Stop, Thief! Why Using an Ad Blocker Is Stealing

[brandonclone1]

Advertising at its core is good. It encourages competition and is informative for consumers. But advertising in the new millennium makes me feel dirty.

-You have to spend $.99 to remove ads from "free" apps.
-You are often mislead by the business tactics advertisers use to lure people in (high audio volume on commercials, authoritative commercials, etc).
-And with advertising around EVERY CORNER OF OUR LIVES it simply becomes annoying and leaves an overall bad taste.

We don't always want to spend our hard earned money... but the world thinks we should.

 

[brandonclone1]

lost mad respect for tom's hardware after reading this article btw

 

[Anaxamenes]

Absolutely ridiculous! The author suggests that it is up to the viewer not only to sit through horribly intrusive and component taxing advertisements, but also that it's up the viewer to supply the antivirus because the website shouldn't have to be responsible to knowing what it's own advertisement stream is installing on customers computers.

I use ad blocker to be able to surf the web and maintain my sanity. I also unblock websites who have proven they can show ads in a reasonable manner. I understand that is how they pay the bills and keep the lights on and I am respectful of that need, when they are respectful of my computing resources and time. It's a two way street and I'm happy to allow reasonable ads on my screen so that a website can generate revenue but I will not be shamed or coerced by unreasonable demands like this.

 

[guru87]

it's MY hardware and ME who is paying for electricity and internet connection so I have right to stop lines of code that I don't want to run...
it's very simple...

 

[spankmon]

Tom's would be the perfect place to offer an opinion poll.

My suggestion: Add a button at the top of Tom's home page and label it "Click here if you prefer an ad-free version of Tom's Hardware Website".

 

[McHenryB]

Personal attacks never fly here, whether vs. other users or staff. Civility is, as always, compulsory.

Now hang on just one minute. The personal attacks here started with the article by your Editorial Director branding people as thieves. it seems that civility is compulsory for your readers but not your editorial staff. I think you might go a way to making amends for that by apologizing.

The argument seems to be that you perhaps don't like foisting advertisements on people but that it's a necessary evil to put food in the mouths of your kiddies. That statement, coming from your Editorial Director, casts a huge stain on the integrity of your editorial work as far as I am concerned. If you are prepared to do things that you don't really like to pull the dollars in - the end justifies the means - then how can we trust that you are not using other editorial means to satisfy potential advertisers?

I'm sorry but as far as I am concerned, this article, written by your Editorial Director, means that in future I cannot trust the impartiality or integrity of editorial content on Toms.

And I'd still like to see that apology from the author.

 

[Arabian Knight]

Internet Ads ARE STEALING ... at the end we will PAY it when we buy a product.

Every AD increases the product price and we pay for it.

when the internet was made for the public it was clean and professional.

now it turned into a money making machine ...

well keep the money out of our life for once !

I dont want ads everywhere ! TV and street ads are ENOUGH ! we know the Product already .. stop putting ADS everywhere stop being greedy.

I used to click on a link and the page shows instantly . now I have to wait for stupid ADS servers to respond.

the internet explorers were many times faster in the past . and I mean it . it is not about bandwidth , it is about connecting to each server ...

add to it , we dont WANT to pay more for products ! stop putting adds everywhere , keep the internet for knowledge and information and fun.

ADS companies are the thiefs . not us . we dont want ads !

 

[zatoman]

I've used Toms since the late 90's when I was researching RAMBUS memory. But you can go to hell if you think I will allow your site to slow my computer to a crawl and add malware. This is my LAST visit to your site. Good riddance.

 

[Christopher1]

2 - because I hate browsing and being a tab hoarder (not the worst offender, but I often have 15+ open) and having soulnd playing on 5 of them randomly. If I frequent sites that have no sound enabled or video ads I will add them to my personal whitelist

THAT is the biggest issue in my estimation. There are so many.... well, I have to call what they are: a'hole ads that automatically start playing LOUD OBNOXIOUS SOUND or more than one video ad on the same page.
Video ads should NEVER be autoplay period and done with. They should be 'click on this ad to play it'.

 

[jpishgar]

Have anyone of you at Tom's read this site without an ad-blocker recently? Really, Tom's, I do not think you have any idea what this site is like without an ad-blocker.

