Should adblocking be against the law?

[aimeeandbeatles]

Just now, I was playing around with Adblock (trying to kill an annoying graphic without breaking the entire website) and went to thinking, do you guys think that blocking ads should be against the law? If so, why? Or why not?

Poll coming

 

[illram]

No it should not be a crime. That would be stupid.

 

[Cutlass]

I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it is my business. If I don't want to waste it on ads, then no one should force me to.

 

[Brohz]

Against the law? Why?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It's a free market. The companies have to deal with the good and the bad.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Well, I was thinking about this weird right-wing guy that blocked Firefox entirely because some users were "stealing" from him by blocking the ads on his site. I read some of his site (using evil subverting techniques) and .... it was weird.

It was a while back, I don't even remember where the site was.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, I was thinking about this weird right-wing guy that blocked Firefox entirely because some users were "stealing" from him by blocking the ads on his site. I read some of his site (using evil subverting techniques) and .... it was weird.

Then he gets fewer people going to his site. His call.

 

[really]

I think websites should be able to not show their content to someone that uses adblockers. This internet malarkey costs money.

It's not like I am going to buy Dragon Age Origins which is in stores 11.03.09 but I don't think Thunderfall should be denied any potential revenue to support this site and pay for better servers....

 

[civ_king]

I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it is my business. If I don't want to waste it on ads, then no one should force me to.

This

I think websites should be able to not show their content to someone that uses adblockers. This internet malarkey costs money.

It's not like I am going to buy Dragon Age Origins which is in stores 11.03.09 but I don't think Thunderfall should be denied any potential revenue to support this site and pay for better servers....

I wish I knew what their address was so I could send them money

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'm not interested in content that's accompanied by blaring ads anyway. Adblocker is selective, you know.

 

[Gary Childress]

I think websites should be able to not show their content to someone that uses adblockers. This internet malarkey costs money.

It's not like I am going to buy Dragon Age Origins which is in stores 11.03.09 but I don't think Thunderfall should be denied any potential revenue to support this site and pay for better servers....

I have been over this in the site feedback forum. I was using IE 7 and was getting popup ads from CFC. I had no problems with a few popups here and there but when some of the popups started depositing malicious code on my machine I got FireFox with adblocker.

I'm sorry but if someone wants me as a cash cow they had better have a safe, user friendly site. If they want my advertising dollars then they had better clean up their site. That is all I have to say on the matter. So "NO", I don't think it should be illegal to block ads. Ads can contain malicious code and if blocking them solves the problem then tough beans. You're getting blocked!

 

[Defiant47]

OK, let's get a few facts here:

1) Owners of websites with advertising get paid based on how many clicks they get. Even if it's a "paid per views" situation, it's still based entirely on how many clicks.

2) People who use adblock have almost 0% chance of ever clicking something even if they weren't using adblock.

Therefore, adblock does not hurt a website.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

On a related note I have been curious about Google Chrome. I might switch to Chrome if it had the addons that firefox has(like Adblock). But I can't imagine Chrome ever having an adblock because Google gets its money from ads. To make things odder, Google funds Firefox...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well, I was thinking about this weird right-wing guy that blocked Firefox entirely because some users were "stealing" from him by blocking the ads on his site. I read some of his site (using evil subverting techniques) and .... it was weird.

It was a while back, I don't even remember where the site was.

Don't think about weird right wing guys?

 

[GenMarshall]

It should not be a crime, I don't want to be forced to endure a bunch of annoying flippin' popup ads!

 

[Zelig]

Any form of circumvention of advertisements in any medium should be illegal.

 

[Integral]

OK, let's get a few facts here:

1) Owners of websites with advertising get paid based on how many clicks they get. Even if it's a "paid per views" situation, it's still based entirely on how many clicks.

2) People who use adblock have almost 0% chance of ever clicking something even if they weren't using adblock.

Therefore, adblock does not hurt a website.

This. Ad revenue is based on clicks, not views. Or so I have been led to believe in the past.

(I routinely use firefox + adblockplus + noscript)

 

[Joecoolyo]

Yes, and it should also be illegal to change the TV channel during commercials.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Against the law? Why?

Agreed. Plus, I get to see more websites with ad block on because it loads about a billion times faster.

 

[Gary Childress]

Yes, and it should also be illegal to change the TV channel during commercials.

EDIT: This deserves a re-posting!