Poll of the Day > There is something rage-inducing about anti-adblock guilt-tripping...

(+) Yeah! (+)

When I was younger, I just hated ads period. There was no higher purpose, I just had no patience for them and blocked them on completely selfish grounds.

However these days I refuse to look at ads because the advertising industry has lost all sense of user experience. Video auto-play ads, ads that cover the page (and worse, improperly designed so they can't be closed without doing something drastic like killing your browser), and auto-redirect bullshit plague every facet of the mobile web. Plus site owners get way too crazy with ad placement and cheapen the appearance of their page to score more ad revenue. It feels like I'm walking through the seedy part of town whenever I pull up to a site with too many ads, where the owner is more interested in monetizing their guests than provide a worthwhile website. There is zero interest in paying attention to what people have to wade through when they visit your page.

However, the worst part about this are sites that then guilt-trip their users (or worse, berate users who circumvent their ads) or outright deny use of their site for people who are just tired of this garbage and want to push back. The utter lack of sympathy for why people are hesitant to give your site's advertising a chance when they've been mistreated on so many other sites is staggering. It's nothing against the site owners yet they take offense to people who should be understandably burnt out on online advertising's b/s and turns into a vicious cycle where site owners are becoming adversarial towards users who never meant any harm towards them.

I'm not opposed to de-blocking a site that has their shit in order but it's difficult to trust online advertising to not fuck up my experience and a little appreciation for that would be nice.
---

The problem is, for many sites, ads are literally their only form of income. Consider Youtube, for instance - you get a shit-tonne of content and you don't have to pay a dime. The only way that the creators get any money at all from their videos is via ad revenue (ignoring merchandising and sponsorship deals, which are really only a major option for channels that are already extremely successful) and the main way Youtube gets compensated for the significant expenditures to host that many videos is ads (though, in their case, they also get some money from selling information about you and your viewing habits).

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.
---

I see their point of view but I have never turned off Adblock for a site, and I likely never will. I just go to another website.
---

What I'd ask for in return is some fair policing of what gets posted in your ad space so it doesn't drown a potentially good page in unsolicited garbage.

Ad networks are the real problem because the site owners have very little control in what will show up in the ad reels. So they can offload the most intrusive trash onto a site and screw up the user experience with no intent from the site owner to impart that on their users. That said, put up ads responsibly and maintain an active understanding of what people see when they come to your site. Don't just get mad and become belligerent or guilt-trip towards users when the last time they came to your site it tried to shove malware onto their machine (Forbes is super-guilty of this).

GameFAQs' ad feedback is okay but also give the impression that there is proactive management of what gets advertised too. Don't just assume the ad space is "set it and forget it", relying entirely on the users to tell you when they're being deluged with invasive advertising.
---

I have ads blocked on principle, but many sites I visit frequently are on my whitelist, providing of course that they don't run ads that completely break the site or worse, my browser.
---

dainkinkaide posted...

I have ads blocked on principle, but many sites I visit frequently are on my whitelist, providing of course that they don't run ads that completely break the site or worse, my browser.

Doesn't matter to me anyway. They're getting 100% of my revenue on my phone because I never blocked ads on mobile. I only found suitable ad-blocking solutions for desktop browsers.
---

I don't mind ads that sit on the sides of the screen, but pop-up ads and redirecting ads are an instant ad-blocker with no looking back. I would turn it off more often if so many ads weren't trashy and intrusive.

Block all ads all the time.
---

In general, I had no problem with ads up until it was video ads on everything and many became unskippable. At that point, I said fuck it and finally started ad-blocking. The move to multimedia ads in general has significantly lagged my connection, etc, and greatly interfered with my user experience, not to mention the fact that ads act as a backdoor to trojans because many of these sites don't monitor sleazy advertisers.

darkknight109 posted...

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.

Given that it's not a paid service, there's no reasonable expectation of compensation and, more importantly, Patreon is a thing. In general, there are some channels I watch without ad blocks but that number is getting smaller and smaller and I might just use an ad-block on firefox now instead of just chrome.
---

I'm always of the opinion of:
I can control what goes into my computer or not, it's my computer.