Years ago, I mandated that my entire community team whitelist our domains if we have ad-blocking software installed, and I follow this example and browse our domains in full-ad mode every day. When asked why by a team member, I made it very clear: "If our users are experiencing it, you will experience it. If it is bad, then we need to tell the ad guys on their behalf." I also strongly encourage the editorial people to do the same. I don't ask my mods to do this as they are volunteers and they already do so much selflessly without asking a single thing in return, but strongly request they let us know if a disruptive ad is encountered so we can report it and get it removed - and they do.

Lastly, if you want us to view this site without an ad-blocker, then hire someone who's sole job is to review all advertising and ensure and guarantee us that it will not contain any malware.

Any ad that contains or directs to malware is not permitted here. If you find one that does, shoot me an email at jpishgar@purch.com and I'll be sure it gets seen by the right set of eyeballs for removal. The ad guys themselves are usually pretty good about that.

Unless some were moderated out, I do not recall someone personally attacking the author

Personal attacks are just that - personal and targeted to an individual. The article author made a broad assessment utilizing a rhetorical device, but didn't attack an individual or disparage a group of people. Comments which have been personally attack oriented here have been, and will be moderated. We're a place to have a sensible discussion and debate about this subject and others, and I'm sure you'll agree that it does no good to go ad hominem.

-JP

 

[house70]

I not only use AdBlock, I also sideloaded AdAware on my phones to do the same. Currrently the ONLY reason I still root my phones and tablets. Advertisers should pay for the bandwidth they steal from me while pushing their ads on my devices. I don't hear the author addressing that issue.
I will continue to use only browsers that have add-ons like AdBlock available.

 

[drtoast]

This page is loaded with what I consider acceptable advertising. I can't deny the tasteful way this article has been presented. However I concur with the top comment at current.

If your flashy adverts to sell me the latest telephone I can't afford, are so intensively demanding on system resources that it prevents me from viewing a page on a phone because a quad core phone isnt powerful enough to display it, frankly I'll be so livid I wont want your phone even if the advert is a good price for once.

I use the above as an example, as my phone until last month was the most powerful computer in the house.... So much motion flashing and audio at offensive volumes with no volume dialer, made the internet unusable to my old pc without blocking 80% of the adverts.

Now I have a new pc, cost £1000+, a I5-4690k based system, and there are still adverts out there that can make it pause for thought... admittedly its seconds rather than minutes now but thats too much to ask for "just getting across a message"

As for the security aspect, an example, I had my mother phone me crying because a pop up said it was from the EU force of internet safety, had encrypted her files and wouldnt let her leave the page or open any files without going out the house that moment to start a balance transfer to pay a "fine" to retrieve access to her pc because she had "insufficient internet protection installed". It was an obnoxious advert that created looping "Are you sure you want to leave" pop ups preventing her from leaving.

Now I went over and task managered the advert to close, rebooted the pc and lo- access was restored.

Adverts that reduce non-tec savvy pensioners to tears? I'm sorry but whose the one stealing money? Me for installing ad-block so that she is safer financially, technologically and emotionally safer? Or the bogus ad from a low grade fraudulent anti-virus company?

 

[tnn]

The way I see it, in order to see an ad, you have to be connected to the Internet and downlooad the image/text/video into your computer's memory, cache, or hardware, even if for just a moment. Ad blockers simply enable me to choose what to download and what not to download. You can't force people to load something onto their computers that they don't want.

 

[spapastam]

Never thought about installing an ad-blocker before but I might consider it now that I've read this 'article' covertly advertising Ad-blocker plus.
Thanks to the author for that and I hope he was paid good money to write 'his' opinion on the matter

 

[Enviros]

So technically if we skip ads on TV, does that mean we're also stealing. This guy is MORON! The internet never started with ads as it's source so take a flying leap and stop writing crap... unless that's your goal?

 

[Hellbound]

First of all forgive my typing because I'm doing this from my phone lol..

""Online ads — from pop-ups that cover the page, to sponsored links that look like content, to noisy video ads that start playing out of nowhere — have a well-deserved reputation for annoying users.""

ding ding ding..... Yes, annoying, but also intrusive and have a huge potential of stealing personal data..

