Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[razor512]

Why is it our fault? Advertisements pushed us into using AD-Block. I'm using AD-Block to avoid my computer from receiving viruses, spyware, and other pesky things that'll damage MY pc, the item that I PAID FOR. Of course I'm going to use AD-Block to protect my computer. Since AD-Block is so "dangerous" then lets write an article about how virus protection programs is ""theft"" or """illegal.""" Stupid article. And then, you add about how blocking advertisements causes children not to have food in their mouth. Stupid. If you want us to stop using AD-Block how about providing advertisements that won't slap us in the face and fill up a webpage with irrelevant ads in every website we go to, and providing ads that we won't have to worry about getting malware from it or spyware.

That is something they will never do. I read through all of the comments and from the few replies that they have given, they are all focused on a reactionary approach of if you spot a bad ad, then email them.

That is a reactionary measure where the only time something will be done about a bad ad, is when a bunch of people have gotten infected.

Also with pretty much anyone's experience with large websites, the email is rarely checked, thus if a bad ad goes through, it can be multiple days before anything is done about it.

Most malware filled ads are designed to be short lived. they simply want to get the ad spread to as many sites as possible for a few hours in order to get a few thousand people infected with crypto locker or other common malware that is primarily being spread through infected ads.

The responses of tomshardware indicate that they do not care enough about their users to be proactive about ensuring ad safety.

If I had to run a large website, and needed ad revenue, I will explain why it was needed, as well as indicate to the visitors that I personally review each and every ad that is displayed on the site. I inspect the javascript, and do not allow flash.
If there is software to be advertised, I will install it first before it ever goes up onto the website. If an ad links to a store, I would research that store, and if it is a lesser known site where trust of sending them credit card info may be questionable, then I will only accept stores which can use payment services such as paypal which offer buyer protection.

Since large sites have some industry pull, I would do what shows such as freetalklive do where hardware or food based products, are sampled before the ad ever goes up, and if I can't, then I will at least look up reviews on the item.

If tomshardware did this as a proactive approach to dealing with ads, they would not only get more money for the ad space, they will have far less adblock usage.


Yes, this is all extra work, but it is just what you do if you want to build trust in your business model.

Remember, with ads, the well has been poisoned since there are more bad ads than good ones. Restoring trust in the system will require sites to go the extra mile.

And you must never take a reactionary stance; it must always be proactive.

Would you buy baby food from a company whose QA policy was to never test the batches of food, and instead ask you to call and inform them if if you got a bad batch because your baby didn't seem to like the meal of carrots and botulism?

 

[jasonkaler]

Isn't it the consumer's right to choose what product he gets?
If all you are selling is advertising, I have a right to refuse your product.
I do not want your product and its cost on my resources.
If you feel you can not make money off your content alone, then your product sucks and so does your business model.

 

[Rob Hudson]

I agree with blocking Ad Blocker users. You enjoy surfing websites without paying for those sites, then let them make some money to continue providing you with content. I remember more then a decade ago when people complained endlessly on whether their favorite hardware reviewer was taking money from manufactures or not. If Ad Blockers are interrupting a websites revenue stream then they are stuck having to make up the money else where. As I see it, none of my favorite sites charge me for the content I consume, and I am greatful for that. As for using an Ad Blocker to protect yourself, that is the most foolish method to rely on. I've been in IT for 2 decades, and I always recommend a good security suite for users who are not experienced or simply need piece of mind. This OP-ED is pointing out the obvious issue here, if you want free content, stop blocking revenue streams. You ARE entitled to look at what you want to on the internet, but you are NOT entitled to content that comes from sites you cut off from their revenue streams.

Very well said. Content publishers should block readers who use any form of advertising block. The capability exists now. Just do it. Put an end to their freeloading, and maybe they will change their bad behavior.

 

[thrus]

If you want to complain about ad blocks there are a few things your site needs to do. 1 host and secure your own ad server, we are sick of malware labeled as ads. 2 review all ads that will show to be sure that we are not getting flashing junk that detracts from your content. 3 the moment you think about (not approve just think of approving) letting an ad play sound on my PC ask the biggest person in the office to punch you in the gut to remind you that even thinking about that is unacceptable.

Are these harsh yes but it is crap from the ad hosting companies and websites saying you handle it we will just show your stuff to our customers that has created this situation. yes we are your cutomers, and the annoying flashing adds are like your grocery cashier asking "would you like product xxx?" sounds played are more like the door to door person (why does not matter) that goes around at 6 am waking you up as well.

 

[thezooloomaster]

Surfing the web without an ad blocker is like going for a ride on your motorbike without a helmet. There's a similar level of risk.

