Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[Monte Harmon]

If the ads did not attack me (and my computer) I would tolerate them, and might even notice them occasionally. But the reality is they act in an antagonistic fashion and I respond in kind. Any other response would be foolish.

 

[blueaxe]

<mod edit>
Just took Tom's Hardware down a few pegs for allowing such blatant lies.
Taking food from a child's mouth? Really?
Just totally disgusted...
Shame on TomsGuide!

<Watch your language in these forums>

 

[celia785]

WE have options and are not under duress that we MUST read an ad or watch one. That's what advertisers are going to have to learn. Their ads cripple our ability to use our own computer. And this is what made us search and find for ways to get around it.

I will not be made to feel sorry for them under any capacity. Most ads are misleading anyway.

 

[jtherrault]

"...what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth."

What a pile of mush! In-your-face unsolicited advertising deserves every defense mechanism that the consumer can employ PERIOD! And, btw, using the "guilt" factor just doesn't work with any rational person who has a couple of functioning neurons to rub together!

 

[mikelumpy]

This argument is as lame as the Media Companies stating they are going broke because of piracy. They are wrongly assuming that everyone wishes to watch their crap. That the few paying viewers is due to piracy not due to discretion. If adds are only receiving 0.06% success perhaps they should consider a more efficient method of reaching the masses considering the inconvenience caused to the other 99.94% of us.

 

[calinpuscas]

this article is for real? I mean, really for real?

 

[voodoo917]

Toms writing about ad block being evil just got it removed of my whitelist, thanks tom for showing who you really care for, I'll do the same.

Yep, me too! This article has got to be one of the dumbest things that I have ever seen. These so called "Advertisers" are "STEALING" everyone's bandwidth who doesn't use an Ad Blocker. I don't get online to be bombarded with BS! I don't need 3" added to the length of my pecker and I'm not interested in what the Kardashian's have done to their lips, the ones attached to either end of them.

"Every time you block an ad, what you're really blocking is food from entering a child's mouth." BaaHaHaHaHA!!!!!!

This moronic article would have you feel sorry for the gunman's children when his attempted robbery goes wrong!

I'm surprised the stooge who wrote this Web-Vomit isn't trying to send us on a guilt trip for not sending that African Prince our bank account information.

Flip, Flop Much, do ya Tom?

http/www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/565-best-adblockers-privacy-extensions.html

<Sentence removed>

P.S. For extra Tom's ad blocking goodness, download "Ad Muncher" which is now freeware, and run it along with the Ad Block Plus Extension in your browser. That should starve out every single one of these thieves "children" and cut the <insult removed> right outta the advertising gene pool!

<Mod edit: Please be respectful when stating your opinion. Thank you!>

 

[moss8448]

advertizing has become a joke and not a funny one at that it is blatantly invasive and an aggravation, taking food from some childs mouth....shame on you for even uttering that.

 

[moss8448]

too many ads have malware. as far as saying ads are a good thing is a different story all together. good for the site? sure they generate money which is stupid; good for the consumer? not really it is way over hyped as a tool. to me advertizing is the bane of the information age and invasive. i've just about quit watching tv because all you get is the program scattered in an advertizing panorama. when will advertizers learn they have stepped over the line?

 

[f688xt6]

Also as a side note, there are some websites that say it respectfully and make a clear point when they detect AdBlock running. An example is www.nexusmods.com and they make a clear and simple statement about how the site wouldn't exist without ads. Fine, they're not in my face about it, and so I enabled ads for them since they asked nicely. The end result doesn't make any difference to me, but since they asked in a respectful way (I.E. Not being so entitled that they had to piss off everyone on the website... BTW congrats on that.) but it is a respect issue. They asked respectfully and I responded in kind. It's the only website that has done it in this manner (go see for yourself) and as such, it's the only website I have enabled ads.

 

[TheAC]

Please evaluate this possibility - http/www.nexusmods.com/games/users/supporter/?

I'd definitely rather donate/subscribe.

 

[G0ss3yn]

I think that most people here, with a few exceptions, have been considerably more polite to the author than he was to them.

Yyyyyeaaa I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, cursing at them, etc... so many close minded people here who can't put yourself in someone else's shoes or see things from different perspectives, you just think "I R HATE ADS, ME WANT THEM LOSE JOBS!!!"... if you were a newly hired web dev or programmer you're probably not one of the decision-makers who decides how obnoxious these ads should be, you're simply being told how to create the ads. So I'm sure there are plenty of innocent (as well as not-so-innocent) employees being put out of work.

I disagree with the author and his article, but I'm also capable of explaining why I disagree (I won't though, since it's been said 1,000,000 times in this thread already) without insulting him and getting warned for profanity like a child

 

[McHenryB]

I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, ...