""It's understandable that readers are frustrated. Content providers and ad networks need to do a better job of screening their ads to remove the most annoying and technically disruptive offenders. And there's no place for ads that spread malware — a problem easily avoided if you use antivirus software.""

Whats interesting is that you place the solution of malware on our hands, the reader. You can't have your cake and eat it too.. If you want us to see you ads, then you need to take responsibility if an ad on your website infects my computer..

You fail to understand that some of these "ads" only exist to steal personal data and spread malware.. So for me, if some ads are a threat, then all ads are a threat..

Your Burger Kind analogy is way off... You missed the big picture.. TV ads, although annoying, are timed and regulated.. Burger King not only pays for the time slot, but also had to create the content in the ad.. So Burger King takes a huge gamble and shoulders the responsibility of any ad they create.. Not to mention TV ads, so far, don't contain malware/viruses. The difference is, you don't want to shoulder any of the responsibility, all you want is the profit.

thats it, tired of typing..lol

 

[ssddx]

while i completely support legitimate unobtrusive safe advertising, it is just too unsafe and irritating to not use adblock. a few things which are unacceptable and the reason why adblock is so popular:

-whole twin sidebar ads. this is completely excessive.
-annoying animated or flashing advertisements
-fake download or virus scan button scams
-malware hidden inside advertisements
-advertisements leading to scam sites

if advertisements were all for 100% legitimate sites, unobtrusive and for malware free i'd support them. in fact, i do view and support such legitimate ads.

in fact, most manually added and labeled advertisement banners which link to legitimate sites do not get blocked by adblock plus. generally only common scripted advertisements and popups get blocked.

 

[AndThenThereWereNone]

So sad to hear of the imminent demise of Tom's Hardware, as that is all I can seriously take away from this article. You have been a useful reference point for many years, although it is a long time since I built a PC of my own.

While I personally don't run ad-blockers, the comments above certainly make that choice feel more foolish than ever. I read this article with an open mind, perhaps hoping to feel a little re-assurance that my (lazy) decision not to install a blocker into my web browser of choice might somehow be interpreted as a virtue. Instead I read about stealing food out of the mouths of children who (I hope) don't even work for the site. Quick date check - nope, not April 1st. I'm left assuming this is the desperate corporate suicide note of an editor who can no longer pay the bills, and is striking out at his only remaining target, his own audience. That never ends well.

Thanks again for information over the years. It will be a shame to see you go, but I'm afraid with this last article, I will not mourn your passing

 

[alextheblue]

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.

I'm a reader and I wasn't branded a thief here. I DO think the ads need to be adjusted/toned down, but an ad-free website must have other revenue sources. Especially one as expensive to run as a full hardware review and news site.

By this logic, of course. I'm beginning to think that what this is actually going to cause is the death of for-profit web journalism. "What?" I can hear you all scream. Hardware review sites are not going to stop existing, even if there is no money at all to be made it in. There are plenty of people who are willing to review hardware, at little to no profit (small tech sites are already run by them). The only thing this is going to cause is the death of big for-profit organizations.

Killing off ad-supported sites leads to these types of outcomes:

Paywall/subscription sites. This would reduce the number of sites I follow by quite a lot, and would make searching for information or news on the web really horrible. It would probably shrink the market in general and there would be less talented unbiased reviewers in the field. Which leads to...

Ultra-biased review sites. Now they can't afford to pay reviewers to analyze products, nor pay for the hosting for the site - but wait! The hardware companies will give you money if you do things just a *certain way*. Run this benchmark, not that, test with these settings, write a gushingly positive article, give a negative review to that competing product, etc.

Amateur reviews. Some random dopes run shoestring budget "review" sites that do horrible reviews of products that don't properly test or analyze anything. Picture a "review" site in blog format. "This graphics card is awesome because I bought it and it's awesome." or "I couldn't get this to work so I think it's junk. Don't buy it. What's a BIOS update again?"

 

[Dano_TX]

Most people's spending habits are already well established. So bogging down their system with pointless advertisements accomplishes nothing. How then does blocking those ad's remove revenue from a website?? Since the block is done on the user end, the block should be completely transparent to the website.

If anything, annoying advertisements make me want to avoid using their products.