SillyDog701

[Edward]

However, the point is... a number of Mozilla/Firefox users simply block every ads. They have a strong hatred towards any ads. This is really unethical.

I'm sure there is a group that does not realize that advertisements help defray, if not cover completely, the costs of providing the content that they are viewing.

A web site offers certain content for free, paid for by advertisements, then all of a sudden, decided to remove that free content in favor of the same content that the user pays for, which does not include advertisements? Does anyone think the majority of people will pay for something when it used to be free? Of course not.

At the time my Internet usage graduated from all text, to the use of a web browser (1997), I did not like seeing ads, especially the pop-over ads, however since then, I have had a change of opinion, and believe that advertisements are a necessity on the Internet, as long as they are not overly intrusive (pop-over/pop-under/appearing on top of text).

UserAgent: Opera/7.54 (X11; Linux i586; U) [en]

[Ron Williams]

However, the point is... a number of Mozilla/Firefox users simply block every ads. They have a strong hatred towards any ads. This is really unethical.

This is most likely because you have ads supporting SD here. Ethics have nothing to do with ads on websites as they are only motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. So if I feel ads should be off of sites I visit, then I block them.

A web site offers certain content for free, paid for by advertisements, then all of a sudden, decided to remove that free content in favor of the same content that the user pays for, which does not include advertisements? Does anyone think the majority of people will pay for something when it used to be free? Of course not.

The New York times requires people to now pay for access to there "premier writers" and I believe that the Wall Street Journal charges for access to all online content except for subscribers.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[burnerO]

Most websites gets paid for ads being clicked (CPM), that's why you see a number of sites begging users to click ads (or even making ad clicking as compulsory). This behaviour unethical, and clear against the agreement with the advertiser.

As someone who has been in such a position, I see where you're coming from... Once upon I time I ran a large-scale gaming website in which I was shelling out for the bandwidth and writing almost all of the content. I thought it a good idea to try banner ads, but the meager return they provided resulted in me dropping them. So, I can understand the bitter webmaster complex.

It wasn't until the introduction of pop up, "hovering" and flash ads that I sought out a way of suppressing them. If all ads were simple images that didn't cover content, I honestly wouldn't care. Until webmasters become more ethical and nix the "in your face" style approach to advertising, I'm going to have to opt out.

Regardless, it's rare that I ever click an advertisement anyhow (what actually pays), because I overlook them to begin with. It is only on the "begging" website as you put it (Click here to keep the site online.) that the thought ever crosses my mind.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 Firefox/1.0.4

[Fulvio]

I have never had a problem with ads which present themselves, rather than behaving like lunatics who ring the doorbell ten time in a row.
Just take a look at the new Netscape homepage. I am blocking Flash, via User.css, in a way which I can allow any blocked item, by just clicking on them. Some, I never want to see, although most are necessary, or. at least, ok. So, I have to allow Flash to load the page. Now, they figured out that users do not pay much attention to ads at the priphery of the page. Now, they have them some smack in the middle. Of course, it is a beta, but it is a nuisance. And, you can access @netscape.net mail, and who knows if there is a way to sign off.
The website and mail should be avoided by the Comet theme haters. See for yourself.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511

[Antony]

Yes, there are webpages full of annoying ads, however, there are users who block every single ads.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412

[ShakaZ]

What's so UNETHICAL about getting rid of unsollicited content
If you really need money for your website to run it's quite easy : ASK for it in a page with links to donations or ads. Get real Anthony, it's time to realise the real problem are the ADS. We're already paying for an internet connection remember. I would rather have part of the money from the ISP's being distributed to websites & software companies & artists, based on the number of pages accesses & on the number of downloads of the content. & enjoy an Ad-free web
Just to mention Italy where last year several big cities have switched to ultrafast broadband connections providing internet, TV (normal & on-demand with a database of recent movies) & telephony, all that for the same price i'm paying here for my internet connection. TV programs without ads of course. Now that's what i call progress.

The ads are the PROBLEM, not the solution !!!!
Ads are pernicious, they're one of the modern forms of legalised brainwashing and trying to make people feel guilty for not viewing them is so .... you figure it out

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050518 Firefox/1.0.4 (Debian package 1.0.4-2)

[Fulvio]

Don't they have, anymore, in Italy, the ads only "show" which was a solid 30 minutes.
And, as a follow up, I still see popunders in Firefox1.0.4. I have a good idea that they come from netscape.com, but there is no cookie for them. You never know when they come, but I hate them. As for other ads, I don't see them. I am ads-blind, except for those which use flash, and I got them under control.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511

[Hendikins]

I make no secret of the fact I block advertising. When you're on a 21600bps link, that's a great way to bring page loading times back down to earth.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b2) Gecko/20050530

[DJGM]

For me, it's now getting to the point where I'm strongly considering blocking all web based advertising.

My reasons for this are as follows . . .


1. After a recent spyware scan on my PC, 21 new critical objects were found. They were all tracking
cookies from various different ad-servers, found in my Firefox cache. IMHO, any advertising that
leaves any traces of what can be classed as spyware is totally and utterly unethical.


2. SInce my ISP has an "acceptable use policy" specifically concerning usage caps on how much
data can be downloaded, I often monitor how much bandwidth is being consumed, in a normal
session. As an experiment, on my testbed PC, I ran Internet Explorer 6 with no facilities to
block any form of online advertising, for a period of two hours. I then ran Firefox, visiting
all the same websites, with a number of ad-blocking facilities in place.

By comparison, my Firefox session with ad-blocking, used about 45% less bandwidth then my
session using Internet Explorer without ad-blocking. In conclusion, the advertisers had been
effectively stealing the bandwidth I'm paying UK£25 p.m. for. IMO, the brazen theft of my
bandwidth is completely unethical, and totally unacceptable.


So, to summarise . . . blocking web ads is NOT unethical when the advertisers themselves are
using such unethical methods to sell their products and services. Therefore, if I find any more
tracking cookies left behind by ad-servers, and the bandwidth that I pay for continues to be
stolen by web advertisers, then I will make efforts to block all web based advertising.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20050904 Firefox/1.6a1

[Antony]

blocking web ads is NOT unethical when the advertisers themselves are using such unethical methods to sell their products and services. Therefore, if I find any more tracking cookies left behind by ad-servers, and the bandwidth that I pay for continues to be stolen by web advertisers, then I will make efforts to block all web based advertising.

I believe the key words are when advertisers use unethical methods...

The simply way is... don't visit websites with unacceptable high-volume of ads.

Blocking all web based advertising is unethical, a very ripper's behaviours. For reasons, please read my earlier posts.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[DJGM]

No. When advertisers use methods to sell their products and services that attempt to monitor
what I do on my computer, that is electronic eavesdropping, and that is completely unethical.

When advertisers use my bandwidth that I've paid for, to display content that I either do not
wish to see, or bears no relation to the websites I visit, that is theft, and that is unethical.

As I said earlier in this thread, I've no objection to text based ads, such as "Ads by Google",
as they're unobtrusive, and use only a tiny, pretty much negligible, amount of bandwidth.

But, if I encounter adverts on any website I choose to visit, that contains obtrusive multi-
media content, including excessive sound or animation, and/or attempt to leave traces
of spyware on my computer, then I shall use whatever methods are available to
block absolutely all of it, without any hesitation whatsoever.

I don't care if other people think that any of my views are unethical. It is my computer,
and, as long as it is legal, I will have the final say on what is displayed or stored upon it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050906 Firefox/1.4

[Antony]

I really wonder if you buy magazines and newspapers that only has articles you want to read, but no advertisements at all. Please keep in mind, the content available on the net is free (in most cases), not counting internet connection fee.

Cookies cannot monitor any people's activities (other than settings on one particular site). cookies can only be accessed by the sites that sent them.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[Don_HH2K]

Cookies cannot monitor any people's activities (other than settings on one particular site). cookies can only be accessed by the sites that sent them.

Sure, but then there's the possibility of a security bug.

I keep my website ad-free, and have no plans to put on any graphics-intensive ads. The most that's on there are links to a few affiliates and other news sources. Of course, sites that need money to keep the content free should be able to have the ads, but there isn't any reason that they can't be blocked. A website is paid for advertising space, but it's paid even more if somebody clicks. Either way, they're getting money.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.1; Linux 2.4.22-10mdk; X11; i686; en_US, en)

[Antony]

I keep my website ad-free, and have no plans to put on any graphics-intensive ads. The most that's on there are links to a few affiliates and other news sources. Of course, sites that need money to keep the content free should be able to have the ads, but there isn't any reason that they can't be blocked. A website is paid for advertising space, but it's paid even more if somebody clicks. Either way, they're getting money.

SillyDog701 wishes to be able to keep SillyDog701 ad-free. However, due to the cost of web server space and monthly traffic, it is simply not possible to do so. (Unless our members prefer to pay membership to use this site.)

For concerns about advertisements displayed on SillyDog701, please use [sdt=6773]Google ads at SillyDog701[/sdt] thread.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[Ron Williams]

Let's think. Do I think it is ethical for adblock to block ads?

You can not say I am partial to either side, because I have a reason to say it is un-ethical. Why? My site has/had ads (when it is online again).

I believe a user has a right to choose what they want displayed on there computer so if they use it, it's there choice. Honestly, I dont use adblock to block ads, but I use it to keep my sister off of websites that my mom says she cant goto and sites that are filled with spyware.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7 (ax)