If they stopped making intrusive ads I would take off my adblock. But they keep making them worse and worse so I keep it on.

My thoughts are simpler on the matter.

I don't use adblock.

I use Noscript.

If I am interested in actually making use of a site, I allow the site itself, as well as any cdn variant of it. Most of the google-related sites are already white-listed as well, so they should be perfectly capable of using any google-based ad system. If the site has additional functionality, and I have reason for wanting to have the site work properly (i.e. perhaps the site has a video on it), I also will enable the bare minimum number of sources necessary to get it to work.

If I do not see ads, they have only themselves to blame for not advertising in a manner that still lets them do so under those constraints. And it is their fault for just having java-heavy ads. There is no reason you can't get by with a nice, java-free image-link ad like sites from 10+ years ago used (there are still sites that use these). Even GameFAQs has text-based ads, so at least those get through.


My problem isn't ads. Its ads that are annoying. Pretty much any ad that gets by my use of noscript, as it happens, is NOT annoying.
.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I'm always of the opinion of:
I can control what goes into my computer or not, it's my computer.

Well, I don't go that far. I believe that using an ad blocker is a violation of the content provider's rights since I'm using their platform while circumventing their mechanisms; however, any moral wrong I might feel is somewhat subverted by how annoying ads are.
---

Zeus posted...

I believe that using an ad blocker is a violation of the content provider's rights since I'm using their platform while circumventing their mechanisms

I came here for GameFAQs, not taboola.
Eventually, ads will revert back to a hyperlinked jpeg hosted on the same domain, because adblockers don't block that.

My biggest problem is how riddled with malware ads are. If they can't be bothered to police their sponsors to prevent their users from being served malicious content then they can fuck right off. I'm not even talking about small or shady sites either, major companies like Forbes and CNN have been caught serving ads that infect users' computers.

SilentSeph posted...

I don't mind ads that sit on the sides of the screen, but pop-up ads and redirecting ads are an instant ad-blocker with no looking back. I would turn it off more often if so many ads weren't trashy and intrusive.

More or less my stance. The ads on GameFAQs for example I almost never notice.

EightySeven posted...

My biggest problem is how riddled with malware ads are.

But then there's also this concern.
---

Even GameFAQs has ads on mobile that automatically redirect to Uber app on play store so now i use and adblocking browser. Well done GF, now i never view an ad in mobile or at home and yous did that for me.
---

Yesterday I had an ad that blared loud audio. So loud that even with my speaker turned all the way down, I could hear it. The words where loud enough to understand. Had to go into the controlls and hit mute to get silence...

This was with adblocker already on.

If the content had been, instead of painfully loud (as it was before I turned it down. Ear damage loud) audio, some other form of malicious attack... well...

Cause and effect.
---

Fuck em
---

darkknight109 posted...

The problem is, for many sites, ads are literally their only form of income. Consider Youtube, for instance - you get a shit-tonne of content and you don't have to pay a dime. The only way that the creators get any money at all from their videos is via ad revenue (ignoring merchandising and sponsorship deals, which are really only a major option for channels that are already extremely successful) and the main way Youtube gets compensated for the significant expenditures to host that many videos is ads (though, in their case, they also get some money from selling information about you and your viewing habits).

Counterpoint: Patreon.

I know most people say "Why would you pay for free content?" but honestly if you like content creators then you should consider it. $1 a month is not a lot, and a lot of content creators have said that if even 10% of their viewers contribute to their Patreon, then they would make more money then they would from ad revenue if everyone wasn't using an ad blocker. And if we are talking about Youtube making money (which they don't, Google operates Youtube at a loss) then just have the content creators with a successful Patreon pay some money to host their content on Youtube.

Personally, I would rather pay for the content I am getting then sit though a 30 second ad every 10-15 minutes of video I watch.
---

Zeus posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

I'm always of the opinion of:
I can control what goes into my computer or not, it's my computer.