You didn't read the bit where he called people who use ad-blockers "thieves" and say they were "stealing"? That's a libel as it is demonstrably untrue - or certainly here in the EU where the point has been determined in a court of law.

I don't appreciate being libelled - I wouldn't mind so much being called an idiot or whatever, but don't let's have professional journalists accusing me of being a criminal, thank you.

 

[voodoo917]

I think that most people here, with a few exceptions, have been considerably more polite to the author than he was to them.

Yyyyyeaaa I don't remember the author calling people stooges, idiots, cursing at them, etc... so many close minded people here who can't put yourself in someone else's shoes or see things from different perspectives, you just think "I R HATE ADS, ME WANT THEM LOSE JOBS!!!"... if you were a newly hired web dev or programmer you're probably not one of the decision-makers who decides how obnoxious these ads should be, you're simply being told how to create the ads. So I'm sure there are plenty of innocent (as well as not-so-innocent) employees being put out of work.

I disagree with the author and his article, but I'm also capable of explaining why I disagree (I won't though, since it's been said 1,000,000 times in this thread already) without insulting him and getting warned for profanity like a child

Get a damn job at McDonalds then, I really couldn't care less if these "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" sleep in a dumpster because I'm running an Ad Blocker.

Who warned me about profanity? You're just some "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOW” looking for an argument, so there, you've been warned too!

These "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" poor career choice's and the fact that they think they are going to shove the garbage they're peddling down my throat, regardless of whether I find it relevant or not, negates me giving two shiny "RAYS OF SUNSHINE" about their financial future. Not to mention burning through data plans like hot butter..... And that is everyone who pays for internet they are STEALING from, not a select few running software.

When these bandwidth stealing "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOWS" start paying my internet bill every month, then they can advertise whatever snake oil they damn well please, but until then, I sincerely look forward to telling them to SUPER SIZE THE FRIES, Genius! Maybe I'll throw a stack of brochures and sales papers at their head while they're trying to work too, just so they know how it feels to try and earn a living while some "FINE UPSTANDING FELLOW" wastes your time with BS!!!!

As for the mod removing a few words I posted in my original post, WHICH WERE NOT CURSE WORDS, as I have a screenshot of my reply, you say it was because it was disrespectful........... What do you call YOUR WRITERS calling YOUR READERS thieves and criminals????

Why don't you remove the entire article? I can only guess it's because your writers attacking your readers and calling them criminals, thieves and child abuser’s isn't disrespectful by your standards, aye?

Perhaps I and the good people here, who are understandably outraged by being called such things, should get together and file slander and defamation law suits against the writer of this untrue, unfounded and inflammatory article and his employers!!!

 

[ex_bubblehead]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

 

[jpishgar]

I have to say, that was one of the funniest comments I've read in a long time. The replacements had me legit laughing out loud here.

Haha! Oh man, seriously guys, civil, please. We're having a great conversation here, gotta keep it civil.

-JP

 

[voodoo917]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

 

[RuefiodaRat]

As a repair tech - The arguments here are very emotional, and worthless. It is tantamount to saying that by clicking on the organic link for a company in a search instead of the sponsored SEM link in the paid ad section I am killing Google's ability to feed it's CEO. Sounds good, is meaningless.

Secondly - nearly half of the ads I have tracked and dealt with in the last year alone have been frauds, man in the middle attacks, or trojans themselves. That alone makes ad blocking mandatory unless you like paying me to clean your machine.

 

[ex_bubblehead]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

Moderators do not work for Tom's Hardware/Purch, we are all volunteers. Direct the question to Joe, or the author directly. We're only here to maintain the peace and civility of the forums.

 

[voodoo917]

While we do give a <little> more leeway in news comments than in the other forums, civility is mandatory at all times, from all members, and direct personal attacks toward another member, as was removed from the above post, are not tolerated.

OK great, that won't happen again!

But, you still managed to skirt a 360 around the original question, which was, why is it that it is tolerable for your writers to blatantly call anyone using an AD Blocker a Thief, Criminal and Child Abuser? Seem's to me to be a distinction without a difference........ other than the original name calling was perpetrated by one of Toms writers!

So I can only guess that your take is: "Toms writers can say whatever they like about Toms members, but Toms members will be heavily censored if they return fire!"

Moderators do not work for Tom's Hardware/Purch, we are all volunteers. Direct the question to Joe, or the author directly. We're only here to maintain the peace and civility of the forums.

Good enough, thanks for clarifying that!

I'm just wondering what Tom's writers will write next, "When you use Anti-Virus Software, you are taking the shoes off of a hackers baby's feet!" springs to mind!

The writer of this drivel should be fired along with whoever decided it was news worthy to call your members criminals!