 

[McHenryB]

I agree with blocking Ad Blocker users. You enjoy surfing websites without paying for those sites, then let them make some money to continue providing you with content. I remember more then a decade ago when people complained endlessly on whether their favorite hardware reviewer was taking money from manufactures or not. If Ad Blockers are interrupting a websites revenue stream then they are stuck having to make up the money else where. As I see it, none of my favorite sites charge me for the content I consume, and I am greatful for that. As for using an Ad Blocker to protect yourself, that is the most foolish method to rely on. I've been in IT for 2 decades, and I always recommend a good security suite for users who are not experienced or simply need piece of mind. This OP-ED is pointing out the obvious issue here, if you want free content, stop blocking revenue streams. You ARE entitled to look at what you want to on the internet, but you are NOT entitled to content that comes from sites you cut off from their revenue streams.

Very well said. Content publishers should block readers who use any form of advertising block. The capability exists now. Just do it. Put an end to their freeloading, and maybe they will change their bad behavior.

That's certainly an idea. Let them call our bluff. After all, I'm sure that Tom's has too many readers.

 

[thrus]

I would like to state one other thing that seems to piss off a lot of us. You are a writer your stock and trade is words, the action you are describing is not stealing. stealing assumes we take something you have and remove it from you, even by your own system we are preventing you from getting something not removing something you have.

 

[spartanmk2]

So is it stealing when I pay attention to the road while driving instead of the advertisement signage on the sides of the highways?

Garbage article.

 

[Kwuarter]

I don't disagree with ads. I get it. I never listen to them personally because I don't care. I go on You Tube to watch said video and the ad playing beforehand usually blocks off the video from playing entirely. Another example being I'm trying to read an article and an AD pops up covering the screen freezing the page forcing me to close it. I use AD Blocker to PREVENT this from happening so I can USE my computer. I don't pay for my own internet so advertising companies can clog my bandwidth with their ads.

 

[Jawaid Bazyar]

Hey, I started using AdBlocker because SO many ads were built with Flash - and Flash caused my web browser to crash all the time.

So, ad makers and web site owners - if your ads are obtrusive and interfere with the browsing experience and actually cause me lost time - then screw you, I'm blocking your ads. And too bad.

 

[geki3re]

Advertisers, web site operators, and their kids dying of hunger shows that capitalism is alive and well. A poor model rejected by the public being ushered out by the big ole C.

 

[JeckeL]

I think the main point here is that web/internet advertising is the only form of advertising which prevents/hinders you from using the media on which the ads are based. It can also damage your machine in the form of spyware & malware with a lot of the fake "Click here to download" ads, google search result ads, etc. It's grown out of control and ad blockers are trimming it back down to size.

With television you can still enjoy your shows/movies/etc but there are a balanced, calculated amount of commercials & ads which for the most part don't interfere with the experience. Same with billboards, they're off to the side and they don't interfere with anything. Imagine if these two examples were like internet ads... advertisements popping up on your windshield while you drive such that you must close them to be able to see the road. Ads popping up during your television show that you have to constantly click to make them go away, etc... and don't click on the wrong ad or your tv will get malware so that you get even more ads :lol:

 

[apiltch]

Ad blocking isn't the best option, but it's one of the options that we have. Just telling us to stop blocking your ads is about the worst approach you can take to the situation

I just want to clarify that I am not speaking ex cathedra here on behalf of our company nor am I talking specifically about Tom's Guide (note the article is on Tom's Guide, not Tom's Hardware). This is labeled an Op Ed, not an "editorial" because it is one person's view.

My point is about ad blocking in general. I'm not advising people to stop blocking "our" ads, I'm advising people to stop running an ad blocker on all of the sites that they visit. It's not about me or Tom's. Millions of websites are at least partially supported by advertising. That's a lot of people who are compensated based on revenue from those ads.

No matter what websites you visit, unless they are pure commerce sites (Amazon) or are volunteer projects (Wikipedia), when you block their ads, you are taking away one of their main sources of income while consuming the fruits of their labor.

 

[duckandchicken]

ad is ok i dont mind to see but not a wall(most time on PC) and that damm flash burns my cpu hot

 

[giantbucket]

My point is about ad blocking in general. I'm not advising people to stop blocking "our" ads, I'm advising people to stop running an ad blocker on all of the sites that they visit. It's not about me or Tom's. Millions of websites are at least partially supported by advertising. That's a lot of people who are compensated based on revenue from those ads.

