AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery – The Trifecta Of Evil [Opinion](makeuseof.com)
makeuseof.com
AdBlock, NoScript & Ghostery – The Trifecta Of Evil [Opinion]
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/adblock-noscript-ghostery-trifecta-evil-opinion/
35 comments
Strongly agree on the pay-per-click vs pay-per-view ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we may be shifting towards this pay-per-click model. Remember GM pulling their ads from Facebook ? Views are still an important part of a marketing strategy, but it's harder to estimate the actual benefits of such a campaign (as opposed to clickthrough rate).
This is not the death of online advertising - companies are making huge profits with a cost-per-click model, eg Criteo... So yes, adblock is changing the way editors made money. But oh well, isn't the internet threatening the business model of the music/film industry ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we may be shifting towards this pay-per-click model. Remember GM pulling their ads from Facebook ? Views are still an important part of a marketing strategy, but it's harder to estimate the actual benefits of such a campaign (as opposed to clickthrough rate).
This is not the death of online advertising - companies are making huge profits with a cost-per-click model, eg Criteo... So yes, adblock is changing the way editors made money. But oh well, isn't the internet threatening the business model of the music/film industry ?
I have every right to tell my browser to display all text in green-on-black 12pt Courier
Just a sidenote, but if you do this, make it override author settings. I used a custom (white-on-black) default color scheme for a while a year or two ago, and was floored by how many websites set their font-color but not their background. After the sixth major website that I experienced as gray-on-black, I just gave up.
Just a sidenote, but if you do this, make it override author settings. I used a custom (white-on-black) default color scheme for a while a year or two ago, and was floored by how many websites set their font-color but not their background. After the sixth major website that I experienced as gray-on-black, I just gave up.
What a poor article. Some responses:
> [..] Ghostery appears to be the ultimate do-not-track plugin.
Then it's not evil, is it? If you have to manually opt-in by installing an add-on, how can it be evil?
> AdBlock silently removes all advertising and social buttons
AdBlock exists because users got fed up of massively intrusive advertising. If advertisers had thought a little more long term, AdBlock would be a dead project.
> What makes me angry about the AdBlock plugin is that the author – while happy to destroy our revenue stream – is also profiteering from the very same free content model by asking for PayPal donations when the plugin is installed. Talk about hypocrisy.
Asking for money via a different route other than advertising is not hyprocrisy.
> [..] Ghostery appears to be the ultimate do-not-track plugin.
Then it's not evil, is it? If you have to manually opt-in by installing an add-on, how can it be evil?
> AdBlock silently removes all advertising and social buttons
AdBlock exists because users got fed up of massively intrusive advertising. If advertisers had thought a little more long term, AdBlock would be a dead project.
> What makes me angry about the AdBlock plugin is that the author – while happy to destroy our revenue stream – is also profiteering from the very same free content model by asking for PayPal donations when the plugin is installed. Talk about hypocrisy.
Asking for money via a different route other than advertising is not hyprocrisy.
> If advertisers had though[t] a little more long term
Quite. It is ironic that the author is appealing to users to think a little more long term and tolerate all these cynical, short-termist ads to support his preferred revenue stream.
Quite. It is ironic that the author is appealing to users to think a little more long term and tolerate all these cynical, short-termist ads to support his preferred revenue stream.
This article conveniently ignores that advertising is a flawed revenue model in the first place, seeking to attack people who want to access content without being annoyed - this a natural market reaction. People don't want to be tracked, they don't want intrusive irrelevant ads, but they clearly want to access content.
I think AdBlock, NoScript etc. are symptoms of consumers reactions to this flawed revenue model, not attacks on content creators. Content creators need to either find some other way to monetize, or else accept that this is the risk they undertake by monetizing through ads.
Maybe a better way would be to draw down revenue directly from ISPs, since people access the internet to view this content and ISPs can track which IPs a given user points at. That does put us on dangerous ground with respect to net neutrality.
I think AdBlock, NoScript etc. are symptoms of consumers reactions to this flawed revenue model, not attacks on content creators. Content creators need to either find some other way to monetize, or else accept that this is the risk they undertake by monetizing through ads.
Maybe a better way would be to draw down revenue directly from ISPs, since people access the internet to view this content and ISPs can track which IPs a given user points at. That does put us on dangerous ground with respect to net neutrality.
At least for me, NoScript is less a reaction to annoying ads, and more a reaction to "not wanting to see your god damn web 3.0 flashy bullshit." Unless I explicitly need to interact with a website, I'll just leave it in a dumb js-less state so I can read without having random signup forms, broken scrolling, moving graphics, etc. popping up in my face every minute or two. If those flashing blinky annoying things are ads, then those are disabled too, but it's by no means the main reason I use NoScript.
