The Morality and Ethics of Pop Ups
Robo writes
[quote] Pop up ad eliminators are just about on par with shareware serial number crackers in terms of moral legitimacy.
Your use of these boards, and of just about every other Mac website on earth, is paid for by ads. They might be annoying sometimes, but that's how you get all these services for free. Trying to block them is just not fair. <hr></blockquote>
Moral Legitimacy- Serial # hacks are used by people who are attempting to get something for free that has always had a price associated with it. Do internet sites have that same model? I think not. Websites have started out free..with a lack of advertising and have slowly morphed into Privacy Invading Beasts(Some sites). Most sites don't have a license agreement or usage clause meaning Pop Ups have been foisted on us with no real warnings.
It's unfortunate because the Mantra of the Internet has been something to the effect of Liberating us by access to a wealth of knowledge that people will cheerfully create for free.
There's a Symbiotic relationship that exists with Web Patrons on the site. Our clicks...our opinions and advice has an associated value that is not taken into consideration. Many sites such as imdb.com and gracenote.com were created with user input for free and later turned into commercial products with no payoff to the individuals who worked for free to build these entities. Is there anything morally or ethically legitimate about that?
Avertising has always been very poor and Internet Advertising is some of the worst that you will see. I will NEVER by an x10 camera due to the fact that they inundated me with their Pop Ups. Many of us pay enough money for our DSL or Cable Modem connections and some sites negate much of the speed of our connection as they serve us up another Pop Up/under.
Suggestions Many people don't mind the financial aspects of supporting our favorite sites within reason. However I have yet to see a decent plan for financial contribution that goes beyond "send me a paypal contribution". What is needed is an affordable process that rids the end user of all popups and advertising one they become
"Paying" members. Another is affordability. Many sports sites charge $60 per year or more to access information that eventually can be had for free. A delicate balance must be made to keep costs low but entice enough people to join as to make it profitable for all parties involved.
This subject is bound to be a touchy one because the perceptions tend to be polar opposites depending on who you talk to ..Consumer or Website Owner. What is clear is the the Internet has potential....lot's of unfulfilled potential but it is making the same mistakes that every other medium has made. I hope we see some new and fresh ideas come.
What are your thoughts?
[quote] Pop up ad eliminators are just about on par with shareware serial number crackers in terms of moral legitimacy.
Your use of these boards, and of just about every other Mac website on earth, is paid for by ads. They might be annoying sometimes, but that's how you get all these services for free. Trying to block them is just not fair. <hr></blockquote>
Moral Legitimacy- Serial # hacks are used by people who are attempting to get something for free that has always had a price associated with it. Do internet sites have that same model? I think not. Websites have started out free..with a lack of advertising and have slowly morphed into Privacy Invading Beasts(Some sites). Most sites don't have a license agreement or usage clause meaning Pop Ups have been foisted on us with no real warnings.
It's unfortunate because the Mantra of the Internet has been something to the effect of Liberating us by access to a wealth of knowledge that people will cheerfully create for free.
There's a Symbiotic relationship that exists with Web Patrons on the site. Our clicks...our opinions and advice has an associated value that is not taken into consideration. Many sites such as imdb.com and gracenote.com were created with user input for free and later turned into commercial products with no payoff to the individuals who worked for free to build these entities. Is there anything morally or ethically legitimate about that?
Avertising has always been very poor and Internet Advertising is some of the worst that you will see. I will NEVER by an x10 camera due to the fact that they inundated me with their Pop Ups. Many of us pay enough money for our DSL or Cable Modem connections and some sites negate much of the speed of our connection as they serve us up another Pop Up/under.
Suggestions Many people don't mind the financial aspects of supporting our favorite sites within reason. However I have yet to see a decent plan for financial contribution that goes beyond "send me a paypal contribution". What is needed is an affordable process that rids the end user of all popups and advertising one they become
"Paying" members. Another is affordability. Many sports sites charge $60 per year or more to access information that eventually can be had for free. A delicate balance must be made to keep costs low but entice enough people to join as to make it profitable for all parties involved.
This subject is bound to be a touchy one because the perceptions tend to be polar opposites depending on who you talk to ..Consumer or Website Owner. What is clear is the the Internet has potential....lot's of unfulfilled potential but it is making the same mistakes that every other medium has made. I hope we see some new and fresh ideas come.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
I agree with your whole Moral Legitimacy bit. There are far too many Privacy Invading Beasts nowadays. I remember reading somewhere about ads recently that "x10" hasn't seen much of an increase in sales since the new "ad campaign." <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I think advertisers are hurting themselves by forcing these ads upon the user so agressively. This is like a car salesman coming to your house and pasting fliers to all your windows. You have to go out of your way to get rid of these annoying ads and in the end you likely have a negative attitude about the product because of that.
I have never bought anything because of an invasive ad and I don't anyone who has.
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy solution to this madness. To truly keep the Internet "free" I suppose we have to allow some of these nusances. Pop-up/under advertising, however, is where I draw the line. I frequently disable Javascript (when using IE) when visiting sites with these ads becacuse they otherwise bring my browsing to a crawl.
:shrug:
Install IE and Netscape.
In IE I have Java/Javascript left on all cookies etc
In Netscape I have it all turned off.
Things like QT/Flash plugins are available in both
I log into my ISP
Fire up both browsers
I browse using netscape, but if I come into contact with a page that needs 'features' I copy the address (Command C>V) paste into IE.
To be honest 99% of the time there is no need to leave Netscape.
it works for me
I hate it when I'll window shade the browser and find a half dozen of them suckers...
ZDnet's advertising is the worst. With Flash skyscraper ads and them other Flash ads within their articles.
Still, what other viable alternative do these sites have to stay afloat? Suggestions?
I don't know enough about ethics to debate the legitmacy of popup closers.
<strong>Robo writes
Pop up ad eliminators are just about on par with shareware serial number crackers in terms of moral legitimacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>That can't be a real quote.