No matter what websites you visit, unless they are pure commerce sites (Amazon) or are volunteer projects (Wikipedia), when you block their ads, you are taking away one of their main sources of income while consuming the fruits of their labor.

again with the fallacies.

if all of those millions of sites have decided that their main source of revenue is through ads (which are NOT their own content) then clearly they have no valuable content to speak of. their business model is, to put it lightly, not viable. it's f'd up. go back to kindergarten and try the schooling again.

who is paying for our ability to "go online" and view content? we are. not the advertisers. we PAY to go there so we get to decide how the thing WE pay for works for us.

junk mail. am I legally or morally obligated to read every piece that's in my postal mailbox? no. I can "block it" by simply throwing it in the recycling bin or even requesting my local mail service not to deliver it in the first place. it's a discrete item that has ZERO impact on my main mail, so it's far less infuriating than pop-up ads.

again, why is it OUR problem that you made a bad life choice by making worthless content and expecting to get paid through obnoxious ads? it's not MY fault that your own content is worthless and can't stand on its own.

your thinking is "compensate me financially for being obnoxious and malevolent!!!"

our thinking is "you're obnoxious and malevolent, we're going to ignore you"

most ads until recently were just ads, ones that someone could watch or ignore while they play anyways. but today most internet ads are bullies, they take up more space and resources than the content we are looking for in the first place. YOU made it so, so now deal with the repercussions.

 

[tech-wreck]

oh, boo hoo.
asking the readers of tom' guide to play russian roulette just to increase the profits of some faceless megacorporation, yeah, that'll go down well...
"...I'm always excited when one of my articles sparks a discussion (hopefully a respectful one on both sides)..."
both sides? the other side is, erm, you, and... er...

if tom's was still run from a garage as a hobbyist project, then yeah, i'd whitelist it. as it stands, norfolk and chance.

...

oh wait, have we all been played? you were actually spreading news of the new adblock browser for android (so more people would go look for it, find it's not been approved by the google play store yet (don't hold your breath), and instead download the .apk and manually install the new adblock browser for android) without being seen to promote or even condone the new adblock browser for android.
i may have misjudged you, avram, my apologies. you're on our side, a fellow internet user frustrated with crap dressed as content. fighting 'the man' from within, i like your approach

this post is brought to you in association with the new adblock browser for android and tech-wreck industries limited.

 

[kittle]

Tomshardware is the site that got me started using an ad blocker.
pot? meet kettle.

not much else to say

 

[McHenryB]

I just want to clarify that I am not speaking ex cathedra here on behalf of our company nor am I talking specifically about Tom's Guide (note the article is on Tom's Guide, not Tom's Hardware). This is labeled an Op Ed, not an "editorial" because it is one person's view.

That's a cop-out. You are the Online Editorial Director of Tom's Guide, which has consequences:

1. You can't just dissociate the views from policy of Tom's; surely you play an important role in editorial policy decisions. Op-Eds are supposed to be by people not associated with the Editorial Board of the publication they appear in, not by staff members; and certainly not by an Editorial Director.

2. Like it or not (and this would apply wherever you published the article) it gives us an insight into the thought processes and value judgements that you are likely to make in your editorial capacity. You find forced advertisements - and you seem to just ignore the current dire state of online advertising here; you seem to have nothing to say in answer to the many criticisms regarding such advertisements - an acceptable way of financing the site, to the extent that you label those who disagree as "thieves". So what other "compromises" may you be willing to make in your editorial capacity? We can only speculate.

It is shocking to see an article like this - something that you would expect to come from the bean counters - published under the byline of editorial staff. If it had been written by your finance director it would be a completely different matter.

Sorry, but you can't take your thirty pieces of silver and then just abrogate your responsibility.

 

[XaveT]

I agree with blocking Ad Blocker users. You enjoy surfing websites without paying for those sites, then let them make some money to continue providing you with content. I remember more then a decade ago when people complained endlessly on whether their favorite hardware reviewer was taking money from manufactures or not. If Ad Blockers are interrupting a websites revenue stream then they are stuck having to make up the money else where. As I see it, none of my favorite sites charge me for the content I consume, and I am greatful for that. As for using an Ad Blocker to protect yourself, that is the most foolish method to rely on. I've been in IT for 2 decades, and I always recommend a good security suite for users who are not experienced or simply need piece of mind. This OP-ED is pointing out the obvious issue here, if you want free content, stop blocking revenue streams. You ARE entitled to look at what you want to on the internet, but you are NOT entitled to content that comes from sites you cut off from their revenue streams.

Very well said. Content publishers should block readers who use any form of advertising block. The capability exists now. Just do it. Put an end to their freeloading, and maybe they will change their bad behavior.

If they do that, the site will die. They don't offer a unique or even interesting enough service to dictate to the consumer what the consumer can and cannot do. Adblocking is simply a front line of protection, similar to an always-running anti-virus. If you don't run it, you are asking for problems.

 

[apiltch]

So is it stealing when I pay attention to the road while driving instead of the advertisement signage on the sides of the highways?

Ad blocking is the equivalent of getting up on a ladder and spray painting whiteout over the billboard so you won't accidentally see it out of the corner of your eye.