I couldn't understand if the article was serious or not. The point about AdBlock seems sort of in the right direction, if a bit missing the point - but the next two just left me scratching my head.
I couldn't understand if the article was serious or not. The point about AdBlock seems sort of in the right direction, if a bit missing the point - but the next two just left me scratching my head.
These guys seem to miss one important thing. The fact they have a business and try to earn money by doing some things does not put any obligations on me. They try to write free content and earn money by showings ads. Great idea. Unfortunately, ads are in 99.99% cases done so badly they really piss me off, so I don't want to look at them. Should I feel guilty that I am denying those nice guys earning a living by that? No more than I should be feeling guilty not going to McDonalds because I don't like the taste of their sauce (true story!) and this denying nice people that work there some of their revenue. If these guys say that if I'm not going to look at ads I'm not welcome on their site - fine, I won't come there anymore. I never heard of them before today anyway, and didn't feel a gaping void in my life. But I won't feel guilty because their business model makes me physically unwell. I tried browsing with AdBlock off, and it's hell. Most ads are crappy, repetitive, annoying as hell and completely irrelevant to me. I feel no obligation to subject myself in my home on my computer to this abuse. You want my money? Do something I want to buy. You want me looking and clicking on stuff? Do something I want to look on and click on. Your business model doesn't work this way? Do it without me or change it.
> No more than I should be feeling guilty not going to McDonalds because I don't like the taste of their sauce
If you don't go to McDonalds, you don't get the burger.
If you go to a site with AdBlock installed, you still get the content.
If you don't go to McDonalds, you don't get the burger.
If you go to a site with AdBlock installed, you still get the content.
Is it so difficult to understant? I offer you a content which was paid by advertiser. You pay by watching these adverts. If you block my adverts it is like you sneaked to the cinema without bying a ticket.
You do not like adverts on my site, ok fine, just do not read/watch my content. Or as another option, just pay me directly the same money I would get from adverts. It is a small amount anyway, and you and I will be happy
I didn't sneak in. I was invited in. If you don't want me in - put a gate in front, just like any cinema theater does. I just won't visit.
> just do not read/watch my content
I'm pretty sure I don't already, and wasn't really planning in the future either. Many content providers actually take considerable efforts to get me to read their content. I'll stay with them, I don't have too much time to waste on reading random stuff on internet anyway.
> just pay me directly the same money I would get from adverts
To get my money you first have to give me something that I value more than money. What have you got to offer?
> just do not read/watch my content
I'm pretty sure I don't already, and wasn't really planning in the future either. Many content providers actually take considerable efforts to get me to read their content. I'll stay with them, I don't have too much time to waste on reading random stuff on internet anyway.
> just pay me directly the same money I would get from adverts
To get my money you first have to give me something that I value more than money. What have you got to offer?
I couldn't use the Internet without Adblock and Flashblock. Just like I couldn't read a novel if it every page were surrounded by flashing neon and ads randomly inserted between paragraphs, I can't read your website if the content is dominated by ads. Let me spell it out - if your website is worse than a newspaper, it deserves to be adblocked. Every site I've seen with ads, well, they're worse than a newspaper.
As for feeling entitled, I just want to point out that bit torrents trackers have never had trouble supporting themselves without ads or paid content of any kind... (Despite which I'm happy to support things like my local public radio station.)
(Though I'm a big fan of Ghostery, too -- the amount of trackers sites use is ridiculous and who knows what someone is able to do with the data.)
Also, my new pet peeve: links that don't go where they say.
Google is especially bad about this -- any link in your Gmail goes to some Google URL that then sends you to where you really wanted to go -- though plenty of other site are doing it too. They could be sending you to malware-r-us and making it look like a link to happy-happy-choo-choo.com. I think browsers should refuse to display links that don't display the same location they're targeting, however it's done. I think it might be on the way out though -- it seems to have been 'undoned' from Google news.
As for feeling entitled, I just want to point out that bit torrents trackers have never had trouble supporting themselves without ads or paid content of any kind... (Despite which I'm happy to support things like my local public radio station.)
(Though I'm a big fan of Ghostery, too -- the amount of trackers sites use is ridiculous and who knows what someone is able to do with the data.)
Also, my new pet peeve: links that don't go where they say.
Google is especially bad about this -- any link in your Gmail goes to some Google URL that then sends you to where you really wanted to go -- though plenty of other site are doing it too. They could be sending you to malware-r-us and making it look like a link to happy-happy-choo-choo.com. I think browsers should refuse to display links that don't display the same location they're targeting, however it's done. I think it might be on the way out though -- it seems to have been 'undoned' from Google news.