Well, I don't go that far. I believe that using an ad blocker is a violation of the content provider's rights since I'm using their platform while circumventing their mechanisms; however, any moral wrong I might feel is somewhat subverted by how annoying ads are.

Customer's rights > company rights.

Advertisers burned the bridge and pissed on the ashes. Ads getting louder, more intrusive and frequent was an asshole move that just hurt them. Packing them full of malware just made it so you're forced to block them for security reasons.

They made this situation, so fuck them. Ublock and Noscript are always on for me, and that's not changing.
---

Mead posted...

I see their point of view but I have never turned off Adblock for a site, and I likely never will. I just go to another website.

---

WaffIeElite posted...

Advertisers burned the bridge and pissed on the ashes. Ads getting louder, more intrusive and frequent was an asshole move that just hurt them. Packing them full of malware just made it so you're forced to block them for security reasons.

They made this situation, so fuck them. Ublock and Noscript are always on for me, and that's not changing.

This isn't hurting advertisers, though - advertisers don't pay for ads you don't see. Ad-block doesn't honestly make much of a difference for them, because they only have to pay out for ads that successfully load (or ads that are viewed all the way through or clicked in the case of video ads).

Who it does make suffer is the content providers, since you've taken away their main source of income. If you are using an ad-blocker, then unless you're supporting the site some other way (you're providing content to the site, donating via Patreon, etc.), you don't really have a right to be using it anymore. I do think it's a bit selfish that people get on their high horse and say "I only block because the ads are invasive/really annoying/etc.", yet still feel they have a right to use a service they're now not even paying for.

If you want to hurt advertisers rather than content-providers, click on their ads then immediately close out of the resultant site. They have to pay the host, but you aren't buying anything.
---

bottom line is this. if something online is free, that's not the product. you are the product.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Who it does make suffer is the content providers, since you've taken away their main source of income. If you are using an ad-blocker, then unless you're supporting the site some other way (you're providing content to the site, donating via Patreon, etc.), you don't really have a right to be using it anymore. I do think it's a bit selfish that people get on their high horse and say "I only block because the ads are invasive/really annoying/etc.", yet still feel they have a right to use a service they're now not even paying for.

I pee during commercial breaks on television. How is that any different?

Personally. I don't block ads. Not because I like them (I very much don't), but because products I enjoy needs to be compensated for in a way that the content creator wishes.

if I do not think the content is worth what the owner requests for it, no matter how much I want the content, I just avoid it.

If I think a game is too expensive, even if its really good (but not worth the price), I don't pirate it, I just avoid it.

If a side, no matter how good, has ads that bother me, I just never go on that site.

if an anime does not have a legal/official distribution channel I can take part of (because of $$$ or because its not released in my region), I don't pirate it or import it (even if legally). I just go down my list of hundreds of animes I want to see that are available to me for the next one.

And so on and so forth.

If there's no mutually agreeable ground between content creators and me, I don't fight it. I just move on to the next one and call it a day.

I have ad block on most sites. I used to have this site white listed but they had intrusive ads that play sound and pause the ad but after a while it will start playing again. I tried bringing this up in the relevant forum but they required me to name the specific ad which is a useless solution. Basically the intrusive ads will play for weeks or months or however long it it takes whoever is in charge of taking it down takes it down. But then new intrusive ads could come up. So it's better to just block all ads here
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Who it does make suffer is the content providers, since you've taken away their main source of income. If you are using an ad-blocker, then unless you're supporting the site some other way (you're providing content to the site, donating via Patreon, etc.), you don't really have a right to be using it anymore. I do think it's a bit selfish that people get on their high horse and say "I only block because the ads are invasive/really annoying/etc.", yet still feel they have a right to use a service they're now not even paying for.

I pee during commercial breaks on television. How is that any different?

