Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[Creme]

Advertisers have brought this on themselves. I used a PC with a 3 GHZ single core when my main PC had hardware trouble and I could barely surf the internet because the ads brought it to its knees. Once I installed adblock plus performance was normal again.

Then there is all those ads trying to trick you. Fake download buttons, fake warning messages, scripts that install toolbars without your consent and whatnot. I daresay surfing the internet without adblock is more dangerous than surfing the internet without a good firewall (as long as you still use the windows firewall or some other basic protection).

I don't just use adblock plus I recommend it to everyone for their own protection. Especially those that don't know much about PCs. Not only are they dragging your bandwidth and CPU down, they are actually a security risk.

This comment destroyed the entire article. My view exactly. Obnoxious ads are the cause of this (and because of them every site suffers from adblocking), and let me add one more to the list: Youtube video ads.

 

[Steveymoo]

Yep, commenters here get it. The only reason most people have to upgrade their PCs after 2 or 3 years, is because of all the crippling flash/gif/high resolution adverts being splattered all over their screens. I currently work on a 16 core Xeon beast at my job, and I swear, some websites cram so much <mod edit> resource hogging advertising on their websites, it brings firefox and chrome on Linux to it's knees. It is absolutely ridiculous. After a few hours, I have to restart, just to have my browsers run correctly.

 

[martel80]

I have blocked ads for Tom's Hardware because you had these annoying ads which kept scrolling with the article. It totally messed my browser up. It's your own fault for allowing crap like that on your site.

 

[JeckeL]

The only thing that irks me (very slightly) is people being put out of work. But one could argue that those jobs shouldn't really be there in the first place based on how out of control advertising is, and how much money/time/etc is spent on advertising, so in the end it may just end up “trimming the fat” so to speak and bring advertising back down to earth, closer to some sense of an equilibrium. Like someone else said “They brought it on themselves” with excessive popups, banners, deceitful ad tactics, and all manner of things that straight up interfere with people simply trying to browse the web. For me, advertising makes me want to NOT buy the products. At least the annoying ads anyway… On the other hand I try to support products/companies that make a conscious effort to create ads which stay out of the way, off to the side, etc, and are kind of just there if you wish to look but you don’t have to and it doesn't really affect your browsing experience. Advertisements need to exist it’s just been snowballing out of control at a ridiculous rate…

It reminds me of that old skit from Chapelle’s Show that depicts what pop-ups and ads would look like in real life. He’s walking through a mall and starts getting harassed by people/characters that represent different types of advertisements. Aside from being hilarious it depicts just how distressing and annoying the whole thing can be…

 

[junkeymonkey]

plus all there tracking and profiling -- look at something over at amazon and have that item's ad follow you around all day at every site you visit

why would I even think about blocking ?? lol

 

[Remowylliams]

Internet advertising is not regulated like television advertising was. No one is 'responsible' when a junk ad is displayed offering me a better boner. Then there's the advertisers that steal my bandwidth and electricity to send me a video in the side bar. Even though they are pushing something I have no desire to purchase or tell someone about.

Tom's generally provides advertising I accept, the problem is that many many other sites do not. So who's in the wrong here, someone who blocks an add? or bad advertising networks and websites that will grab for every advertising $0.01/1000 views they can with no care to what kind of shenanigans go on.

As a suggestion, for white listing a site for a Ad blocker, why not give the viewer a way to decide what kind of ads they are ok with? I use to not use an ad blocker at all for Tom's but now at work I do use one because ANY flash add makes my VM that I'm using to browse through run very badly. Which impacts other things I'm doing.

You want people to have a conscience when it comes to blocking ads and letting your children suffer? Then have some conscience when it comes to the kinds of ads your viewers have to suffer.

Let's get some sense to this instead of knee jerk reaction that just escalates things to these proportions.

 

[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.

 

[of the way]

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.

You had Tom's whitelisted? They have some terrible ad practices. Screen blocking popups, the text in the article becoming ads so that as you scroll down a large chunk of the article gets covered by a popup...

 

[ivyanev]

By writing article about ad block, you are hurting yourselves. People will google it and see the light. And do not try to make the users the bad guys. It is the advertisement companies that terrorized us for years. This is just retaliation.

 

[McHenryB]

The more I think about it the more annoyed I am that an editorial on Tom's Hardware is branding it's readers as thieves. I reckon that I pay for my use of the site by contributing to the forums and passing on, for free, whatever knowledge I have gained after a lifetime in the IT industry.

Perhaps I should seek to frequent a website that is more appreciative of the input from it's readers rather than one that brands them as thieves.

 

[junkeymonkey]

well like said theres ad's that sit in a little box minding there own business then thers the ones like of the way showed that's just too intrusive or overbearing flash ad's that suck the bandwidth out of you . its the ones that seem to cram things down your throat is what a issue to me

 

[sudz]

And who pays for all the bandwidth you use to view these ads that bring Tomsguide to a halt every time I load a page?

I just disabled adblocker for the first time in 4 years to look at this article - And low and behold - this webpage went from being 1.2MB, to 16... now 17 (as a video in the bottom right keeps stuttering, loading - and lagging my keyboard input.

I've got a top of the line ASUS gaming laptop - there is no reason why it should stutter - but with ads enabled - it does. Badly.

If you want people to view ads, maybe thinking about the viewers - what you're doing to their experience. Once you've done that, THEN maybe complain again and I'll see if I'll turn off my adblocker again.

 

[firebird]

I've been an avid reader of all the Tom's sites for several years and have never once clicked on an ad, even before I started using adblock.

