Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[turkey3_scratch]

People whine for free speech so this author states his free speech and look at what happens. *sigh*

 

[tech-wreck]

free speech does not free you from your responsibilities as a professional journalist, or the allegedly reputable organisation that pays for this garbage.

 

[Pailin]

At one point I stopped coming here for over 6months pretty much due to the <mod edit> auto audio adds Tom's allowed on here!!! >_< >_<

Only came back because of Adblock Plus.


Shame on you Tom's for writing such an article after such discraceful ad practices.

<Let's watch the profanity in these forums people>

 

[garryash]

When on my home network I find the ads annoying (especially when the page I am reading keeps jumping up and down) But when I visit ma in law they are a pain in the ar**. She has very slow broadband (lives in the sticks) and the pages freeze as you try to scroll. Am considering an adblocker now!

 

[01189998819991197253]

I'm sorry, I used to keep this site in my adblocker whitelist but not any more.
I get that sites need this ad revenue, and if you can work out precisely how much you will make from me not looking at nor clicking on each ad then I would be happy to pay it to you rounded down to the nearest penny/cent (clue: that's somewhere around £0.00).
I would be very happy to pay a bit of money in order to support the site, like I do with a subscription to other online magazines, as long as there weren't any ads.

The main reason that I have an adblocker is because of the way in which I and I'm sure many others browse the web. I open at least 15-20 links at a time and then one by one as they load, at least 4 video ads start playing. I then have to go and search through all of these tabs to find the one which is playing, which is fine in Chrome because there is the little speaker icon which shows the tab is playing audio... Unless I have more than about 70 windows open (which happens all too frequently), in which case the tabs are too narrow to see the audio icons.
Until ads become less intrusive, I'm afraid I will not be disabling my adblocker for sites other than those I want to support - so not you any more Tom's.

 

[tech-wreck]

the advertising industry is the pimp. tom's is the prostitute. the advertisements are STIs.

that's why i use adblockplus condoms.

 

[razor512]

Wanted to ask anyone at toms hardware who can receive company email. Why is it okay to block junk email but not okay to block ads on web pages that choose to display the same stuff that would normally be blocked by your email's spam filter?

 

[bd2357]

If a site wants to host ads, then host them out of their own domain so I know you stand behind the content. On my computer, this article has over 42 cross domains. Some are normal cdn sites but a bunch are dynamic because they are ads this site has not control over. If I am on tom's guide, sell me computer stuff or tech stuff, not ways to eliminate mortgage payments or celebrities on the red carpet.

 

[giantbucket]

If a site wants to host ads, then host them out of their own domain so I know you stand behind the content. On my computer, this article has over 42 cross domains. Some are normal cdn sites but a bunch are dynamic because they are ads this site has not control over. If I am on tom's guide, sell me computer stuff or tech stuff, not ways to eliminate mortgage payments or celebrities on the red carpet.

if you want to eliminate celebrities on the red carpet, an AK-47 springs to mind. we don't need an ad suggesting that

but yeah, relevant content would be nice, but IN MODERATION. there's far too much ad content, be it relevant or random. I don't need or want a dozen ads while reading a haiku. more ads just means I'm less likely to look at ANY of them - less ads means I'm more likely to actually look at the 2-3 that ARE there.

and that's what the advertisers want, I presume - for me to first LOOK at the ad, and then hopefully to follow it.

I can't follow the ad if there's so many that - even WITHOUT an adblock - my eyes are just ignoring them!

 

[McHenryB]

I'm sure the advertisers would be more than happy for theirs to be the only ad that appears on a page. The blame is clearly on the shoulders of those running the web sites who cram as many adverts as they can on a page to maximize their revenues.

 

[caughy]

The worst types of advertisements are the 30 second commercials to allow me to watch a 2 minute video and the pop up ones that block what I am viewing. The worst part of the pop up ones is that they sometimes take seconds to pop up, as the screen goes dark waiting for the ad.. These are the ones that I want to eliminate with a blocker. Now, if a website owner is truly upset that someone is using an ad locker, he can block access to his site. CNET senses adblockers and refuses video delivery.

 

[garryash]

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

 

[tech-wreck]

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

firefox and the AdBlockPlus add-on. Privacy Badger is also a useful tool for making sure advertisers don't abuse the 'do not track' instruction.

 

[truegenius]

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.

for bold part
watching an ad is stealing because you are using their services and paying 0
indeed they are paying for you because they pay for employees and infrastructure so that you can browse what you want

it is like you are using a bus to go from place a to b but without buying any ticket so you are actually stealing
you go to theatre to see movies and you pay for that content,
similarly you see videos on youtube and you don't even need to pay ( you just need to skip ad ( well some shows unskippable ads and that is annoying ) )

there are some sites which shows tons of ads and show irrelevant ads, toolbars installer and popups, they are doing too much so blocking them is recommended, but if some site is showing ads based upon your search then it is indeed beneficial because you can get to see what you were searching for by those ads so these ads are like your best option providers
( for example if you search for computer parts then ads will show computer parts deals and thus saves your hassle of searching and you may get the best deal )

so everyone should whitelist those sites which they use frequently or show very minimal ads and that too interest based ads

 

[truegenius]

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.

i didn't find it offensive
because only those who are using adblocker to block toms will find it offensive, because they will see at as author is calling them thief but indeed author is calling those thief who use their service and don't even want to run ads in a corner.