Because a) You probably pay for your TV subscription and b) Even if you don't, the advertiser pays the content provider regardless of whether you sit there and watch or not. You're not robbing them of any income by muting the TV or walking away during ads.
---

A page still gets their cost of impression even if you are running adblock, and if you weren't going to click ever in the first place - they actually get MORE ad revenue since both the Java and NoJava version of the ad loads.
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I have ad block on most sites. I used to have this site white listed but they had intrusive ads that play sound and pause the ad but after a while it will start playing again. I tried bringing this up in the relevant forum but they required me to name the specific ad which is a useless solution. Basically the intrusive ads will play for weeks or months or however long it it takes whoever is in charge of taking it down takes it down. But then new intrusive ads could come up. So it's better to just block all ads here

On the gamefaqs mobile site for months I kept seeing an ad for some sort of gourmet cheese. One of those ads where it covers the whole screen and you have to wait a few seconds to tap close. Very annoying lol.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Who it does make suffer is the content providers, since you've taken away their main source of income. If you are using an ad-blocker, then unless you're supporting the site some other way (you're providing content to the site, donating via Patreon, etc.), you don't really have a right to be using it anymore. I do think it's a bit selfish that people get on their high horse and say "I only block because the ads are invasive/really annoying/etc.", yet still feel they have a right to use a service they're now not even paying for.

I pee during commercial breaks on television. How is that any different?

Because a) You probably pay for your TV subscription and b) Even if you don't, the advertiser pays the content provider regardless of whether you sit there and watch or not. You're not robbing them of any income by muting the TV or walking away during ads.

And that's why internet advertising is inherently flawed.

darkknight109 posted...

WaffIeElite posted...

Advertisers burned the bridge and pissed on the ashes. Ads getting louder, more intrusive and frequent was an asshole move that just hurt them. Packing them full of malware just made it so you're forced to block them for security reasons.

They made this situation, so fuck them. Ublock and Noscript are always on for me, and that's not changing.

This isn't hurting advertisers, though - advertisers don't pay for ads you don't see. Ad-block doesn't honestly make much of a difference for them, because they only have to pay out for ads that successfully load (or ads that are viewed all the way through or clicked in the case of video ads).

Who it does make suffer is the content providers, since you've taken away their main source of income. If you are using an ad-blocker, then unless you're supporting the site some other way (you're providing content to the site, donating via Patreon, etc.), you don't really have a right to be using it anymore. I do think it's a bit selfish that people get on their high horse and say "I only block because the ads are invasive/really annoying/etc.", yet still feel they have a right to use a service they're now not even paying for.

If you want to hurt advertisers rather than content-providers, click on their ads then immediately close out of the resultant site. They have to pay the host, but you aren't buying anything.

That's just too bad, isn't it? I will never, ever allow, or click on ads because I'm not risking malware problems. Stop being a fucking shill, it's pathetic. I don't owe anybody anything, because I do what benefits me - just like every single asshole advertiser that tries to disrupt people for their own pay. If you want capitalism, you get it both ways.
---

I have a question that's related to the discussion:

How, specifically, do companies make money from internet ads? Do we have to click on them? Simply allow them to play/exist?

Personally, my default setting is block everything. If the site goes to the effort of posting a notice that they rely on ads, I'll whitelist them and check their ads. If I'm seeing things like, "Sexy singles near you" or videos that auto-play, I'll go black to blocking. I'm willing to meet these sites in the middle, but there's a line I draw at blinking, trashy or disruptive.

Regarding the TC's point about not trusting sites, that's a legitimate concern. On the same hand, they probably assume that users block them regardless whether or not they have their ads in order. I understand both sides.

Akamukai posted...

How, specifically, do companies make money from internet ads? Do we have to click on them? Simply allow them to play/exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_impression

darkknight109 posted...

The problem is, for many sites, ads are literally their only form of income. Consider Youtube, for instance - you get a shit-tonne of content and you don't have to pay a dime. The only way that the creators get any money at all from their videos is via ad revenue (ignoring merchandising and sponsorship deals, which are really only a major option for channels that are already extremely successful) and the main way Youtube gets compensated for the significant expenditures to host that many videos is ads (though, in their case, they also get some money from selling information about you and your viewing habits).

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.