> What makes me angry about the AdBlock plugin is that the author – while happy to destroy our revenue stream – (...) asking for PayPal donations when the plugin is installed.
So put a button asking for Paypal donations on your blog then?
> Not only do you drag webpages 10 years into the past, but you prevent essential modern page components from loading
Actually I didn't mind the internet 10 years that much. There is quite a bit of content out there that I consume that looks pretty good as static content without js running.
> users enjoying our content, without creating revenue.
So? Stop posting content then.
This sounds a bit like appeal of the horse buggy maker when cars started to be popular. "Please keep us and our families in mind everytime you think of buying one of those new self-propelled buggies made by Ford..."
So put a button asking for Paypal donations on your blog then?
> Not only do you drag webpages 10 years into the past, but you prevent essential modern page components from loading
Actually I didn't mind the internet 10 years that much. There is quite a bit of content out there that I consume that looks pretty good as static content without js running.
> users enjoying our content, without creating revenue.
So? Stop posting content then.
This sounds a bit like appeal of the horse buggy maker when cars started to be popular. "Please keep us and our families in mind everytime you think of buying one of those new self-propelled buggies made by Ford..."
While I can undestand (not share) his opinion about AdBlock, I have a more difficult time understanding his grudge against Ghostery.
Ghostery makes it very easy to block all social buttons and analytics (like google-analytics, that fails to load 1 time out of 10), that make my browsing slow, or even stall.
Moreover, tracking on the internet and advertisement tracking is not the same as the one on TV, which is just grouping ads with shows of the relevant category. On TV, even if noone was watching it, those ads would be put together. Not on the Net.
Ghostery makes it very easy to block all social buttons and analytics (like google-analytics, that fails to load 1 time out of 10), that make my browsing slow, or even stall.
Moreover, tracking on the internet and advertisement tracking is not the same as the one on TV, which is just grouping ads with shows of the relevant category. On TV, even if noone was watching it, those ads would be put together. Not on the Net.
Do you have sky? Sky know more about your TV viewing habits than you think. And they have the technology to sell that information. Why do you think they've been pushing new Sky+ boxes at everyone. This isn't conspiracy, I've have a Sky representative tell me this.
A publisher has, as I see it, three choices if they want to make money off adverts.
1. They can ignore AdBlock, and spend money dealing with the support problems that the broken site causes.
2. They can block AdBlock users, and spend money dealing with the PR backlash.
3. They can take AdBlock into account designing the site, and spend money on a graceful enhancement JS system.
Option 3 is close to what Reddit do, and I think they've got the best approach: spot when people aren't using AdBlock, and thank them for it.
AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery exist. People will use them, and you cannot stop them. This is just the cost of doing business.
1. They can ignore AdBlock, and spend money dealing with the support problems that the broken site causes.
2. They can block AdBlock users, and spend money dealing with the PR backlash.
3. They can take AdBlock into account designing the site, and spend money on a graceful enhancement JS system.
Option 3 is close to what Reddit do, and I think they've got the best approach: spot when people aren't using AdBlock, and thank them for it.
AdBlock, NoScript and Ghostery exist. People will use them, and you cannot stop them. This is just the cost of doing business.
My problem with ads and social networking buttons is the latency they introduce in to browsing.
If a page load hangs, most of the time it turns out to be waiting for a response from a third party web site, which has no relevance to the content I want to see.
Since I installed Ghostery I find my browsing experience is much faster.
For ads, I use Adblock but I start with an empty URL list. I add servers that host obnoxious ads (animated or over-laying content) to the list as I go about my browsing. As long as a site uses a well-behaving ad network the ads will display.
If a page load hangs, most of the time it turns out to be waiting for a response from a third party web site, which has no relevance to the content I want to see.
Since I installed Ghostery I find my browsing experience is much faster.
For ads, I use Adblock but I start with an empty URL list. I add servers that host obnoxious ads (animated or over-laying content) to the list as I go about my browsing. As long as a site uses a well-behaving ad network the ads will display.
I think the problem is that the post author assumes data tracking isn't too big a deal. E.g. he says, "If company X puts a cookie on the New York Times and MSNBC site, and you browse to both those and Wikipedia, it only knows about the two upon on which it was placed" but the more likely scenario is that company X puts a cookie in a dozen more sites, and then keeps that information on their servers for however long.
What they do do with it, how long they keep it for, whether its anonymous or not is all unknown. I'd rather use ghostery and not worry about all that.
I actually wrote how pervasive the tracking is a while back, http://steadierfooting.com/2012/03/25/how-to-minimize-tracki...
What they do do with it, how long they keep it for, whether its anonymous or not is all unknown. I'd rather use ghostery and not worry about all that.
I actually wrote how pervasive the tracking is a while back, http://steadierfooting.com/2012/03/25/how-to-minimize-tracki...
The author claims that Adblock asking for donations is hypocritical. It is not. Hypocritical would be if the Adblock+ website had advertisements which were automatically whitelisted [1]. This is just asking for money for a useful tool, which is where the internet is headed.
[1] I seem to recall this actually happening for a plugin, but couldn't find it.
[1] I seem to recall this actually happening for a plugin, but couldn't find it.
NoScript used to unblock its own ads from AdBlock+ when installed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#AdBlock_Plus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoScript#AdBlock_Plus
NoScript also whitelists the websites of its author by default. I have a bittersweet relationship with that plugin.
Netscape 7-ish, the first release with a popup blocker, famously whitelisted the netscape site which was also its default homepage. So the first thing you'd see on installing it was a popup ad telling you about the new version of Netscape which now included a popup blocker... yeah
>This is just asking for money for a useful tool, which is where the internet is headed.
Wow, I hope not. Ad based revenue is bad enough, but panhandling?
Wow, I hope not. Ad based revenue is bad enough, but panhandling?
Why don't sites more often block (or just show a message to) users of Adblock? Is that traffic more valuable than not? Are they hoping visitors will link articles to non-Adblock using people? It seems to me like there is a value in users who don't see your ads, or you'd just block them.
I subscribe to Arstechnica premiere to remove the ads, I have Adblock disabled on overclockers.com.au, The Verge. I subscribe to offtopic.com at a level that removes ads. I contributed to the Penny-Arcade ad-removing kick starter.
Everything else has its ads blocked because you need to prove your worth and trustworthiness to me after two decades of sliding in to the abyss.
If you don't want me, block me. Don't let me see your content.
I subscribe to Arstechnica premiere to remove the ads, I have Adblock disabled on overclockers.com.au, The Verge. I subscribe to offtopic.com at a level that removes ads. I contributed to the Penny-Arcade ad-removing kick starter.
Everything else has its ads blocked because you need to prove your worth and trustworthiness to me after two decades of sliding in to the abyss.
If you don't want me, block me. Don't let me see your content.
Smart sites detect Adblock and ask you to consider disabling it for their site. That approach seems to make the best business sense to me (as in: I do consider and disable Adblock for those sites, unless their ads are annoying in which case it gets turned on again).
There have been backlashes in the past against authors who block content to Adblock users.
I would find it incredibly difficult to take anyone seriously who jumped on a bandwagon against authors/editors/sites like that.
And yet it has happened.
Got any specific examples? I'm having trouble actually caring about any potential backlash. I'd possibly welcome it.
There was a moderately high-profile drama over it a few years ago which, typically, I can't find right now. Maybe it's just viewed as less contentious these days.
Here's a list of the trackers Ghostery blocks on his website:
- AWeber
- Federated Media
- Gigya Socialize
- Google +1
- Google AdSense
- Google Analytics
- Twitter Button
I could see his point if he was just using Google Analytics to see traffic statistics for his website. You want to give free access to my personal and browsing data to all of these?! Go fuck yourself and your anti-Ghostery rant.
I could see his point if he was just using Google Analytics to see traffic statistics for his website. You want to give free access to my personal and browsing data to all of these?! Go fuck yourself and your anti-Ghostery rant.
Oh look, this again.
1. The internet was already a pretty neat place before online advertising became ubiquitous. There was lots of good content online, lots of curated databases of information, lots of good reference sites. If a bunch of blogs gradually dry up and blow away because they can't be profitable enough through advertising anymore, fine. They'll be replaced.
2. AdBlock is not destroying the internet. The internet was destroyed by advertising. AdBlock became popular as a direct result of the proliferation of websites that were 20% content and 80% advertising, fluff, and nonsense. It became popular as a direct result of blinking, jumping, moving, popping-under advertising elements. It became popular as a direct result of users having their browsers (and machines) compromised and infected by ad networks that did not vet their advertisers correctly. Content owners were perfectly willing to let the administration of advertising be somebody else's problem, and when that somebody else decided not to do their job either, users got screwed and they turned to AdBlock.
3. AdBlock does not, to my knowledge, block most donation requests, so I don't get where he thinks it's hypocritical that AdBlock is donation-supported.
4. AdBlock also recently rolled out a by-default "non-intrusive ads are OK" setting for all Firefox users. This led to quite a bit of controversy, which I think mostly illustrates just how sick of advertising a lot of people are. But, it stuck. So, now you can't even argue anymore that AdBlock is terrible because it's blocking all of your revenue.
5. Users may not be entitled to your content, but you aren't entitled to your users' attention, either. For instance: more and more sites lately seem to be using a Lightbox on page load to ask you to sign up for their stupid newsletter, or follow them on Twitter, or like them on Facebook. As a content owner, you're certainly allowed to do that. And, users are certainly allowed to install an extension that will block that, too.
6. I happen to agree that NoScript does more harm than good, as a practical matter, given current standards of web development. However, again, I fully understand why it exists: a huge number of attempts to compromise web browsers, track users against their will, or otherwise abuse their trust, is done through Javascript. Back when compromised Wordpress websites were a serious problem, every single one I saw -- not a small number, cleaning them up was something we did at the time -- used Javascript in the footer of one or more files to attempt to hit the browser. NoScript protected against that.
7. I didn't think Ghostery would be a very big deal, but I installed it a while back and have been completely flummoxed at the sheer amount of stuff blocked by it on websites. Loading a site and seeing a 20-deep list of social network buttons is merely visually annoying; having them all load their own little scripts and other bullshit is enough to incentivize me to block them.
AdBlock, Ghostery, and NoScript aren't ruining the internet; uninhibited commercialism and a complete lack of respect for users is.
1. The internet was already a pretty neat place before online advertising became ubiquitous. There was lots of good content online, lots of curated databases of information, lots of good reference sites. If a bunch of blogs gradually dry up and blow away because they can't be profitable enough through advertising anymore, fine. They'll be replaced.
2. AdBlock is not destroying the internet. The internet was destroyed by advertising. AdBlock became popular as a direct result of the proliferation of websites that were 20% content and 80% advertising, fluff, and nonsense. It became popular as a direct result of blinking, jumping, moving, popping-under advertising elements. It became popular as a direct result of users having their browsers (and machines) compromised and infected by ad networks that did not vet their advertisers correctly. Content owners were perfectly willing to let the administration of advertising be somebody else's problem, and when that somebody else decided not to do their job either, users got screwed and they turned to AdBlock.
3. AdBlock does not, to my knowledge, block most donation requests, so I don't get where he thinks it's hypocritical that AdBlock is donation-supported.
4. AdBlock also recently rolled out a by-default "non-intrusive ads are OK" setting for all Firefox users. This led to quite a bit of controversy, which I think mostly illustrates just how sick of advertising a lot of people are. But, it stuck. So, now you can't even argue anymore that AdBlock is terrible because it's blocking all of your revenue.
5. Users may not be entitled to your content, but you aren't entitled to your users' attention, either. For instance: more and more sites lately seem to be using a Lightbox on page load to ask you to sign up for their stupid newsletter, or follow them on Twitter, or like them on Facebook. As a content owner, you're certainly allowed to do that. And, users are certainly allowed to install an extension that will block that, too.
6. I happen to agree that NoScript does more harm than good, as a practical matter, given current standards of web development. However, again, I fully understand why it exists: a huge number of attempts to compromise web browsers, track users against their will, or otherwise abuse their trust, is done through Javascript. Back when compromised Wordpress websites were a serious problem, every single one I saw -- not a small number, cleaning them up was something we did at the time -- used Javascript in the footer of one or more files to attempt to hit the browser. NoScript protected against that.
7. I didn't think Ghostery would be a very big deal, but I installed it a while back and have been completely flummoxed at the sheer amount of stuff blocked by it on websites. Loading a site and seeing a 20-deep list of social network buttons is merely visually annoying; having them all load their own little scripts and other bullshit is enough to incentivize me to block them.
AdBlock, Ghostery, and NoScript aren't ruining the internet; uninhibited commercialism and a complete lack of respect for users is.
I was also astonished at how many ad profiling companies Ghostery revealed.
It's not necessarily targeted advertising that people should be concerned about; it's gradual profiling by companies that have the potential to affect insurance premiums, mortgage applications, and a whole host of other real-world interactions with corporations who profile using data sourced online.
This article from 2010 in the WSJ is revealing; it hints at how companies have long been itching to use online data -- such as which articles you read -- to categorise populations into neat pigeonholes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562...
It's not necessarily targeted advertising that people should be concerned about; it's gradual profiling by companies that have the potential to affect insurance premiums, mortgage applications, and a whole host of other real-world interactions with corporations who profile using data sourced online.
This article from 2010 in the WSJ is revealing; it hints at how companies have long been itching to use online data -- such as which articles you read -- to categorise populations into neat pigeonholes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562...
True, before this article I had no idea how much tracking is done. I knew it is done, but did not realize the extent of it. Now after installing Ghostery I see that I'm being tracked by 10+ different trackers on almost every page I visit (except HN which has just one as it seems :) So this article helped me a lot, though not in the way they intended.
Any complaints about NoScript are completely unfounded, (unless they are addressing that stupid update page). Why on Earth would I want you to use full percentage points of my CPU time to shuffle divs around and report back to the server everything I'm doing with my mouse?
I feel the same about Ghostery. There are a lot of Facebook/G+/whatever buttons on websites and I don't particularly want them to be collecting data points for every page I see.
Blocking ads does suck for websites that are being respectful about it; but surprise, there's a whitelist for that.
I checked MakeUseOf with adBlock off and there are ads in the middle of the article, which I think is disrespectful to the readers. Maybe respect is a two-way street?
I feel the same about Ghostery. There are a lot of Facebook/G+/whatever buttons on websites and I don't particularly want them to be collecting data points for every page I see.
Blocking ads does suck for websites that are being respectful about it; but surprise, there's a whitelist for that.
I checked MakeUseOf with adBlock off and there are ads in the middle of the article, which I think is disrespectful to the readers. Maybe respect is a two-way street?
>The internet was already a pretty neat place before online advertising became ubiquitous.
It was already a very neat place when it tolerated almost no advertising at all.
Under the restrictions on "commercial use" that were in place until 1993 or so, although it was allowed for a job hunter to post his resume (to a newsgroup like ba.jobs whose purpose was to connect job hunters and employers), looking for contract work rather than permanent employment was not allowed because it was considered advertising of consulting services and consequently a commercial use.
I liked the internet of 1992 a great deal. I couldn't use it to buy nutritional supplements or shoes, and I couldn't use it to reconnect with old friends from high school (since those old friends were not on the internet) but it was a better tool for learning than the community college I was attending at the time.
It was already a very neat place when it tolerated almost no advertising at all.
Under the restrictions on "commercial use" that were in place until 1993 or so, although it was allowed for a job hunter to post his resume (to a newsgroup like ba.jobs whose purpose was to connect job hunters and employers), looking for contract work rather than permanent employment was not allowed because it was considered advertising of consulting services and consequently a commercial use.
I liked the internet of 1992 a great deal. I couldn't use it to buy nutritional supplements or shoes, and I couldn't use it to reconnect with old friends from high school (since those old friends were not on the internet) but it was a better tool for learning than the community college I was attending at the time.
Really? You were happy without search engines, without google maps, without Microsoft or Apple download pages, without any social sites, without wiki?
Maybe you were, I was not.
Well, gee, did you take me to be advocating that the internet should go back exactly to where it was in 1992? How about putting a little effort into finding an interpretation of my comment that doesn't make me that dumb / perverse?
The context of my comment was advertising. In particular I was presenting evidence against the OP's assertion that things like Adblock Plus might ruin the internet.
In an alternate universe in which advertising had never been introduced on the internet, someone would probably have made maps available through the internet by now (Nokia had online maps for their phones that were probably (I am actually not entirely sure) not supported by ads), Microsoft and Apple would have download pages (why would they depend on ads?), and all the wikis I care about (the original wiki, namely http://c2.com/cgi/wiki, Wikipedia and various small or smallish wikis created by specialized communities) would have developed more or less like they actually did.
The context of my comment was advertising. In particular I was presenting evidence against the OP's assertion that things like Adblock Plus might ruin the internet.
In an alternate universe in which advertising had never been introduced on the internet, someone would probably have made maps available through the internet by now (Nokia had online maps for their phones that were probably (I am actually not entirely sure) not supported by ads), Microsoft and Apple would have download pages (why would they depend on ads?), and all the wikis I care about (the original wiki, namely http://c2.com/cgi/wiki, Wikipedia and various small or smallish wikis created by specialized communities) would have developed more or less like they actually did.
I so agree with all this. I'm not a Noscript user but I install Flashblock, Adblock, Ghostery on all my computers and i find the web to be an awful experience without at least Adblock.
As demonstrated by the existence of all these things, ads are hardly uninhibited commercialism - smart business doesn't piss off users.
Thank you. You saved me some typing. :)
i wish i could donate some karma right now... very good answer!
"What makes me angry about the AdBlock plugin is that the author – while happy to destroy our revenue stream – is also profiteering from the very same free content model by asking for PayPal donations when the plugin is installed. Talk about hypocrisy."
What an idiotic comparison. The adblock author is directly asking money (voluntary donations actually) for something useful he made for your use. Straightforward quid-pro-quo. You know... commerce. What the hell is wrong with that ?Using Ghostery and Adblock feels like your Internet connection doubles in speed.
Did not know about Ghostery (I am a lazy user) and decided to install it. Thanks for the article ;-).
As long ad ad networks contine to try their hardest to track me online I will still unapologetically use these extensions. Maybe that all these things exist should show you where the real problem is.
I think ads are just the things that destroy the internet! And its good there is an thing to stop the greedy basterds who "make money" with all their adverts!
Very similar to the arguments against Tivo of 10 years ago.
Instead of dying the television and cable networks accepted the future, accepted technology, evolved and now provide time-shifted content viewing themselves.
And tracking may be useful, but it doesn't mean that users shouldn't have the option to opt-out.
Instead of dying the television and cable networks accepted the future, accepted technology, evolved and now provide time-shifted content viewing themselves.
And tracking may be useful, but it doesn't mean that users shouldn't have the option to opt-out.
ads are an euphemism; as if they would only inform you of something, that then you would feel compelled to purchase. Instead, they track people. Build profiles. Store profiles. Which are the to be used. Sure, you can make your salary by being a collaborator, but history will set you in perspective:
"With hindsight, we didn't need this giant network of unofficial collaborators," he adds. "We were too worried about what might happen. We should have trusted people more."
But they did not trust the people when they were in power.
And thousands of fragmented lives, and fragmented documents, still bear powerful witness to how a secret police force spread throughout a society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19344978
"With hindsight, we didn't need this giant network of unofficial collaborators," he adds. "We were too worried about what might happen. We should have trusted people more."
But they did not trust the people when they were in power.
And thousands of fragmented lives, and fragmented documents, still bear powerful witness to how a secret police force spread throughout a society.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19344978
Wow what a interesting conversation we have here. I was surprised to find majority of the comments advocating against displaying ads and also against using tracking to deliver a targeted one, yet whenever a question pops up about the best way to drive traffic to your startup, the top voted answer remains using adwords. facebook ads so on. Keep in mind, ads: no matter how much we hate them, every company uses them for growth. Imagine a world where everyone uses adblock, there would not be any place left to advertise your product, and most will resort to spamming links across forums/blogs/emails. Just my 2cents thought.
PS: But annoying ads on the other hand are a completely different issue and needs to addressed.
PS: But annoying ads on the other hand are a completely different issue and needs to addressed.
> The modern Internet MUST have Javascript. So when you use NoScript, you’re breaking the Internet.
All the Javascript, Flash, Webfonts, etc are breaking MY Internet. Why should I let everyone send executable code to my browser?
All the Javascript, Flash, Webfonts, etc are breaking MY Internet. Why should I let everyone send executable code to my browser?
All the social buttons and 3rd party crap on that website crashed Safari on my iPhone. Lord what I would pay to have Adblock and noscript on my iPhone.
http://mathdotrandom.blogspot.com/2010/12/block-ads-on-pc-an... this should probably appply to iOS too...
I feel the same way about the Android browser on my phone. I had a good hard laugh at this guy after reading the article; the fact is that crappy content and push marketing is a bigger threat to the internet than anything else.
Interesting to read the comments here. It is an interesting dilemma that the web site finds itself in. My personal opinion is that if it cared that much about things like adblock it should just not load. I totally agree that it should have the right to not load and I have the right to not show ads if it did.
I agree with the author that nothing on the Internet is 'free', its just not necessarily paid for by the person kicking off the transaction. As advertising evolves you'll find that a whole bunch of sites will go away because they aren't worth advertising on (user's don't engage) and the owners can't afford to pay the costs. I saw an article in an advertising trade magazine that suggested nearly 25% of the current ad supported sites would go off the air if there was no click fraud. I've done a bit of research but not enough to confirm or deny how close that number is to reality. There was a pretty good sized group of smart people inside Google dedicated to ferreting out stuff like that.
I agree with the author that nothing on the Internet is 'free', its just not necessarily paid for by the person kicking off the transaction. As advertising evolves you'll find that a whole bunch of sites will go away because they aren't worth advertising on (user's don't engage) and the owners can't afford to pay the costs. I saw an article in an advertising trade magazine that suggested nearly 25% of the current ad supported sites would go off the air if there was no click fraud. I've done a bit of research but not enough to confirm or deny how close that number is to reality. There was a pretty good sized group of smart people inside Google dedicated to ferreting out stuff like that.
http://wiki.darkpatterns.org/Disguised_Ads are by far the worst ones, pretending to be part of the navigation. Browsing without blocking them is like driving on a road with posters covering the traffic signs.
Advertisers have a financial incentive to track you as much as possible and are constantly engineering their trackers to do it even better. Users are on the side of a losing team if they don't stand up. I read 3 sentences one was "They can't track you in different tabs" baloney.
My advice is AdBlock would have been a honest tool if the users were allowed to block the ads on a site when they are annoying rather than unblock them on a site when they are not - that rarely someone does.
I'm confused why there's no effective, tech-driven advertiser response to Adblock. Code wise, it seems to me that only a whitelist based blocker should work; blacklist based blockers can be subverted by ad networks routing through dynamic proxies. If I'm a DSP, I simply obfuscate my code and domains every two hours, forever, and defeat all blockers. Am I missing something here?
It's a slippery slope and an arms race that doesn't end well for the advertiser. By using AdBlock, the user has expressed a definite preference not to see adverts. If you manage to get your advert past that, what have you gained? You've associated your content with scummy practices and given a member of the public a negative impression of whatever it is you're advertising.
Of course, it's possible that you just don't care, but fundamentally what you're proposing is a technical solution to a human problem, and we all know how well they end up working.
Of course, it's possible that you just don't care, but fundamentally what you're proposing is a technical solution to a human problem, and we all know how well they end up working.
If your content is valuable then people will pay, advertising is not the only revenue model.
Hopefully add-art will have a new release soon. "Add-Art is a Firefox plugin that replaces ads on websites with rotating curated art images." http://add-art.org/
To all the folks with nice ads. Get them added to this list:
https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
https://easylist-downloads.adblockplus.org/exceptionrules.tx...
[deleted]
Here's is my ONE issue with adblock.
We have a clothing recommendation engine that helps people discover clothes and we wanted to provide the service ad free. We chose a platform called viglink which affiliates the existing outbound links to the clothing vendors and if the user ends up purchasing something we are given a commission.
I think this is a fair model where we are compensated for our service and the user is 100% unaware and not bothered.
However, in the past month adblock has decided to block this despite the fact it provided zero nuisance to the end user. We managed to create work arounds but it's a frustrating issue.
We have a clothing recommendation engine that helps people discover clothes and we wanted to provide the service ad free. We chose a platform called viglink which affiliates the existing outbound links to the clothing vendors and if the user ends up purchasing something we are given a commission.
I think this is a fair model where we are compensated for our service and the user is 100% unaware and not bothered.
However, in the past month adblock has decided to block this despite the fact it provided zero nuisance to the end user. We managed to create work arounds but it's a frustrating issue.
What I find most annoying about ads is their repetitiveness.
How would you like to be asked the same question twice?
On a related note ...
How would you like to be asked the same question twice?
See, I managed to annoy you just by being mildly repetitive.
If an ad is only shown to me once and then never again, I'm more willing to look at it / click through.
How would you like to be asked the same question twice?
On a related note ...
How would you like to be asked the same question twice?
See, I managed to annoy you just by being mildly repetitive.
If an ad is only shown to me once and then never again, I'm more willing to look at it / click through.
It depends. If your ads are pay-per-click, and if I would never click your ads anyway, did I hurt you in any way by not loading those ads in the first place? Pay-per-view is a different problem, but I have yet to see pay-per-view ads that I consider non-intrusive. After all, ads need to be intrusive in order to generate clicks. There's a conflict of interest right there.
> The modern Internet MUST have Javascript. So when you use NoScript, you’re breaking the Internet.
No, I'm not breaking the Internet. I'm only degrading (or improving, depending on who you ask) my own experience of the Internet, which I have every right to do. Just like I have every right to tell my browser to display all text in green-on-black 12pt Courier, or in any of the thousands of unexpected ways in which a computer program can consume HTML. If I broke into your server and removed a couple of script elements from your home page, that would be breaking the Internet.
> So even if a tracking script does follow some of your browsing habits, is it such a big deal? At the very worst end of the scale ... they’re being used for what’s called a behaviourally-targeted market.
I don't want behaviorally-targeted marketing, and if you'd like to convince me otherwise, you'd better give me a better argument than "I wanna make money." Plenty of honest people have made plenty of money without tracking people's behavior across websites. Just calling your opposition "conspiracy theorists" will not do.
If it is "evil" to make HTTP requests to some resources and not others, I would gladly be evil. If you don't like this, you are welcome to adjust your business strategies so that your main audience is too dumb to use AdBlock.