And if you want my attention on your articles then stop trying to distract me by presenting ads and inserting links in to the content of your article. All you're doing then is frustrating me and causing me to stop reading your article.

I may be alone here, but I would pay for Tom's without ads.

 

[McHenryB]

"I'm always excited when one of my articles sparks a discussion (hopefully a respectful one on both sides)."

You think it's respectful to call your readers thieves? There's a saying "when you're in a hole stop digging". I think you need to chuck that spade away. You could even try apologizing to those people that you have insulted.

 

[surphninja]

Well, I usually allow ads through for sites that I want to support, including Tom's, but now I'm thinking I'd rather just steal from you.

I did not go out of my way to install adblock because I wanted to get away with something or because I wanted to keep ad dollars from going to websites.

I installed adblock because ads are out of control. There's the ads that try to trick you into clicking them (fake download button), the ads that take over the browser window, the ads that pop up more ads, the ads that install malware on your pc (a growing problem), inappropriate ads (I have kids that sometimes read over my shoulder, and can't let half-naked women run rampant on my screen), ads that charade as content, etc.

I mean seriously, the malware problem alone makes it unbelievable that a site like tom's would be attacking adblock. Do you have any idea what a high percentage of ads will install malware and toolbars? Do you have any idea how many of the users I support get tricked into clicking those ads, and how hard it makes my job when I have to go behind them and clean it up?

Hell, sometimes I'm actually interested in the stuff being advertised, but I don't dare click the ad, because I know it's not going to actually show me the content it's advertising; it'll take me to some shady unrelated site and typically try to install crap on my machine.

I don't care about letting through harmless ads. They're the ones that stepped it up in this cold war. Shady ad companies took it too far. Irresponsible websites letting through dishonest ads and too many of them took it too far.

Seriously. Removing Tom's from my whitelist. So pissed. This is the most arrogant, ignorant crap I've ever read on this site. I need to go back to the tv now. If I miss the commercial, I might get arrested for theft.

 

[Onus]

As a Moderator, I believe I am obligated to speak and act in the best interests of the site; however that does not mean marching in lock-step with bad ideas, rather it is about suggesting how those bad ideas might be changed. Complaining without suggesting solutions = whining, so if I'm going to complain, I need to also offer solutions.
Sorry, advertisers are not victims, except perhaps of themselves. This is another excellent example of what happens when there are not dire consequences for Willful Wrongdoing. If ALL ads were honest, at least semi-relevant, never "unsafe," and non-intrusive, there would be no need for ad blockers. It is a shame that companies that would indeed follow that model have tolerated those who do not in their midst; all are now reaping the consequences.
My time is valuable. Force me to waste it with extra clicks to see the content I want (typically on every new page, and you are stealing from me. Solution: put something like a moving price-crawler from Newegg, or some other relevant site(s) on the edge of your pages, and I could see sitting there watching it for items of interest; personally I would not want this kind of ad blocked. Simple banners just take up a glance; they're fine too. Keep in mind screen size and scaling. In the old days of 1024x768 or even 800x600, ads could waste a lot of space. On today's screens, giving up an inch or two on a side border isn't that big a deal unless it blocks part of a picture or other content.
If you have an ad, make sure a technical person on the site has clicked it and verified that it is absolutely harmless. If it wasn't, report it to everyone under the sun (including the company whose advertiser was employing dishonest methods), and don't use it.
Address bandwidth-cap issues by requiring ads be limited to text and occasional still pictures; there's no way to zero that, but it can be cut way down into the "tolerable" range. Finally, do not make other site functionality, including navigation, dependent on whether ads have loaded or been clicked.

 

[Hando567]

Hey Tom's, fun article. You want me to turn off my adblock for you? Well then there is one thing you can do... STOP PUTTING UP BANNER ADS THAT ARE SO BIG THEY TAKE LONGER THAN THE REST OF THE PAGE TO LOAD!!!

Seriously, the number of times I have opened Tom's page, went to click on an article link, then as I was clicking on it a banner ad popped up and moved the link causing me to click on the wrong article is infuriating. If they were really just little ads on the side or top of the page, fine. But they actually very negatively affect my user experience. I hope the children starve if that is what feeds them.

 

[nousernameatall]

Screw the advertisers and their kids. As it is now, I don't owe them a single thing. One thing I will make perfectly clear is that if you find a way where I cannot bypass your ad, then I will no longer visit said site. Take Toms Hardware for example: my sctipt blocker has a list blocking sites almost the whole vertical width of my monitor. Without it, this site is practically a nightmare to use. I could honestly say if this site disappeared, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. I would most likely move on and find another place within a day.

 

[boogalooelectric]

Time is money and I have limited time. As Onkelcannabia said the over-zealos nature of advertising has brought this crisis on.

What about all the time lost having to deal with telemarketers before the no call lists were put in place? What about the banner ads inserted into shows and movies that I still have to watch when I DVR something?

My time is valuable and plenty of it has been wasted with obnoxious advertising getting in my face and taking time from me in myriad ways.

So if advertisers want to claim that I am stealing from them, then I can claim the same, they have stolen plenty from me over the years and I want that time back. They are the real thieves not I.

 

[Rainturtle]

I have little sympathy for content providers who act as enablers for these immoral ad networks that completely and without permission invade users privacy. If a live person stalked and collected information on my children on their way home from school the way advertisers do on some of these kids sites I would hunt them down Liam Neeson style. Content providers need to find a business model that's not based on sharing revenue with stalking cyber creeps. Not to mention all the time they owe me which I spend removing "malicious crapware" usually installed by popup ads from my elderly friends and family's computers who don't use AdBlock. If you are not using AdBlock by all means people install it now!! Don't surf the net without it!