads from the connection itself, there can be no theft, because it does not follow the very definition of theft. Theft, as defined by either a dictionary or common sense, requires that one party, the "thief", acquires and adds to their property a something, let's call it the "thiefee", by removing it from the property of its righteous owner, the "victim". Ad-blocking in no way gives you something that was never yours. It doesn't even give you at all-- on the contrary, if one were to put it up in legalese or similar terms, the most correct definition of ad-blocking would be "actively preventing the acquisition of items or goods, that were not established as components of the contract between the client and server, but pushed in a side contract by a third party". If anything, that sounds like something correct to do to me.

And let's not even bring up the piracy comparison. Where the heck did you get that from? FOX? ABC? CBS? People who compares ad-blocking to piracy don't get how 1.- piracy works 2.- adverstising works 3.- ad-blocking works and 4.- internet communication works.
The "I would have never clicked the ad anyway" and "I would have never bought the game anyways" sets don't even belong to the same market characterization! -- People who uses ad-blocking is people who selectively discard junk mail from A (for "Ad-provider"), which they can do, and do it privately in their houses, which they can do, and do not belong necessarily to the set of people not interested in B's (for "Blog") products/content because they're discarding A's promotion -- while engaging with an unrelated firm B. That B receives payments from A is not something that the user has no knowledge about, nor has economic value for the client's decision to disregard their agreement with B -- which is something not being carried out anyways.
As for the "I wouldn't have bought the game anyways" set, there can not be theft from them because, simply, the definition of the group implies that they're not moving currency towards A, neither with publicity nor without it. SO f they aren't doing it, they can't be doing it illegally.

One douchefail tried once the "ad-blocking == theft" approach by blocking Firefox users on the grounds that they used AdBlock Plus and hus caused a "loss of revenue" to his page. His arguments were ridden with fallacies and mistakes at the core concept of internet operations and even his definition of "revenue" which seemed to assume that the fact that a person watches an ad implies or forces that person is legally and morally obliged to buy the product. To put it simply, he didn't last too long.

(Ad-blocking == theft ) == FAIL. Sorry to break the news to you. And welcome to 2009.

 

[twocows]

I steal from stores. I don't care if a store I'm shopping at has to pay for the products they have in stock, so they need to receive payment or something I care about my wallet being full not to mention they empty it like hell. Using an old wallet that doesn't carry much money its an absolute must.

Your analogy fails because products you buy in stores don't prevent you from going where you want to go and they don't prompt for your personal information so they can steal your identity/spam you at a later time. I install ABP on client computers for security reasons (with their permission, which I've never had a single person deny me).

If internet ads were as safe as billboard ads that you see on the expressway, I might consider disabling ABP on some sites. However, that doesn't change the fact that I sometimes browse on sites that have content that I don't feel deserves money from me, and I'll be damned if I give those sites so much as a fraction of a cent.

 

[Mitchman]

Wow a bit touchy are we guys? As I said I do it for safety and not to mention with ads I would never be able to get online. So what if I seem selfish, I have reasons of my own that are completely justifiable.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

mostly meaningless drivel

tl;dr
better luck next time, be more concise when you rage.

I have reasons of my own that are completely justifiable.

No, they're not at all justifiable.

 

[Mitchman]

So its not justifiable that I block em so I can have a smooth experience?

 

[twocows]

I'd also like to add that it's a shame internet ads can't be like the ones in some games, which I feel actually add to the realism.

 

[Venia Silente]

If internet ads were as safe as billboard ads that you see on the expressway, I might consider disabling ABP on some sites.

This is how most people actually feel about ads. They don't block them to not see them, as most people builds "ad-immunity" with time, but to prevent unsafe (in more than one meaning of the term) usage of the system resources.

The billboard analogy is a very good one.

tl;dr
better luck next time, be more concise when you rage.

"tl;dr"? No wonder people no longer learn things and use lame analogies instead: they don't do their research.

I agree I may have raged, however, near the third paragraph.... :D

Want it more concise?

"(Ad-blocking == theft ) == FAIL. Do your research, ideally using a dictionary as backup. Sorry to break the news to you. And welcome to 2009." «-- here: 1 paragraph. ;)

So its not justifiable that I block em so I can have a smooth experience?

It depends on whether you are entitled to a smooth experience. All that the social contract between user and website guarantees is that you are able to see the website. If the TOS of a website says "to use out website you must agree to be nagged by popups every 12 seconds", then that's it, and a bad luck for the visitor -- I doubt any TOS like that would be enforceable, however, since you have to access the website first to see the TOS which makes it an illegal contract.
Subscription sites with adds (such as news pages and forums) are another matter entirely.
If you say, "So its not justifiable that I block em so I can have a safe experience?" on the other hand, then yes, that's absolutely justifiable because it is the expected rational behaviour anyways. But smoothness is not a necessity and stands nowhere near the same level. Nowadays, it's just a bonus.

 

[Mitchman]

Thing is right now I can't buy a computer and I have to deal with a Pentium 4 processor with little to none ram. FFS look at this:
https://img203.imageshack.us/img203/5017/look.png
If I didn't disable ads my computer would be dead. It lags hard enough with MSN and Firefox but adds just made it worse. Firefox froze every time I loaded a site, then worked fine cause of the ads, and once I put this ABP in it worked fine without freezing for every site. Forgot to mention I also have no Antivirus as that would also kill the computer usage wise so I pretty much have to use it.

 

[Lana.]

Adblock on FF = win. End of story. =3

 

[Aberbecam]

I don't use any adblocking program,i find its useless and ads are sometimes useless too. xD

 

[Chernobyl.112]

Of course. I use Adblock Plus for Firefox. I can't stand banner ads, they ruin my internet experience.

 

[pokejungle]

I don't block ads atm because I use Chrome instead of Firefox, but addons are coming soon.

Until websites find a better way to advertise and have more relevant ads I don't feel bad blocking them at all.

EDIT: oh, and solovino, blocking ads =/= stealing.

 

[Pikachu the Speaker]

I use Adblock for Safari 4. My family don't use Adblock software for Safari, Opera, and FireFox.

 

[Venia Silente]

EDIT: oh, and solovino, blocking ads =/= stealing.[/SIZE]

...Which is exactly what I said... :D

Maybe the whole monospaced programmer's-like equation was what dizzied people way off my argument?