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!

you are using strawmen fallacy
you are representing author's statement wrongly to make it more vulnerable to attack
hacker is doing a crime you can't compare showing an ad of pizzahut to hacker hacking you pc
hacker is doing damage to you so that is why you need antivirus, but when you see an ad of pizzahut then you will not get any damage
do you buy pizza's for lifetime at no cost from pizzahut ( unless you are owner of pizzahut ), i guess no, you pay for whatever you buy, and so you pay for reading toms article, indeed you don't pay, you just have to let the ads.

I'm sorry, I used to keep this site in my adblocker whitelist but not any more.
I get that sites need this ad revenue, and if you can work out precisely how much you will make from me not looking at nor clicking on each ad then I would be happy to pay it to you rounded down to the nearest penny/cent (clue: that's somewhere around £0.00).
I would be very happy to pay a bit of money in order to support the site, like I do with a subscription to other online magazines, as long as there weren't any ads.

The main reason that I have an adblocker is because of the way in which I and I'm sure many others browse the web. I open at least 15-20 links at a time and then one by one as they load, at least 4 video ads start playing. I then have to go and search through all of these tabs to find the one which is playing, which is fine in Chrome because there is the little speaker icon which shows the tab is playing audio... Unless I have more than about 70 windows open (which happens all too frequently), in which case the tabs are too narrow to see the audio icons.
Until ads become less intrusive, I'm afraid I will not be disabling my adblocker for sites other than those I want to support - so not you any more Tom's.

there must be something wrong with your pc or browser, because i don't get to see this much ads. ( see photo below )
maybe you clicked on some ads on your favourite pom..... pom pom pom pom site and someone installed a malware in your pc which is showing ads ( which have no link to the site you are browsing )
you can't blame some one if someone else is doing wrong to you

Yesterday I opened up TOMS and got bombardee by full page adverts that kept blocking out the content on TOMS and when not doing that it kept jumping the TOMS content up and down as I was trying to read !!!!!!! I'm now looking at a good free adblocker! Can anyone point in in the best direction?

there must be something wrong with your pc or browser, because i don't get to see this much ads. ( see photo below )
maybe you clicked on some ads on your favourite pom..... pom pom pom pom site and someone installed a malware in your pc which is showing ads ( which have no link to the site you are browsing )


see , all these ads are a result of my searches and i indeed want to click on all 3 ( but i think that will make me look like a fake clicker and ad partner may see it as false click so i refrain myself from clicking too often )

 

[McHenryB]

Whatever your personal opinion may be, it has been determined in a court of law that ad blocking is not illegal. Therefore it is a libel to accuse people who use ad blockers of being thieves. Say they are immoral by all means - that's not a crime. But accusing people of commiting a crime when they are not is offensive (and pretty stupid).

 

[truegenius]

no one said that that person is a criminal, they just said blocking ads is stealing, and what is being stolen you may ask ? its ad revenue which they will use to provide you more quality service and better experience
and who gets the stolen money ? no one, it just get wasted ( just like someone bought something to sell at a profit but sold it at same price thus no profit but loss due to efforts that it took to buy store display and sell it )

only part that i did't like in article is where they said that that popup which covers full screen and audio video ads , these types of ads will annoy because they distract us completely and make us to take some action to remove them and people may use adblocker due to such ads. thoguh google provide ad reviewing so that publisher can view what ad will get served to users
https/support.google.com/adsense/answer/82503?hl=en
btw toms forum is adfree and from a long time ( after they changed the theme/graphics of site )

and i found it amusing that only 6 clicks get obtained from 10000 ads, i think i click on 1 ad from every 10 ads i see, looks like those 6 clicks are my contribution

btw looking at the replies and vote up and vote down to those replies, i think toms got an idea that those who blacklist in adblockers will use it anyway ( its like these people are saying "i will [SMILE AT] you but won't pay [ANYTHING]" ), amd looks like 90% of peeps are blocking, so to increase profit there is only.one way left for toms
that is detect users who have blacklisted then redirect these users to a subscription page to sign in and pay subscription money for ad free experience or tell them to whitelist to continue browsing
if toms peeps looses these 90% users then they will need to invest 90% less time to maintain their infrastructure 90% less server load , thus 90% less investment and profit will remain same ( that is from those 10% users ) this way they can concentrate more on those who deserve.

btw that,awkward moment when you want to down vote but mistakenly clicked on ip vote button and now you can't down vote now ( i wanted to down vote a comemt by mistakely upvoted it )

another btw, looking at the trend, i think i will get tons of down vote

[Curse words removed by mods]

 

[McHenryB]

no one said that that person is a criminal, they just said blocking ads is stealing

I realize that laws are different in different countries, but in mine theft is a crime. If you accuse someone of stealing, and call them a thief, you are (falsely) accusing them of a crime.

 

[tech-wreck]

maybe where truegenius lives, theft isn't a crime. in which case i'll be round tomorrow to take his computer with the intention of permanently depriving him of it.

that is the definition of theft; how can that be applied in any way to my choice to not waste bandwidth on stuff i neither want or need?

 

[JeckeL]

I realize that laws are different in different countries, but in mine theft is a crime. If you accuse someone of stealing, and call them a thief, you are (falsely) accusing them of a crime.

wow... no one is accusing you of theft, no one even knows who you are... like the other guy said, when he titled the article "Stop thief! Using adblockers is considered stealing" he was being dramatic in an attempt to vivify the article, no one is taking you to court dude. The rest of us disagree as well, but we've moved on and continue to use ad blockers... either let it go or sue toms for falsely accusing you of theft, if you can find a lawyer to take the case :lol: