Originally Posted by dtolios
Do you really want to pay the "true price" of having internet in order to enjoy it free of ads?
Most people beach just about ISP costs, imagine having to pay for google, youtube etc.
To be COMPLETELY honest, using adblock is no better than pirating software: the creators of the internet / cloud services you are using, are getting returns for their invesment "in you", by having you watch ads or collect data about you, just like the software creator expects you to use it after you've bought it, or pay a different amount of money when you use it for school or hobby vs. when you are making money using it.
Blocking either, is harming their business and in some cases its even against EULAs, but doing so as an end user without any economic benefit is "passable".
Having a company which turns to be about profit one way or another do it for you, is a different story and opens up a number of actions that can be taken against it to stop doing so.
Yes it is "obtrusive"...some would say that it is obtrusive or even abusive having to pay for basic healthcare and food in some of the richest countries of the world, yet millions are hungry and sick without any help - or receiving less attention than stranded pets.
All in all, what is obtrusive is an opinion, colliding with the fact
that services and people working for them should be paid for doing so.
ABP is not pirating anything. Fallacious statements aside, where are the contracts that say we agree to ads in order to support websites? I don't remember signing one, and that is the only way it could be considered stealing. Are you saying that use of the Internet includes implied consent to be accosted by advertising constantly? I might be inclined to allow them if there was a reasonable limit to them; however, we all know there isn't.
Originally Posted by dtolios
You realize that Youtube is perhaps the biggest in volume site in the world right now and doesn't even break even, right?
It would happen sooner than later, or it is doomed to fail, much like most of the "free" streaming media sites out there which suffer altogether.
How many of you complaining work for free, or do anything as a service catering to more than a handful of people for free?
I hate corporatism as much as few people, but the rules of the game are clear: people work for that "stupid 2min video" to be available for you to watch 24/7, and need to make some of the money invested in this service back.
Ofc we all prefer it for free. So would you prefer your PC parts being given to you for free, or your boss would prefer you working for free and your parents raising you for free...
Guess what, things don't work this way, and trust me, unless things radically change towards a truthfully socialistic (yes, the s word) society that doesn't care as much about money or you happen to be in the top 1-2% of your country's economy so that you have too much money that you don't want to share with your "minions", you really don't want to advocate about people accepting less for their work.
I still don't remember signing some agreement that gives permission to be inundated with ads in order to use the Internet.
Originally Posted by noak
No offense, but some of you people sicken me. Ads are the main way websites make money, whether you like it or not. You are screwing over webmasters since they don't get paid for those ad impressions. Advertisers are the reason you aren't paying a membership for every website you visit.
Do you think content publishers do it for fun? No. It's usually their livelihood on the line, and even with big companies it pays to run their websites. I for one don't want to pay to use google...
Why should we care about how websites make money, unless you own the website? There is no legal requirement to be assaulted with ads in order to use the Internet. That being said, I don't mind ads on principle. However, when they started hijacking your screen, playing music without your input, and generally being a great way to contract a virus, I drew the line. I don't understand the ire being expressed here by people assuming they were guaranteed ad revenue when they started a website. I understand that it's a good way to help support a website, but there are two problems for me with that. One, I control what I see on the Internet, ad companies don't, period. Two, it's not my business model. It's that simple.
Originally Posted by adamkatt
As a YouTube viewer since 2005, YouTube DID have ads but they weren't as noticeable, why? Because the disease Ad-Block wasn't around. Ad-Block/others are the reason we have obtrusive/long ads on things.
If ads had stayed unobtrusive or non-invasive, I wouldn't be blocking them. The problem was, it wasn't enough for them. There's never a limit to how far greed will take a company and their self-proclaimed "right" to force you to see something you don't wish to.Edited by zooterboy - 7/8/13 at 2:23pm