Like a number of extensions, a new Android web browser blocks Internet advertising. However, filtering out ads is wrong and puts millions of job in jeopardy.
Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing : Read more
Responses from the author:
Depending on the terms of the campaign or ad network, publishers get paid based on a combination of ad impressions, clicks or actual sales after the click. If you block an ad, those impressions are lost, even if you would have chosen not to click the ads. Also, there's always a possibility that you might click an ad if you saw one that appealed to you.
Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing : Read more
Responses from the author:
apiltch :
I appreciate all the lively debate, especially the disagreement. I'm always excited when one of my articles sparks a discussion (hopefully a respectful one on both sides).
Nobody likes the most annoying ads, not even the people who run them, and I think we're going to see a shaking out of some of the worst offenses, not because of ad blockers, but because of performance issues. However, when you run an ad blocker, you are denying a site all of its ad revenue which, for millions of content sites, is their main source of income. Eventually, this will lead not only to lots of lost jobs, but to the end of most free content on the web.
I disagree that using an ad blocker is the same as a TV remote control or DVR fast forward. Neither of those remove the ads so you do have the opportunity to not change the channel or not fast forward. As a TV viewer, I usually end up watching commercials rather than bothering to switch back and forth and risk missing when the show comes back on. With DVRs, sometimes I just let it play because I'm too lazy to pick up the remote and, other times, I see a commercial that looks so interesting that I stop to watch it. That's not possible when all ads are filtered out before you can even choose to skip them.
And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.
Nobody likes the most annoying ads, not even the people who run them, and I think we're going to see a shaking out of some of the worst offenses, not because of ad blockers, but because of performance issues. However, when you run an ad blocker, you are denying a site all of its ad revenue which, for millions of content sites, is their main source of income. Eventually, this will lead not only to lots of lost jobs, but to the end of most free content on the web.
I disagree that using an ad blocker is the same as a TV remote control or DVR fast forward. Neither of those remove the ads so you do have the opportunity to not change the channel or not fast forward. As a TV viewer, I usually end up watching commercials rather than bothering to switch back and forth and risk missing when the show comes back on. With DVRs, sometimes I just let it play because I'm too lazy to pick up the remote and, other times, I see a commercial that looks so interesting that I stop to watch it. That's not possible when all ads are filtered out before you can even choose to skip them.
And if you have a site blocked and it is running mostly high-quality ads, you would never know.
apiltch :
The author failed to explain how not watching an ad is stealing. Who gets the "stolen" ad time money? If its MY attention the ads are aiming for, then I can chose what to watch or what not to watch. If I throw away junk mail is that also stealing? Poorly written and conceived article.
Depending on the terms of the campaign or ad network, publishers get paid based on a combination of ad impressions, clicks or actual sales after the click. If you block an ad, those impressions are lost, even if you would have chosen not to click the ads. Also, there's always a possibility that you might click an ad if you saw one that appealed to you.