Tough luck-- that's part of the game. It's the choice of people viewing YT content to have this software or not, and unless there's a law that prohibits using software to circumvent ads, that's part of the problem that YTers have to deal with. There's no moral superiority here-- it's simply business and convenience.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.

not my problem. the creators should figure out a better system if it's such a problem for them

Questionmarktarius posted...

Akamukai posted...

How, specifically, do companies make money from internet ads? Do we have to click on them? Simply allow them to play/exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_impression

Thanks mate. Interesting.

bernieflanders posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.

not my problem. the creators should figure out a better system if it's such a problem for them

This, the burden isn't on us. Companies sold themselves out by allowing shitty, intrusive and malicious ads for years all for a quick buck, now they're whining because people don't want that AND have the means to easily stop it. They made their bed and they can lie in it.
---

Darth_CiD posted...

bernieflanders posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Running ad-blockers on these sites is simply selfish, because it's taking content for free and giving nothing back to the creators.

not my problem. the creators should figure out a better system if it's such a problem for them

This, the burden isn't on us. Companies sold themselves out by allowing shitty, intrusive and malicious ads for years all for a quick buck, now they're whining because people don't want that AND have the means to easily stop it. They made their bed and they can lie in it.

Yea. I happily white list youtube, hulu, and crunchyroll because they don't have commercials play on top of the video. But this site would have audio that distract me when I read and pop up ads that block the screen.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

sites that then guilt-trip their users (or worse, berate users who circumvent their ads) or outright deny use of their site

yup, no way in heck I'm using their site after that. you don't want me to use your site? wish granted.

Solid Sonic posted...

I'm not opposed to de-blocking a site that has their shit in order

I used to be 100% against ad-blocking, but now I do instantly anywhere that the ads are interfering with the site.

actually it's kind of like ignoring trolls. once I've had enough icoyar, off to ignore. but then at some later time, I'll empty my ignore list and start all over.

and then, that in turn is kind of like tit-for-tat. when someone betrays you, turn off that line of communication. eventually turn it back on and try again. repeat.
---

Mead posted...

I have never turned off Adblock for a site, and I likely never will. I just go to another website

fuck yeah hate all ads

i stopped watching tv cause no adblock

hate fm radio cause ads

https://youtu.be/HhGTlcarqoQ?t=3m33s
---

If the guilt-tripping makes you so furious, they probably have a point on some level. Rather than admit that you're being unethical (to some extent), you're just spouting baseless assertions like some sort of hive-mind. If you really cared about the problematic aspects of ads you have multiple ways of 'protesting' them and hurting their profitability while still helping content creators. You just prefer to pretend you have some sort of moral high ground and shout prefigured maxims at anyone who disagrees.
---

If ads don't ruin my experience by being intrusive or linking to obvious malware sites, I don't block them. Fair is fair.
---

I found it quite funny when I went to one site that's comprised of basically stolen material and it was berating me for blocking their ads, saying something along the lines of me stealing their content.
---

mp443556 posted...

If the guilt-tripping makes you so furious, they probably have a point on some level. Rather than admit that you're being unethical (to some extent), you're just spouting baseless assertions like some sort of hive-mind. If you really cared about the problematic aspects of ads you have multiple ways of 'protesting' them and hurting their profitability while still helping content creators. You just prefer to pretend you have some sort of moral high ground and shout prefigured maxims at anyone who disagrees.

You don't think everything I said isn't a legitimate problem I haven't actually experienced? An ad should never completely obscure the site content and shove its message down your throat.

I sure as hell won't forget your brand but only because your shit annoyed me.
---

mp443556 posted...

If the guilt-tripping makes you so furious, they probably have a point on some level. Rather than admit that you're being unethical (to some extent), you're just spouting baseless assertions like some sort of hive-mind. If you really cared about the problematic aspects of ads you have multiple ways of 'protesting' them and hurting their profitability while still helping content creators. You just prefer to pretend you have some sort of moral high ground and shout prefigured maxims at anyone who disagrees.

or we could just block the ads and the content creators can deal with it

if it's such a problem for them they can find a better model

Pornsites are starting to wake up to the self-hosted image + url ad. Maybe the rest of the internet will as well, soon.